Gloria Williams, a well-respected tenth-grade social studies teacher, has taught at Johnson High School for over fifteen years. Her formal evaluations were quite good under the previous administration. She was informally evaluated each year during her fifteen-year tenure. The new principal, Bob Mason, who has held this position for only two years, recommended dismissal for incompetency based on two informal assessments of Williams' performance.
1. What are the chances that Williams may be dismissed for incompetency?
2. Is there sufficient evidence to sustain such a charge? Why or why not?
3. Ideally what process should be used to successfully remove a teacher for incompetence? Outline the process.
4. Based on information provided in this case, has Gloria Williams been treated fairly? Why or why not?
5. How would the court likely rule in this case? Provide a rationale for your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. The chances for Williams dismissal are minimal.
ReplyDelete2. The principal has not collected enough evidence to sustain the charge of incompetence. The principal should have followed the procedures for systematic evaluations and documentation of performances as well as a teacher improvement plan.
3. The principal should develop a systematic plan that includes evaluations of performance and a teacher improvement plan. A reasonalbe time frame should be established to allow the teacher to meet the expected performance standards.
4. The teacher has not been treated fairly in this case. She should have been notified by her evaluating administrator that their were concerns regarding her competance as an educator. There should have been clear targets and expectations established with a reasonable amount of time to meet the standards.
5. The court would rule in favor of the teacher in this case. Courts want to see a systematic and continuous evaluation process with feedback designed to assist the teaching in improving performance.
1. I agree with Kevin that the chances are minimal.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that procedures were not followed. No systematic documentation of evaluation was present as well as evidence of improvement plans were not present.
3. I agree with the guidelines Kevin offered with the addition of the employee not showing improvement with the established guidelines.
4. The teacher was not treated fairly. The administrator did not follow guidelines for notification or improvement for the teacher practices.
5. In favor of the teacher. I Base this decision on the guidelines presented in the previous questions.
I agree with Kevin and Carl. There is inimal chance that she will get fired at this time. The Principal needs to gather more information and document the areas of need. He needs to complete a plan as Kevin described to help her improve. A role of a Principal is not to get rid of teachers but to help them improve in order to help the stuednts achieve. The teacher is not being treated fairly and I beleive that the courts would rule in favor of the teacher at this time.
ReplyDelete1. What are the chances that Williams may be dismissed for incompetency?
ReplyDeleteThe chances are nil that Ms. Williams will be dismissed for incompetency.
“Most commonly, incompetency refers to inefficiency, a lack of skill, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, inability or unwillingness to teach the curricula, failure to work effectively with colleagues and parents, failure to maintain discipline, mismanagement of the classroom, and attitudinal deficiencies. Since the court views the teaching certificate as prima facie proof of competency, the burden of proof challenging a teacher’s competency rests with the school board” (Essex, 2012, p. 255).
As evidenced by Ms. Williams fifteen years of positive formal evaluations she has demonstrated that she possesses knowledge, skills, and the intelligence of the average or ordinary teacher. By definition she is not incompetent.
2. Is there sufficient evidence to sustain such a charge? Why or why not?
No, there is no proof of Ms. Williams demonstrating lack of skill, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, inability or unwillingness to teach the curricula, failure to work effectively with colleagues and parents, failure to maintain discipline, mismanagement of the classroom, or attitudinal deficiencies provided in the case study. There is also an absence of evidence of a systematic and continuous evaluation process with feedback designed to assist Ms. Williams in improving the performance that Mr. Mason considers incompetent.
3. Ideally, what process should be used to successfully remove a teacher for incompetence? Outline the process.
To successfully remove a teacher for incompetence an administrator must provide proper continuous and consistent evaluation, defensible documentation, a performance improvement plan and a reasonable time frame designed to allow the teacher to meet expected performance standards, and they must follow the procedural guidelines outlined by the state’s tenure laws. The teacher must consistently fail to meet required performance standards after the above process has been implemented.
4. Based on information provided in this case, has Gloria Williams been treated fairly? Why or why not?
Ms. Williams has not been treated fairly. Her dismissal was recommended based on two evaluations not taking into consideration her prior fifteen years of acceptable service. She also most likely has tenure (since she has 15 years of teaching experience in the same school). Essex (2012) states that, “Any teacher who earns tenure or continuing service status also acquires a property right or a legitimate claim to the teaching position. Once a property right is acquired, the teacher may be dismissed only for cause.” Ms. Williams must be given due process and a hearing. There is no evidence that Mr. Mason has taken to appropriate steps in providing a performance improvement plan for Ms. Williams or a time line. Two evaluations in Tennessee occur within the first eighteen weeks of school. This is not an acceptable amount of time to show cause upon which to base dismissal of a tenured teacher.
5. How would the court likely rule in this case? Provide a rationale for your response.
The court would rule in favor of Ms. Williams. The administration must act in “good faith” providing an improvement plan and time for the teacher to remedy the alleged incompetency (Larson, 1983). Neither was provided as evidence in this case. Ms. Williams is deemed competent by possessing a teaching certificate.
6. What are the administrative implications of this case?
Mr. Mason would most likely be sued by Ms. Williams for arbitrary and capricious treatment. Mr. Mason’s lack of evidence and failure to follow documented procedure open him up to a lawsuit.
References:
Essex, N. (2012). School law and the public schools. (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Larson, David H. "Dismissing Incompetent Staff." SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR 40 (February 1983):28, 35, 37.