A Grievance Checklist of Tests for Unfair Evaluation

• Cited facts are inaccurate
• The evaluation failed to consider constraints/special conditions (e.g. overcrowding, school conditions, inclusion factors), extenuating or mitigating circumstances.
• The evaluator is not competent to evaluate in teacher's field and/or lacks understanding of current acceptable pedagogical practice or board policy or law.
• The evaluator relied on hearsay.
• The evaluator failed to observe the teacher for a sufficient amount of time to make valid judgment
• The evaluator failed to give the teacher adequate forewarning of the down rating: did not give the teacher sufficient time or assistance to improve; did not specify the incompetent performance or unprofessional conduct with such particularity as to furnish the teacher with adequate opportunity to make sufficient improvement; did not offer specific suggestions and recommendations for improvement (issues of timing or 'surprises' in final evaluation).
• The evaluation is excessive for the wrongs cited.
• The wrongs cited do not adversely affect student or co-workers to any material extent.
• Down rating is for an assignment outside the teacher's field.
• Objectives, goals, standards or rules cited are so broad as to be vague.
• Objectives, goals, standards or rules are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and/or impossible to attain.
• Cited standards or rules have not been applied/enforced consistently for similarity-situated teachers.
• Cited deficiencies violate constitutional guarantees of free speech, association, political advocacy or standards of academic freedom accepted in the profession.
• Teacher not given/denied opportunity to confront accusers.
• Adverse citations occurred before the evaluation and did not recur.
• Adverse citation(s) is a "one-time" occurrence.
• Evaluation ignores past record of achievement and unjustly punishes teacher for a single recent wrong which is not likely to recur.
• Performance has been adversely affected by extreme stress and duress due to unreasonable administration harassment.
• The final evaluation cites deficiencies that were not brought to the teacher's attention at any other time during the evaluation cycle.

• Sufficient grounds to challenge the evaluation in the form of a grievance.
• Sufficient grounds to challenge the judgment that an improvement or remediation plan is needed.
• The foundation for challenging whether personnel action taken against a teacher because of the negative evaluation was based on due process and just cause.