Dismissal for Poor Performance: Hawaii
Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Hawaii's policies
Hawaii requires that any teacher given an unsatisfactory rating must be dismissed. Those rated as marginal who do not improve to effective after assistance must be dismissed.
The state also distinguishes between the due process rights of teachers
dismissed for unsatisfactory performance as determined by annual
performance evaluations and those facing other charges commonly
associated with license revocation such as a felony and/or morality
violations.
After receiving notice of dismissal following an
unsatisfactory evaluation, the teacher has 20 days to file a grievance
with the Superintendent, and a meeting between the Superintendent and
the teacher must be held within five days thereafter. A decision
regarding the grievance is delivered to the teacher within five days of
the meeting. The teacher may file an appeal with a Performance
Judge within 10 days of the grievance decision, and the judge must be
selected within 20 days. While the Performance Judge has 30 days to
issue a decision after the case is heard, no time frame
is specified for the hearing. The decision of the Performance Judge is
final and binding.
Recommendations for Hawaii
Ensure that the appeals process occurs within a reasonable time frame.
Hawaii
is commended for making unsatisfactory performance ratings grounds for
dismissal. Whether or not the state considers internal reviews or meetings to be appeals, multiple opportunities to review a decision to
terminate a teacher delays the process and could create a
disincentive to attempt to terminate poor performers. The state is
encouraged to establish more time-sensitive parameters for its appeals process, as it is in the best interest of both teacher and school system to reach a conclusion within a reasonable time
frame.
State response to our analysis
Hawaii had no comment on this goal.
-
Hawaii
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
States need to be
explicit that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Most states have laws on their books that address teacher
dismissal; however, until recently these laws were much more likely to consider criminal and
moral violations than performance. While many states have amended their dismissal policy to be more explict about classroom ineffectiveness, some still retain euphemistic terms such as "incompetency,"
"inefficiency" or "incapacity." These terms are ambiguous
at best and may be interpreted as concerning dereliction of duty rather than
ineffectiveness. Without laws that clearly state that teacher ineffectiveness
is grounds for dismissal, districts may feel they lack the legal basis for
terminating consistently poor performers.
Due process must be
efficient and expedited.
Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed for any grounds,
including ineffectiveness, are entitled to due process. However, due process
rights that allow for multiple levels of appeal are not fair to teachers,
districts and especially students. All parties have a right to have disputes
settled quickly. Cases that drag on for years drain resources from school
districts and create a disincentive for districts to attempt to terminate poor
performances. Teachers are not well served by such processes either, as they are
entitled to final resolution quickly.
Decisions about
teachers should be made by those with educational expertise.
Multiple levels of appeal almost invariably involve courts
or arbitrators who lack educational expertise. It is not in students' best interest
to have the evidence of teachers' effectiveness evaluated by those who are not
educators. A teacher's opportunity to appeal should occur at the district level
and involve only those with educational expertise. This can be done in a manner
that is fair to all parties by including retired teachers or other
knowledgeable individuals who are not current district employees.
Dismissal for Poor Performance: Supporting Research
One
of the greatest shortcomings of teacher performance appraisals has been school
systems' unwillingness and inability
to differentiate instructional competency. The New Teacher Project, 2009, "The
Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in
Teacher Effectiveness" at http://widgeteffect.org.
See
NCTQ, State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies (2011) as
well as studies by The New Teacher Project of human resource and dismissal
policies in various districts at: http://tntp.org/ideas-and-innovations.
For
information on the high cost of teacher dismissals, see Steven Brill, "The
Rubber Room," The New Yorker, August 31, 2009 at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill.
Also,
see S. Reeder, "The Hidden Costs of Tenure: Why are Failing Teachers
Getting a Passing Grade?" Small Newspaper Group, 2005 at: http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com.