Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.americanprogress.org
istockph
oto
Devil in the DetailsAn Analysis of State Teacher Dismissal Laws
Saba Bireda June 2010
28
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Ariz
ona
Imm
oral
or u
npro
fess
iona
l con
duct
, co
nduc
t in
viol
atio
n of
the
rule
s or
polic
ies o
f the
gov
erni
ng b
oard
, go
od a
nd ju
st c
ause
, or
inad
equa
cy
of c
lass
room
per
form
ance
. Ariz
. Rev
. St
at. §
15-
539.
Non
e, b
ut th
e go
vern
ing
boar
d of
eac
h di
stric
t is
char
ged
with
dev
elop
-in
g “a
defi
nitio
n of
in
adeq
uacy
of c
lass
room
pe
rfor
man
ce” i
n co
n-su
ltatio
n w
ith it
s cer
tifi-
cate
d te
ache
rs. A
riz. R
ev.
Stat
. § 1
5-53
9 (d
).
Non
e, b
ut th
e go
vern
-in
g bo
ard
mus
t giv
e th
e te
ache
r not
ice
of it
s in
tent
ion
if th
e di
smis
sal
is b
ased
on
inad
equa
cy o
f cl
assr
oom
per
form
ance
. Th
e no
tice
mus
t be
base
d on
a v
alid
eva
luat
ion
and
mus
t giv
e th
e te
ache
r at
leas
t 60
days
to sh
ow
impr
ovem
ent.
Ariz
. Rev
. St
at. §
15-
539
(c).
Non
eTh
e go
vern
ing
boar
d or
th
e bo
ard
desi
gnat
es a
he
arin
g offi
cer,
whi
ch
mus
t be
mut
ually
agr
eed
upon
by
the
part
ies.
Ariz
. Re
v. S
tat.
§ 15
-541
(a).
No
test
imon
y or
evi
-de
nce
is p
erm
itted
that
re
late
s to
adeq
uacy
of
clas
sroo
m p
erfo
rman
ce
from
mor
e th
an fo
ur
year
s prio
r to
notic
e of
di
smis
sal.
The
four
-yea
r tim
e lim
it do
es n
ot a
pply
to
the
intr
oduc
tion
of
evid
ence
in a
ny a
rea
exce
pt a
dequ
acy
of
clas
sroo
m p
erfo
rman
ce.
Ariz
. Rev
. Sta
t. §
15-5
42
(b).
The
cour
t onl
y re
vers
es
the
actio
n if
it fin
ds th
e de
cisi
on w
as a
rbitr
ary,
ca
pric
ious
or o
ther
wis
e co
ntra
ry to
law
. Ariz
. Rev
. St
at. §
15-
543;
§ 4
1-78
5 (c
).
Ark
ansa
sIn
com
pete
nt p
erfo
rman
ce, c
ondu
ct
that
mat
eria
lly in
terf
eres
with
the
cont
inue
d pe
rfor
man
ce o
f the
te
ache
r’s d
utie
s, re
peat
ed o
r mat
e-ria
l neg
lect
of d
uty,
or o
ther
just
an
d re
ason
able
cau
se. A
rk. C
ode
§ 6-
17-1
507
(a).
Non
eN
one
Non
e, b
ut a
n ad
min
is-
trat
or “s
hall”
doc
umen
t an
d sh
are
the
prob
lem
s w
ith th
e te
ache
r and
do
cum
ent e
ffort
s to
corr
ect p
erfo
rman
ce if
he
or s
he b
elie
ves t
hat
a te
ache
r’s p
erfo
rman
ce
may
lead
to n
onre
new
al
or te
rmin
atio
n. A
rk. C
ode
§ 6-
17-1
504(
b).
The
boar
d of
dire
ctor
s he
ars t
he c
ase.
Ark
. Cod
e §
6-17
-150
9.
Non
eAp
peal
s go
to th
e ci
rcui
t co
urt o
f the
cou
nty
in
whi
ch th
e sc
hool
dis
tric
t is
loca
ted;
add
ition
al
test
imon
y an
d ev
iden
ce
are
perm
itted
to d
em-
onst
rate
the
law
fuln
ess
or u
nlaw
fuln
ess o
f di
smis
sal.
Ark.
Cod
e §
6-17
-151
0 (d
).
29
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Calif
orni
aIm
mor
al o
r unp
rofe
ssio
nal c
ondu
ct;
com
mis
sion
, aid
ing,
or a
dvoc
atin
g th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f act
s of c
rimin
al
synd
ical
ism
; dis
hone
sty;
uns
atis
fac-
tory
per
form
ance
; evi
dent
unfi
tnes
s fo
r ser
vice
; a p
hysi
cal o
r men
tal
cond
ition
unfi
ttin
g hi
m o
r her
to
inst
ruct
or a
ssoc
iate
with
chi
ldre
n;
pers
iste
nt v
iola
tion
of o
r ref
usal
to
obe
y th
e st
ate
scho
ol la
ws o
r re
ason
able
regu
latio
ns; c
onvi
ctio
n of
a fe
lony
or o
f any
crim
e in
volv
-in
g m
oral
turp
itude
; vio
latio
n of
se
ctio
n 51
530
or c
ondu
ct sp
ecifi
ed
in S
ectio
n 10
28 o
f the
Gov
ernm
ent
Code
; kno
win
g m
embe
rshi
p in
the
Com
mun
ist P
arty
; or a
lcoh
olis
m o
r ot
her d
rug
abus
e th
at m
akes
the
empl
oyee
unfi
t to
inst
ruct
or a
ssoc
i-at
e w
ith c
hild
ren.
Cal.E
duc.
Code
§ 4
4932
.
Non
eN
one,
but
the
gove
rn-
ing
boar
d ca
nnot
act
on
char
ges o
f “un
satis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
” unl
ess i
t gi
ves t
he te
ache
r not
ice
of th
e un
satis
fact
ory
per-
form
ance
and
tim
e to
cor
-re
ct h
is o
r her
faul
ts a
nd
over
com
e gr
ound
s for
the
char
ge. T
he n
otic
e m
ust
incl
ude
an e
valu
atio
n. C
al.
Educ
.Cod
e §
4493
8.
Non
eA
Com
mis
sion
on
Prof
essi
onal
Com
pete
nce
cond
ucts
the
hear
ing,
th
e em
ploy
ee se
lect
s on
e m
embe
r of t
he
com
mis
sion
, the
gov
ern-
ing
boar
d se
lect
s one
m
embe
r, an
d th
e th
ird
is a
n ad
min
istr
ativ
e la
w
judg
e of
the
Offi
ce o
f Ad
min
istr
ativ
e H
earin
gs.
Cal.
Educ
. Cod
e §
4494
4 (b
)(1).
Test
imon
ies a
nd e
vi-
denc
e re
late
d to
mat
ters
th
at o
ccur
red
mor
e th
an
four
yea
rs p
rior t
o th
e da
te o
f not
ice
are
not
perm
itted
. Cal
. Edu
c.
Code
§ 4
4944
.
“A c
ourt
of c
ompe
tent
ju
risdi
ctio
n” h
ears
the
appe
al; t
he c
ourt
“sha
ll”
exer
cise
“ind
epen
dent
ju
dgm
ent o
n th
e ev
i-de
nce.”
Cal
. Edu
c. C
ode
§ 44
945.
Colo
rado
Phys
ical
or m
enta
l dis
abili
ty,
inco
mpe
tenc
y, n
egle
ct o
f dut
y,
imm
oral
ity, u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
-m
ance
, ins
ubor
dina
tion,
con
vict
ion
of a
felo
ny o
r acc
epta
nce
of a
gui
lty
plea
, a p
lea
of n
olo
cont
ende
re, o
r a
defe
rred
sent
ence
for a
felo
ny, o
r ot
her g
ood
and
just
cau
se. C
olo.
Re
v. S
tat.
§ 22
-63-
301.
Non
eN
one,
but
whe
n un
satis
-fa
ctor
y pe
rfor
man
ce is
a
grou
nd fo
r dis
mis
sal,
the
dist
rict m
ust e
stab
lish
that
the
teac
her w
as
eval
uate
d pu
rsua
nt to
the
writ
ten
eval
uatio
n sy
stem
re
quire
d by
law
. Col
o. R
ev.
Stat
. § 2
2-63
-302
(8)
If th
e te
ache
r is s
till n
ot
perf
orm
ing
satis
fact
orily
af
ter t
wo
eval
uatio
ns
and
an u
nsuc
cess
-fu
l rem
edia
tion
plan
, th
e ev
alua
tor m
ust
eith
er m
ake
addi
tiona
l re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r im
prov
emen
t or m
ay
reco
mm
end
dism
issa
l.
Col
o. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 22
-9-
106
(4.5
).
An im
part
ial h
earin
g offi
cer i
s joi
ntly
sele
cted
by
the
teac
her a
nd c
hief
ad
min
istr
ativ
e offi
cer.
If th
ey fa
il to
agr
ee, t
he
depa
rtm
ent o
f per
sonn
el
assi
gns a
n ad
min
istr
ativ
e la
w ju
dge.
Colo
. Rev
. Sta
t. §
22-6
3-30
2 (4
)(a).
Hea
rings
are
lim
ited
to
six
wor
king
day
s unl
ess
exte
nded
by
the
hear
-in
g offi
cer.
Each
par
ty
has o
nly
thre
e da
ys to
pr
esen
t its
cas
e. N
eith
er
part
y m
ay p
rese
nt m
ore
than
10
witn
esse
s at t
he
hear
ing
unle
ss th
ere
is
good
cau
se.
Colo
. Rev
. Sta
t. §
22-6
3-30
2 (7
)(e).
The
cour
t of a
ppea
ls
revi
ews t
he re
cord
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er
the
boar
d’s a
ctio
n w
as
“arb
itrar
y or
cap
ricio
us”
or le
gally
impe
rmis
sibl
e.
Colo
. Rev
. Sta
t. §
22-6
3-30
2(10
)(c).
30
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Conn
ecti
-cu
tIn
effici
ency
or i
ncom
pete
nce,
in
subo
rdin
atio
n, m
oral
mis
cond
uct,
disa
bilit
y as
show
n by
com
pete
nt
med
ical
evi
denc
e, e
limin
atio
n of
the
teac
her’s
pos
ition
, or o
ther
due
and
su
ffici
ent c
ause
. Con
n. G
en. S
tat.
§ 10
-151
(d).
Non
eTh
e de
term
inat
ion
of
inco
mpe
tenc
e is
bas
ed o
n ev
alua
tion
of th
e te
ache
r us
ing
teac
her e
valu
atio
n gu
idel
ines
est
ablis
hed
in
stat
e la
w.
Conn
. Gen
. Sta
t. §
10-1
51(d
).
Non
eTh
e he
arin
g m
ay b
e be
fore
the
boar
d of
ed
ucat
ion
or a
subc
om-
mitt
ee o
f the
boa
rd,
an im
part
ial h
earin
g pa
nel,
or th
e te
ache
r an
d su
perin
tend
ent c
an
mut
ually
agr
ee o
n a
sing
le im
part
ial h
earin
g offi
cer.
Conn
. Gen
. Sta
t. §
10-1
51(d
).
If th
e he
arin
g is
hel
d be
fore
an
impa
rtia
l hea
r-in
g pa
nel,
subc
omm
ittee
of
the
boar
d, o
r hea
ring
office
r, fin
ding
s mus
t be
mad
e w
ithin
75
days
of
the
rece
ipt f
or re
ques
t of
hear
ing.
Conn
. Gen
. Sta
t. §
10-1
51(d
).
