Skip to main content
Log in

Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional Incompetence and Barriers to the Dismissal Process

  • Published:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of teacher incompetence is a serious one, affecting large numbers of American public school students. There is a significant discrepancy between estimated rates of incompetent teachers and the number of teachers actually dismissed on grounds of incompetence. This study sought to uncover the perceptions of teachers regarding a definition of professional incompetence, strategies used with incompetent teachers, and barriers to the dismissal process, through the use of a survey with more than 200 elementary school teachers in Virginia and follow-up interviews with seven of these participants. The researcher found that teachers rated classroom behaviors to be the most important factors towards a definition of professional incompetence. The teachers involved also rated the commonness of strategies used with incompetent teachers, placing dismissal among the least common actions taken by administrators, and revealed that they believed union protection, legal and other expenses, and difficulty providing documentation prevented administrators from dismissing incompetent teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, H.A. (1995). Teachers can be Fired!: The Quest for Quality. Chicago: Catfeet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annunziata, J. (1999). Richard Fossey: If a Practitioner Cleans the Windows, Will you Look in? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13, 83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blacklock, K. (2002). Dealing with an Incompetent Teacher. Principal 81(4), 26–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E.M. (1986a). Collaborative Research: The Case of the Incompetent Teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly 13(2), 59–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E.M. (1986b). The Incompetent Teacher. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E.M. (1990). Evaluation for Tenure and Dismissal. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (pp. 147–157). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, E.M. (1992). The Incompetent Teacher: Managerial Responses. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brieschke, P.A. (1986). The Administrative Role in Teacher Competency. The Urban Review 18, 237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson T.C., & Billingsley, K.L. (2000). Unsatisfactory Performance: How California’s K-12 Education System Protects Mediocrity and How Teacher Quality can be Improved. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453152).

  • Ehrgott, R., Henderson-Sparks, J.C., & Sparks, R.K., Jr. (1993). A Study of the Marginal Teacher in California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356556).

  • Fossey, R. (1998a). Guest Editor’s Introduction: Expanding Legal Rights for Education Employees—is the Institutional Mission Being Threatened? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, 209–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossey, R. (1998b). Secret Settlement Agreements Between School Districts and Problem Employees: Some Legal Pitfalls. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 12, 61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossey, R. (1999). Acknowledging a Problem is the First Step to Solving It: A Response to Joyce Annunziata. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13, 93–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frase, L.E. & Streshly, W. (2000). Top Ten Myths in Education: Fantasies Americans Love to Believe. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhr, D.L. (1993). Managing Mediocrity in the Classroom: School Leaders must Rescue Students from Borderline Teachers. The School Administrator 50(4), 26–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sparks, J.C., Ehrgott, R.H., & Sparks, R.K., Jr. (1995). Managing your Marginal Teachers. Principal 74(4), 32–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W.W. & Riffel, J.A. (1988). Teacher Incompetence: A Cautionary Note. Education Canada 28(4), 12–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. (1997). Showing Bad Teachers the Door. American School Board Journal 184(11), 20–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, A. & Kern, M.D. (2001). American Public School Law (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D.R. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvenvold, J.C. (1989). Incompetence and Tenured Teachers: A Survey of Teacher Evaluation and Follow-up. NASSP Bulletin 73(516), 99–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavely, C., Berger, N., & Follman, J. (1992). Actual Incidence of Incompetent Teachers. Educational Research Quarterly 15(2), 11–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, C.E., Vachon, M.K., Leake, D.O., & Leake, B.H. (2001). The Marginal Teacher: A Step-by-Step Guide to Fair Procedures for Identification and Dismissal (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loup, K.S., Garland, J.S., Ellett, C.D., & Rugutt, J.K. (1996). Ten Years Later: Findings from a Replication of a Study of Teacher Evaluation Practices in our 100 Largest School Districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 10(3), 203–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNaughton, R. & Ross, V.J. (1982). With Preparation, You can Clear the Teacher Termination Hurdles. The American School Board Journal 169(4), 32–34

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M.J. (1993). When it’s Time to Dismiss an Incompetent Teacher: School Leaders Need a Legally Sound Process for Supervision, Documentation, Termination. The School Administrator 50(4), 30–33

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M.J. (1995). Effective Evaluation. Thrust for Educational Leadership 24(6), 36–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill, S.B. & Custis, J. (1978). Staff Dismissal: Problems and Solutions (AASA Critical. Issues Report). Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED172417).

  • Painter, S.R. (2000a). Easing Dismissals and Non-renewals. The School Administrator 57(9), 40–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, S.R. (2000b). Principals’ Perceptions of Barriers to Teacher Dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14, 253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, K.D. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, W. & Young, B. (1997). Just Caring?: Supervisors Talk About Working with Incompetent Teachers. Journal of Educational Thought 31, 105–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, F. (1996). The Ethical Principal and Teacher Nonretention. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 10, 29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randklev, B. & Lemon, D.K. (1990). When Tenured Teachers Fail. Principal 70(2), 44–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W.L. & Horn, S.P. (1998). Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 12, 247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, P. (1998). Firing Offenses: Why is the Quality of Teachers so Low? Just Try Getting Rid of a Bad One. National Review 50(15), 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth, J.T. (1991). Personnel Management for Effective Schools. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, K.A. & Zirkel, P.A. (1998). The Law of Teacher Evaluation: Case Law Update. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, 367–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troen, V. & Boles, K.C. (2003). Who’s Teaching your Children? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, P.D. (1997). Lake Wobegon: Where all Teachers are Competent (or, Have We Come to Terms with the Problem of Incompetent Teachers?). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, 103–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanSciver, J.H. (1990). Teacher Dismissals. Phi Delta Kappan 72, 318–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Virginia School Laws. (2000). Code of Virginia 1950. §§ 22.1–302 to 22.1–314. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M.E. (1995). Teacher Dismissal: The Impact of Tenure, Administrator Competence, and Other Factors. School Administrator 52(5), 16–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, T. (2002). Dealing with Difficult Teachers (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wragg, E.C., Haynes, G.S., Wragg, C.M., & Chamberlin, R.P. (2000). Failing Teachers? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, 57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan P. Menuey.

