Tenure : Arizona
Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Arizona's policies
Arizona does not connect tenure decisions to evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Teachers in Arizona are awarded tenure automatically after a three-year probationary period, absent an additional process that evaluates cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Recommendations for Arizona
End the automatic awarding of tenure.
The decision to grant tenure should be a deliberate one, based on consideration of a teacher's commitment and actual evidence of classroom effectiveness.
Ensure evidence of effectiveness is the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.
Arizona should make evidence of effectiveness, rather than the 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.
Arizona 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.
Arizona should extend its probationary period, ideally to five years. This would allow for an adequate collection of sufficient data that reflect teacher performance.
State response to our analysis
Arizona asserted that it does not award tenure in the classic academic sense. The term is referenced in state regulations due to the popularity of the term "tenure" as a shorthand for continuing teachers (those employed three consecutive years or more). However, the only thing afforded continuing teachers by law in Arizona is due process for dismissal, rather than insulation from consequences for ineffectiveness, which tenure would suggest. A probationary teacher, by contrast, can be dismissed at any time.
Last word
For the purposes of this goal, the term "tenure" refers to the point at which a teacher is granted nonprobationary status. NCTQ agrees that nonprobationary teachers should be afforded due process for dismissal. However, that due process frequently creates insulation from consequences for poor performance (see Goal 5-C).
-
Arizona
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Preparation Programs
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- 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
Research rationale
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, "Assuming the Potential of Using Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making Tenure Decisions." Center for Reinventing Public Education. (2009). 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 Robert Gordon, et al., "Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job," Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, Brookings Institute, March 2006.