The
supe
rior c
ourt
affi
rms
the
agen
cy’s
deci
sion
unle
ss th
e co
urt fi
nds
the
deci
sion
was
mad
e in
vi
olat
ion
of c
onst
itutio
nal
or st
atut
ory
prov
ision
s or,
in e
xces
s of t
he a
genc
y’s
stat
utor
y au
thor
ity, m
ade
upon
unl
awfu
l pro
cedu
re,
affec
ted
by o
ther
err
or
of la
w, c
lear
ly e
rron
e-ou
s in
view
of e
vide
nce
on th
e w
hole
reco
rd, o
r ar
bitr
ary
or c
apric
ious
or
char
acte
rized
by
abus
e of
disc
retio
n or
cle
arly
un
war
rant
ed e
xerc
ise o
f di
scre
tion.
Con
n. G
en.
Stat
. § 1
0-15
1(e)
; § 4
- 18
3 (j)
.
Del
awar
eIm
mor
ality
, mis
cond
uct i
n offi
ce,
inco
mpe
tenc
y, d
islo
yalty
, neg
lect
of
dut
y, a
redu
ctio
n in
the
num
ber
of te
ache
rs re
quire
d as
a re
sult
of
decr
ease
d en
rollm
ent o
r a d
ecre
ase
in e
duca
tion
serv
ices
, or w
illfu
l and
pe
rsis
tent
insu
bord
inat
ion.
Del
. Co
de A
nn. T
it. 1
4 §
1411
, § 1
420.
Non
e, b
ut e
ach
dist
rict
may
defi
ne “a
pat
tern
” of
ineff
ectiv
e te
achi
ng in
its
eval
uatio
n sy
stem
. The
D
elaw
are
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Code
defi
nes a
“pat
tern
” as
two
cons
ecut
ive
ineff
ectiv
e ra
tings
. 14
DE
Adm
in. C
ode
106A
.
Non
eA
scho
ol d
istr
ict “
may
” m
ove
to te
rmin
ate
a te
ache
r for
inco
mpe
-te
ncy
whe
n it
esta
blis
hes
a pa
tter
n of
ineff
ectiv
e te
achi
ng. D
el. C
ode
Ann.
Ti
t. 14
§ §
127
3.
Boar
d or
hea
ring
office
r co
nduc
ts th
e he
arin
g.
Del
. Cod
e An
n. T
it. 1
4 §
1413
(b).
Test
imon
y an
d ev
iden
ce
mus
t be
confi
ned
to th
e re
ason
s sta
ted
in th
e w
ritte
n no
tice
of in
tent
to
term
inat
e th
e te
ache
r.
Del
. Cod
e An
n. T
it. 1
4 §
1413
(a).
The
supe
rior c
ourt
in
the
coun
try
whe
re th
e te
ache
r was
em
ploy
ed
hear
s the
app
eal;
the
Cour
t rev
iew
s und
er a
su
bsta
ntia
l evi
denc
e st
anda
rd.
Del
. Cod
e An
n. T
it. 1
4 §
1414
Dis
tric
t of
Colu
mbi
aJu
st c
ause
, whi
ch in
clud
es b
ut is
not
lim
ited
to th
e re
ason
s lis
ted
in R
ule:
D.
C.M
.R. T
itle
5, C
hapt
er 1
4, 1
401.
2.
Inco
mpe
tenc
e, in
clud
ing
eith
er in
abili
ty o
r fai
lure
to
per
form
satis
fact
orily
th
e du
ties o
f the
pos
ition
of
em
ploy
men
t. Ru
le:
D.C.
M.R
. Titl
e 5,
Cha
pter
14
, 140
1.2
(c).
Non
eTh
e D
CPS
IMPA
CT e
valu
-at
ion
syst
em g
uide
book
su
gges
ts th
at te
ache
rs
who
rece
ive
“ineff
ectiv
e”
ratin
g ar
e su
bjec
t to
“sep
arat
ion”
from
sch
ool
syst
em.
An im
part
ial h
earin
g offi
-ce
r con
duct
s the
hea
ring.
Ru
le: D
.C.M
.R. T
itle
5,
Chap
ter 1
4, 1
407.
4.
The
hear
ing
office
r mus
t m
ake
writ
ten
findi
ngs
and
reco
mm
enda
tions
w
ithin
10
days
of t
he
conc
lusi
on o
f the
hea
r-in
g. R
ule:
D.C
.M.R
. Titl
e 5,
Ch
apte
r 14,
140
8.10
.
The
supe
rinte
nden
t of
scho
ols h
ears
the
appe
al
or c
onve
nes a
pan
el to
do
so. R
ule:
D.C
.M.R
. Titl
e 5,
Cha
pter
14,
140
9.1.
31
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Flor
ida
(Pro
fes-
sion
al
serv
ice
cont
ract
s)
Just
cau
se, w
hich
incl
udes
but
is n
ot
limite
d to
imm
oral
ity, m
isco
nduc
t in
office
, inc
ompe
tenc
y, g
ross
insu
b-or
dina
tion,
will
ful n
egle
ct o
f dut
y,
or b
eing
con
vict
ed, f
ound
gui
lty,
or e
nter
ing
a pl
ea o
f gui
lty o
f any
cr
ime
invo
lvin
g m
oral
turp
itude
. Fla
. St
at. A
nn. §
101
2.33
(1)(a
).
Non
eN
one
A te
ache
r is n
oti-
fied
of u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
man
ce, g
iven
tim
e to
impr
ove,
and
then
a
dete
rmin
atio
n is
mad
e as
to
whe
ther
he
or sh
e ha
s co
rrec
ted
the
perf
or-
man
ce d
efici
enci
es. A
te
ache
r may
be
reco
m-
men
ded
for n
onre
new
al
for d
ism
issa
l fol
low
ing
a fin
ding
that
per
form
ance
ha
s not
impr
oved
. Fla
. St
at. A
nn.§
101
2.33
(3)
(f),
1012
.34(
3)(d
).
The
dist
rict s
choo
l boa
rd
cond
ucts
the
hear
ing,
or
the
Div
isio
n of
Adm
in-
istr
ativ
e H
earin
gs o
f the
D
epar
tmen
t of M
anag
e-m
ent S
ervi
ces a
ssig
ns a
n ad
min
istr
ativ
e la
w ju
dge
to c
onsi
der t
he c
ase.
Fla
. St
at. A
nn.§
101
2.33
(3)
(f),(
4) 1
012.
34(6
).
The
hear
ing
mus
t be
“con
duct
ed” w
ithin
60
days
of r
ecei
pt o
f writ
ten
requ
est f
or h
earin
g. F
la.
Stat
. Ann
.§10
12.3
3(3)
(f)
(4)(a
) and
(b),
1012
.34(
6).
The
appe
llate
cou
rt in
di
stric
t whe
re th
e sc
hool
is
loca
ted
hear
s the
ap
peal
; the
cou
rt re
view
s th
e de
cisi
on u
nder
the
stan
dard
s fou
nd in
Fla
. St
at. A
nn. §
120
.68.
Geo
rgia
Inco
mpe
tenc
y, in
subo
rdin
atio
n,
will
ful n
egle
ct o
f dut
ies,
imm
oral
ity,
inci
ting,
enc
oura
ging
or c
ouns
elin
g st
uden
ts to
vio
late
stat
e la
ws o
r po
licie
s, fa
ilure
to se
cure
and
mai
n-ta
in n
eces
sary
edu
catio
nal t
rain
ing,
re
duct
ion
in st
aff d
ue to
loss
of s
tu-
dent
s or c
ance
llatio
n of
pro
gram
s or
any
othe
r goo
d an
d su
ffici
ent c
ause
. G
a. C
ode.
Ann
. 20-
2-94
0.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e lo
cal b
oard
or t
he
boar
d m
ay d
esig
nate
a
trib
unal
of p
erso
ns
“pos
sess
ing
acad
emic
ex
perie
nce”
to c
onsi
der
the
case
. Ga.
Cod
e. A
nn §
20
-2-9
40 (e
)(1).
Non
eAp
peal
goe
s to
the
stat
e bo
ard
of e
duca
tion,
then
th
e co
unty
supe
rior
cour
t. G
a. C
ode.
Ann
§
20-2
-940
(f) §
116
0.
Haw
aii
Ineffi
cien
cy o
r im
mor
ality
, will
ful
viol
atio
ns o
f the
dep
artm
ent’s
po
licie
s and
rule
s, or
oth
er g
ood
and
just
cau
se. H
aw. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 30
2A-6
09.
Non
eN
one
Tenu
red
teac
hers
are
ev
alua
ted
ever
y fiv
e ye
ars.
Stat
e ev
alua
tion
guid
elin
es st
ate
that
a
teac
her w
ho re
ceiv
es a
n “u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y” ra
ting
“sha
ll” h
ave
his o
r her
co
ntra
ct te
rmin
ated
. Te
ache
rs w
ith a
“mar
-gi
nal”
ratin
g ar
e m
oved
to
an
annu
al e
valu
atio
n cy
cle.
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
Not
ava
ilabl
e
32
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Idah
oJu
st a
nd re
ason
able
cau
se, w
hich
m
ay in
clud
e a
mat
eria
l vio
latio
n of
an
y la
wfu
l rul
es o
r reg
ulat
ions
of
the
boar
d of
trus
tees
or o
f the
stat
e bo
ard
of e
duca
tion,
or a
ny c
ondu
ct
that
cou
ld c
onst
itute
gro
unds
for
revo
catio
n of
a te
achi
ng c
ertifi
cate
.
Idah
o Co
de §
33-
513,
§33
-515
.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e lo
cal b
oard
hea
rs
the
case
. Ida
ho C
ode
§ 33
-513
.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
Illin
ois
Inco
mpe
tenc
y, c
ruel
ty, n
eglig
ence
, im
mor
ality
, or o
ther
suffi
cien
t cau
se;
failu
re to
com
plet
e a
one-
year
re
med
iatio
n pl
an w
ith a
“sat
isfa
c-to
ry” o
r bet
ter r
atin
g; n
ot q
ualifi
ed
to te
ach;
whe
neve
r the
inte
rest
s of
the
scho
ols r
equi
re d
ism
issa
l, or
du
e to
a d
ecis
ion
of th
e bo
ard
to
decr
ease
the
num
ber o
f tea
ch-
ers e
mpl
oyed
by
the
boar
d, o
r to
disc
ontin
ue so
me
part
icul
ar ty
pe
of te
achi
ng se
rvic
e. 1
05 Il
l. Co
mp.
St
at. 5
/10-
22.4
; 5/2
4-12
. Alte
rna-
tive
proc
edur
es fo
r tea
cher
s exi
st
for t
each
ers c
lass
ified
und
er 1
05 Il
l. Co
mp.
Sta
t. 5/
34.
Non
e, b
ut te
ache
rs m
ay
be d
ism
isse
d fo
r “fa
ilure
to
com
plet
e a
one-
year
re
med
iatio
n pl
an w
ith
a ‘sa
tisfa
ctor
y’ o
r bet
ter
ratin
g.” 1
05 Il
l. Co
mp.
St
at. 5
/10-
22.4
.
Non
e, b
ut n
o w
ritte
n w
arni
ng is
requ
ired
whe
n th
e di
smis
sal i
s rel
ated
to
rem
edia
tion
plan
and
th
e he
arin
g offi
cer m
ust
“con
side
r and
giv
e w
eigh
t to
” all
of th
e te
ache
r’s
eval
uatio
ns. 1
05 Il
l. Co
mp.
St
at. 5
/24-
12.
Dis
mis
sal i
s rec
om-
men
ded
for a
ny te
ache
r w
ho a
fter
bei
ng ra
ted
unsa
tisfa
ctor
y fa
ils to
co
mpl
ete
any
appl
icab
le
rem
edia
tion
plan
with
a
ratin
g eq
ual t
o or
bet
ter
than
“sat
isfa
ctor
y” o
r “p
rofic
ient
.” 105
Ill.
Com
p.
Stat
. 5/2
4A-5
.
