top of page

Portfolio

Academic Works

(Academic)                    

 

Remediation Plan for a Difficult Teacher  

Introduction    
      No one wants to be the bearer of bad news, and no one wants to be the receiver of negative news. Still, sometimes discussions need to happen before improvement or resolutions can be made.  In educational institutions, struggling teachers need support to improve or need warnings and remediation processes to assist them whether they stay employed or not depending on summative evaluations.  Administrators need to know how to provide that support to help the teacher on the road to best instructional practices or to provide opportunity for redress before termination. With the stakes so high for the teacher in question, how that remediation is implemented is of the utmost importance.  In order to better understand remediation plans, their need and function, this paper will focus on the situation of teacher Mr. Smith to demonstrate the function of the following parts of a teacher remediation plan for a difficult teacher: an introductory section on the importance of teacher remediation plans, a summary of the process for remediation used in your state, two areas to be remediated, and a precise plan of action in narrative and chart form which will include--SMART goals, a timeline, persons responsible, and how each step will be evaluated and finally how one will obtain teacher acknowledgement of the plan. 


The Importance of Teacher Remediation Plans


        Teacher remediation plans are terribly important tools to help inform teachers of deficiencies for improvement or to document and give support for teachers or to document and evidence concerning teachers in the determination of whether or not that teacher is compatible with the job.  On the one hand, there is the issue of giving evaluation information where the teacher can improve through adherence to school/district policies. On the other hand, if such a medium cannot be reached, teacher remediation plans set up the documentation to show that pattern of behavior and the consequences could be termination from employment. 


        All these criteria are in line with the evaluative process for teachers, there has to be  a set policy that ensures equality and structure. “Performance evaluation is a process whereby the effectiveness of the staff member is appraised in relation to his or her competencies, working conditions, and standards and practices….The  performance evaluation process must serve to foster self-improvement and be a vital part of the total school plan to improve the quality of education, the instructional process, and the educational growth of the student” (Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers, 2012).  


        And finally, teacher remediation plans are the law in Virginia under Section III, “Purposes of Evaluation” point three: “To fulfill, in a uniform manner, the legal requirements of state and local authorities” (201. And teacher evaluation and remediation plans are the law in many other states as well.  Tomal writes, “For teachers who are performing less than satisfactorily, most states require a remediation program consisting of coaching and the establishment of a performance improvement plan (2015, p. 106). 


Summary of the Process for Remediation Used in Virginia


      The process for remediation in Virginia is as follows. By October of the school calendar year, the immediate supervisor (assistant principal / principal) will meet with the teacher and go over the evaluation process, either individually or in group. It is here that each teacher is made aware of expectations from previous or current year and the notice of new or any additional criteria for evaluation. Teachers are also informed of the cycle of evaluation in the “Performance Area(s) Determined by Supervisor” and how it is incorporated into the Interim Review. 


       By the first week in December, the supervisor will meet with any employee having performance problems and the employee will be told of the problem area(s).  Next, by the first week in February, the supervisor will meet with the teacher and complete the Interim Review form. The Interim Review Form is used by administrators/supervisors for non-probationary teachers, to record information about the teacher throughout the evaluation cycle. This information completed on the form is used again for the end-of-the-year/final performance evaluation. It is here that areas of concern or strengths are recorded along with any needed support data. Evaluators give the rating of progressing satisfactorily or improvement needed. If a teacher is deemed in the category of improvement needed, they will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan. If the plan is not successful, meaning items listed as insufficient or deficient are not remedied, they must be notified. Therefore, by the first week in April, if a teacher is being recommended for dismissal, the administrator will have an individual, personal conference and tell that teacher that he or she is being recommended for termination. By the following week, written correspondence is sent to the Chief Human Resource (HR) Officer listing the names of those teachers recommended for dismissal along with a completed Final Evaluation Form, the reasons for request for dismissal, and any supporting evidence or documentation. These dates listed are subject to be modified if inclement weather prohibits.  (Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers, 2012).


Two Areas to Be Remediated


       As superintendent, it would be recommended that Mr. Smith should be placed immediately on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).  Principal Jones will be advised to have an immediate conversation with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith has had six years of evaluations that, even though they state him as a satisfactory teacher, he still has multiple documented breaches in school policy concerning curriculum, student and parent complaints, and excessive absences without plans for substitutes. It may be the case that there is some personal problem affecting Mr. Smith, referencing the absences, but due to the prolonged timeframe it seems unlikely. Six year is a long time to have these issues. It seems more that Mr. Smith is comfortable with ignoring the policies and mandates of the school and is not using best practices.  Therefore, perhaps knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, Mr. Smith is helping to create a negative culture at the school that should not be tolerated.  


