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. This goal was consistent between 2015 and 2017.
Link to Ineffectiveness: Oklahoma does not ensure that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal. Teachers who receive evaluation ratings of ineffective for two consecutive years or receive ratings of needs improvement or lower for three consecutive years on the Oklahoma Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation System, "shall be dismissed or not reemployed." Teachers who receive a rating of ineffective for two consecutive years, or receive a rating of needs improvement or lower for three consecutive years, "may be dismissed or not reemployed." However, Oklahoma does not require student growth to factor into a teacher's evaluation rating. Therefore, the state cannot ensure that effectiveness in the classroom is considered when it comes to dismissal.
Due Process Distinction: Oklahoma does not 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. The process is the same regardless of the grounds for cancellation, which include: "repeated negligence in performance of duty, willful neglect of duty, incompetency, instructional ineffectiveness or unsatisfactory teaching performance."
Appeals Process: Oklahoma allows tenured teachers who are terminated to have one opportunity to appeal. After receiving written notice of dismissal, the teacher may request a hearing, which must occur 20 to 60 days after notice. "The decision of the board regarding a teacher shall be final and nonrepealable."
Specify that classroom ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Oklahoma should explicitly make teacher ineffectiveness grounds for dismissal. Doing so will help ensure that districts do not feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consistently poor performers.
Distinguish between the process and due process rights for dismissal for classroom ineffectiveness and dismissal for morality violations, felonies or dereliction of duty.
Although 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. Oklahoma should ensure that appeals related to classroom effectiveness are decided only by those with educational expertise.
Oklahoma had no comment on this goal.
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 explicit 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. Non-probationary 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 teachers for poor performance. 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.