The
teac
her a
nd d
istr
ict
part
icip
ate
in a
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
s in
whi
ch th
e st
ate
boar
d of
edu
catio
n pr
ovid
es a
list
of fi
ve
impa
rtia
l hea
ring
office
rs
who
mus
t be
accr
edite
d ar
bitr
ator
s and
hav
e ha
d a
min
imum
of fi
ve y
ears
of
exp
erie
nce
in la
bor
and
educ
atio
n m
atte
rs.
105
Ill. C
omp.
Sta
t. 5/
24-1
2.
The
hear
ing
office
r may
lim
it th
e nu
mbe
r of w
it-ne
sses
to b
e su
bpoe
naed
on
beh
alf o
f the
teac
her
or th
e bo
ard
to n
o m
ore
than
10.
If a
dec
isio
n is
not
rend
ered
with
in
thre
e m
onth
s of t
he
clos
e of
the
hear
ing,
the
part
ies c
an c
hoos
e a
new
he
arin
g offi
cer t
o re
view
th
e re
cord
and
mak
e a
deci
sion
. 105
Ill.
Com
p.
Stat
. 5/2
4-12
.
The
circ
uit c
ourt
whe
re
scho
ol b
oard
mai
ntai
ns
an o
ffice
hea
rs th
e ap
peal
; the
cou
rt re
view
s al
l que
stio
ns o
f law
and
fa
ct p
rese
nted
by
the
entir
e re
cord
bef
ore
the
cour
t. N
o ne
w o
r ad
ditio
nal e
vide
nce
is
perm
itted
. 735
Ill.
Com
p.
Stat
. 5/3
-110
.
Indi
ana
Imm
oral
ity, i
nsub
ordi
natio
n, n
egle
ct
of d
uty,
inco
mpe
tenc
e, ju
stifi
able
de
crea
se in
the
num
ber o
f tea
chin
g po
sitio
ns, p
artic
ular
offe
nses
list
ed
in st
ate
law
IC 2
0-28
-5-8
(c),
and
othe
r goo
d an
d ju
st c
ause
. IC
20-2
8-7-
1. A
sem
iper
man
ent t
each
er m
ay
also
be
dism
isse
d fo
r sub
stan
tial
inab
ility
to p
erfo
rm te
achi
ng d
utie
s, a
just
ifiab
le d
ecre
ase
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
teac
hing
pos
ition
s, or
if th
e ca
n-ce
llatio
n is
in th
e be
st in
tere
st o
f the
sc
hool
. Ind
. Cod
e §
20-2
8-7-
2.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e go
vern
ing
body
of
the
scho
ol c
orpo
ratio
n co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
Ind.
Co
de §
20-
28-7
-3.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
33
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Iow
aJu
st c
ause
. Iow
a Co
de §
279
.15.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e sc
hool
boa
rd h
ears
th
e ca
se in
the
first
ph
ase.
The
teac
her
can
then
app
eal t
o an
ar
bitr
ator
agr
eed
upon
by
the
boar
d an
d th
e te
ache
r. Io
wa
Code
§
279.
15-2
79.1
7.
Non
eTh
e di
stric
t cou
rt re
view
s th
e ac
tion
for v
iola
tions
of
con
stitu
tiona
l or s
tatu
-to
ry p
rovi
sion
s,
an e
xces
s of t
he b
oard
or
adju
dica
tor’s
stat
utor
y au
thor
ity,
viol
atio
ns o
f a b
oard
rule
or
pol
icy
or c
ontr
act,
unla
wfu
l pro
cedu
res,
othe
r err
ors o
f law
, a
deci
sion
uns
uppo
rted
by
a pr
epon
dera
nce
of th
e co
mpe
tent
evi
denc
e in
th
e re
cord
, or u
nrea
son-
able
, arb
itrar
y, o
r cap
ri-ci
ous a
buse
of d
iscr
etio
n or
a c
lear
ly u
nwar
rant
ed
exer
cise
of d
iscr
etio
n.
Iow
a Co
de §
279
.18.
Kans
as
Goo
d ca
use.
Las
site
r v. T
opek
a U
nifie
d Sc
hool
Dis
t. N
o. 5
01. 3
47
F.Sup
p.2d
103
3. D
.Kan
., 20
04.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e co
mm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
n pr
ovid
es a
lis
t of q
ualifi
ed h
earin
g offi
cers
for t
he p
artie
s to
cho
ose
from
, or t
he
part
ies c
an m
utua
lly
agre
e to
mak
e a
requ
est
to th
e Am
eric
an A
rbitr
a-tio
n As
soci
atio
n fo
r an
arbi
trat
or to
serv
e as
the
hear
ing
office
r. Ka
n. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 7
2-54
38.
All r
elev
ant e
vide
nce
shal
l be
adm
issi
ble,
but
th
e he
arin
g offi
cer m
ay
excl
ude
any
evid
ence
if
he o
r she
bel
ieve
s th
e va
lue
of th
e ev
iden
ce is
“s
ubst
antia
lly o
ut-
wei
ghed
” by
the
time
it w
ill ta
ke to
adm
it. K
an.
Stat
. Ann
. § 7
2-54
42.
The
dist
rict c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al. K
an. S
tat.
Ann.
72-
5443
.
34
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Kent
ucky
Insu
bord
inat
ion,
imm
oral
cha
ract
er
or c
ondu
ct u
nbec
omin
g a
teac
her;
phys
ical
or m
enta
l dis
abili
ty; i
nef-
ficie
ncy,
inco
mpe
tenc
y, o
r neg
lect
of
dut
y. K
y. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 16
1.79
0.
Non
eN
one,
but
a te
ache
r m
ust r
ecei
ve a
writ
ten
stat
emen
t ide
ntify
ing
the
prob
lem
s or d
ifficu
lties
, w
hich
mus
t be
supp
orte
d by
a w
ritte
n re
cord
of t
he
teac
her’s
per
form
ance
. Ky.
Re
v. S
tat.§
161
.790
.
Non
eTh
e co
mm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
n no
min
ates
a
thre
e-m
embe
r trib
unal
in
clud
ing
one
teac
her,
who
may
be
retir
ed, o
ne
adm
inis
trat
or, w
ho m
ay
be re
tired
, and
one
“lay
” pe
rson
. Ky.
Rev
. Sta
t.§
161.
790.
The
hear
ing
mus
t beg
in
with
in 4
5 da
ys o
f the
te
ache
r req
uest
ing
a he
arin
g. K
y. R
ev. S
tat.§
16
1.79
0.
The
circ
uit c
ourt
revi
ews
the
actio
n fo
r vio
latio
ns
of c
onst
itutio
nal o
r sta
tu-
tory
pro
visi
ons;
exc
ess
of th
e ag
ency
’s st
atut
ory
auth
ority
; sup
port
of
subs
tant
ial e
vide
nce
on
the
who
le re
cord
; dec
i-si
ons c
hara
cter
ized
by
arbi
trar
y, c
apric
ious
, or
abus
e of
dis
cret
ion;
and
ot
her p
roce
dura
l iss
ues.
Ky. R
ev. S
tat.§
13B.
150.
Loui
sian
aW
illfu
l neg
lect
of d
uty,
inco
mpe
-te
ncy,
dis
hone
sty,
or i
mm
oral
ity;
or b
eing
a m
embe
r of o
r con
trib
ut-
ing
to a
ny g
roup
, org
aniz
atio
n,
mov
emen
t, or
cor
pora
tion
that
is b
y la
w o
r inj
unct
ion
proh
ibite
d fr
om
oper
atin
g in
the
stat
e of
Lou
isia
na.
La. R
ev. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 1
7:44
3.
Non
eN
one
A te
ache
r who
rece
ives
an
uns
atis
fact
ory
ratin
g is
pla
ced
in a
n “in
tens
ive
assi
stan
ce p
rogr
am.” I
f th
e te
ache
r doe
s not
co
mpl
ete
the
prog
ram
or
con
tinue
s to
perf
orm
un
satis
fact
orily
aft
er a
fo
rmal
eva
luat
ion
con-
duct
ed a
fter
com
plet
ing
the
prog
ram
, the
n th
e lo
cal b
oard
can
initi
ate
term
inat
ion
proc
eed-
ings
. La.
Rev
. Sta
t. An
n. §
17
:390
2.
The
scho
ol b
oard
con
sid-
ers t
he c
ase.
La.
Rev
. Sta
t. An
n. §
17:
443.
Non
eA
“cou
rt o
f com
pete
nt
juris
dict
ion”
hea
rs a
ny
appe
als.
La. R
ev. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 1
7:44
3.
Mai
neJu
st c
ause
, fou
nd u
nfit t
o te
ach,
or
deem
ed u
npro
fitab
le b
y th
e sc
hool
bo
ard.
Me.
Rev
. Sta
t. An
n. T
it. 2
0A, §
13
201,
§ 1
3202
.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e sc
hool
boa
rd
cond
ucts
the
inve
stig
a-tio
n an
d he
arin
g. M
e.
Rev.
Sta
t. An
n. T
it. 2
0A §
13
202.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble.
Mar
ylan
d Im
mor
ality
, mis
cond
uct i
n offi
ce,
insu
bord
inat
ion,
inco
mpe
tenc
y, o
r w
illfu
l neg
lect
of d
uty.
Md.
Cod
e An
n. E
duc.
§6-
202.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e co
unty
boa
rd
may
cho
ose
a he
arin
g ex
amin
er to
con
duct
the
hear
ing.
Md.
Cod
e An
n.
Educ
. § 6
-203
.
Non
eTh
e St
ate
Boar
d of
Edu
-ca
tion
hear
s the
app
eal.
Md.
Cod
e An
n. E
duc.
§
6-20
3.
35
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Mas
sach
u-se
tts
Ineffi
cien
cy, i
ncom
pete
ncy,
inca
pac-
ity, c
ondu
ct u
nbec
omin
g a
teac
her,
insu
bord
inat
ion,
failu
re to
satis
fy
teac
her p
erfo
rman
ce st
anda
rds,
or
othe
r jus
t cau
se. M
ass.
Gen
. Law
s Ch
p. 7
1 §
42.
Non
e, a
lthou
gh a
teac
her
may
be
dism
issed
for a
fa
ilure
to sa
tisfy
teac
her
perfo
rman
ce st
anda
rds s
et
out b
y th
e sc
hool
com
mit-
tee
or d
evel
oped
by
colle
c-tiv
e ba
rgai
ning
. Mas
s. Ge
n.
Law
s Chp
. 71
§ 42
.
Non
eN
one
The
Com
mis
sion
er o
f Ed
ucat
ion
and
the
Amer
i-ca
n Ar
bitr
atio
n As
soci
a-tio
n re
com
men
d a
list o
f ar
bitr
ator
s fro
m w
hich
th
e pa
rtie
s can
cho
ose
an a
rbitr
ator
.. M
ass.
Gen
. La
ws C
hp. 7
1 §
42.
The
arbi
trat
or’s
deci
sion
m
ust b
e is
sued
with
in
one
mon
th o
f the
he
arin
g’s c
ompl
etio
n un
less
the
part
ies a
gree
ot
herw
ise.
Mas
s. G
en.
Law
s Chp
. 71
§ 42
.
The
supe
rior c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al.
Mas
s. G
en.
Law
s Chp
. 71
§ 42
.
Mic
higa
nRe
ason
able
and
just
cau
se. M
ich.
Co
mp.
Law
s § 3
8.10
1.N
one
Non
eN
one
The
teac
her fi
les a
n ap
peal
with
the
tenu
re
com
mis
sion
aft
er re
ceiv
-in
g no
tice
of d
ism
issa
l. An
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
ju
dge
who
is a
n at
torn
ey
licen
sed
to p
ract
ice
law
in th
e st
ate
and
is
empl
oyed
by
the
depa
rt-
men
t of e
duca
tion
hear
s th
e ca
se. M
ich.
Com
p.
Law
s § 3
8.10
4 (3
).
