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.
In Idaho, new legislation eliminated renewable contracts for teachers beginning January 31, 2011. Instead, teachers are placed on Category A and B contracts, and based on the state's new evaluation framework, could face nonrenewal based on their evaluation results. The state does not specify whether a certain number of unsatisfactory evaluations will lead to dismissal or whether teachers will be placed on structured improvement plans for unsatisfactory performance.
S.B. 1108 Implementation Guidelines for Evaluation Framework http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/implementationGuidelines.htm
Require that all teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations be placed on improvement plans.
The state should require that 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.
Idaho's current policy does not articulate clear consequences for unsatisfactory evaluations. The state should strengthen its policy and explicitly require that all teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations or have two unsatisfactory evaluations within five years be formally eligible for dismissal.
Idaho recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
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.