Thomas A. Kersten Planning and Changing Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 TEACHER TENURE: ILLINOIS SCHOOLBOARD PRESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Introduction For nearly five decades, improving the quality of public education has been a focus of local, state, and federal educational priorities. As evi- dence of flat or declining student achievement mounted and national reports such as ANation at Risk highlighted the perceived deficiencies of our United States public education system, more and more questions began to be raised about the quality of public schools (Green, 2001; Senge et al., 2000). In response to these concerns, myriad diverse educational initiatives were developed to address particular perceived needs. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s educators responded to calls for improvement with such highly visible programs as “hands-on” versus textbook-driven science programs, increased emphasis on mathematics including the introduction of “new math,” and an array of compensatory education programs geared toward underachieving students (Beyer & Johnson, 2005; Kilpatrick, 1997; Unger, 2001). From the 1970s through the 1990s, multiple reform efforts surged onto the national education agenda including criterion referenced and back-to-basics curricula, differentiated instruction, expanded faculty collaboration in decision making, state student assessment programs includ- ing learning standards and high stakes testing, and much more (Hunt, 2005; Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Fullen,1993). While several initiatives were relatively short lived, others continued to evolve. One of the most promi- nent examples of this evolutionary process was the 2001 reauthorization of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, re-titled No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB marks an important turning point in public education gov- ernance. Rather than merely recognizing the responsibility and authority for school improvement at the local school board and state levels as had been tradition, federal officials asserted themselves squarely in the educa- tional improvement process by linking federal funding to increased stu- dent achievement. By expecting that student assessment measures be aligned with individual state-identified content area standards and tied to mandated student performance levels with graduated penalties for failure to meet them, the federal government signaled a more direct role in educa- tional improvement efforts (Beyer & Johnson, 2005). In addition to the student achievement provisions, an equally important centerpiece of NCLB is its focus on teacher qualifications. Since current educational researchers have confirmed a link between effective teachers and increased student achievement (Tucker & Stronge, 2005; Stronge, 2002; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Fullen, 2001; Danielson & McGreal, 2000), one of the most important NCLB require- ments may ultimately be mandating that school districts employ “highly qualified” teachers: those who earn bachelor’s degrees, are fully certified, and prove subject area competence (Mosley, 2006; Beyer & Johnson, 234 Teacher Tenure 2005). If, as recent research has indicated, teacher quality truly accounts for a significant portion of the difference between high and low achieving students, the hiring and retention of the most effective teachers and the dismissal of poor performers may be two of the most crucial decisions school administrators and boards of education make (Stronge, 2002). Yet, how much autonomy do school administrators and boards of education have to make these important decisions? The reality is that, throughout the United States, they often face substantial obstacles to implement effective teacher evaluation and dismissal, particularly with faculty members who are perceived as mediocre or below average per- formers. These obstacles include state teacher tenure laws, collective bar- gaining agreements, and teacher unions that typically resist most attempts to dismiss teachers. In fact, school administrators who are primarily responsible for leading the school-level improvement process identify teacher unions and state tenure laws as significant impediments to bring- ing about productive change (Kersten & Israel, 2005). This disconnect between school district leadership and teacher unions over teacher tenure laws, particularly in light of mounting evidence that the employment of effective teachers makes a real difference in student achievement, is a concern for the educational community. This article reports on a study of Illinois school board presidents’ perspectives on teacher tenure. It begins with a historical overview of the development of teacher tenure from its roots in the 1880s civil service leg- islation through the establishment of teacher tenure in the United States to an examination of current teacher tenure laws and issues in Illinois. After establishing this historical context, the article describes the results of a research survey of 118 school board presidents regarding eleven key tenure issues linked to both the historical basis for tenure and current liter- ature. It also summarizes their suggestions for modifying the current Illi- nois tenure law. Historical Background In order to examine how the school leadership and teacher union disconnect evolved, an understanding of teacher tenure and its historical development in the United States is helpful. A substantial portion of the historical background for this study was drawn from Huvare’s 1997 com- prehensive, archival study of teacher tenure in Illinois. Definitions Tenure. The authority for teacher tenure resides with individual states and is typically codified in state law. Although it varies from state to state, tenure can be defined as a continuing contract that “…bestows a prop- erty right to