The
hear
ing
mus
t co
nclu
de n
o la
ter
than
90
days
aft
er th
e te
ache
r file
s a c
laim
for
an a
ppea
l. Th
e ju
dge
mus
t ser
ve a
pre
limin
ary
deci
sion
no
late
r tha
n 60
day
s aft
er th
e ca
se’s
subm
issi
on. T
he te
nure
co
mm
issi
on m
akes
a
final
dec
isio
n. M
ich.
Co
mp.
Law
s § 3
8.10
4 (5
).
The
teac
her c
an a
ppea
l th
e te
nure
com
mis
sion
’s de
cisi
on to
the
cour
t of
appe
als.
Mic
h. C
omp.
La
ws §
38.
104
(7).
Min
neso
taTo
dis
mis
s at
the
end
of th
e ye
ar:
ineffi
cien
cy; n
egle
ct o
f dut
y or
pe
rsis
tent
vio
latio
n of
sch
ool l
aws,
ru
les,
regu
latio
ns, o
r dire
ctiv
es;
cond
uct u
nbec
omin
g a
teac
her
that
mat
eria
lly im
pairs
the
teac
her’s
edu
catio
nal e
ffect
iven
ess;
ot
her g
ood
and
suffi
cien
t gro
unds
re
nder
ing
the
teac
her u
nfit.
To d
ismiss
imm
edia
tely
: im
mor
al
cond
uct,
insu
bord
inat
ion,
or
conv
ictio
n of
a fe
lony
; con
duct
th
at re
quire
s im
med
iate
rem
oval
; te
achi
ng w
ithou
t per
miss
ion
of th
e sc
hool
boa
rd; g
ross
ineffi
cien
cy th
at
the
teac
her h
as fa
iled
to c
orre
ct a
fter
reas
onab
le w
ritte
n no
tice;
will
ful
negl
ect o
f dut
y; o
r con
tinui
ng p
hysi
-ca
l or m
enta
l disa
bilit
y su
bseq
uent
to
a 1
2-m
onth
leav
e of
abs
ence
and
in
abili
ty to
qua
lify
for r
eins
tate
men
t. M
inn.
Sta
t. §1
22A.
40.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e sc
hool
boa
rd h
ears
th
e ca
se o
r an
arbi
trat
or
chos
en b
y th
e pa
rtie
s if
the
teac
her c
hoos
es.
Min
n. S
tat.
§122
A.40
.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
36
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Mis
siss
ippi
Inco
mpe
tenc
e, n
egle
ct o
f dut
y,
imm
oral
con
duct
, int
empe
ranc
e,
brut
al tr
eatm
ent o
f a p
upil,
or o
ther
go
od c
ause
. Mis
s. Co
de A
nn. §
37
-9-5
9.
Non
eN
one
A te
ache
r who
rece
ives
an
uns
atis
fact
ory
ratin
g is
re
quire
d to
hav
e a
prof
es-
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent p
lan.
If
the
teac
her f
ails
to p
er-
form
aft
er o
ne y
ear,
the
loca
l adm
inis
trat
ion
can
reev
alua
te th
e te
ache
r’s
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
-m
ent p
lan
and
mak
e an
y ne
cess
ary
adju
stm
ents
. If
the
teac
her f
ails
to
perf
orm
aft
er th
e se
cond
ye
ar, t
he a
dmin
istr
atio
n ca
n re
com
men
d th
at
the
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
di
smis
s the
teac
her.
This
po
licy
only
app
lies t
o te
ache
rs in
low
-per
form
-in
g sc
hool
s. Mis
s. Co
de
Ann.
§ 3
7-18
-7.
The
scho
ol b
oard
or
a h
earin
g offi
cer
appo
inte
d by
the
boar
d he
ars t
he c
ase.
Mis
s.Co
de A
nn. §
37-
9-59
.
Non
eTh
e ch
ance
ry c
ourt
re
view
s the
app
eal f
or
supp
ort b
y an
y su
bsta
n-tia
l evi
denc
e, a
rbitr
arin
ess
or c
apric
ious
ness
, or v
io-
latio
n of
som
e st
atut
ory
or c
onst
itutio
nal r
ight
of
the
empl
oyee
. Miss
. Cod
e An
n. §
37-
9-11
3.
Mis
sour
iPh
ysic
al o
r men
tal c
ondi
tion
unfit
-tin
g to
inst
ruct
or a
ssoc
iate
with
ch
ildre
n; im
mor
al c
ondu
ct; i
ncom
-pe
tenc
y, in
effici
ency
, or i
nsub
ordi
-na
tion;
will
ful o
r per
sist
ent v
iola
tion
of o
r fai
lure
to o
bey
the
stat
e’s
scho
ol la
ws o
r the
dis
tric
t boa
rd o
f ed
ucat
ion’
s pub
lishe
d re
gula
tions
; ex
cess
ive
or u
nrea
sona
ble
abse
nce;
or
con
vict
ion
of a
felo
ny o
r a c
rime
invo
lvin
g m
oral
turp
itude
. Mo.
Rev
. St
at. §
168.
114.
Non
eN
one,
but
the
teac
her
mus
t be
give
n 30
day
s no
tice
of th
e ca
uses
that
co
uld
resu
lt in
a c
harg
e of
inco
mpe
tenc
e or
inef
-fic
ienc
y. T
he su
perin
ten-
dent
or a
repr
esen
tativ
e of
th
e su
perin
tend
ent m
ust
mee
t with
the
teac
her t
o re
solv
e th
e m
atte
r. M
o.
Rev.
Sta
t. §
168.
116.
Non
eTh
e bo
ard
of e
duca
tion
cons
ider
s the
cas
e. M
o.
Rev.
Sta
t. §
168.
118.
The
scho
ol b
oard
can
lim
it th
e te
ache
r to
10
witn
esse
s. M
o. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 16
8.11
8.
The
circ
uit c
ourt
of
the
coun
ty w
here
the
empl
oyin
g sc
hool
dis
tric
t is
loca
ted
hear
s the
ap
peal
. Mo.
Rev
. Sta
t. §
168.
120.
37
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Mon
tana
Goo
d ca
use.
Mon
t. Co
de A
nn. §
20
-4-2
03N
one
Non
eN
one
The
dist
rict t
rust
ees
cons
ider
the
case
. Mon
t. Co
de A
nn. §
20-
4-20
4.
Non
eTh
e te
ache
r may
app
eal
a di
smis
sal d
ecis
ion
to
the
coun
ty su
perin
ten-
dent
and
the
dist
rict
cour
t if t
he te
ache
r’s
empl
oym
ent i
s not
co
vere
d by
a c
olle
ctiv
e ba
rgai
ning
agr
eem
ent.
If th
e te
ache
r is c
over
ed b
y a
colle
ctiv
e ba
rgai
ning
ag
reem
ent,
the
teac
her
mus
t app
eal t
o an
arb
i-tr
ator
. Mon
t. Co
de A
nn.
20-4
-204
.
Neb
rask
aIn
com
pete
ncy,
neg
lect
of d
uty,
un
prof
essi
onal
con
duct
, ins
ubor
-di
natio
n, im
mor
ality
, phy
sica
l or
men
tal i
ncap
acity
, fai
lure
to g
ive
evid
ence
of p
rofe
ssio
nal g
row
th,
othe
r con
duct
that
subs
tant
ially
in
terf
eres
with
the
cont
inue
d pe
r-fo
rman
ce o
f dut
ies,
failu
re to
acc
ept
empl
oym
ent,
redu
ctio
n in
forc
e,
revo
catio
n or
susp
ensi
on o
f lic
ense
. N
eb. R
ev. S
tat.
§§ 7
9-82
4, 7
9-82
9.
Inco
mpe
tenc
y, “w
hich
in
clud
es, b
ut is
not
lim
ited
to, d
emon
stra
ted
defic
ienc
ies o
r sho
rtco
m-
ings
in k
now
ledg
e of
su
bjec
t mat
ter o
r tea
ch-
ing
or a
dmin
istr
ativ
e sk
ills”
Neb
. Rev
. Sta
t. §§
79
-824
.
Non
eN
one
The
scho
ol b
oard
con
sid-
ers t
he c
ase.
Neb
. Rev
.St.
§ 79
-832
.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble.
38
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Nev
ada
Ineffi
cien
cy; i
mm
oral
ity; u
npro
fes-
siona
l con
duct
; ins
ubor
dina
tion;
ne
glec
t of d
uty;
phy
sical
or m
enta
l in
capa
city
; dec
reas
e in
the
num
ber
of p
ositi
ons;
conv
ictio
n of
a fe
lony
or
of a
crim
e in
volv
ing
mor
al tu
rpitu
de;
inad
equa
te p
erfo
rman
ce; e
vide
nt
unfit
ness
for s
ervi
ce; f
ailu
re to
com
-pl
y w
ith re
ason
able
requ
irem
ents
;
failu
re to
show
impr
ovem
ent a
nd
evid
ence
of p
rofe
ssio
nal t
rain
ing
and
grow
th; a
dvoc
atin
g fo
r the
ov
erth
row
of t
he g
over
nmen
t of
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
r of t
he st
ate
of
Nev
ada;
adv
ocat
ing
or te
achi
ng
com
mun
ism
with
the
inte
nt to
in
doct
rinat
e pu
pils
; any
cau
se
that
con
stitu
tes g
roun
ds fo
r the
re
voca
tion
of a
teac
her’s
lice
nse;
w
illfu
l neg
lect
or f
ailu
re to
obs
erve
an
d ca
rry
out t
he re
quire
men
ts
of T
itle
34; d
isho
nest
y; b
reac
hes
in th
e se
curit
y or
con
fiden
tialit
y of
ach
ieve
men
t and
pro
ficie
ncy
exam
inat
ion
ques
tions
and
ans
wer
s;
inte
ntio
nal f
ailu
re to
obs
erve
and
ca
rry
out t
he re
quire
men
ts o
f a p
lan
to e
nsur
e th
e se
curit
y of
exa
min
a-tio
ns; a
vers
ive
inte
rven
tion
or u
se
of re
stra
ints
on
a pu
pil w
ith a
dis
-ab
ility
. N
ev. R
ev. S
tat.
391.
312.
“Ina
dequ
ate
perf
or-
man
ce” i
s a c
ause
for d
is-
mis
sal b
ut is
und
efine
d.
Teac
hers
may
als
o be
di
smis
sed
for a
“fai
lure
to
show
nor
mal
impr
ove-
men
t and
evi
denc
e of
pr
ofes
sion
al tr
aini
ng a
nd
grow
th.” N
ev. R
ev. S
tat.
391.
312.
If an
em
ploy
ee’s
cond
uct
may
lead
to d
ism
issa
l, th
e em
ploy
ee m
ust r
ecei
ve
notic
e of
adm
onis
hmen
t in
writ
ing—
incl
udin
g a
desc
riptio
n of
defi
cien
cies
an
d ac
tion
nece
ssar
y to
co
rrec
t tho
se d
efici
en-
cies
—an
d be
giv
en
“rea
sona
ble
time
for
impr
ovem
ent”
that
shou
ld
not e
xcee
d th
ree
mon
ths
for t
he fi
rst a
dmon
ition
. N
ev. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 39
1.31
3.
Non
eA
hea
ring
office
r re
ques
ted
by th
e su
perin
tend
ent o
f pub
lic
inst
ruct
ion
or m
utua
lly
sele
cted
by
the
part
ies
cons
ider
s th
e ca
se. N
ev.
Rev.
Sta
t. §
391.
3161
The
hear
ing
office
r mus
t co
mpl
ete
the
hear
ing
with
in 3
0 da
ys a
fter
the
time
of d
esig
natio
n an
d fil
e a
writ
ten
repo
rt n
o la
ter t
han
15 d
ays a
fter
th
e co
nclu
sion
of t
he
hear
ing.
Nev
. Rev
. Sta
t. §
391.
