2013 Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
The state should articulate that ineffective classroom performance is grounds for dismissal and ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is expedient and fair to all parties.
New Hampshire does not explicitly make teacher ineffectiveness grounds for dismissal, referred to by the state as "nonrenewal." In addition, the state distinguish the due process rights of teachers dismissed for ineffective performance from those facing other charges commonly associated with license revocation, such as a felony and/or morality violations. According to statute, "the school board may dismiss any teacher found by them to be immoral, or who has not satisfactorily maintained the competency standards established by the school district." The process is the same regardless of the grounds for cancellation. The state requires that grounds for "nonrenomination or nonreelection" be decided by local school boards.
Tenured teachers who are terminated, or nonrenewed, may appeal
multiple times. After receiving written notice of dismissal, the teacher
has 10 days to request a hearing, which must occur within 15 days. The
school board must issue its opinion within 15 days of the close of
the hearing. The aggrieved teacher may , within 10 days, file an
additional appeal with the state board, which must issue a final
decision within 15 days of the petition for review. Alternately, the
teacher can request arbitration under the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement. The grievance procedures that apply to arbitration
can be bargained locally.
New Hampshire Statute 189:13, 189:14a; 189:14b 273-A: 4 Grievance Procedures.
Specify that classroom ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Rather than leaving it up to local school boards, New Hampshire should explicitly make teacher ineffectiveness grounds for dismissal so that districts do not feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consistently poor performers.
Ensure that teachers terminated for poor performance have the opportunity to appeal within a reasonable time frame.
New Hampshire should consider streamlining its process even more by disallowing multiple appeals. Further, the state should consider only permitting appeals through the state board, as the grievance procedures for arbitration can be locally bargained, which means that there is no assurance that such an appeal will occur within a reasonable time frame.
Distinguish the process and accompanying due process rights between dismissal for classroom ineffectiveness and dismissal for morality violations, felonies or dereliction of duty.
While nonprobationary teachers should have due process for any termination, it is important to differentiate between loss of employment and issues with far-reaching consequences that could permanently affect a teacher's right to practice. New Hampshire should ensure that appeals related to classroom effectiveness are decided only by those with educational expertise.
New Hampshire was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts that enhanced this analysis. The state added that Ed 510.02—510.05 and Ed 511 describe the hearing process for educator misconduct. The process for educator misconduct is different from that of dismissal. The administrative rules for teacher nonrenewal are contained in Ed 204.02.
New Hampshire's response gets at the key issue in this goal: classroom ineffectiveness should not be treated the same as educator misconduct. The state should articulate that poor performance in the classroom is grounds for dismissal, and not make it a matter of whether misconduct has occurred. Similarly, due process for such a dismissal should be distinct from that of an allegation of misconduct, which is likely to be a matter that may result in license revocation.
States need to be explicit that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Most states have laws on their books that address teacher dismissal; however, these laws are much more likely to consider criminal and moral violations than performance. When performance is included, it is too often in a euphemistic term 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.