When a Tennessee school district has to cut teaching positions, how does the law treat tenured versus non-tenured teachers, and who gets put on the rehire list?

Plain-English summary

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti answered eleven questions from State Senator Sara Kyle about how Tennessee's teacher reduction-in-force (RIF) statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b), actually works. The headline: tenure status does not control RIF outcomes. The statute focuses on teacher effectiveness as measured by performance evaluations under § 49-1-302, not on whether a teacher has tenure.

Concrete points the AG made:

• Tenured and non-tenured teachers get the same statutory protections during a RIF. The statute does not distinguish between them.
• Decisions about who is dismissed turn on "level of effectiveness" from performance evaluations, so a non-tenured teacher with stronger ratings could displace a tenured teacher with weaker ratings.
• Teachers rated in the top three evaluation categories who are dismissed because of a position abolition must be placed on a "preferred list for employment" (also called the "list for reemployment"). Tenure is irrelevant for inclusion on that list.
• The director of schools keeps broad discretion in filling vacancies. The director may consider a teacher's "competence, compatibility, and suitability" for a specific opening, separate from the § 49-1-302 evaluation. The director is allowed to make that assessment but is not required to.
• Only the LEA (local education agency) can dismiss a tenured teacher. The director of schools cannot do it alone.
• A RIF can happen mid-school-year. The statute does not lock dismissal to the end of the academic year.

The AG also clarified that the term "preferred list" simply describes the list of higher-rated teachers the LEA should favor when hiring; it does not create a strict ranking among teachers on the list, and a principal may still refuse a placement to their school.

What this means for you

If you are a Tennessee teacher facing a possible RIF

Your tenure status will not save you, and the absence of tenure will not by itself doom you. What matters most is your evaluation rating under § 49-1-302. If you are in the top three categories, you have a statutory right to be placed on the preferred list when your position is abolished. Confirm in writing that the LEA has placed you on the list, and keep records of your evaluation history.

You stay on the list until you accept a bona fide offer of a comparable position with the LEA, or until you reject four such offers. Track every offer in writing and ask for the LEA's basis for considering it "comparable."

If you are a school administrator or director of schools

You retain real authority. The "preferred list" is a list of priority candidates, not a binding hiring queue. You can still evaluate competence, compatibility, and suitability for the specific opening, and a principal may decline a placement to their building. But you must place every top-three-rated dismissed teacher on the list, and dismissals must follow the effectiveness-based scheme. Skipping the list, or treating it as advisory, exposes the LEA to challenge.

Remember that you cannot unilaterally dismiss a tenured teacher. That authority belongs to the local board.

If you sit on a local school board

This opinion confirms that you (the LEA), not the director of schools, hold the dismissal power for tenured teachers. When approving a RIF, document the basis in performance evaluations and confirm the resulting preferred list. If your board has been delegating tenured-teacher dismissals to the director, fix that practice.

If you are an education attorney representing teachers or districts

Disputes about who "should have" been dismissed will turn on effectiveness ratings and on the LEA's process, not on tenure. The opinion explicitly endorses non-tenured teachers displacing tenured teachers when ratings warrant. It also reads "preferred list" and "list for reemployment" as synonyms, removing one common ambiguity. The director's separate "competence, compatibility, and suitability" review is a power, not a duty, so a failure to perform that review is not by itself a statutory violation.

Common questions

Q: Does tenure protect a teacher from a reduction in force in Tennessee?
A: No. The statute does not distinguish between tenured and non-tenured teachers in deciding who is dismissed. Both groups can be cut, and both groups receive the same statutory rights. Effectiveness ratings, not tenure, drive outcomes.

Q: Can a non-tenured teacher displace a tenured teacher in a RIF?
A: Yes, potentially. The LEA dismisses based on level of effectiveness. A higher-rated non-tenured teacher can survive a RIF that takes out a lower-rated tenured colleague.

Q: Who has to be put on the preferred list for reemployment?
A: Any teacher dismissed because of a position abolition who is rated in the top three categories under § 49-1-302. Tenure status is not a criterion for inclusion.

Q: How long do I stay on the preferred list?
A: Until you accept a "bona fide offer for reemployment for a comparable position" within the LEA, or you reject four such bona fide offers.

Q: Are teachers on the preferred list ranked, with the most senior or most tenured at the top?
A: No. The AG read the statute as not assigning rank or order among list members. The director of schools picks among them based on the standard evaluation framework and the director's separate assessment of competence, compatibility, and suitability.

Q: Can a principal refuse a teacher placed by the director of schools?
A: Yes. The statute expressly preserves a principal's authority to refuse a director-assigned placement.

Q: Can the LEA dismiss a tenured teacher mid-year because of a RIF?
A: Yes. The statute does not require the LEA to wait until the end of the school year. The trigger is the underlying need to reduce positions, not the calendar.