3193
.
The
dist
rict c
ourt
con
sid-
ers t
he a
ppea
l. N
ev. R
ev.
Stat
. § 3
91.3
194.
39
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
New
H
amps
hire
Imm
oral
ity, f
ailu
re to
satis
fact
orily
m
aint
ain
the
com
pete
ncy
stan
dard
s es
tabl
ishe
d by
the
scho
ol d
istr
ict,
or fa
ilure
to c
onfo
rm to
regu
latio
ns
pres
crib
ed. N
.H. R
ev. S
tat.
Ann.
§
189.
13.
Non
eTh
e su
perin
tend
ent o
f th
e lo
cal s
choo
l dis
tric
t m
ust d
emon
stra
te in
ca
ses o
f non
reno
min
atio
n be
caus
e of
uns
atis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
that
the
teac
her r
ecei
ved
writ
ten
notic
e th
at th
e un
satis
fac-
tory
per
form
ance
cou
ld
lead
to d
ism
issa
l, an
d th
at th
e te
ache
r had
a
reas
onab
le o
ppor
tuni
ty to
co
rrec
t the
pro
blem
s and
fa
iled
to d
o so
. N.H
. Rev
. St
at. A
nn. §
189
:14-
a.
Non
eTh
e sc
hool
boa
rd c
onsi
d-er
s the
cas
e.
N.H
. Rev
. Sta
t. An
n. §
18
9:14
-a.
Non
eA
teac
her m
ay a
ppea
l a
boar
d’s d
ecis
ion
by p
eti-
tioni
ng th
e st
ate
boar
d of
edu
catio
n or
requ
est-
ing
arbi
trat
ion
unde
r th
e te
rms o
f a c
olle
ctiv
e ba
rgai
ning
agr
eem
ent,
if ap
plic
able
, but
may
not
do
bot
h. N
.H. R
ev. S
tat.
§ 18
9:14
-b.
New
Jer
sey
Ineffi
cien
cy, i
ncap
acity
, unb
ecom
-in
g co
nduc
t, or
oth
er ju
st c
ause
. N.J.
St
at. A
nn. §
18A
:6-1
0.
Non
eIf
the
char
ge is
“ine
f-fic
ienc
y,” th
e bo
ard
mus
t pr
ovid
e th
e em
ploy
ee
with
writ
ten
notic
e of
the
alle
ged
ineffi
cien
cy a
nd
allo
w a
t lea
st 9
0 da
ys fo
r th
e em
ploy
ee to
cor
rect
an
d ov
erco
me
the
inef
-fic
ienc
y. N
.J. S
tat.
Ann.
§
18A:
6-11
.
Non
eTh
e lo
cal b
oard
of e
duca
-tio
n m
akes
the
initi
al
dete
rmin
atio
n to
dis
mis
s. N
.J. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 1
8A:6
-11.
The
char
ge is
then
fo
rwar
ded
to th
e co
m-
mis
sion
er o
r a p
erso
n ap
poin
ted
to a
ct o
n th
e co
mm
issi
oner
’s be
half
to
mak
e a
final
det
erm
ina-
tion.
If th
e co
mm
issi
oner
de
term
ines
dis
mis
sal
is n
eces
sary
, the
cas
e is
then
refe
rred
to th
e O
ffice
of A
dmin
istr
ativ
e La
w. N
.J. S
tat.
Ann
§ 18
A:6-
16.
For t
hose
hea
rings
co
nduc
ted
by th
e O
ffice
of
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Law
, pr
ehea
ring
conf
eren
ces
mus
t be
com
plet
ed
with
in 3
0 da
ys o
f ref
erra
l. Th
e he
arin
g m
ust b
e he
ld w
ithin
30
days
aft
er
disc
over
y is
com
plet
ed.
N.J.
Sta
t. An
n. 5
2:14
B-10
.1.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
40
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
New
M
exic
oJu
st c
ause
N.M
. Sta
t. An
n. §
22-
10A-
24.
Non
eN
one
If a
teac
her r
ecei
ves
an u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y ev
alua
tion,
the
scho
ol
dist
rict p
rovi
des t
he
teac
her w
ith p
rofe
s-si
onal
dev
elop
men
t an
d pe
er in
terv
entio
n. If
th
e te
ache
r stil
l fai
ls to
de
mon
stra
te e
ssen
tial
com
pete
ncie
s by
the
end
of th
at sc
hool
yea
r, a
dist
rict m
ay c
hoos
e no
t to
cont
ract
with
that
te
ache
r. N
.M. A
dmin
. Co
de §
6.6
9.4.
10.
The
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
or
gov
erni
ng a
utho
rity
hear
s the
cas
e. N
.M. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 2
2-10
A-24
.
The
empl
oyee
can
then
ap
peal
to a
n ar
bitr
ator
in
a de
nov
o he
arin
g. T
he
inde
pend
ent a
rbitr
ator
’s de
cisi
on is
be
bind
ing
on b
oth
part
ies a
nd is
fin
al a
nd n
onap
peal
-ab
le e
xcep
t whe
n th
e de
cisi
on w
as p
rocu
red
by c
orru
ptio
n, fr
aud,
de
cept
ion,
or c
ollu
sion
, in
whi
ch c
ase
it ca
n be
ap
peal
ed to
the
dist
rict
cour
t in
the
judi
cial
dis
-tr
ict i
n w
hich
the
publ
ic
scho
ol o
r sta
te a
genc
y is
lo
cate
d. N
.M. S
tat.
Ann.
§
22-1
0A-2
5.
New
Yor
kIn
subo
rdin
atio
n, im
mor
al c
hara
cter
or
con
duct
unb
ecom
ing
a te
ache
r, in
effici
ency
, inc
ompe
tenc
y, p
hysi
cal
or m
enta
l dis
abili
ty, n
egle
ct o
f dut
y,
failu
re to
mai
ntai
n ce
rtifi
catio
n. N
.Y.
Educ
. Law
§ 3
014
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e pa
rtie
s sel
ect a
si
ngle
offi
cer f
rom
a li
st
of a
rbitr
ator
s to
hear
the
case
. If t
he c
ase
invo
lves
pe
dago
gica
l cha
rges
, th
e te
ache
r can
opt
for
a pa
nel c
onsi
stin
g of
a
hear
ing
office
r, a
pane
l m
embe
r sel
ecte
d by
the
teac
her,
and
a m
embe
r se
lect
ed b
y th
e bo
ard.
N
.Y. E
duc.
Law
§ 3
020a
.
The
preh
earin
g co
nfer
-en
ce m
ust b
e he
ld w
ithin
15
day
s of h
earin
g offi
cer
sele
ctio
n.
The
final
hea
ring
mus
t be
com
plet
ed n
o la
ter
than
60
days
aft
er th
e pr
ehea
ring
conf
eren
ce
with
a d
ecis
ion
issu
ed n
o la
ter t
han
30 d
ays a
fter
th
e la
st h
earin
g da
y. N
.Y.
Educ
. Law
§ 3
020a
.
The
New
Yor
k St
ate
Supr
eme
Cour
t hea
rs th
e ap
peal
, and
the
cour
t m
ay v
acat
e fo
r rea
sons
sp
ecifi
ed in
stat
e la
w.
N.Y
. Edu
c. L
aw §
302
0a.
41
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Nor
th
Caro
lina
Inad
equa
te p
erfo
rman
ce, i
mm
oral
-ity
, ins
ubor
dina
tion,
neg
lect
of
duty
, phy
sica
l or m
enta
l inc
apac
ity,
habi
tual
or e
xces
sive
use
of a
lcoh
ol
or n
onm
edic
al u
se o
f a c
ontr
olle
d su
bsta
nce,
con
vict
ion
of a
felo
ny o
r a
crim
e in
volv
ing
mor
al tu
rpitu
de,
advo
catin
g th
e ov
erth
row
of t
he
U.S.
gov
ernm
ent o
r the
stat
e of
N
orth
Car
olin
a, fa
ilure
to fu
lfill
dutie
s and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies;
failu
re to
co
mpl
y w
ith re
ason
able
requ
ire-
men
ts; a
ny c
ause
that
con
stitu
tes
grou
nds f
or re
voca
ting
a ca
reer
te
ache
r’s te
achi
ng c
ertifi
cate
, fai
lure
to
mai
ntai
n a
curr
ent t
each
ing
cert
ifica
te, f
ailu
re to
repa
y m
oney
ow
ed to
the
stat
e; ju
stifi
able
de
crea
se in
num
ber o
f pos
ition
s;
or p
rovi
ding
fals
e in
form
atio
n or
kn
owin
gly
omitt
ing
a m
ater
ial f
act
on a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r em
ploy
men
t. N
.C. G
en. S
tat.
§ 11
5C-3
25.
Non
eFa
ct fi
nder
mus
t giv
e co
n-si
dera
tion
to re
gula
r and
sp
ecia
l eva
luat
ion
repo
rts
and
publ
ishe
d st
anda
rds
of p
erfo
rman
ce fr
om
the
scho
ol d
istr
ict w
hen
dete
rmin
ing
whe
ther
an
empl
oyee
’s pr
ofes
sion
al
perf
orm
ance
is a
dequ
ate.
Fa
ilure
to g
ive
notic
e of
in
adeq
uacy
is c
onsi
dere
d co
nclu
sive
evi
denc
e of
sa
tisfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
man
ce.
N.C
. Gen
. Sta
t. §
115C
-32
5.
The
supe
rinte
nden
t ha
s aut
horit
y in
low
-pe
rfor
min
g sc
hool
s to
dism
iss a
teac
her a
fter
on
e ne
gativ
e ra
ting.
N.C
. G
en. S
tat.
§ 11
5C-3
33
(b)(1
).
The
empl
oyee
can
ch
oose
to h
ave
a he
ar-
ing
in fr
ont o
f a c
ase
man
ager
join
tly se
lect
ed
by th
e su
perin
tend
ent
and
empl
oyee
or t
he
empl
oyee
may
go
stra
ight
to a
hea
ring
with
th
e sc
hool
boa
rd.
The
stat
e bo
ard
of e
duca
-tio
n m
aint
ains
a m
aste
r lis
t of n
o m
ore
than
42
qual
ified
cas
e m
anag
ers.
The
case
man
ager
s mus
t be
cer
tified
arb
itrat
ors
and
com
plet
e a
spec
ial
trai
ning
cou
rse
appr
oved
by
the
stat
e bo
ard
of
educ
atio
n. N
.C. G
en. S
tat.
§ 11
5C-3
25.
The
case
man
ager
is
requ
ired
to h
old
a fu
ll-ev
iden
ce h
earin
g an
d re
port
with
in 1
0 da
ys o
f be
ing
appo
inte
d. T
he
repo
rt is
pro
vide
d to
th
e su
perin
tend
ent a
nd
teac
her.
The
supe
rinte
n-de
nt m
akes
a d
ecis
ion
whe
ther
to c
ontin
ue to
re
com
men
d di
smis
sal t
o th
e bo
ard
of e
duca
tion.
If th
e te
ache
r opt
s out
of
a ca
se m
anag
er h
earin
g an
d op
ts fo
r a b
oard
he
arin
g, li
mite
d ev
iden
ce
is c
onsi
dere
d in
clud
ing
docu
men
tary
evi
denc
e us
ed to
supp
ort o
r reb
ut
dism
issa
l rec
omm
enda
-tio
n, w
ritte
n st
atem
ents
by
the
supe
rinte
nden
t an
d te
ache
r, an
d or
al
argu
men
ts b
ased
on
reco
rd b
efor
e th
e bo
ard.
The
supe
rior c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al.
N.C
. Gen
. St
at. §
115
C-32
5.
