A Review of Personnel Dismissals
by Knox County Schools
During May and June 2015

May 9, 2016

research and analysis by
Lance McCold
Jennifer Owen
Amanda Sanders

This report is dedicated to the Knox County School staff who have been dismissed
without good reason, and to the parents and community members who rose up in
2015 to protest what they believed were unjustified dismissals of school staff.

 A Review of Personnel Dismissals by Knox County Schools During May and June 2015
Lance McCold, Jennifer Owen and Amanda Sanders

Summary
After community members complained, in June and July 2015, that the Knox County Board of
Education policies for terminating teachers were inconsistent and unfair, we reviewed 72
redacted personnel files of KCS staff who were terminated during May and June, 2015. Fortyone of those files were teachers, 18 belonged to teaching assistants, and the others were
custodians, maintenance personnel, security guards and an accountant.
We reviewed redacted personnel files for evidence of possible performance problems, evidence
that the supervisor had worked with the employee to correct problems, evidence that the Human
Resources (HR) department had vetted proposed dismissals to assure Board policies were
being followed, and evidence that the superintendent reviewed proposed dismissals to assure
that they complied with Board policies.
Of 41 teachers who were non-renewed, we found just five with evidence of a possible
performance issue. Of the five with performance issues, just three files show evidence that the
supervisor had worked with the employee to correct the problem. We found no evidence in any
teacher file that either the HR department or the superintendent had attempted to confirm that
the teacher warranted dismissal.
Personnel files of classified staff show inconsistencies throughout, though they were much more
likely to contain information regarding reasons for dismissal. Some dismissals seemed
warranted and others had no evidence of performance problems.
The “Termination” dismissal category is used inconsistently, as is the “Not Recommended for
Continued Employment” category. The latter seems to be used in some cases where problems
indicate prompt termination would be more appropriate. The use of “Administrative Leave” is
another area of inconsistency, but is not addressed in Board policy.
The Board of Education is badly in need of a capacity for audit and review of personnel and
other practices in the schools that is independent of the superintendent.

Background
In June 2015 parents and community members became aware of a process for terminating
employees called “Non-Renewal” after a popular and effective teacher was non-renewed.
Subsequently, the community discovered that maintenance workers, educational assistants and
other staff were being dismissed in an identical manner with a process called, “Not
Recommended for Continued Employment.” Teachers and other KCS staff reported that they
were blindsided by the dismissal, having not received complaints about their performance until
they were told they were being dismissed, and often not even then.

1

 Board of Education policies state, “Efforts shall be made to correct problems which might lead to
the dismissal of school personnel,” (GBNA and GBNB1). If teachers are being blindsided by
being non-renewed, it can only mean that the principal has not made efforts to correct problems.
Policy GBG, regarding non-tenured teachers, spoke directly to the responsibility of the principal,
“The principal is responsible for discussing deficiencies with the non-tenured teacher and
providing assistance for overcoming these deficiencies.”2
Board policies place the full authority and responsibility for deciding whether or not to terminate
an employee with the superintendent (Director of Schools). As such, it is the superintendent's
responsibility to assure that principals are discussing deficiencies with teachers and providing
assistance for overcoming deficiencies.
On June 29, 2015, Cassie Watters made a public records request of Knox County Schools for “a
list of all employees whose service was terminated by Knox County Schools/KCS by any
method during the months of May and June of 2015, including job title or assignment, location
she/he served before termination, the name of the supervisor who recommended she/he for
dismissal, how the employee was terminated (non-renewal, dismissed for cause, dismissed
without cause as an at-will employee, or any other category the school system uses), the
number of years she/he served KCS, age, and race of terminated employees.”
Melissa Ogden fulfilled the request on August 7, 2015. The KCS response included the names
and other information for 73 terminated staff members.
It has since been discovered that the list of 73 dismissed personnel Ms. Ogden provided to Ms.
Watters in June, 2015 was incomplete. Media reports gave the number of non-renewed
teachers at 45, but the list included only 41 non-renewed teachers. In reviewing the list we were
aware of two KCS staff members (including one of us, Sanders) who were dismissed by
reduction in force (RIF), but the list includes not a single RIF.3 In an email dated April 5, 2016,
we requested a list of names that were left off the June 2015 list.
On September 15, Lance McCold requested to review the personnel files of the 73 people
named in the fulfilled request. On January 8, 2016, Ms. Ogden notified him that the files had
been redacted and were ready for review. The redacted files were reviewed by Mr. McCold,
Amanda Sanders and Jennifer Owen on January 12, April 7, and April 21. Due to an oversight,
the file of one terminated security guard was not reviewed, and the results discussed below are
for the 72 files that were reviewed.