Q: Can the director of schools dismiss a tenured teacher acting alone?
A: No. Dismissal authority for tenured teachers is held by the LEA itself and has not been delegated to the director by statute.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee's teacher RIF statute went through significant changes over the past decade and a half. The current text of § 49-5-511(b) ties RIF decisions to evaluation scores under § 49-1-302, the statewide teacher evaluation framework that emerged in the early 2010s. A 2014 amendment removed earlier language about filling "the first vacancy the teacher is qualified by training and experience to fill," which had previously locked LEAs into a more rigid sequencing. The Tennessee Court of Appeals decisions interpreting the pre-2014 version (such as Lee v. Franklin Special School District Board of Education, 237 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)) have limited application to the present statute.

The "preferred list for employment" / "list for reemployment" terminology runs through subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4). The AG read the two phrases as describing the same list, with the word "preferred" signaling that the LEA should favor those teachers over outside candidates when filling comparable positions, not that there is an ordered ranking within the list itself.

Authority to dismiss tenured teachers sits with the local school board (the LEA) under § 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE). Kelley v. Shelby County Board of Education, 198 F. Supp. 3d 842, 853 (W.D. Tenn. 2016), confirms that this authority has not been delegated to the director of schools.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b) (Reduction in force; preferred list)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-302 (Teacher performance evaluations)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE) (Authority to dismiss tenured teachers)

