Dismissal for Poor Performance: Arizona

Analysis of Arizona's policies

Arizona makes "inadequacy of classroom performance" grounds for dismissal. In addition, the state takes steps to differentiate the due process rights of teachers facing dismissal for poor performance leading up to the actual notice of dismissal. However, it seems as though once the dismissal occurs, all teachers undergo the same appeals process, regardless of whether they are being dismissed for poor performance or for other charges commonly associated with license revocation, such as a felony and/or morality violations.

The governing board must provide the teacher with a written "preliminary notice of inadequacy of classroom performance." Within ten days, the teacher begins a 60-day period to correct the inadequacy. If the teacher does not correct deficiencies within this time frame, the board "shall dismiss the teacher either within ten days of the service of a subesequent notice of inadequacy of classroom performance or by the end of the contract year." The teacher facing dismissal may file a written request for a hearing within 10 days of receiving this notice. 

In Arizona, teachers facing dismissal may appeal multiple times. After receiving written notice of dismissal, the teacher has 10 days to file a first appeal. A hearing must occur within 30 days after the request is filed. Once the governing board has made its decision, the teacher has 30 days to file another appeal with the county's superior court. The state does not address the time frame for this appeal, except to articulate that "the proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall take precedence over all other cases, except older matters of the same character and matters to which special precedence is otherwise given by law."

Citation

Arizona Revised Statute 15-203; 15-539; 15-541; 15-543

Recommendations for Arizona

Specify that classroom ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Arizona leaves it up to districts to develop definitions of "inadequacy of classroom performance," failing to ensure that teachers who receive a certain number of ineffective evaluation ratings are eligible for dismissal. The state should consider establishing at least some marker for what defines inadequacy in the classroom so that districts do not feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consistently poor performers. Without this specification, Arizona's efforts to improve its evaluation framework (see Goal 3-B) may be undermined.  

Ensure that teachers terminated for poor performance have the opportunity to appeal within a reasonable time frame.
Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed for any grounds, including ineffectiveness, are entitled to due process. However, cases that drag on for years drain resources from school districts and create a disincentive for districts to attempt to terminate poor performers. Therefore, the state must ensure that the opportunity to appeal occurs only once and only at the district level. It is in the best interest of both the teacher and the district that a conclusion be reached within a reasonable time frame. 

Distinguish the process and accompanying due process rights between dismissal for classroom ineffectiveness and dismissal for morality violations, felonies or dereliction of duty.
While Arizona has taken steps to differentiate due process rights for teachers facing dismissal for poor performance, in effect, the only difference appears to lie in the process leading up to providing a teacher with a dismissal notice. The state's appeals policy seems to still equally apply to all teachers. Nonprobationary teachers should have due process for any termination, but it is important to differentiate between loss of employment and issues with far-reaching consequences that could permanently impact a teacher's right to practice. Arizona should ensure that appeals related to classroom effectiveness are only decided by those with educational expertise.  

State response to our analysis

Arizona had no comment on this goal.