Unsatisfactory Evaluations: Arkansas

Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy

Goal

The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations, including specifying that teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations should be eligible for dismissal.

Meets
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Unsatisfactory Evaluations: Arkansas results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/AR-Unsatisfactory-Evaluations-10

Analysis of Arkansas's policies

In Arkansas, new legislation requires that a teacher be placed "in intensive support status" if the teacher receives an "unsatisfactory" rating in "any one entire teacher evaluation category" in the evaluation framework. A teacher could also be placed on intensive support status "if the teacher has a rating of "unsatisfactory" or "basic" in a majority of descriptors within a teacher evaluation category.

Teachers can remain in intensive support status for two consecutive semesters.  However, the evaluator can extend the status for an additional two semesters upon seeing significant improvement in the goals and tasks assigned—which should correlate to the teacher's professional learning plan and "evidence-based research concerning the evaluation category that forms the basis for the intensive support status."

At the end of the time frame allotted for support, if the teacher has not met the goals and completed the tasks required, "the superintendent shall recommend termination or nonrenewal of the teacher's contract."

Unfortunately, Arkansas' effort to make unsatisfactory evaluations grounds for non-retention does not carry over to the state's dismissal policy (see Goal 5-C). 

Citation

Recommendations for Arkansas

State response to our analysis

Arkansas was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis.

Research rationale

To review the process and types of personnel evaluations observed in other job sectors, including the problems inherent to some evaluation systems see, for example, Gliddon, David (October 2004). Effective Performance Management Systems, Current Criticisms and New Ideas for Employee Evaluation in Performance Improvement 43(9), 27-36.