Devil in the Details - Trumps Broken Promises · Devil in the Details Appendix State Reasons for...
22
WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG ISTOCKPHOTO Devil in the Details An Analysis of State Teacher Dismissal Laws Saba Bireda June 2010
Transcript of Devil in the Details - Trumps Broken Promises · Devil in the Details Appendix State Reasons for...
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.