Review process
The review was intended to answer four questions:
1. Was there evidence that the employee had a performance problem?
2. Was there evidence that the supervisor worked with the employee to correct the
performance problem?
1 These policies have been renumbered G-380 and G-381.
2 The current policy, G-331, reads, “The principal shall discuss deficiencies as part of the evaluation process with
the non-tenured teacher and shall provide assistance for overcoming these deficiencies.”
3 While the list provided on August 7,2015 did not identify any staff dismissed by RIF, review of the 72 personnel
files revealed one maintenance worker who was dismissed by RIF. Also, the list of terminations included two
teachers for whom the termination code was “non-renew staffing reduction loss”. Because the personnel files for
these two teachers did not indicate a RIF, we treated these two as the same as “non-renew.”

2

 3. Was there evidence that the HR department reviewed termination recommendations to
determine that the termination complied with Board policy before advancing them to the
superintendent for approval?
4. Was there evidence that the superintendent had access to information that would allow
him to distinguish between justified and unjustified terminations?
To address the question of whether terminated employees had a performance problem, we
looked for documentation of poor performance or inappropriate behavior. Such documentation
might include dated notes to file, correspondence with the employee, or documentation of a
meeting with the employee. If no documentation was found, we considered there to be no basis
for concluding that the employee was terminated because of poor performance or inappropriate
behavior.
Readers should be aware that we chose to consider any documented concern, disagreement or
complaint during the preceding year to indicate a “performance problem.” In most cases the
employee did not have a rebuttal in the file. Where the employee had a response to the
complaint, we did not try to decide who was right—we continued to count it as a performance
issue. Just because a principal has an issue with an employee, does not necessarily mean the
employee should be dismissed.
To address the question of whether supervisors were making efforts to correct problems, we
looked for two things:
1. Was there was evidence in the file that clearly articulated performance problems or other
issues had been brought to the attention of the employee? (If a supervisor fails to inform
the employee of his or her failings and what changes are needed, there is no reason to
expect the employee to change behaviors.)
2. Was there evidence that supervisors communicating performance issues soon enough
to allow the employee time to demonstrate that he or she had corrected the problem,
rather than being dismissed? (Holding criticism until a month or less before the
employee is terminated is inconsistent with Board policy.)
To address the question of whether HR staff vetted termination recommendations, we looked for
documentation supplied to HR staff from the supervisor recommending the termination. (If HR
doesn't verify that proposed terminations are warranted, and that supervisors are working with
employees to correct problems before terminating them, it is not doing its duty in implementing
Board policy.)
To address the question of whether the superintendent adequately informed himself about
proposed terminations, we looked for documentation or correspondence sent to the
superintendent from the HR department or from the supervisor explaining why the termination
was appropriate. (The Board of Education counts on the superintendent to implement its
policies. The superintendent's signature on the termination letter should signify that he has
performed his duty fully.)

3

 Results
Of the 72 personnel files reviewed, 40 teachers and one guidance counselor were nonrenewed.4 Seventeen educational assistants were not recommended for continued employment;
one was terminated. Of the 13 other classified staff; custodians, maintenance workers, security
guards and one accountant; four were terminated, eight were not recommended for continued
employment and one maintenance worker was the victim of a reduction in force. See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Job Descriptions for Dismissed KCS Staff May & June 2015

Teachers
Forty-one teachers were non-renewed. Only five of the 41 non-renewed teachers had evidence
in the personnel file of a performance problem. In only three of the five cases where a
performance problem was noted in the file was there evidence that the supervisor had worked
with the employee to correct the problem. In other words, 88% had no evidence of a
performance issue and 93% had no evidence that the teacher had had the opportunity to correct
possible performance issues (Figure 2).
Among the 41 non-renewed teachers, only one had been rehired at KCS school. Given that
88% of non-renewed teachers had spotless records, it is difficult to imagine a good explanation
for the very low rehire rate. We searched Board human resources policies and KCS
administrative procedures and found no policy that restricted rehiring non-renewed teachers.
The only plausible explanation is that the superintendent has an unwritten policy, and it is well
known to principals. Principals' situation isn't very different than non-tenured teachers; the
4 Because we inadvertently overlooked one personnel file, this report addresses only results for 72 employees
dismissed during May and June, 2015.