     The two areas of immediate remediation are to deal with Mr. Smith’s deviation from school curriculum. Mr. Smith needs to submit weekly lesson plans either electronically (Planbook or some other electronic lesson plan program). Those plans are to be reviewed by the assistant principal and immediately be addressed if they are not compliant with district mandates and school standards. While it is not stated, it seems that Mr. Smith’s plans are not monitored, and only addressed when there is an evaluation and unfortunately a complaint from parents or students. If it is a policy that homework should be assigned, then the administrator over that department should note that those homework assignments should be documented in the lesson plan. Mr. Smith’s actions must be followed with fidelity to provide paradoxically the structure and support Mr. Smith is not providing for his students. 


     The next issue of concern is to deal with the complaints from parents and community concerning unfair grading practices. If Mr. Smith complies with the district’s curriculum and assigns homework, the next step is to address the implementation of those corrected lessons. Mr. Smith’s classes must be periodically monitored to see that he is teaching what he states on his lesson plans and that grades are put in the electronic gradebook (ex. PowerSchool) in a timely manner. Students learn best when they receive timely progress reports on their assignments. Also, if there are any unfair practices they can be quickly monitored and addressed before it causes too much difficulty to students. Finally, if there is a discriminatory problem concerning Mr. Smith’s grading, Principal Jones’ monitoring of the graded assignments will more readily catch this issue and remediate it. 


Precise Plan of Action in Narrative and Chart Form


    The precise plan of action is to place Mr. Smith on a Plan of Action. This plan of action will address the two main areas of concern: (1) deviation from school curriculum--no hands-on labs and lack of adherence to science curriculum framework (2) and complaints of grading practices of student work. This progress or lack of progress is documented through SMART Goals, Action Steps, a Timeline, Persons Responsible for following the PIP procedure, and how each step will be evaluated. 


     Mr. Smith’s SMART Goals, evaluated by Mr. Jones or the assistant principal over the science department, are to give a benchmark or pre-assessment of student outcomes in the science course to be correlated with a midterm test and post-test and an independent test, such as a state test. The goal could be that all Mr. Smith’s students will score one tier (approximately 10 points) higher from his pre-assessment to his post-test.  The state test will also give evidence of progress (benchmark tests before the final). Mr. Smith will then need to focus on curriculum as his student will be assessed by that criterion.


     Some Action Steps for Mr. Smith is a lesson plan format, which has probably already been given to all other teachers in the science department but perhaps has been ignored or overlooked by Mr. Smith. An example could be the following: bellringer, short and lesson overview anchored in a state science standard, one hands-on activity (lab, worksheet--not preferred- or other manipulative) that allows students to apply knowledge on the standard and lesson, and an exit ticket to check for understanding. This lesson plan needs to be placed in an electronic learning platform such as Canvas or Blackboard. This would allow parents and absent students to follow along with lessens, and since Mr. Smith is frequently absent, it holds him accountable for a plan or structure that would benefit his students should a substitute need something to follow.  


     The timeline of the program is the duration of the fall or spring semester, approximately three to six months, but final evaluation must be determined by April in the state of Virginia or Mr. Smith legally may keep his job. He can be transferred but not terminated. 


     The persons responsible for evaluation of this process of PIP remediation of Mr. Smith is the assistant principal over the science department who will report to Principal Jones who will with the assistant principal’s data will make the final recommendation to retain or dismiss Mr. Smith. In either determination, Mr. Smith will be notified in writing whether he has met the criteria set forth in the PIP document. 


     Concerning the teacher’s acknowledgement of plan, Mr. Jones will have a conference with Mr. Smith, and they will complete the form. It is important to note that Mr. Jones will be empathetic but firm in requests. Mr. Jones may also confirm to Mr. Smith acknowledges that these issues are set as perceived problems or issues to address, but may not reflect his acceptance of evaluations by the assistant principal/ principal. The condition for some teachers is the distinction that allows them to sign the evaluations or PIP document.  

 
Performance Improvement Plan

 (adapted from Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers, 2012)

 

      Finally, many difficult teachers need structure and clear and consistent communication of perceived deficiencies. Providing that structure and that communication can oftentimes result in a stronger teacher, and a better culture for the students in the classroom of that teacher, between administration and the teacher, and in the community, turning a no-win situation into a win-win where everyone has the opportunity for success.

 

 
References

Tomal, D. R., Wilhite, R. K., Phillips, B., Sims, P., & Gibson, N. (2015). Supervision and evaluation for
    learning and growth: Strategies for teacher and school leader improvement. Rowman &    Littlefield Publishers.


Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers. (2012). VDOE :
    Virginia Department of Education Home. 
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/regulations/2011_guidelines_uniform_performance standards_evaluation_critera.pdf.            

bottom of page