Cases:
- Kelley v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 3d 842 (W.D. Tenn. 2016) (director of schools cannot unilaterally dismiss tenured teachers)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2026/op26-004.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
March 20, 2026
Opinion No. 26-04
Reduction-in-Force Provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)
Senator Kyle of Memphis submitted a series of eleven questions regarding the reduction-
in-force provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b). The questions are set forth below with the
opinion following each question. Where more than one question covers the same topic, they have
been combined.
ANALYSIS
Question 1 and 2
When a reduction in teaching positions becomes necessary within a Local Education
Agency (LEA), what statutory rights are afforded to tenured teachers?
Does the most current version of the statute afford any protections to non-tenured teachers?
Opinions 1 and 2
Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-511(b), which sets forth procedures and rights when a
reduction in force (RIF) becomes necessary, makes no distinction for tenured or non-tenured
teachers; the same protections are afforded to both. That statute gives teachers the following
statutory protections:
(1) a dismissal due to a reduction in force is tied to level of effectiveness determined
by performance evaluations under Tenn. Code Ann. 49-1-302;
(2) the teacher must receive written notice of dismissal with full explanation of
circumstances and conditions making dismissal necessary; and
(3) certain teachers are placed on a reemployment list based on their effectiveness
ratings.
It should be noted that tenured teachers may be dismissed only by the LEA. The authority
to dismiss tenured teachers has not been delegated by statute to the director of schools. Tenn.
Code. Ann. § 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE); see Kelley v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 3d 842,
853 (W.D. Tenn. 2016).
2
Question 3
What are the key differences between the 2012 and 2014 versions of Tenn. Code Ann. §
49-5-511?
Opinion 3
Which statutory differences are most important likely depends on the reader. Therefore,
we are providing a full comparison of the two versions to the requester.
Question 4
In the event of a Reduction in Force (RIF), may non-tenured teachers be displaced by
tenured teachers?
Opinion 4
Potentially yes. The LEA is empowered to dismiss teachers and non-licensed employees
based on their "level of effectiveness," which may result in non-tenured teachers being displaced
by tenured teachers in a RIF situation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1).
Question 5
Regarding Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(4)(A), (B), what is the statutory interpretation
of the term "preferred list" for employment? Since "preferred" is not explicitly defined in the
Tennessee Code, does it take on its ordinary and natural meaning?
Opinion 5
The phrases "the preferred list for employment" and "list for reemployment" appear in
Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) and (4) and are synonymous. To construe a statute,1
"we must
decide 'how a reasonable reader, fully competent in the language, would have understood the text
at the time it was issued.'" State v. Deberry, 651 S.W.3d 918, 924 (2022) (quoting ANTONIN
SCALIA & BRIAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 33 (2012)).
And we must give statutory words their "natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which
they appear and in light of the statute's general purpose." Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d
818, 827 (Tenn. 2015) (cleaned up). Subsection (b)(3) refers to the "list for reemployment" on
which certain teachers must be placed when dismissed due to a reduction of force. Subsection
(b)(4) then refers to the terms of the employee's "right to remain on the preferred list." These two
consecutive subsections plainly contemplate the same list.
1
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has construed the term "preferred list" on multiple occasions but only as to earlier
versions of the statute. See Lee v. Franklin Special Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 237 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Effective July 1, 2014, subsection (b)(3) was amended to remove the phrase "in the first vacancy the teacher is
qualified by training and experience to fill" after "list for reemployment." Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3)
(2012) with § 49-5-511(b)(3) (2014). This amendment changed the fundamental purpose of the list and thus the
interpretation of "preferred" in subsection (b)(4). Cases like Lee therefore have limited application to the interpretative
task at hand.
3
Subsection(b)(3) requires that "[a] teacher rated in the three (3) highest categories based
on evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302" and dismissed due to a reduction in force, be placed on a
list for reemployment. Subsection (b)(4) then requires that the teacher remain on the list until
"accepting a bona fide offer for reemployment for a comparable position within the LEA" or
"rejects four (4) bona fide offers for reemployment for comparable positions within the LEA." The
phrase "preferred list" describes the "list for reemployment," and permits teachers to remain on
the list until certain, enumerated conditions are met. Id. No distinction is made between tenured
and non-tenured teachers. Nor can rank or order be attributed to the way teachers are selected
from the list for comparable positions within the LEA for offers of reemployment.
The use of the undefined word "preferred" to describe the list of teachers in § 49-5-
511(b)(4) indicates that teachers who receive the highest ratings on their evaluations under § 49-
1-302 are to be considered more favorably over less effective teachers who are rated lower based
on the same evaluations. See Davis v. Reilly, 683 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tenn. 2024) ("When the
statute does not define a term, we may look to authoritative dictionaries"); PREFERRED, BLACK'S
LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) ("Possessing or accorded a priority or privilege; favored").
Thus, the terms "list for reemployment" and "preferred list for employment" indicate that the
teachers appear on this list because of their level of performance and should be favored by the
LEA over less effective teachers.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the phrases "the preferred list for employment" and "list
for reemployment" mean a list of teachers "rated in the three (3) highest categories based on
evaluations pursuant to § 49-1-302," regardless of tenure status, who should be considered for
employment by the LEA over other candidates when filling comparable positions within the LEA.
The preference given to employees on the "preferred list" in Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) is
not absolute, however, as that subsection preserves a director of schools' broad discretion in
determining how to fill vacancies, and "a principal may refuse to accept the placement or transfer
of a teacher by the director of schools to the principal's school."
Questions 6 and 7
Is it a statutory requirement that teachers be placed on the preferred list for employment at
the time of their dismissal?
Are LEAs obligated under the statute to include non-tenured teachers on the preferred list
for employment?
Opinions 6 and 7
If certain conditions are met, yes. A teacher has a right to be included on the preferred list
for employment only if "it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions or
nonlicensed positions in the system because of a decrease in enrollment or for other good reasons"
and that teacher is "rated in the three (3) highest categories based on evaluations pursuant to § 49-
1-302" and "has been dismissed because of abolition of a position." Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-
511(b)(3).
4
Question 8
Do tenured teachers listed on the preferred list have statutory priority or preferential rights
to reemployment over nontenured teachers, including new hires, teachers on transitional licenses
or waivers, or individuals employed without a valid teaching license?
Opinion 8
No. Section 49-5-511 does not distinguish between tenured and nontenured teachers.
Question 9
Can tenured teachers be dismissed prior to the conclusion of the academic year as a result
of a Reduction in Force?
Opinion 9
Yes. The board is empowered to dismiss teachers, tenured or otherwise, "[w]hen it
becomes necessary to reduce the number of teaching positions" due to an enrollment decrease or
other good reasons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(1). The statute does not address when the
reduction in force occurs.
Question 10
Is the Director of Schools required to assess the competence, capability, and suitability of
a teacher who has been placed on the preferred list for employment?
Opinion 10
No. But Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) preserves the director of schools' "power to
determine the filling of [a] vacancy on the basis of the director of schools' evaluation of the
teacher's competence, compatibility, and suitability . . . in light of the best interest of the students
in the school where the vacancy exists." In other words, the director of schools has the power to
assess competence, capability, and suitability of a teacher but has no requirement to.
Question 11
Is the evaluation of a teacher's competence, capability, and suitability by the Director of
Schools distinct from the performance evaluation conducted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-
302?
Opinion 11
Yes. The first sentence of Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-511(b)(3) refers to the § 49-1-302
evaluation and requires that teachers rated in the three highest categories be placed on a list for
reemployment. Sentence two states, "Nothing in this subsection (b) shall be construed to deprive
the director of schools of the power to determine the filling of such vacancy on the basis of the
director of schools' evaluation of the teacher's competence, compatibility, and suitability to
properly discharge the duties required for the vacant position considered in the light of the best
interest of the students in the school where the vacancy exists." The second sentence recognizes
5
the director of schools' ability to exercise independent judgment to evaluate the suitability of a
candidate for an open position apart from the § 49-1-302 evaluation.
JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter
JAMES P. URBAN
Senior Deputy Attorney General
ANDREW GRAMS
Assistant Attorney General
Requested By:
The Honorable Sara Kyle
State Senator
425 Rep. John Lewis Way N.
Suite 760 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville TN, 37243