Appendices

Appendix A

Survey

Section A

Definition of Incompetence

The purpose of this section is to identify what behaviors or characteristics teachers believe to be factors that contribute to professional incompetence.

Please indicate your opinion of the importance of items 1–19 to the definition of professional incompetence by checking your response on the scale of agreement from “Little or no importance” through “High degree of importance.”

 

Little or no importance

Some importance

Good deal of importance

High degree of importance

1. lack of subject matter knowledge

2. inability to express content clearly

3. failure to teach curriculum prescribed

4. poor reading, writing, or skills

5. lack of lesson planning

6. low levels of student achievement

7. excessive student drop-out or transfer rates

8. weak classroom management skills

9. behavior causing low morale or fear among students

10. weak or absent communication with parents

11. large number of parent complaints

12. negative relations with colleagues

13. negative relations with superiors

14. resistance to school- or district-wide initiatives

15. refusal to obey school rules

16. poor professional judgment

17. lack of professional development

18. poor attitude toward teaching responsibilities

19. other (please specify)

Section B

Strategies Used with Incompetent Teachers

The purpose of this section is to identify what teachers believe to be strategies administrators use with incompetent teachers. Items 20–39 explore specific strategies which may be used with incompetent teachers.

Please indicate your opinion of how commonly these strategies are used with incompetent teachers by administrators in general by checking the response on the scale of agreement from “Very uncommon” through “Very common.”

 

Very uncommon

Somewhat uncommon

Somewhat common

Very common

20. successful remediation/improvement

21. voluntary switch to another teaching assignment in the school

22. involuntary switch to another teaching assignment in the school

23. voluntary switch to a non-teaching assignment in the school

24. involuntary switch to a non-teaching assignment in the school

25. voluntary transfer to another school in same district

26. involuntary transfer to another school in same district

27. transfer to another district

28. assignment as a substitute teacher for district

29. assignment as an itinerant teacher for district

30. promotion to central office position

31. increased workload to encourage teacher resignation

32. provision with monetary settlement to leave/contract buy-out

33. counseling or encouragement to leave the profession

34. voluntary departure from the profession without administrator intervention

35. retirement based on age or years of teaching

36. early retirement

37. forced resignation

38. dismissal

39. other (please specify)

Section C

Barriers to the Dismissal of Incompetent Teachers

The purpose of this section is to identify what teachers believe to be barriers to the dismissal of incompetent teachers. Items 40–49 explore specific barriers administrators may perceive and which may be present when attempting to dismiss incompetent teachers.

Please indicate your opinion of the strength of the barriers to the dismissal of incompetent teachers, as perceived by administrators in general. Use the barriers listed below by checking the response on the scale of agreement from “Little or no strength” through “High degree of strength.”

 

Little or no strength

Some strength

Good deal of strength

High degree of strength

40. legal and other expenses

41. required administrative time

42. difficulty providing needed documentation

43. protection of employee by professional association (e.g. NEA, AFT)

44. unclear definition of incompetence

45. lack of resolve or strength of character by principal

46. lack of support by superiors of principal (superintendent, central office, school board)

47. lack of support by school employees (other teachers, faculty, staff)

48. lack of skill by the principal to achieve dismissal

49. other (please specify)

Section D

Demographic Data

Please complete each of the following items. The items are included to assist in more accurately reviewing the information provided.

50. Gender : _____Male _____Female

51. Years of experience teaching:_____

52. Years of teaching in this school division:_____

53. Approximate number of teachers with whom you have worked that you considered incompetent: _____

Thank you very much for your time and energy! Please return the survey, using the pony envelope enclosed.

Appendix B

Interview Protocol

Directions

Please answer the following questions in as much detail as you deem appropriate. Please do not use names in your responses, in order to protect the identity of those teachers and administrators we might discuss here. The information that you provide during this interview will be handled confidentially, with your name being replaced with a pseudonym if I use excerpts from this interview in my writing. Interviews will be audio recorded, then transcribed, and you will be sent a transcript of this interview in order to check for accuracy. If you want to withdraw from the study during the interview, tell me and I will stop the interview and the audio recording. Thanks for your participation.

  1. 1.

    Do you consider teacher incompetence to be a problem? Please explain.

  2. 2.

    How do you define professional incompetence for a teacher?

    • Which aspects of your definition do you think are the most important?

    • What are some examples of an incompetent teacher’s behavior?

  3. 3.

    How do administrators respond to incompetent teachers?

  4. 4.

    What specific strategies do administrators use with incompetent teachers?

    • How successful are these strategies?

    • What have been the results of these various strategies?

      • For the teacher?

      • For the rest of the faculty?

      • For the school?

    • In your opinion, is dismissal a viable option for administrators to use with incompetent teachers? Why or why not?

    • How do you think principals should deal with professional incompetence?

  5. 5.

    What do you think are the barriers to the dismissal of incompetent teachers?

    • Which of these are the strongest barriers? Why?

    • If you don’t think there are any barriers, why do you think this?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Menuey, B.P. Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional Incompetence and Barriers to the Dismissal Process. J Pers Eval Educ 18, 309–325 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9026-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9026-7

Keywords

Navigation