STATE OF THE STATE

What's the problem with
tenure? Depends whom you ask

by Jennifer Davis

Tenure. Either you love it or you hate it. But do you know what it is? Once a noble institution with a clear purpose, nowadays tenure is a catchall scapegoat — an easy target for politicians eager for something to blame for our nation's educational problems. In the early 1900s, when tenure laws were first enacted in the United States, the policy was popular. It championed academic freedom and teachers' rights. Illinois, in fact, was one of the first states to adopt it.

In the early 1900s, tenure was popular. It championed academic freedom and teachers' rights. Illinois, in fact, was one of the first states to adopt it.

In the 1990s, tenure faces extinction in many states, including Illinois. Its detractors — mainly parents, school administrators and politicians — say it has become the equivalent of a guaranteed lifetime job, shielding bad teachers from justified removal. Its supporters — mainly teachers and teachers' unions — say tenure still protects academic freedom, saving educators from archaic and overbearing administrators.

Actually, it's a little of both, yet basically neither. And therein lies the problem with tenure reform. It is impossible to fix what few people even understand.

"Tenure is a very complex issue. There are a million misconceptions out there," says Kathy Christie, a policy analyst for the Education Commission of the States, a bipartisan, not-for-profit compact that helps state governments with education policy.

For example, Christie says, tenure at the higher education level is night-and-day different from tenure at the K-12 level, although the majority of the public equates the two.

But not having the facts or a grasp on the subject hasn't stopped many states from trying tenure reform, adds Christie, who has researched tenure laws nationwide. Illinois appears poised to join that list.

In his inaugural speech, House Speaker Michael Madigan listed his four priorities for this legislative session, and elementary and secondary education was deemed the "most pressing issue" — specifically funding reform, student discipline and educational accountability.

For Madigan, accountability equals the elimination of teacher tenure.

"You and I don't have a lifetime guarantee of a job. Why should [teachers]?" Madigan asks.

They don't.

What they do have, at least in Illinois, are continuing contracts. Still, most private sector employees, don't, and that's where the animosity surrounding tenure starts, says Christie.

Parents dissatisfied with their children's education jump on tenure as the culprit, and politicians in recent years have been right there backing them up.

Unfortunately, tenure isn't the bad guy.

"You can take the word tenure out of the law, and it doesn't mean you've changed anything," says Christie. "You may still have any number of things, such as fair employment laws or continuing contract laws. Both still ensure due process. Colorado took [tenure] out and added another cause for dismissal several years ago, and they saw no change whatsoever."

Nevertheless, eliminating tenure sure plays well in political circles. Three states — Massachusetts, New Mexico and Oklahoma — have all done it.

Now, state Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a Cook County Republican, has introduced a bill to abolish tenure at the state level in Illinois and give it over to the local school districts to handle.

Yet, Deanna Sullivan of the Illinois Association of School Boards laughs when she considers the bill's chances.

"It won't happen. No way," she says. "We've tried for years to get [legislators] to alter the probationary period, and they won't even deal with that. But, hey, if I'm wrong, then cool."

So, then what is all this tenure talk about? Possibly, Madigan's ace in the hole.

"I absolutely believe that legislators without the courage to do what needs to be done for school funding reform will use tenure or any number of other ploys to get around it," says Sharon Voliva, legislation chair for the Illinois PTA.

"Talk about abolishing tenure is just an attempt to divide the education community."

Elizabeth I. Timmerman, an attorney and assistant professor specializing in tenure, speaks just as plainly.

6 / March 1997 Illinois Issues

"This is just a bargaining chip, pure and simple," says Timmerman, an assistant professor at Illinois State University. "It's a hot topic that immediately polarizes people, which he no doubt knows."

Further, even the members of Sullivan's organization don't believe this is the year to reform tenure laws.

"If legislators want to bring these labor and management issues to the table, then we ask that they do it next year," says Sullivan. "We don't want these extraneous issues to divide us."

And even a member of Madigan's own caucus wonders if tenure reform should really be a priority this year.

