Dismissal for Poor Performance: Delaware
Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Delaware's policies
In Delaware, teachers can be dismissed for incompetency, which the state defines as "a pattern of ineffective teaching."
Delaware 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 "immorality, misconduct in
office, incompetency, disloyalty, neglect of duty, willful and
persistent insubordination, a reduction in the number of teachers
required as a result of decreased enrollment, or a decrease in education
services."
Tenured teachers who are terminated may appeal multiple
times. After receiving written notice of dismissal, the teacher has 10
days to file the first appeal, which is scheduled up to 21 days after
receipt of the request. The teacher may then file an additional appeal
with the superior court. The state does not stipulate the time frame of
this appeal.
Recommendations for Delaware
Ensure that teachers terminated for poor performance have the opportunity to appeal within a reasonable time frame.
Nonprobationary
teachers who are dismissed for any grounds, including ineffectiveness,
are entitled to due process. However, cases that drag on for years drain
resources from school districts and create a disincentive for districts
to attempt to terminate poor performers. Therefore, the state must
ensure that the opportunity to appeal occurs only once and only at the
district level. It is in the best interest of both the teacher and the
district that a conclusion is reached within a reasonable time
frame.
Distinguish between the process and accompanying due
process rights for 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. Delaware should ensure that appeals related to
classroom effectiveness are decided only by those with educational
expertise.
State response to our analysis
Delaware recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
-
Delaware
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
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- 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, 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.