employment in the district until the employee retires, resigns, dies, is terminated, or agrees to a change in contract status” (Stader, 2007, p. 245). If tenure is a constitutionally guaranteed property right, tenured teach- ers cannot be arbitrarily dismissed and must be provided due process (Ellis, Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 235 Kersten 2005; ECS, 1999). In addition, not only are boards of education responsible for proving that a teacher dismissal is warranted, they are also required to provide substantial evidence. Because of these requirements, dismissing a tenured teacher, particularly one who is merely a below average performer, is quite complex (Stader, 2007; Kemerer & Crain, 2005). Below average teacher performance. As McGreal (1983) pointed out when discussing the assessment of teacher performance, “The com- plexity of the measurement problems prevents any definition of success or effectiveness at an empirical level” (p. viii). For purposes of this study, below average or mediocre teachers are defined as faculty members whom stakeholders perceive to be performing below a satisfactory level but not poor enough to be dismissed under the present tenure law. Although this definition is perception-based rather than empirical, it reflects the common perception among many Illinois stakeholders. History of Teacher Tenure Since the founding of our nation, the linking of political party affil- iation and favoritism was a common practice. Amember of a sitting politi- cal party would often offer employment to friends and supporters. Such patronage positions were a natural part of the political spoils system. How- ever, as patronage system abuses mounted, so did public dissatisfaction. As a consequence, in the early 1880s Ohio Senator George H. Pendleton established the National Civil Service League which worked for passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883. This legislation created the United States civil service system designed to employ and retain employees on merit rather than party affiliation and political favoritism. Although this legislation did not include state employees such as public school teachers, it did lay the foundation for future teacher tenure laws. (Huvaere, 1997) As the rights and responsibilities of civil servants were being debated nationally, similar measures were also suggested for public school educators. In 1885, the National Education Association (NEA) proposed extending civil service protections to teachers in the form of tenure. Ayear later, the NEAformed the Committee on Salaries, Tenure, and Pensions to not only examine the tenure issue but also directly advo- cate for tenure legislation. Their efforts kept the discussion of employ- ment protection on the national policy agenda. (Huvaere, 1997) With growing support for legal protections for teachers, New Jer- sey passed the first teacher tenure law in the United States in 1909 (ECS, 1999). The arguments surrounding this legislation ultimately framed future teacher tenure discussions in other states. Many of these arguments are as much a part of today’s tenure dialogue as they were then. Propo- nents in New Jersey made the case for tenure legislation by arguing that its passage would: • Attract more qualified and effective teachers • Increase the efficient operation of school districts 236 Planning and Changing Teacher Tenure • Make teaching more attractive by providing teachers with increased political and economic security • Eliminate political favoritism in hiring and dismissal Those in opposition were primarily concerned that tenure would limit the dismissal of poor performing educators. (Huvaere, 1997) Even though the passage of this legislation was a significant step toward expanded teacher employment protections, it would be many years before tenure laws would become prevalent. In fact, it was not until the mid-1940s that approximately 70% of teachers across the country were protected by some form of tenure (NEAAlaska, 2005). By the mid-1950s, this figure had grown to over 80% (NEAAlaska, 2005). Today, nearly every state and the District of Columbia have some form of teacher employment protection whether it is based substantially on state tenure laws or tied to due process rights (ECS, 1999; Chapman, 1998). The importance of historical events in Chicago as an impetus for tenure in the 1900s cannot be overlooked. As friction grew between the Chicago Board of Education and the Chicago Federation of Teachers, a political and legal battle ensued. After a series of perceived arbitrary teacher dismissals tied to an authoritarian district administration, an unbending school board, and anti-union sentiment, Illinois passed the 1917 Otis Bill which provided Chicago teachers with tenure protections after three years of employment. This bill, though, was designed exclu- sively for Chicago since it only applied to school districts with at least 100,000 inhabitants. It would be many years before tenure legislation for all Illinois public school teachers would become law. (Huvaere, 1997) As the Depression impacted people’s lives in the 1930s, many lost their employment or saw their incomes drop substantially. For some Illi- nois educators, this economic downturn led to increased instances of arbi- trary dismissal. It was not unusual for school boards to terminate teachers and replace them with relatives, friends, and supporters during these harsh economic times. These actions helped fuel support for those arguing that Illinois teacher tenure protection should be extended state-wide. The Illi- nois Education Association (IEA), a state affiliate of the NEA, made this a top priority and pressed for increased job security particularly in response to ongoing arbitrary dismissals. (Huvaere, 1997) As support built for some type of job protection legislation, Illi- nois passed its first statewide teacher tenure law in 1941 entitled The Act