Probationary Period

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy

Probationary Period

The state should base tenure decisions on an appropriate number of years in the classroom. This goal was not graded in 2017.

Best practices

NCTQ is not awarding "best practice" honors for state policy relating to probationary periods. However, we would like to recognize the 41 states that require a probationary period—prior to awarding tenure—of at least three years, which is of sufficient length to allow states to collect data that adequately reflect teacher performance.

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Probationary Period National Results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Probationary-Period-79

What is the required length of the probationary period before tenure?

2017
2015
Add previous year
Figure details

7 years:

No Policy: DC, ND

1 year:

2 years: CA, MS, SC, VT

3 years: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, MA, MD, ME, MN, MT, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY

4 years: CT, IL, KY, NJ, NY

5 years: LA, MI, MO, NH, OH, TN

Not Applicable. State does not offer tenure. : FL, KS, NC, WI

Footnotes
FL: Florida only awards annual contracts.
ID: Idaho limits teacher contract terms to one year.
KS: Kansas has eliminated due process rights associated with tenure.
NC: North Carolina teachers can be awarded a two- or four-year contract if they have "shown effectiveness as demonstrated by proficiency on the evaluation instrument." However, no student growth measures required.
OH: In Ohio, teachers must hold an educator license for at least 7 years, and have taught in the district at least 3 of the last 5 years.
OK: Oklahoma teachers may also earn career status with an average rating of at least effective for a four-year period and a rating of at least "effective" for the last two years.
VA: In Virginia, local school boards may extend up to five years.
WA: In Washington, at a district's discretion, a teacher may be granted tenure after the second year if he/she receives one of the top two evaluation ratings.

Updated: December 2017

Research rationale

Tenure should be a significant and consequential milestone in a teacher's career. The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status) is usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or consideration of actual performance.[1] State policy should reflect the fact that initial certification is temporary and probationary, and that tenure is intended to be a significant reward for teachers who have consistently shown effectiveness and commitment.[2] Tenure and advanced certification are not rights implied by the conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other profession, including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only a few years of working in the field.[3]

States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure decisions.[4] Most states confer tenure at a point that is too early for the collection of sufficient and adequate data that reflect teacher performance. Ideally, states would accumulate such data for four to five years. This robust data set would prevent effective teachers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.


[1] For evidence on the potential benefits of eliminating automatic tenure, articulating a process for granting tenure, and using evidence of effectiveness as criteria for tenure, see: Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Performance screens for school improvement: The case of teacher tenure reform in New York City. Educational researcher, 44(4), 199-212. Retrieved from http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Performance%20Screens.pdf
[2] Gordon, R. J., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/identifying-effective-teachers-using-performance-on-the-job/; Goldhaber and Hansen conclude that if districts ensured that the bottom performing 25 percent of all teachers up for tenure each year did not earn it, approximately 13 percent more than current levels, student achievement could be significantly improved. By routinely denying tenure to the bottom 25 percent of eligible teachers, the impact on student achievement would be equivalent to reducing class size across-the-board by 5 students a class. See: Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions (Working Paper 31). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/1001369_assessing_the_potential.pdf
[3] For evidence on the potential of eliminating automatic tenure, articulating a process for granting tenure, and using evidence of effectiveness as criteria for tenure, see: Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions (Working Paper 31). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/1001369_assessing_the_potential.pdf
[4] For additional evidence, see: Gordon, R. J., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/identifying-effective-teachers-using-performance-on-the-job/