Democratic Rep. David Phelps of Eldorado, chairman of the House Elementary and Secondary Committee, says his focus is education funding reform and school construction.

"When we talk about addressing priorities, I think education funding reform is all we need to deal with," says Phelps, adding, however, that any tenure legislation will receive a "fair hearing in my committee."

That teacher unions will fight for tenure is a given.

Immediately after Madigan's call for its elimination, the Illinois Federation of Teachers had a critical press release hand-delivered to every state-house reporter.

Madigan "got one right and one wrong in his first remarks of the 90th General Assembly," IFT president Thomas Reece was quoted as saying. "While the Illinois Federation of Teachers applauds his efforts to make 1997 the year that school funding reform is finally enacted, his personal views regarding tenure did little to further the debate on improving education."

Reece said tenure has become "the latest buzzword and bogeyman in the often heated rhetoric on improving our schools."

"Tenure offers basic due process rights to teachers who have taught more than two years, a probationary process longer than most other private sector employers require for new employees."

Reece promises a fight if Madigan tries to take that away — which may be the whole point.

After all, it is not as though tenure completely ties school boards' hands. It may be hard to fire teachers, but it is not impossible.

"I know for a fact it is possible to remove teachers who don't perform. Our board has done it," says Voliva, speaking as a school board member from Thornton District 205 in Cook County.

She stresses the IPTA has no stance on labor issues.

• "I don't think it is tenure that makes it difficult to fire bad teachers. I believe it is the contracts [between teachers and their school boards]."

According to statistics from the Illinois State Board of Education, there were 38 dismissal notifications statewide in 1995. Of those, nine teachers were dismissed; three reinstated; 11 settled; seven resigned; six cases are still ongoing; and two dismissal requests were withdrawn. In 1996, there were 27 dismissal notifications sent to the State Board of Education. Of those, two teachers were dismissed; one was reinstated; one settled; two resigned; 15 cases are still ongoing; and one request was withdrawn.

Some would say these are not encouraging numbers, but Christie says that still doesn't mean tenure is the problem.

She argues it is due process — that often costly and lengthy schedule of hearings and appeals before dismissal — and not tenure that parents and politicians have a problem with.

"There are legitimate criticisms on both sides," says Christie, a former teacher herself. "Think of the parent who has spent an entire lifetime in the same community. You send your child to third grade and the terrible teacher who was there when you were in school is still there. Those situations do exist."

So, if the timeline for dismissing teachers is the real problem, what's the solution?

Colorado lawmakers believe the solution is to eliminate the hearing and appeal process for dismissal altogether. The proposal would be landmark legislation if it passes, but "it won't go anywhere," says Christie.

Other states have taken different tacks. According to the Education Commission of the States' research:,

* In Utah, local school boards enter into written contracts with teachers which can't exceed five years. Also, the board can terminate the contract at any time as long as there is cause.

* Other states, such as Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii and New York, have all strengthened their evaluation criteria for teachers.

* Massachusetts, in addition to abolishing tenure from its statutes, has also taken steps to tighten that state's due process timelines. So have Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington.

In Illinois, the process to dismiss a tenured teacher can drag on for more than a year, says Kirn Knauer of the State Board of Education. That's even with a fairly tight due process system in place.

But tighter timelines may be the most palatable solution for all, agree Christie and Timmerman.

"Even I say to just throw out tenure is a bad idea," says Timmerman, who spent much of her career supporting the school boards and administrators opposed to it. "Look at it, yes. Modify it, maybe. But throw it out? No."

"Doing away with tenure is popular now because of the public's misconception — I believe — that our public schools are failing. People think, 'It's those lousy teachers we can't fire because of tenure.' Tenure is an easy target when, in reality, the problems we have with education are mostly out of our schools' control. It's what happens outside the classroom."

Still, there is probably no getting around some kind of tenure reform. If not this year, then soon.

"Every state is talking about doing something," says Christie. "And that's not bad. I think good teachers will welcome some reform, and dead wood should be accountable for being dead wood."

Illinois Issues March 1997 / 7