to Establish and Maintain a System of Free Schools. It provided full-time teachers who had completed two years of consecutive service in a single school district with continuous contract protection including due process. Similar to the New Jersey legislation, proponents in Illinois argued that the law was necessary to: • Eliminate arbitrary dismissals and annual employee at-will contracts • Protect the property and liberty rights of teachers • Improve instruction Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 237 Kersten • Increase the efficiency of the system Opponents worried that such a law would lead to life-time employment and severely limit the dismissal of poor performing teachers. (Huvaere, 1997) Since its inception in 1941, the Illinois teacher tenure law has undergone several substantial changes (Burkey, 2004). The two most recent revisions, in 1985 and 1997, emerged in response to the primary concern that had already been posed during debate on the initial legisla- tion: how to dismiss ineffective teachers. A report by the Illinois State Board of Education prior to the 1985 legislation showed that an average of only three tenured teachers had been dismissed for incompetence annual- ly during the previous nine years (Reeder, 2005c). Of course, it should not be assumed that low teacher dismissal rates and lower than desired student achievement mean that teachers are necessarily poor or ineffective. These low teacher dismissal rates may reflect the effect of the Illinois teacher tenure law rather than actual teacher performance. In any case, when these data were coupled with general public dissatisfaction over the perception that school boards were unable to dismiss tenured teachers, the issue caught the attention of state legislators (Reeder, 2005a). Illinois legislators responded by amending the tenure law in 1985 to include, among other provisions, an expanded teacher remediation process designed to provide increased flexibility in the dismissal of inef- fective teachers. Under this legislation teachers who had been rated as unsatisfactory and failed to satisfy a specific remediation plan were subject to dismissal. Although the addition of this provision appeared to increase the ability of school boards to terminate poor performers, the reality was that it did not. Since school boards were still required to provide extensive documentation of ineffective teaching performance, the change proved more cosmetic than substantive (Reeder, 2005a). Research data subsequent to the 1985 legislation showed that annually an average of just one out of every 930 Illinois tenured teachers was placed on remediation. Further- more, in the past eighteen years, 61 remediation cases have proceeded to the state hearing officer level with only 39 dismissals (Reeder, 2005a). As political pressure to re-examine the Illinois teacher tenure law continued to mount, legislators responded in 1997 by extending the num- ber of years required to earn tenure from two to four. Although this change provided boards of education with more time to evaluate a probationary teacher’s performance, it did not address the issue of dismissal of ineffec- tive tenured teachers. Since 1997, calls for further changes in tenure have continued. A recent state-wide analysis of Illinois tenure dismissals showed that very few teachers are ever dismissed for incompetence. Consider the following data from Reeder (2005a): • Only 2 out of 95,500 Illinois tenured teachers are terminated annually for poor performance • Just 17% of school districts have rated a teacher unsatisfacto- ry since the 1985 legislation 238 Planning and Changing Teacher Tenure • Only 7% of the nearly 900 Illinois school districts have attempt- ed to terminate a tenured teacher since the 1985 legislation Asimilar level of concern has been echoed in other states as well. A recent study of tenure teacher dismissals in New Jersey showed that not one of the 10,000 teachers in Bergen County had been terminated through the tenure-hearing process in the past decade (Kremen, 2006). In California, the governor supported the Putting Kids First Act that revised the state teacher tenure law in part to expedite the dismissal of ineffective teachers (IGS, 2006). In New York, a legislator said, “Our tenure laws protect ineffective and unmotivated teachers and administrators. Removing a tenured employ- ee from his or her position is so difficult, expensive and time-consuming that for all intents, it is impossible” (Chapman, 1998, p. 2). Although much of the public discussion has centered on the per- ceived problems with teacher job protection, organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) and their state affiliates, which represent most K–12 public school teachers in the United States, have a much different view. The President of the Illinois Education Association (IEA) said that the inability to terminate a teacher is nothing more than an urban myth (Reed- er, 2005b). In fact, the Illinois Federation of Teacher’s President said that the reason so few teachers are terminated is that so few need to be. He fur- ther noted that tenured teacher dismissal data are misleading because they do not include those faculty members who resign prior to dismissal (Stu- dents First Illinois, 2005). The NEA–Alaska (2005) summarized the teacher union/associa- tion position on tenure. They argued that state teacher tenure laws: • Do not protect teachers from dismissal but rather guarantee an impartial hearing that ensures teacher due process rights • Protect effective teachers from dismissal and replacement by less qualified, politically-connected new teachers • Protect the academic freedom of teachers, which allows them to discuss a wide range of perspectives and encourages a free exchange of ideas • Allow teachers to exercise their professional judgment rather than teach in lockstep • Provide the security to take instructional risks