Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
The state should require that tenure decisions are based on evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Idaho does not connect tenure decisions to evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Although the state limits teacher contract terms to just one year, Idaho has maintained its three-year probationary period, after which there is no defined meaningful process that examines cumulative effectiveness in the classroom.
During the third year of employment, an evaluation is required before the second semester. If performance is unsatisfactory, the board establishes a period of probation not less than eight weeks. After the probationary period, the board may retain, immediately discharge, discharge on termination of current contract or reemploy at the end of the current contract.
Idaho Code 33-514, -515
Ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
Idaho should make evidence of effectiveness, rather than number of years in the classroom, the most significant factor when determining this leap in professional standing.
Articulate a process that local districts must administer when deciding which teachers get tenure.
Idaho should require a clear process, such as a hearing, to ensure that the local district reviews a teacher's performance before making a determination regarding tenure.
Require a longer probationary period.
Idaho should extend its probationary period, ideally to five years. This would allow sufficient time to collect data that adequately reflect teacher performance.
Idaho recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
Tenure should be a
significant and consequential milestone in a teacher's career.
The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status) is usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or consideration of actual performance. State policy should reflect the fact that initial certification is temporary and probationary, and that tenure is intended to be a significant reward for teachers who have consistently shown effectiveness and commitment. Tenure and advanced certification are not rights implied by the conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other profession, including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only a few years of working in the field.
States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure decisions. Most states confer tenure at a point that is too early for the collection of sufficient and adequate data that reflect teacher performance. Ideally, states would accumulate such data for four to five years. This robust data set would prevent effective teachers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.
Tenure: Supporting Research
Numerous studies illustrate how difficult and uncommon the process is of dismissing tenured teachers for poor performance. These studies underscore the need for an extended probationary period that would allow teachers to demonstrate their capability to promote student performance.
For evidence on the potential of eliminating automatic tenure, articulating a process for granting tenure, and using evidence of effectiveness as criteria for tenure see D. Goldhaber and M. Hansen, "Assessing the Potential of Using Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making Tenure Decisions." Calder Institute, February 2010, Working Paper 31. Goldhaber and Hansen conclude that if districts ensured that the bottom performing 25 percent of all teachers up for tenure each year did not earn it, approximately 13 percent more than current levels, student achievement could be significantly improved. By routinely denying tenure to the bottom 25 percent of eligible teachers, the impact on student achievement would be equivalent to reducing class size across-the-board by 5 students a class.
For additional evidence see R. Gordon, T. Kane, and D. Staiger, "Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job," The Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, The Brookings Institute, April 2006.