4

 superintendent has unlimited power to change the employment situation of any principal. Thus,
the superintendent and only the superintendent could enforce such a policy.

Figure 2: Percentages of non-renewed teachers with evidence of performance issues,
& with evidence of a principal working with the teacher prior to non-renewal.
Six non-renewed teachers had received signing bonuses for the 2014-15 school year. One
teacher, hired August 2014 was given a $12,000 signing bonus and non-renewed in May 2015.
The personnel file showed no indication of performance issues. Another teacher who had taught
for six years in Morgan County was hired June 2014, given a $12,000 signing bonus in August,
and non-renewed effective June 1, 2015. She also received a $2,500 TAP mentor bonus. There
was no indication of performance issues in the teacher's personnel file. Three more teachers
were given $12,000 or $3,000 signing bonuses for the 2014-15 school year and non-renewed at
the end of the school year. The $12,000 signing bonuses must be repaid in part by teachers
who resign before the end of three years, but none of these teachers had to repay their signing
bonuses because KCS terminated them.
In all, six non-renewed teachers received signing bonuses for the 2014-15 school year, and only
one of them had any evidence in their file that there was a performance problem. Signing
bonuses are a method the district uses to fill hard-to-fill positions. The district spent over
$40,000 on bonuses for those five non-renewed teachers who had clean records. It is difficult to
understand why the district would allow principals to dismiss teachers without apparent cause in
any case, but it is even more baffling when the district had paid bonus money to hire the
teachers.
The non-renewed teacher who received a signing bonus for the 2014-15 school year and had
indications of performance problems suggests a completely different management problem.
After an incident in the classroom, this teacher was put on “administrative leave” with pay
starting October 17, 2014. It wasn't until March 23, 2015 that a written reprimand for
"unprofessional conduct and interaction with a student in the classroom..." was added to her file.
For reasons the file does not explain, the decision to non-renew the teacher was documented

5

 on January 12, 2015, more than four months before her contract expired on May 22, 2015. So,
the teacher was on paid administrative leave for more than seven months even though the
decision to non-renew her had been made no later than January 12, 2015.
This case raised several questions. If the misbehavior was serious enough to justify
administrative leave, why wasn't she terminated promptly? Why did the principal wait five
months to document the unprofessional conduct? Why was paid administrative leave used? It
seems clear that the Board's intention is that non-tenured teachers not be paid while
performance issues are being investigated; Policy GBNB (now G-381) states, “Under no
circumstances shall the Director of Schools dismiss or suspend a non-tenured teacher with
pay.”
The use of paid administrative leave in this case led us to look for policies or procedures that
govern its use. We found no Board policy describing how administrative leave, with or without
pay, should be should be used. The only mention of administrative leave in Board policies is in
policy G-201, regarding drug testing of employee if suspected of misusing drugs. KCS
procedures G-460, Administrative Leave, and G-463-3, Administrative Leave Without Pay are
clearly intended to be initiated by the employee, not management. There are several policies
related to suspension related to incidents or performance issues, but none of them addresses
administrative leave. It appears that the administration's use of administrative leave with pay is
not authorized by Board policy or administrative procedures.
Sixty percent (25) of the 41 non-renewed teachers had been with the district for three years or
less. Only three of those with the school system three years or less had any evidence of a
possible performance issue. Forty percent (17) of the 41 non-renewed teachers were hired at
the beginning of the school year. Only two of those who were with the district for one year had
any evidence of a possible performance issue or any evidence that the principal worked with
them to improve performance. Some of those new hires had just earned their teaching licenses.
Like any professional, new teachers need mentoring and experience to perfect their skills. After
a single year's experience, a new teacher is just getting her or his feet on the ground. It makes
no sense for the district to spend money to hire new teachers only to terminate them after a
single year. This practice is also deeply unfair to fledgling teachers. They have a right to expect
mentoring and help developing their skills. Instead, by non-renewing them when there have
been no performance issues, KCS gives them a black mark on their record that may prevent
them from getting another teaching position. Dismissing teachers in which the district has
invested two or three years training is even more wasteful to the District and equally harmful to
the teachers.
Educational Assistants
Eighteen educational assistants (EAs) were dismissed during May and June of 2015.
Seventeen were “Not recommended for continued employment” (NRCE). The eighteenth was
terminated because she stopped coming to work; an example of a legitimate reason for
termination for cause.
Of the 17 NRCE EAs, seven (39%) personnel files showed no evidence of a performance issue.
Among the 10 files that showed evidence of a performance issue, seven (39%) showed
evidence that the supervisor had worked with the employee. These results suggest supervisors
were more likely to work with EAs with performance issues than with teachers (Figure 3).