that may lead to school improvement and ultimately increased student achievement • Let teachers maintain high student performance expectations without fear of retribution • Encourage administrators to develop faculty members rather simply dismiss them • Are not responsible for ineffective teachers; rather poor eval- uation processes and inadequate administrator evaluation practices are the cause Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 239 Kersten The AFT agrees that ineffective evaluation processes and lack of thorough teacher evaluation by administrators are the real culprits (Shanker, 1996). The Illinois Federation of Teachers notes that the responsibility to complete accurate and comprehensive teacher evaluations belongs to administrators (Dougherty, 2005). They point out that Illinois law requires administrators to complete specific training in teacher supervision including identification of teacher deficiencies and strategies to help faculty members improve their effectiveness. From their perspective, the four-year probation- ary period in Illinois is adequate to determine a faculty member’s effective- ness. If at some future point an administrator believes a dismissal is warranted, the tenure law provides a well-defined, objective teacher dis- missal process without eroding important due process rights. As the debate over state teacher tenure laws continues, school and political leaders appear to have very different perspectives from those of teacher unions/associations on the efficacy of teacher tenure. What is par- ticularly interesting is that the same arguments initially posed in support of and in opposition to the first state tenure laws are as central to today’s dis- cussions as they were then. However, as educators face increasing demands to improve schools and student achievement, they cannot ignore the tenure issue. Rather, it is essential to recognize the differences between the positions of school leaders and teacher unions/associations and to explore ways to find some common ground that may help to close this gap. Problems and Purposes As the efficacy of teacher tenure has become an increasingly visi- ble issue, a better understanding of how various stakeholders view teacher tenure may provide valuable insights toward finding some common ground between boards of education and teacher organizations. For years much of the teacher tenure discussion has centered on opponents describing the problems associated with tenure and proponents stressing the need for job protection. The proponents have argued that poor administration and a lack of trust between district leadership and teacher organizations, not tenure laws, help to sustain this gap in perspectives (Kersten & Israel, 2005; Dougherty, 2005). This research study seeks to understand how one group of stakeholders, Illinois school board presidents, perceives the relevance of teacher tenure today. It also seeks to identify school board presidents’sug- gestions for revising the present Illinois teacher tenure law. School board presidents were selected for this study to gather their unique perspectives. Data from the study may be particularly useful in designing additional studies focused on other stakeholders including teacher union/association representatives. Results may also prove helpful to those presently respond- ing to the concerns of tenure proponents and opponents alike. Over the years, several issues have framed the tenure debate. This study seeks to understand the perceptions of current Illinois school board presidents regarding these key tenure issues through the following questions: 240 Planning and Changing Teacher Tenure • Would the elimination of teacher tenure affect arbitrary teacher dismissal? • Is the present teacher tenure law the primary reason that below average teachers are not dismissed? • Are teacher evaluation processes a significant factor in the retention of below average teachers? • Are poor teacher evaluation practices by school administra- tors a significant factor in the retention of below average teachers? • Does the teacher tenure law hamper administrative supervi- sion of teachers? • Would the elimination of tenure affect teachers’ academic freedom? • Is the Illinois teacher tenure law an impediment to school improvement and increased student achievement? • Would teachers be more responsive to stakeholders if tenure was eliminated? • Does teacher tenure hurt the professional image of teachers? Finally, since school board presidents (a) are included in the edu- cational improvement process, (b) affirm personnel recommendations from the administration, (c) are often active in the collective bargaining process, and (d) have an understanding of how tenure relates to the school district’s operation, their insights into recommended changes in Illinois teacher tenure laws may be useful for school leaders and teachers alike. Consequently, this study seeks to identify their recommendations through the following question: What suggestions, if any, would you offer if you had the authority to change the present teacher tenure law in Illinois? The Research Study Context Illinois is a state divided into 873 school districts configured as K–8 elementary, 9–12 high school, or K–12 unit districts serving 2,111,706 students in 110 counties, with most governed by an elected seven member school board (ISBE, 2006; Ruiz & Dunn, 2005). School district enroll- ments range from very small districts such as Nelson Elementary School District 8 in Lee County, which enrolls 32 students, to Chicago School Dis- trict 299, which serves 426,812 students (ISBE, 2005). This study, conducted from February through July 2006, surveyed 291 school board presidents randomly assigned to the research sample from all Illinois school board presidents except that of Chicago Public School District 299 (McMillan & Wergin, 2006). Since school board members in Chicago are appointed