This study explored Wyoming school leaders’ perceptions about the traits of incompetent teachers, strategies used to work with incompetent teachers, and the barriers to their dismissal. Most importantly, this study differentiated how principals and superintendents viewed incompetency issues. Some major findings include school leaders’ beliefs that classroom management problems were an indicator of incompetence, counseling to leave the profession was a strategy used with incompetent teachers, and teacher unions were a barrier to their dismissal.
Armour-GarbA. (2009). Should “value added” models be used to evaluate teachers?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 692-712.
4.
BlacklockK. (2002). Dealing with an incompetent teacher. Principal, 81(4), 26-28.
5.
BrieschkeP. A. (1986). The administrative role in teacher competency. Urban Review, 18, 237-251.
6.
BridgesE. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
7.
BrownK. M.WynnS. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: The role of the principal in teacher retention issues. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37-63.
ColemanJ.SchrothS. T.MolinaroL.GreenM. (2005). Tenure: An important due process right for a hindrance to change in the schools?Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 219-231.
10.
CooperB. S.EhrensalP. A. L.BrommeM. (2005). School-level politics and professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125.
11.
Darling-HammondL.SnyderJ. (2000). Authentic assessment in teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545.
12.
EarnshawJ.MarchingtonL.RitchieE.TorringtonD. (2004). Neither fish nor fowl? Assessment of teacher capability procedures. Industrial Relations Journal, 35, 139-152.
13.
The Education Laws of Wyoming Annotated. (2008). Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Nexis.
14.
EssexN. L. (2012). School law and the public schools: A practical guide for educational leaders (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
15.
FinkE.ResnickL. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 598-606.
16.
FischerL.SchimmelD.KellyC. (1999). Teachers and the law (5th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
17.
FosseyR. (1998). Secret settlement agreements between school districts and problem employees: Some legal pitfalls. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 61-67.
18.
FuhrD. L. (1993). Managing mediocrity in the classroom. School Administrator, 50(4), 26-29.
19.
FuternickK. (2010). Incompetent teachers or dysfunctional systems?Kappan, 92(2), 59-64.
20.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
GreenR. L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21st century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
HaefeleD. L. (1992). Evaluating teachers: An alternative model. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5, 335-345.
JacobB. A.LefgrenL. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101-136.
27.
Johnson v. Howell R-3 Board of Education, 868 S.W. 2d 191 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994).
28.
JonesS. R.TorresV.ArminioJ. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
KerstenT. A. (2006). Teacher tenure: Illinois school board president’s perspectives and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 37, 234-257.
30.
KimballS. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 16, 241-268.
31.
LastT.MurphyP. (1998). Challenges facing rural headteachers: A report from Oxfordshire. Westminster Studies in Education, 21(1), 35-45.
32.
LeithwoodK.Seashore LouisK.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
33.
LewisL.ParsadB.CareyN.BartfaiN.FarrisE.SmerdonB. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(1). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999080
34.
MarshalK. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MenueyB. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 309-325.
37.
MockS. G.MelnickS. A. (1991). The marginal teacher: A survey of principals’ attitudes. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED342739)
NettlesS.HerringtonC. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 724-736.
NixonA.PackardA. L.DamM. (2011). School principals and teacher contract non-renewal. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(3). Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m38622/latest/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
45.
NolanJ. F.HooverL. A. (2008). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
46.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
47.
OvandoM. N.RamirezA. J. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85-110.
48.
OwingsW. A.KaplanL. S.NunneryJ.MarzanoR.MyranS.BlackburnD. (2006). Teacher quality and troops to teachers: A national study with implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 102-131.
49.
PalardyG. J.RumbergerR. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111-140.
50.
PainterS. R. (2000). Principals’ perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 253-264.
51.
PajakE. (2003). Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
52.
PhillipsW.YoungB. (1997). Just caring? Supervisors talk about working with incompetent teachers. Journal of Educational Thought, 31, 105-121.
53.
PlattA. D.TrippC. E.OgdenW. R.FraserR. G. (2000). The skillful leader: Confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, MA: Ready About Press.
54.
PoppP. A.GrantL. W.StrongeJ. H. (2011). Effective teachers for at-risk or highly mobile students: What are the dispositions and behaviors of award-winning teachers?Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 275-291.
55.
PrattF. (1996). The ethical principal and teacher nonretention. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 29-36.
56.
RangeB. G.ScherzS.HoltC. R.YoungS. (2011). Supervision and evaluation: The Wyoming perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 23, 243-265.
57.
ReevesD. B. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
58.
ReevesD. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
59.
RutledgeS. A.HarrisD. N.IngleW. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211-242.
60.
SandersW. L.RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (Research report). Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Center.
61.
SowellT. (2000). Teachers’ unions try to maintain their stranglehold. Insight on the News, 16(42), 45.
62.
StoelingaS. R. (2011). Pressuring teachers to leave: Honest talk about how principals use harassing supervision. Kappan, 92(4), 57-60.
63.
StosselJ. (2006). How to fire an incompetent teacher. Reason, 38(5), 50-55.
StrongeJ. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
66.
StrongeJ. H.HindmanJ. L. (2003). Hiring the best teachers. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 48-52.
67.
StrongeJ. H.WardT. J.GrantL. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339-355.
68.
StrongeJ. H.WardT. J.TuckerP. D.HindmanJ. L. (2008). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184.
69.
TorffB.SessionsD. N. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 530-537.
70.
TuckerP. 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.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2010). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf
74.
WiseA. E.Darling-HammondL.McLaughlinM. W.BernsteinH. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
75.
WraggE. C.HaynesG. S.WraggC. M.ChamberlinR. P. (1999, April). The role of the head teacher (school principal) in addressing the problem of incompetent teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
76.
WrightS. P.HornS. P.SandersW. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