6

 Figure 3: Proportion of dismissed educational assistants with evidence of performance
issues & evidence that supervisor worked with employee before dismissal

One file for an EA stood out because it was the only instance of a letter from a supervisor
stating, “It is not our intention to keep [...] from working in Knox County Schools.” Actually, it
seems to be much easier for an EA who was NRCE to be rehired than a teacher. Five of the 17
NRCE EAs were rehired by KCS, though not all as EAs. Evidently, non-renewal of a teacher is a
more serious handicap to being rehired than a NRCE is for an EA, even though the EA who was
NRCE is much more likely to have had performance issues noted in her or his file.
Other Classified Staff
The 13 non-EA classified staff files we inspected included five custodians, four skilled
maintenance people, three security guards, and one accountant. Four of these staff members
were dismissed by termination, eight were dismissed by NRCE and one by RIF.
Excluding the person dismissed by RIF, five of the remaining 12 had no indication of
performance issues. The supervisor appeared to work with four of the seven staff with
indications of possible performance issues. There was no indication that the supervisor had
worked with the remaining three who had possible performance issues.
There was no indication of performance issues in the files of the three dismissed security
guards, one by NRCE and two by termination. One of the terminated security guards involved
the use of administrative leave with pay. She was put on leave April 8, 2015 and terminated May
8, after 25 days of paid administrative leave. As noted above, there appear to be no KCS
policies and procedures for the use of administrative leave, with or without pay, except around
drug testing, policy G-201.

7

 Conclusions and Recommendations
We began this investigation to look for evidence that would support or refute the reports that
KCS employees, especially teachers, were dismissed arbitrarily, often without meaningful
warning. Unfortunately, the evidence supports such reports. The personnel files we examined
suggest inconsistencies with Board policy throughout, but the evidence was clearest for
teachers. Of the 41 teachers whose files we inspected, only in five cases did we find evidence
of a performance issue. And in only three of the five cases was there evidence that the
supervisor worked with the employee to correct the problem.
Non-renewals of teachers are problematic in many ways. The pattern of dismissals is contrary
to Board policy that clearly expects principals to work with teachers to correct problems. Nonrenewals without apparent justification lead to a loss of teachers that the HR department had
spent much time and effort to hire and train, not to mention the loss of teaching talent.
These apparently unjustified non-renewals cause serious morale problems. It is easy to
understand how teachers who remain on the job while their peers are being dismissed learn to
fear doing anything to make the principal unhappy or to speak up about their concerns. An
environment of fear is incompatible with keeping high quality teachers on the job and
maintaining a good learning environment for students.
There is no evidence that that either the HR department or the superintendent is reviewing
principals' use of non-renewals. While state law allows employees to be terminated for any or
no reason, good management would certainly include review by HR and the superintendent.
Board policy shows a clear expectation that, “Efforts shall be made to correct problems which
might lead to the dismissal.” If, as it appears, that the superintendent has failed to verify that
such efforts have been made, he has failed to fulfill his responsibility as superintendent. Board
policies place the full authority and responsibility for deciding whether or not to terminate an
employee with the superintendent.
We found nothing in Board policies or administrative procedures that say a non-renewed
teacher should not be rehired. Still, the fact that only one of 41 non-renewed teachers was
rehired indicates at least great prejudice against rehiring non-renewed teachers. The fact that
36 of the 41 had no indications of performance problems shows that the presumption against
rehiring non-renewed teachers is unwarranted.
With regard to non-renewal of teachers, we recommend that the Board of Education take the
following actions:
1. Suspend the use of non-renewal for dismissing teachers, until an independent review of
HR practices has been performed.
2. Adopt policies stating that, when approving employee dismissals, the superintendent
shall provide written documentation to the board and to the employee's file that he has
personally verified the dismissal is justified and that the supervisor made reasonable
and appropriate efforts to correct problems before recommending the employee be
dismissed.
3. Instruct the superintendent to direct his principals not to consider non-renewal, in itself,
as reason not to rehire non-renewed teachers,
4. Remove the “non-renewal” language from the record of each staff member whose file
lacks evidence of performance issues, and