42
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Nor
th
Dak
ota
To d
ism
iss:
imm
oral
con
duct
, ins
ub-
ordi
natio
n, c
onvi
ctio
n of
a fe
lony
, co
nduc
t unb
ecom
ing
the
posi
tion,
fa
ilure
to p
erfo
rm c
ontr
acte
d du
ties w
ithou
t jus
tifica
tion,
gro
ss
ineffi
cien
cy n
ot c
orre
cted
aft
er
writ
ten
notic
e, c
ontin
uing
phy
sica
l or
men
tal d
isab
ility
that
rend
ers
the
indi
vidu
al u
nfit o
r una
ble
to
perf
orm
dut
ies.
N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15
.1-1
5-07
.
To n
onre
new
a c
ontr
act:
The
dist
rict
mus
t doc
umen
t spe
cific
find
ings
re
late
d to
the
teac
her’s
abi
lity,
co
mpe
tenc
e, o
r qua
lifica
tions
in
per
form
ance
repo
rts,
or th
e no
nren
ewal
mus
t be
rela
ted
to th
e di
stric
t’s n
eeds
to re
duce
staff
. N
.D.
Cent
. Cod
e §
15.1
-15-
05.
Non
eN
one
Non
eFo
r dis
mis
sals
, an
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
judg
e co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
N.D
. Ce
nt. C
ode
§ 15
.1-1
5-08
For n
onre
new
al, t
he
boar
d of
the
scho
ol
dist
rict c
onsi
ders
the
case
. N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15
.1-1
5-06
.
Non
eFo
r app
eals
of d
ism
issa
ls,
the
dist
rict c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al.
N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15.
1-15
-08.
Ohi
oG
ood
and
just
cau
se O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
331
9.16
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e te
ache
r may
requ
est
a he
arin
g in
fron
t of t
he
boar
d or
a re
fere
e.
The
teac
her a
nd b
oard
m
ust j
oint
ly c
hoos
e a
ref-
eree
from
a li
st p
rovi
ded
by th
e su
perin
tend
ent o
f pu
blic
inst
ruct
ion.
Ref
-er
ees a
re so
licite
d fr
om
the
stat
e ba
r ass
ocia
tion.
O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
33
19.1
6.
Non
eTh
e co
urt o
f com
mon
pl
eas h
ears
the
appe
al;
the
cour
t mus
t “ex
amin
e th
e tr
ansc
ript a
nd re
cord
of
the
hear
ing
and
shal
l ho
ld su
ch a
dditi
onal
he
arin
gs a
s it c
onsi
ders
ad
visa
ble,
at w
hich
it
may
con
side
r oth
er e
vi-
denc
e in
add
ition
to th
e tr
ansc
ript a
nd re
cord
.” O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
33
19.1
6.
43
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Nor
th
Dak
ota
To d
ism
iss:
imm
oral
con
duct
, ins
ub-
ordi
natio
n, c
onvi
ctio
n of
a fe
lony
, co
nduc
t unb
ecom
ing
the
posi
tion,
fa
ilure
to p
erfo
rm c
ontr
acte
d du
ties w
ithou
t jus
tifica
tion,
gro
ss
ineffi
cien
cy n
ot c
orre
cted
aft
er
writ
ten
notic
e, c
ontin
uing
phy
sica
l or
men
tal d
isab
ility
that
rend
ers
the
indi
vidu
al u
nfit o
r una
ble
to
perf
orm
dut
ies.
N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15
.1-1
5-07
.
To n
onre
new
a c
ontr
act:
The
dist
rict
mus
t doc
umen
t spe
cific
find
ings
re
late
d to
the
teac
her’s
abi
lity,
co
mpe
tenc
e, o
r qua
lifica
tions
in
per
form
ance
repo
rts,
or th
e no
nren
ewal
mus
t be
rela
ted
to th
e di
stric
t’s n
eeds
to re
duce
staff
. N
.D.
Cent
. Cod
e §
15.1
-15-
05.
Non
eN
one
Non
eFo
r dis
mis
sals
, an
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
judg
e co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
N.D
. Ce
nt. C
ode
§ 15
.1-1
5-08
For n
onre
new
al, t
he
boar
d of
the
scho
ol
dist
rict c
onsi
ders
the
case
. N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15
.1-1
5-06
.
Non
eFo
r app
eals
of d
ism
issa
ls,
the
dist
rict c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al.
N.D
. Cen
t. Co
de §
15.
1-15
-08.
Ohi
oG
ood
and
just
cau
se O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
331
9.16
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e te
ache
r may
requ
est
a he
arin
g in
fron
t of t
he
boar
d or
a re
fere
e.
The
teac
her a
nd b
oard
m
ust j
oint
ly c
hoos
e a
ref-
eree
from
a li
st p
rovi
ded
by th
e su
perin
tend
ent o
f pu
blic
inst
ruct
ion.
Ref
-er
ees a
re so
licite
d fr
om
the
stat
e ba
r ass
ocia
tion.
O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
33
19.1
6.
Non
eTh
e co
urt o
f com
mon
pl
eas h
ears
the
appe
al;
the
cour
t mus
t “ex
amin
e th
e tr
ansc
ript a
nd re
cord
of
the
hear
ing
and
shal
l ho
ld su
ch a
dditi
onal
he
arin
gs a
s it c
onsi
ders
ad
visa
ble,
at w
hich
it
may
con
side
r oth
er e
vi-
denc
e in
add
ition
to th
e tr
ansc
ript a
nd re
cord
.” O
hio
Rev.
Cod
e An
n. §
33
19.1
6.
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Okl
ahom
aW
illfu
l neg
lect
of d
uty,
repe
ated
ne
glig
ence
in p
erfo
rman
ce o
f dut
y,
men
tal,
or p
hysi
cal a
buse
to a
chi
ld,
inco
mpe
tenc
y, in
stru
ctio
nal i
nef-
fect
iven
ess,
unsa
tisfa
ctor
y te
achi
ng
perf
orm
ance
, com
mis
sion
of a
n ac
t of
mor
al tu
rpitu
de, f
elon
y co
nvic
-tio
n, c
rimin
al se
xual
act
ivity
, sex
ual
mis
cond
uct,
or a
band
onm
ent o
f co
ntra
ct.
Okl
a. S
tat.
Ann.
Tit.
70
§ 6-
101.
22.
Non
eN
one
In o
rder
to d
ism
iss a
te
ache
r for
poo
r per
for-
man
ce, a
n ad
min
istr
ator
m
ust g
ive
notic
e to
the
teac
her i
n w
ritin
g an
d m
ake
a “r
easo
nabl
e eff
ort”
to re
med
iate
. Th
e te
ache
r the
n ha
s up
to tw
o m
onth
s to
impr
ove.
If th
e te
ache
r do
es n
ot c
orre
ct th
e pr
oble
ms i
n th
e no
tice,
th
e ad
min
istr
ator
can
m
ake
a re
com
men
datio
n to
the
supe
rinte
nden
t for
di
smis
sal o
r non
reem
-pl
oym
ent.
Okl
a. S
tat.
Ann.
Tit.
70
§ 6-
101.
24
The
dist
rict b
oard
con
sid-
ers t
he c
ase.
Okl
. St.A
nn.
Tit.
70 §
6-1
01.2
6.
Non
eTh
e te
ache
r is e
ntitl
ed to
a
tria
l de
novo
in d
istr
ict
cour
t of c
ount
ry w
here
sc
hool
is lo
cate
d. O
kl. S
t. An
n. T
it. 7
0 §
6-10
1.27
.
Ore
gon
Ineffi
cien
cy, i
mm
oral
ity, i
nsub
or-
dina
tion,
neg
lect
of d
uty,
phy
sica
l or
men
tal i
ncap
acity
, con
vict
ion
of a
felo
ny o
r a c
rime,
inad
equa
te
perf
orm
ance
, fai
lure
to c
ompl
y w
ith
reas
onab
le re
quire
men
ts to
show
no
rmal
impr
ovem
ent a
nd e
vide
nce
of p
rofe
ssio
nal t
rain
ing
and
grow
th,
or a
ny c
ause
that
con
stitu
tes
grou
nds f
or th
e re
voca
tion
of a
te
ache
r’s te
achi
ng li
cens
e. O
r. Re
v.
Stat
. § 3
42.8
65.
Non
eAd
min
istr
ator
s sho
uld
cons
ider
regu
lar a
nd
spec
ial e
valu
atio
n re
port
s and
any
writ
ten
stan
dard
s of p
erfo
rman
ce
adop
ted
by th
e bo
ard
in
dete
rmin
ing
whe
ther
the
prof
essi
onal
per
form
ance
of
a c
ontr
act t
each
er is
ad
equa
te.
Or.
Rev.
Sta
t. §
342.
865.
Non
eA
pane
l of t
hree
m
embe
rs fr
om th
e Fa
ir D
ism
issa
l App
eal B
oard
co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase;
the
pane
l con
sist
s of o
ne
mem
ber r
epre
sent
ing
dist
rict s
choo
l boa
rd
mem
bers
, one
mem
ber
unaffi
liate
d w
ith c
om-
mon
or u
nion
hig
h sc
hool
dis
tric
ts, a
nd o
ne
mem
ber r
epre
sent
ing
teac
hers
or a
dmin
istr
a-to
rs. O
r. Re
v. S
tat.
§ 34
2.90
5.
The
Fair
Dis
mis
sal
Appe
als B
oard
pan
el
prep
ares
and
send
s a
writ
ten
deci
sion
to th
e co
ntra
ct te
ache
r, th
e di
s-tr
ict s
uper
inte
nden
t, th
e di
stric
t sch
ool b
oard
, and
th
e su
perin
tend
ent o
f pu
blic
inst
ruct
ion
with
in
140
days
of t
he fi
ling
of
an a
ppea
l. O
r. Re
v. S
tat.
§ 34
2.90
5.
Judi
cial
revi
ew is
ava
il-ab
le in
acc
orda
nce
with
th
e st
ate
adm
inis
tra-
tive
law
. Or.
Rev.
Sta
t. §
342.
905.
44
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Penn
syl-
vani
aIm
mor
ality
, inc
ompe
tenc
y, u
nsat
is-
fact
ory
teac
hing
per
form
ance
bas
ed
on tw
o co
nsec
utiv
e ra
tings
of t
he
empl
oyee
’s te
achi
ng p
erfo
rman
ce
as u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y, in
tem
pera
nce,
cr
uelty
, per
sist
ent n
eglig
ence
in
the
perf
orm
ance
of d
utie
s, w
illfu
l ne
glec
t of d
utie
s, ph
ysic
al o
r m
enta
l dis
abili
ty th
at su
bsta
ntia
lly
inte
rfer
es w
ith th
e em
ploy
ee’s
abil-
ity to
per
form
ess
entia
l fun
ctio
ns,
advo
catin
g or
par
ticip
atin
g in
un-
Amer
ican
or s
ubve
rsiv
e do
ctrin
es,
conv
ictio
n of
a fe
lony
or a
ccep
tanc
e of
a g
uilty
ple
a, o
r per
sist
ent a
nd
will
ful v
iola
tion
of o
r fai
lure
to
com
ply
with
scho
ol la
ws.
Pa. S
tat.
Ann.
Tit.
24
§ 11
-112
2.
Inco
mpe
tenc
e is
not
de
fined
in th
e st
atut
e.
But u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y te
ach-
ing
perf
orm
ance
is b
ased
on
two
cons
ecut
ive
ratin
gs o
f the
em
ploy
ee’s
teac
hing
per
form
ance
th
at a
re to
incl
ude
clas
sroo
m o
bser
va-
tions
no
less
than
four
m
onth
s apa
rt in
whi
ch
the
empl
oyee
’s te
achi
ng
perf
orm
ance
is ra
ted
as
unsa
tisfa
ctor
y. P
a. S
tat.
Ann.
Tit.
24
§ 11
-112
2.