by the mayor rather than elected and somewhat removed from day-to-day operational issues of their school dis- Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 241 Kersten trict, its president was excluded from the study. School board presidents, rather than general board members, were chosen since they are typically elected from more experienced members and may have broader, richer perspectives than novice board members. Method Participants. Asimple random sample was chosen for this study to achieve efficiency in data collection. “The keys to good sampling are find- ing a way to give all (or nearly all) population members the same (or a known) chance of being selected, and to use probability methods for choosing the sample” (Fowler, 2002, p. 5). Since all school board presi- dents but that of Chicago School District 299 were included in the process, the likelihood that the sample is representative of the population is high. Of the 873 Illinois school board presidents, 291 (33%) were sent a survey. From these, 118 were returned complete, representing a 40.5% response rate. From those completed, 50 were from K–8 (elementary), 8 from 9–12 (high school), and 60 from K–12 (unit) presidents. These represented 62 rural, 4 urban, and 52 suburban districts. The range of school board experi- ence was 1–28 years with a median experience level of 9 years. Questionnaire. An 11-item, self-administered questionnaire was developed and tested with a focus group of former and current school board presidents and school administrators. After refining the instrument and procedures, the questionnaire (see Appendix) was approved by the Roosevelt University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Survey items were developed based on the historical issues linked to state tenure laws and teacher tenure literature. In the first section of the survey, school board presidents were asked to provide demographic data including their district organization (K–8, 9–12, or K–12), district type (urban, suburban, or rural), years of school board experience, and district enrollment. In the second section, school board presidents were asked to rate their perceptions on eleven key tenure issues drawn from the literature on a scale of 1 through 5 with 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 no basis for judg- ment, 4 disagree, and 5 strongly disagree. In addition to their perception ratings, they were asked to provide comments for each item to enrich their responses. The final section included one open-ended question. Partici- pants were asked to suggest changes they would make to the present Illi- nois teacher tenure law if they had the authority to do so. Data collection. A modification of Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design Method and Fowler’s (2002) Survey Research Method was used to collect data. Each participant was mailed a cover letter, questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Both the email address and phone number of the researcher were provided if any clarification was needed. Data analysis. All quantitative survey data were entered in Microsoft Excel 2002 for analysis. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe close-ended survey responses. Qualitative data were analyzed for specific trends within categories (Maxwell, 1996). Through inductive 242 Planning and Changing Teacher Tenure analysis (McMillan & Wergin, 2006) “data are gathered first and synthe- sized inductively for understanding. Conclusions are grounded from the bottom up” (p. 94). In the results section, any distinct differences by school district organization, type, enrollment, or the experience level of the school board presidents are described. Through data reduction, conclusion creation, and triangulation, specific trends and conclusions were identified (Berkowitz, 1997). Only after data were analyzed independently by the researcher and another pro- fessor of educational administration were data-generated themes identi- fied. While this does not guarantee reliability and validity, it does provide “dependable results” (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 146) that can be replicat- ed and retested to further increase reliability and validity (Merriam, 1988). Results For each of the eleven survey items, results represent all partici- pants. School board presidents’comments are reported as a percentage of total responses for each item rather than a percentage of total respondents. The higher the percentage, the more often it was identified by those who commented. For those items that showed significant differences after inter- data analysis based on demographic factors, these differences are noted. However, no significant differences due to school district size were evident. A substantial majority of school board presidents (65%) either agreed or strongly agreed that teacher tenure protects good teachers from arbitrary dismissal (see Table 1). Of the 28 school board presidents who commented, 39% indicated that even though tenure does provide substan- tial job protection, effective teachers do not need legal protection. They noted that school boards actually seek to retain effective teachers and believe that the existing school board governance structure already pro- vides adequate job protection. Other presidents who commented noted that tenure prevents school districts from hiring higher performers (18%) and protects below average teachers (14%). Table 1 Teacher Tenure Law Protects Effective Teachers From Arbitrary Dismissal Response Responses of Board Presidents Strongly agree 13% Agree 52% No basis for judgment 5% Disagree 20% Strongly disagree 10% A substantial majority of school board presidents (91%) either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure inhibits the dismissal of below aver- age teachers (see Table 2). Interestingly, this was the only item on which Vol. 37, No. 3&4, 2006, pp. 234–257 243