Tenure: Alaska
Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Alaska's policies
Alaska does not connect tenure decisions to evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Teachers in Alaska are awarded tenure after a three-year probationary period. The state requires teachers to receive an evaluation during their third year of continuous employment that "meets the district performance standards." However, there is no additional process that evaluates cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Recommendations for Alaska
Ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
Alaska should make evidence of effectiveness, rather than number of years in the classroom, the most significant factor when determining this leap in professional standing.
Articulate a process that local districts must administer when deciding which teachers get tenure.
Alaska should require a clear process, such as a hearing, to ensure that the local district reviews a teacher's performance before making a determination regarding tenure.
Require a longer probationary period.
Alaska should extend its probationary period, ideally to five years. This would allow sufficient time to collect data that adequately reflect teacher performance.
State response to our analysis
Alaska recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
-
Alaska
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Tenure should be a
significant and consequential milestone in a teacher's career.
The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status)
is usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or
consideration of actual performance. State policy should reflect the fact that
initial certification is temporary and probationary, and that tenure is
intended to be a significant reward for teachers who have consistently shown
effectiveness and commitment. Tenure and advanced certification are not rights
implied by the conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other
profession, including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only
a few years of working in the field.
States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is
the preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure decisions. Most
states confer tenure at a point that is too early for the collection of
sufficient and adequate data that reflect teacher performance. Ideally, states
would accumulate such data for four to five years. This robust data set would prevent
effective teachers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.
Tenure: Supporting Research
Numerous
studies illustrate how difficult and uncommon the process is of dismissing
tenured teachers for poor performance. These studies underscore the need for an
extended probationary period that would allow teachers to demonstrate their
capability to promote student performance.
For
evidence on the potential of eliminating automatic tenure, articulating a
process for granting tenure, and using evidence of effectiveness as criteria
for tenure see D. Goldhaber and M. Hansen, "Assessing the Potential of Using Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making Tenure Decisions." Calder Institute, February 2010, Working Paper 31.
Goldhaber and Hansen conclude that if districts ensured that the bottom
performing 25 percent of all teachers up for tenure each year did not earn it,
approximately 13 percent more than current levels, student achievement could be
significantly improved. By routinely denying tenure to the bottom 25 percent of
eligible teachers, the impact on student achievement would be equivalent to
reducing class size across-the-board by 5 students a class.
For
additional evidence see R. Gordon, T. Kane, and D. Staiger, "Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job," The Hamilton Project
Discussion Paper, The Brookings Institute, April 2006.