Non
eTw
o co
nsec
utiv
e un
satis
fact
ory
ratin
gs
are
requ
ired
to d
ism
iss
a te
ache
r for
uns
atis
fac-
tory
teac
hing
per
for-
man
ce, b
ut th
e la
w d
oes
not s
peci
fy w
heth
er
dism
issa
l is r
equi
red
afte
r re
ceiv
ing
two
nega
tive
eval
uatio
ns. P
a. C
ode
351.
26.
The
boar
d of
scho
ol
dire
ctor
s con
side
rs th
e ca
se, o
r the
cas
e un
der-
goes
arb
itrat
ion
unde
r th
e co
llect
ive
barg
ain-
ing
cont
ract
. Pa.
Sta
t. An
n. T
it. 2
4 §1
1-11
27, §
11
-113
3.
Non
eTh
e em
ploy
ee m
ay
appe
al to
the
supe
rinte
n-de
nt o
f pub
lic in
stru
ctio
n w
ithin
30
days
of t
he
boar
d de
cisi
on. A
hea
r-in
g m
ust b
e he
ld w
ithin
30
day
s of r
ecei
pt o
f the
re
ques
t for
the
appe
al.
Pa. S
tat.
Ann.
tit.
24 §
11
-113
1.
An a
ppea
l is t
aken
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e st
ate’s
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Proc
edur
es A
ct. P
a. S
tat.
Ann.
Tit.
24
§ 11
-113
2.
Rhod
e Is
land
Goo
d an
d ju
st c
ause
R.I.
Gen
. Law
s §
16-1
3-3.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e go
vern
ing
boar
d co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase,
al
thou
gh th
e di
stric
t may
ag
ree
to a
rbitr
atio
n in
th
e co
llect
ive
barg
ain-
ing
agre
emen
t. R.
I. G
en.
Law
s § 1
6-13
-4.
Non
eTh
e D
epar
tmen
t of
Elem
enta
ry a
nd S
econ
d-ar
y Ed
ucat
ion
hear
s the
ap
peal
, and
the
teac
her
has t
he ri
ght o
f fur
ther
ap
peal
to th
e su
perio
r co
urt.
R.I.
Gen
. Law
s §
16-1
3-4.
Sout
h Ca
rolin
aFa
ilure
to g
ive
inst
ruct
ion
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e di
rect
ions
of
the
supe
rinte
nden
t or e
xhib
iting
ev
iden
t unfi
tnes
s for
teac
hing
. Evi
-de
nt u
nfitn
ess f
or te
achi
ng in
clud
es
pers
iste
nt n
egle
ct o
f dut
y, w
illfu
l vi
olat
ion
of ru
les a
nd re
gula
tions
of
dist
rict b
oard
of t
rust
ees,
drun
ken-
ness
, con
vict
ion
of a
vio
latio
n of
a
stat
e or
fede
ral l
aw, g
ross
imm
oral
-ity
, dis
hone
sty,
or i
llega
l use
, sal
e or
po
sses
sion
of d
rugs
or n
arco
tics.
S.C.
Cod
e An
n. §
59-
25-4
30.
Non
eN
one
An a
nnua
l con
trac
t te
ache
r who
has
not
suc-
cess
fully
com
plet
ed th
e fo
rmal
eva
luat
ion
pro-
cess
or t
he p
rofe
ssio
nal
grow
th p
lan
for t
he
seco
nd ti
me
mus
t not
be
empl
oyed
as a
cla
ssro
om
teac
her i
n a
publ
ic
scho
ol fo
r a m
inim
um o
f tw
o ye
ars.
S.C.
Cod
e An
n.
§ 59
-26-
40.
The
dist
rict b
oard
of
trus
tees
con
side
rs th
e ca
se.
S.C.
Cod
e An
n. §
59-
25-
470
Non
eCo
urt o
f com
mon
ple
as
hear
s the
app
eal.
S.C.
Co
de A
nn. §
59-
25-4
80.
45
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Sout
h D
akot
aJu
st c
ause
, inc
ludi
ng b
reac
h of
co
ntra
ct, p
oor p
erfo
rman
ce, i
ncom
-pe
tenc
y, g
ross
imm
oral
ity, u
npro
fes-
sion
al c
ondu
ct, i
nsub
ordi
natio
n,
negl
ect o
f dut
y, o
r the
vio
latio
n of
any
pol
icy
or re
gula
tion
of th
e sc
hool
dis
tric
t.
S.D.
Cod
ified
Law
s § 1
3-43
-6.1
.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e sc
hool
boa
rd c
onsi
d-er
s cas
es o
f ter
min
atio
n an
d no
nren
ewal
. S.D
. Co
difie
d La
ws §
13-
43-
6.2,
6.7
.
Non
eTh
e ci
rcui
t cou
rt h
ears
th
e ap
peal
.
S.D.
Cod
ified
Law
s §
13-4
6-1.
Tenn
esse
eIn
com
pete
nce,
ineffi
cien
cy, n
egle
ct
of d
uty,
unp
rofe
ssio
nal c
ondu
ct,
and
insu
bord
inat
ion
Tenn
. Cod
e An
n. §
49-
5-51
1.
Inco
mpe
tenc
e is
defin
ed
as “b
eing
inca
pabl
e,
lack
ing
adeq
uate
pow
er,
capa
city
or a
bilit
y to
carr
y ou
t the
dut
ies a
nd re
spon
-sib
ilitie
s of t
he p
ositi
on.
This
may
app
ly to
phy
sical
, m
enta
l, edu
catio
nal, e
mo-
tiona
l or o
ther
per
sona
l co
nditi
ons.
It m
ay in
clud
e la
ck o
f tra
inin
g or
exp
eri-
ence
, evi
dent
unfi
tnes
s for
se
rvic
e, a
phy
sical
, men
tal
or e
mot
iona
l con
ditio
n m
akin
g th
e te
ache
r unfi
t to
inst
ruct
or a
ssoc
iate
w
ith ch
ildre
n or
the
inab
il-ity
to co
mm
unic
ate
and
resp
ect f
rom
subo
rdin
ates
or
to se
cure
coop
erat
ion
of th
ose
with
who
m th
e te
ache
r mus
t wor
k.”
Ineffi
cien
cy: “
bein
g be
low
the
stan
dard
s of
effici
ency
mai
ntai
ned
by
othe
rs cu
rrent
ly e
mpl
oyed
by
the
boar
d fo
r sim
ilar
wor
k, o
r hab
itual
ly ta
rdy,
in
accu
rate
or w
antin
g in
eff
ectiv
e pe
rform
ance
of
dutie
s.” Te
nn. C
ode
Ann.
§
49-5
-501
.
Non
eN
one
An im
part
ial h
earin
g offi
-ce
r sel
ecte
d by
the
boar
d co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
Tenn
. Co
de A
nn. §
49-
5-51
2.
Non
eTh
e ap
peal
goe
s firs
t to
the
boar
d of
edu
catio
n,
then
the
chan
cery
cou
rt
hear
s the
app
eal;
the
revi
ew is
de
novo
on
the
reco
rd o
f the
hea
ring
cond
ucte
d by
the
hear
-in
g offi
cer a
nd re
view
ed
by th
e bo
ard.
Tenn
. Cod
e An
n. §
49-
5-51
2.
46
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Texa
sN
eces
sary
redu
ctio
n in
staff
or g
ood
caus
e. G
ood
caus
e is
defi
ned
as “t
he
failu
re to
mee
t the
acc
epte
d st
an-
dard
s of c
ondu
ct fo
r the
pro
fess
ion
as g
ener
ally
reco
gniz
ed a
nd a
pplie
d in
sim
ilarly
situ
ated
scho
ol d
istr
icts
” in
Texa
s. Te
x. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21
.154
, 21.
156.
Non
eN
one
Unc
lear
; tea
cher
s may
be
elig
ible
for “
sepa
ratio
n”
afte
r not
mee
ting
all o
f th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f an
inte
rven
tion
plan
for
teac
hers
in n
eed
of a
ssis
-ta
nce
by th
e tim
e sp
eci-
fied.
Texa
s Adm
inis
trat
ive
Code
150
.100
4.
A he
arin
g offi
cer (
an
atto
rney
) cer
tified
by
the
stat
e co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
Te
x. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21
.252
.
The
hear
ing
mus
t con
-cl
ude
with
in 6
0 da
ys o
f co
mm
issi
oner
’s re
ceip
t of
requ
est f
or th
e he
arin
g.
Both
par
ties m
ay c
hoos
e to
ext
end
the
date
up
to
45 d
ays.
Tex.
Edu
c. C
ode
Ann.
§ 2
1.25
7.
Texa
s rul
es o
f evi
denc
e ap
ply
and
hear
ings
are
co
nduc
ted
the
sam
e as
a
tria
l with
out a
jury
. Tex
. Ed
uc. C
ode
Ann.
§21
.256
.
Appe
al to
com
mis
-si
oner
of e
duca
tion;
the
com
mis
sion
er c
onsi
ders
th
e ap
peal
sole
ly o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
loca
l rec
ord
and
may
not
con
side
r an
y ad
ditio
nal e
vide
nce
or is
sues
. The
dis
tric
t co
urt h
ears
app
eals
fr
om th
e Co
mm
issi
oner
’s de
cisi
on. T
ex. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21.3
01 §
21.
307.
Uta
hBe
havi
or e
xhib
iting
unfi
tnes
s for
du
ty th
roug
h im
mor
al, u
npro
fes-
sion
al, o
r inc
ompe
tent
con
duct
; co
mm
ittin
g an
y ot
her v
iola
tion
of
stan
dard
s of e
thic
al c
ondu
ct, p
erfo
r-m
ance
, or p
rofe
ssio
nal c
ompe
tenc
e.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53A
-8-1
04; §
53
-6-5
01.
Non
eTo
term
inat
e a
cont
act f
or
unsa
tisfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
-m
ance
, the
uns
atis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
mus
t be
docu
men
ted
in a
t lea
st
two
eval
uatio
ns c
on-
duct
ed a
t any
tim
e w
ithin
th
e pr
eced
ing
thre
e ye
ars.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53
A-8-
104.
Non
eTh
e bo
ard
or h
earin
g offi
cer s
elec
ted
by th
e bo
ard
cons
ider
s the
ca
se.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53
A-8-
105.
Non
eAn
“app
ropr
iate
cou
rt o
f la
w” h
ears
the
appe
al.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53A
-8-
105.
Verm
ont
To n
onre
new
a c
ontr
act:
just
and
su
ffici
ent c
ause
. To
dism
iss:
inco
m-
pete
nce,
con
duct
unb
ecom
ing
a te
ache
r, fa
ilure
to a
tten
d to
dut
ies,
or fa
ilure
to c
arry
out
reas
onab
le
orde
rs a
nd d
irect
ions
of t
he su
per-
inte
nden
t and
scho
ol b
oard
. Vt.
Stat
. An
n. T
it. 1
6, §
175
2.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e bo
ard
of sc
hool
di
rect
ors c
onsi
ders
the
case
. Vt.
Stat
. Ann
. Tit.
16,
§
1752
.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
47
App
endi
x |
ww
w.a
mer
ican
prog
ress
.org
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Texa
sN
eces
sary
redu
ctio
n in
staff
or g
ood
caus
e. G
ood
caus
e is
defi
ned
as “t
he
failu
re to
mee
t the
acc
epte
d st
an-
dard
s of c
ondu
ct fo
r the
pro
fess
ion
as g
ener
ally
reco
gniz
ed a
nd a
pplie
d in
sim
ilarly
situ
ated
scho
ol d
istr
icts
” in
Texa
s. Te
x. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21
.154
, 21.
156.
Non
eN
one
Unc
lear
; tea
cher
s may
be
elig
ible
for “
sepa
ratio
n”
afte
r not
mee
ting
all o
f th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f an
inte
rven
tion
plan
for
teac
hers
in n
eed
of a
ssis
-ta
nce
by th
e tim
e sp
eci-
fied.
Texa
s Adm
inis
trat
ive
Code
150
.100
4.
