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

The opinion holds that § 49-5-511(b) makes no distinction between tenured and non-tenured teachers; both receive the same statutory protections, and dismissal turns on "level of effectiveness" from § 49-1-302 evaluations rather than on tenure. A teacher rated in the three highest evaluation categories who is dismissed because of a position abolition must be placed on the list for reemployment (the "preferred list"), regardless of tenure status. Under § 49-5-511(b)(4), the opinion holds that a teacher remains on that list until accepting a bona fide offer of a comparable position within the LEA or rejecting four such offers.

If you are a school administrator or director of schools

The opinion holds that the LEA must place every top-three-rated dismissed teacher on the reemployment list, but that "preferred" signals a priority over less effective candidates rather than a fixed ranking among listed teachers. Section 49-5-511(b)(3) preserves the director's power to fill a vacancy based on the director's own evaluation of a teacher's "competence, compatibility, and suitability," and the statute lets a principal refuse a director's placement. The AG read that competence assessment as a power, not a duty (Opinions 10 and 11). The opinion also holds that only the LEA, not the director acting alone, may dismiss a tenured teacher (§ 49-2-301(b)(1)(EE)).

If you sit on a local school board

The opinion holds that the authority to dismiss tenured teachers rests with the LEA and has not been delegated by statute to the director of schools, citing Kelley v. Shelby County Board of Education. It also holds that a RIF dismissal may occur before the end of the academic year, because the statute does not address timing.

If you are an education attorney representing teachers or districts

The opinion holds that RIF outcomes turn on effectiveness ratings rather than tenure, and that a higher-rated non-tenured teacher may displace a lower-rated tenured teacher (Opinion 4). It reads "preferred list for employment" and "list for reemployment" as synonyms for the same list (Opinion 5), and treats the director's "competence, compatibility, and suitability" review as distinct from the § 49-1-302 evaluation and as discretionary rather than required (Opinions 10 and 11).

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