Michael Tavoliero: Case for overturning Alaska’s tenure statute in favor of home rule authority

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

The teacher tenure system in Alaska, codified under AS 14.20.150, was designed to ensure job security for educators, promote workforce stability, and protect academic freedom. However, after decades of implementation, evidence suggests that tenure has not delivered the promised benefits. Instead, it has contributed to educational stagnation, high teacher turnover, and a lack of local control over school district management.

To better serve Alaska’s unique and diverse communities, AS 14.20.150 should be repealed in favor of home rule authority, allowing municipalities to tailor teacher employment policies to meet their specific needs.

Home rule authority ensures that local communities are empowered to make decisions that directly impact their education systems, aligning policies with the needs of their students, parents, and educators rather than adhering to an outdated, ineffective statewide tenure mandate.

One of the primary barriers to home rule reform in education is the entrenched influence of public education unions and special interest groups. These organizations have played a significant role in maintaining statewide tenure protections, lobbying against local control reforms, and ensuring that tenure benefits their members rather than prioritizing student success.

• Public education unions’ political influence: Unions such as the National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska) wield significant power over state education policy. They contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns, lobbying legislators to protect tenure and other employment provisions that benefit their members rather than fostering student-centered reform.
• Collective bargaining and resistance to reform: Many school districts operate under union-negotiated contracts that make it incredibly difficult to implement performance-based evaluations or remove ineffective teachers. Any attempts to change tenure policies at the local level are often met with strong union opposition, legal challenges, and strikes.
• Special interests and public education funding: Special interest groups, including education non-profits, administrative associations, and political action committees (PACs), influence how state education funds are distributed. These entities often push for more spending on bureaucracy and administrative costs rather than directing funds to classroom improvements.
• Union-backed teacher protection over student outcomes: The focus on protecting teachers, regardless of performance, has led to a system where mediocrity is rewarded, and excellence is undervalued. Tenure ensures that ineffective teachers remain in classrooms, and unions fight to retain these protections, even at the expense of student learning.

Alaska’s education system ranks among the lowest in the nation in key academic metrics. Despite tenure protections ensuring long-term job security, student proficiency in reading, math, and science remains critically low. The Alaska Department of Education’s most recent assessment data shows that:

• Less than 40% of students are proficient in reading and math.
• Alaska consistently ranks in the bottom five states in terms of student performance on national standardized tests.
• The state’s graduation rate remains below the national average, with significant achievement gaps, especially among Alaska Native students.

If tenure were a true driver of educational excellence, these numbers should reflect a steady improvement in student learning. Instead, they show stagnation and decline, demonstrating that tenure has not delivered the educational quality it was intended to protect.

One of the original justifications for teacher tenure was that it would increase teacher retention and stabilize the workforce. However, the opposite has occurred.

• Alaska faces one of the highest teacher turnover rates in the country, with some rural districts experiencing 50-60% attrition rates annually.
• Many teachers leave due to lack of administrative support, poor working conditions, and limited incentives for performance—none of which tenure addresses.
• The tenure system locks in long-term employment contracts, making it difficult for home rule municipalities to adapt to changing workforce needs.

Instead of increasing workforce stability, tenure has contributed to workforce rigidity, preventing home rule municipalities from hiring and retaining the best teachers while limiting their ability to replace ineffective educators.

Home rule municipalities should have the power to hire, evaluate, and dismiss teachers based on performance and community needs. Under AS 14.20.150:

• Local school boards have limited authority in removing underperforming teachers.
• The tenure system prioritizes longevity over effectiveness, making it difficult for home rule municipalities to respond to community expectations for higher education standards.
• Rural and urban school districts face vastly different challenges, yet statewide tenure laws force a one-size-fits-all approach, ignoring local education needs.

By strengthening home rule authority, municipalities could:

• Implement performance-based contracts that reward effective teachers rather than simply protecting longevity.
• Establish flexible hiring and firing policies that allow districts to adapt to changing educational priorities.
• Hold educators accountable to local school boards and parents, rather than state-mandated tenure protections.

Article X, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution states that home rule municipalities may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or charter. There is no compelling reason why teacher tenure—a policy that should be decided at the local level—should be imposed through statewide statute.

• Home rule principles encourage local autonomy, allowing communities to set policies that reflect their educational priorities.
• The state legislature has a duty to maintain a functional education system, but AS 14.20.150 has resulted in dysfunction, not progress.
• Eliminating tenure laws at the state level would return decision-making power to home rule municipalities, ensuring that teacher employment policies align with community expectations.

AS 14.20.150 has failed to improve education quality, stabilize the workforce, or uphold accountability. It is a relic of a bureaucratic system that prioritizes job security over student learning. Alaska’s home rule municipalities must be given the authority to hire, evaluate, and retain teachers based on local needs, not outdated state-mandated tenure protections.

Michael Tavoliero writes for Must Read Alaska.