Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations, including specifying that teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations should be eligible for dismissal.
The District of Columbia does not have state-level policy regarding teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations.
Require that all teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations be placed on improvement plans.
While the District of Columbia Public Schools IMPACT evaluation system suggests that teachers who receive minimally effective ratings seek out professional development opportunities, the District does not have state-level policy that clearly articulates that formal remediation plans will be utilized for teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations. The District should, therefore, codify policy that requires teachers who receive even one unsatisfactory evaluation be placed on structured improvement plans. These plans should focus on performance areas that directly connect to student learning and should list noted deficiencies, define specific action steps necessary to address these deficiencies and describe how and when progress will be measured.
Make eligibility for dismissal a consequence of unsatisfactory evaluations.
Although the District of Columbia Public Schools IMPACT evaluation system requires that teachers who receive minimally effective ratings for two consecutive years or one ineffective rating be separated from the district, this is not state-level policy. The District should codify policy that ensures that teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations be formally eligible for dismissal, regardless of whether they have tenure.
The District of Columbia recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The District noted that Race to the Top LEAs are required to have evaluation results inform retention and dismissal decisions.
The District is encouraged to codify such policy so as to ensure that it applies to all LEAs and will last beyond the life of its Race to the Top grant.
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.