A he
arin
g offi
cer (
an
atto
rney
) cer
tified
by
the
stat
e co
nsid
ers t
he c
ase.
Te
x. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21
.252
.
The
hear
ing
mus
t con
-cl
ude
with
in 6
0 da
ys o
f co
mm
issi
oner
’s re
ceip
t of
requ
est f
or th
e he
arin
g.
Both
par
ties m
ay c
hoos
e to
ext
end
the
date
up
to
45 d
ays.
Tex.
Edu
c. C
ode
Ann.
§ 2
1.25
7.
Texa
s rul
es o
f evi
denc
e ap
ply
and
hear
ings
are
co
nduc
ted
the
sam
e as
a
tria
l with
out a
jury
. Tex
. Ed
uc. C
ode
Ann.
§21
.256
.
Appe
al to
com
mis
-si
oner
of e
duca
tion;
the
com
mis
sion
er c
onsi
ders
th
e ap
peal
sole
ly o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
loca
l rec
ord
and
may
not
con
side
r an
y ad
ditio
nal e
vide
nce
or is
sues
. The
dis
tric
t co
urt h
ears
app
eals
fr
om th
e Co
mm
issi
oner
’s de
cisi
on. T
ex. E
duc.
Cod
e An
n. §
21.3
01 §
21.
307.
Uta
hBe
havi
or e
xhib
iting
unfi
tnes
s for
du
ty th
roug
h im
mor
al, u
npro
fes-
sion
al, o
r inc
ompe
tent
con
duct
; co
mm
ittin
g an
y ot
her v
iola
tion
of
stan
dard
s of e
thic
al c
ondu
ct, p
erfo
r-m
ance
, or p
rofe
ssio
nal c
ompe
tenc
e.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53A
-8-1
04; §
53
-6-5
01.
Non
eTo
term
inat
e a
cont
act f
or
unsa
tisfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
-m
ance
, the
uns
atis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
mus
t be
docu
men
ted
in a
t lea
st
two
eval
uatio
ns c
on-
duct
ed a
t any
tim
e w
ithin
th
e pr
eced
ing
thre
e ye
ars.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53
A-8-
104.
Non
eTh
e bo
ard
or h
earin
g offi
cer s
elec
ted
by th
e bo
ard
cons
ider
s the
ca
se.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53
A-8-
105.
Non
eAn
“app
ropr
iate
cou
rt o
f la
w” h
ears
the
appe
al.
Uta
h Co
de A
nn. §
53A
-8-
105.
Verm
ont
To n
onre
new
a c
ontr
act:
just
and
su
ffici
ent c
ause
. To
dism
iss:
inco
m-
pete
nce,
con
duct
unb
ecom
ing
a te
ache
r, fa
ilure
to a
tten
d to
dut
ies,
or fa
ilure
to c
arry
out
reas
onab
le
orde
rs a
nd d
irect
ions
of t
he su
per-
inte
nden
t and
scho
ol b
oard
. Vt.
Stat
. An
n. T
it. 1
6, §
175
2.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e bo
ard
of sc
hool
di
rect
ors c
onsi
ders
the
case
. Vt.
Stat
. Ann
. Tit.
16,
§
1752
.
Non
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Virg
inia
Inco
mpe
tenc
y, im
mor
ality
, non
-co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith sc
hool
law
s and
re
gula
tions
, dis
abili
ty a
s sho
wn
by
com
pete
nt m
edic
al e
vide
nce
whe
n in
com
plia
nce
with
fede
ral l
aw,
conv
ictio
n of
a fe
lony
or a
crim
e of
m
oral
turp
itude
, or o
ther
goo
d an
d ju
st c
ause
. Va.
Cod
e An
n. §
22.
1-30
7.
Inco
mpe
tenc
y in
clud
es
a “c
onsi
sten
t fai
lure
to
mee
t the
end
orse
men
t re
quire
men
ts fo
r the
po
sitio
n or
per
form
ance
th
at is
doc
umen
ted
thro
ugh
eval
uatio
n to
be
con
sist
ently
less
than
sa
tisfa
ctor
y.” V
a. C
ode
Ann.
§ 2
2.1-
307.
Non
eN
one
The
scho
ol b
oard
or
teac
her c
an e
lect
to h
ave
a he
arin
g in
fron
t of a
th
ree-
mem
ber f
act-
find-
ing
pane
l joi
ntly
sele
cted
by
the
supe
rinte
nden
t an
d te
ache
r prio
r to
the
scho
ol b
oard
con
side
ring
the
case
. Va.
Cod
e An
n. §
§2
2.1-
311;
§22
.1-3
12.
The
pane
l hea
ring
mus
t oc
cur “
with
in 3
0 bu
sine
ss
days
” aft
er th
e pa
nel i
s co
nven
ed. V
a. C
ode
Ann.
§
§22.
1-31
2.
If a
pane
l con
duct
s the
he
arin
g, th
e pa
nel m
ust
issu
e a
writ
ten
repo
rt
with
find
ings
of f
act
and
a re
com
men
datio
n to
the
boar
d no
late
r th
an 3
0 da
ys a
fter
the
hear
ing.
Va.
Cod
e An
n. §
§2
2.1-
312.
If th
e sc
hool
boa
rd
cond
ucts
the
hear
ing,
th
e bo
ard
mus
t giv
e th
e te
ache
r its
writ
ten
deci
sion
no
late
r tha
n 30
da
ys a
fter
the
hear
ing.
Va
. Cod
e An
n. §
22.
1-31
3.
The
circ
uit c
ourt
hea
rs
the
appe
al a
nd m
ay
rece
ive
othe
r evi
denc
e as
the
ends
of j
ustic
e re
quire
. Va.
Cod
e An
n. §
22
.1-3
14.
Was
hing
-to
nPr
obab
le c
ause
. Was
h. R
ev. C
ode
§ 28
A.40
5.21
0.N
one
Non
eA
teac
her w
ho re
ceiv
es
an u
nsat
isfa
ctor
y ev
alua
tion
is p
ut o
n an
im
prov
emen
t pro
gram
. If
the
teac
her d
oes n
ot
show
impr
ovem
ent
durin
g th
e 60
-day
pr
obat
iona
ry p
erio
d, th
is
may
con
stitu
te a
find
ing
of “p
roba
ble
caus
e”
unde
r the
dis
mis
sal
stat
ute.
Was
h. R
ev. C
ode
§28A
.405
.100
.
A he
arin
g offi
cer (
law
yer
or a
rbitr
ator
) nom
inat
ed
by a
ppoi
ntee
s of t
he
teac
her a
nd sc
hool
boa
rd
or n
omin
ated
by
the
pres
idin
g ju
dge
of th
e di
stric
t con
side
rs th
e ca
se. W
ash.
Rev
. Cod
e §2
8A.4
05.3
10.
The
hear
ing
office
r mus
t is
sue
findi
ngs o
f fac
t, co
nclu
sion
s of l
aw, a
nd a
fin
al d
ecis
ion
with
in 1
0 da
ys o
f the
con
clus
ion
of
the
hear
ing.
Was
h. R
ev.
Code
§ 2
8A.4
05.3
10.
The
supe
rior c
ourt
in
the
coun
ty in
whi
ch
the
scho
ol d
istr
ict i
s lo
cate
d he
ars t
he a
ppea
l “e
xped
itiou
sly.”
Was
h.
Rev.
Cod
e §2
8A.4
05.3
40.
48
cent
er fo
r Am
eric
an p
rogr
ess
| D
evil
in t
he D
etai
ls
App
endi
x
Stat
eRe
ason
s fo
r dis
mis
sal
Def
init
ion
of in
com
pe-
tenc
e or
inef
fect
iven
ess
Proc
edur
es fo
r dis
mis
sal
due
to in
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Conn
ecti
on b
etw
een
unsa
tisf
acto
ry e
valu
a-ti
ons
and
dism
issa
l D
istr
ict-
leve
l fac
t fin
der
Spec
ial h
earin
g ru
les
or
regu
lati
ons
App
eals
pro
cess
Wes
t Vi
rgin
iaIm
mor
ality
, inc
ompe
tenc
y, c
ruel
ty,
insu
bord
inat
ion,
inte
mpe
ranc
e,
will
ful n
egle
ct o
f dut
y, u
nsat
isfa
c-to
ry p
erfo
rman
ce, c
onvi
ctio
n of
a
felo
ny, o
r a g
uilty
ple
a or
a p
lea
of
nolo
con
tend
ere
to a
felo
ny c
harg
e.
W. V
a. C
ode
§ 18
A-2-
8.
Non
eA
char
ge o
f uns
atis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
can
onl
y be
mad
e as
a re
sult
of a
n em
ploy
ee p
erfo
rman
ce
eval
uatio
n. W
. Va.
Cod
e §
18A-
2-8.
A te
ache
r who
rece
ives
a
writ
ten
impr
ovem
ent
plan
will
be
give
n an
op
port
unity
to im
prov
e th
eir p
erfo
rman
ce
thro
ugh
the
plan
. If t
he
next
eva
luat
ion
show
s th
at th
e te
ache
r is s
till
not p
erfo
rmin
g sa
tisfa
c-to
rily,
the
eval
uato
r may
re
com
men
d di
smis
sal.
W.
Va. C
ode
§ 18
A-2-
12 (h
).
An a
dmin
istr
ativ
e la
w
judg
e co
nduc
ts le
vel-
thre
e he
arin
gs. W
. Va.
Co
de §
6C-
2-4;
W. V
a.
Code
§ 1
8A-2
-8.
The
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
judg
e m
ust i
ssue
a
deci
sion
with
in 3
0 da
ys
follo
win
g th
e he
arin
g. W
. Va
. Cod
e §
6C-2
-4.
The
circ
uit c
ourt
con
sid-
ers a
ppea
ls. W
. Va.
Cod
e §
6C-2
-5.
Wis
cons
inIn
effici
ency
or i
mm
oral
ity, w
illfu
l an
d pe
rsis
tent
vio
latio
n of
reas
on-
able
regu
latio
ns, o
r oth
er g
ood
caus
e. T
his o
nly
appl
ies t
o te
ache
rs
in c
erta
in d
istr
icts
und
er th
is se
c-tio
n. W
is. S
tat.
§ 11
8.23
.
Non
eN
one
Non
eTh
e go
vern
ing
body
of
the
scho
ol sy
stem
or
scho
ol c
onsi
ders
the
case
. Wis
. Sta
t. §
118.
23.
Non
eTh
e go
vern
ing
boar
d’s
deci
sion
is fi
nal.
Wis
. Sta
t. §1
18.2
3 .
Wyo
min
gIn
com
pete
ncy,
neg
lect
of d
uty,
im
mor
ality
, ins
ubor
dina
tion,
uns
at-
isfa
ctor
y pe
rfor
man
ce, o
r any
oth
er
good
or j
ust c
ause
. Wyo
. Sta
t. An
n.
§ 21
-7-1
10.
Non
eN
one
Non
eA
join
tly se
lect
ed in
de-
pend
ent h
earin
g offi
cer
who
is “i
mpa
rtia
l, ex
peri-
ence
d in
edu
catio
n, la
bor
and
empl
oym
ent m
at-
ters
and
in th
e co
nduc
t of
hea
rings
” con
side
rs
the
case
. Wyo
. Sta
t. An
n.
§ 21
-7-1
10.
The
hear
ing
office
r m
ust i
ssue
find
ings
an
d re
com
men
datio
ns
with
in 2
0 da
ys fo
llow
ing
the
conc
lusi
on o
f the
he
arin
g. W
yo. S
tat.
Ann.
§
21-7
-110
.
The
dist
rict c
ourt
con
sid-
ers t
he a
ppea
l, ta
ken
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e W
yom
ing
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Proc
edur
e Ac
t. W
yo. S
tat.
Ann.
§ 2
1-7-
110.
