Firing teachers over student test scores is unproven science and at this stage it is pseudo-science. Due process of law under the Daubert standard requires that scientific evidence be subject to proof. One document in support of teacher firing is the:
Maura Larkins writes on the firing teacher effort here:
Fire them all with bad students and let God sort it out is not a scientifically proven method of managing education. Firing every teacher with a failing class is pseudo science at this stage. Firing public employees on the basis of pseudo science is denial of due process of law. It fails to prove the basis of policy is scientifically valid.
There is no scientific proof that mass firings nationwide of teachers of poor students will raise education standards in any meaningful way. Doing so violates the Daubert standard of proof. These firings are violating the nature of the employment agreement of teachers and schools. Firings are supposed to be for cause when they fire public employees. Firings motivated by non cause reasons of pseudo science fail to hold up to even casual scrutiny in this case.
Although Daubert applies to evidence in court, mass firings by government also need to be reasonable. They also have due process of law requirements. Firing teachers over poor students is not reasonable because it is not based on science. Nor does it provide them due process of law because it is based on unfounded pseudo-science.
The Daubert Standard can be used to evaluate other government action. Where that government action is based on reputed science, that science has to be validated for the government action to meet standards of reasonability and due process of law. Termination of employment contracts based on pseudo-science is at a minimum bad public policy and may violate the due process of law standard.
Due process of law in teacher contracts has come before the Supreme Court already.
In the absence of a state tenure statute, a teacher can still attain de facto tenure rights if the customs or circumstances of employment demonstrate that a teacher has a “legitimate claim of entitlement for job tenure.” The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in the case of Perry v. Sindermann, which also held that where a teacher has attained de facto tenure, the teacher is entitled to due process prior to dismissal by the school district.
The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the evidence obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.
Pseudo-science to fire teachers of poor students nationwide in mass firings is inherently denial of due process. It fails to meet any test of scrutiny or reasonableness. It is not based on any scientific findings that it will improve education outcomes.
Any government action subject to a due process or other challenge in court is subject to the Daubert standard. This is because to defend its action in court it would have to use evidence admissible in court. If the pseudo-science is not fit to be admitted, then it can’t be used to justify the government action in court. So the original government action itself has to use science that meets the Daubert standard. This is required to meet the due process standard in court if its action is challenged in court.
Mass firings of teachers because of poor student test scores does not meet the Daubert standard of scientific evidence. Thus it is a violation of due process of law. The pseudo-science in support of it can’t be admitted and so can’t be used to justify it in the first place as government policy.