8

 5. Direct the superintendent to instruct HR to give priority to hiring previously non-renewed
teachers who do not have a record of performance issues.
For classified staff, the “not recommended for continued employment” (NRCE) dismissal
category seems to be used essentially the same way as non-renewal is for teachers. Among the
17 EAs who were dismissed by NRCE, only 10 had files that indicated any performance
problem. Seven of the 10 showed indications that the supervisor had made an effort to correct
the performance problems. Despite the higher frequency of performance problems, being
dismissed by NRCE is less of a handicap to being rehired than non-renewal is for teachers.
Personnel files of other classified staff show the same inconsistencies found in files of EAs.
Some dismissals seemed warranted and others had no evidence of performance problems. The
termination dismissal category is used inconsistently. It was used for three staff who stopped
coming to work, and for two staff whose personnel files indicated spotless records.
Similarly, NRCE seems to be used in some cases where problems indicate prompt termination
would be more appropriate. The Board of Education should direct the superintendent to
suspend the use of NRCE until clear policies are established for when it can be used and when
termination should be used.
We found two instances of paid administrative leave who were ultimately dismissed. The most
egregious case was a teacher who was put on administrative leave with pay for seven months
after which she was non-renewed. We cannot understand the reason for wasting school funds
by keeping someone on paid leave for so long, only to be dismissed. Board policies address
various kinds of leave, military, medical and so on, but we could find no policy that addresses
administrative leave. The Board should instruct the superintendent to suspend the use of
administrative leave until the Board adopts policies on administrative leave with and without pay.
The superintendent has sole authority to terminate (via non-renewal or other methods) staff.
With the authority comes responsibility to assure that such personnel actions are appropriate
and in accord with Board policy. Consequently, we expected to find correspondence from the
HR department or from the supervisor recommending termination to the superintendent
explaining why a dismissal was warranted. We did not find a single example of such
correspondence.
The absence of such correspondence suggests that the superintendent is not fulfilling his duty
to assure that dismissals are warranted and in the best interest of the school system. The Board
of Education should instruct the superintendent to document, in the employee's personnel file,
his rationale for approving each individual dismissal by whatever method.
No two people are the same. Work assignments are seldom exactly the same—certainly not in
a school system. Decisions about hiring and dismissal are complicated and usually subjective.
Of course, managers are just as variable and fallible as the employees who report to them.
Employment policies and HR departments are efforts to structure employer-employee relations
in a way that protects the interests of the employer assuring fairness to the employee. Without
good rules and an HR department to enforce them, human failings lead to a hostile workplace
and inefficient use of people.
In an ideal world, the superintendent, HR department, or other internal mechanism would
assure that the kinds of problems described above did not exist, and there would be no need for
the Board or for community oversight. In the real world, we know that inadequate oversight

9

 inevitably leads to corruption or worse. The Board exists to provide sufficient oversight to
prevents such problems.
However, it is clear that the Board does not have the capacity to uncover problems in school
operations. The flaws in Knox County Schools' dismissal practices noted here have only come
to light because concerned citizens navigated daunting administrative hurdles and invested
significant effort to uncover them. Just as the Board cannot rely on the superintendent to reveal
information that would reflect badly on his performance, it cannot rely on citizens to do what the
three of us have done that led to this report. If the Board is to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility of
providing oversight of the superintendent, his administration, and the schools, it needs to have
accurate information that is independent of the superintendent and his administration.
To fulfill its responsibility, the Board of Education needs to conduct ongoing, independent review
of personnel and other practices in the schools. The Board should establish a KCS audit
function consisting of employees, over whom the superintendent has no authority, whose only
job is to monitor and investigate school operations and report its findings directly to the Board.
The ideal situation would seem to be a group that is paid by the Board and is administered by
the Board. However, it might be more convenient to have the audit group administered by Knox
County's government, but directed entirely by the Board. However it is arranged, it is clear that
the Board will be unable to fulfill its responsibility supervise the schools until it has an
independent research and/or audit capability.

10