Education

A bill that could abolish tenure and threaten academic freedom at state college campuses has been introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature.

State Rep. Corey Holland, a Republican from Marlow, has introduced House Bill 2598, an approximately four-page measure that, if approved, would put professors and administrative staff on an annual contract system. The bill states that “ . . . on or after July 1, 2013, no administrative or instructional personnel may be awarded tenure, a multiyear contract, or a continuing contract . . .” College presidents would be exempted from the measure.

The bill also states:

Tenure, a multiyear contract, or a continuing contract in effect prior to July 1, 2013, may not be renewed, extended, or readopted. Administrative and instructional personnel without an annual contract are eligible to be awarded an annual contract pursuant to paragraph 3 of this subsection . . .

The language about those who currently hold tenure is somewhat nebulous. Would a post-tenure performance appraisal be construed as a renewal of tenure? Could the word “extended” in the above language mean tenure will expire for every current tenure holder?

Under the system created by the bill, an annual contract “shall not create an expectancy of employment beyond the term of the contract. Nonrenewal of a contract shall not entitle the employee to an explanation or statement of the reasons for nonrenewal or to a hearing . . . “

In other words, a professor could be essentially fired (i.e., no contract renewal) for an unstated reason.

It’s unclear right now how much support the bill will receive or whether it will even make it through the committee process. The academic community is certain to oppose the measure.

The measure can be seen as part of a small yet vocal national movement to abolish tenure, the cornerstone of academic freedom. In their rhetoric, opponents of tenure often try to stereotype professors as lazy and unproductive, but such labeling ignores reality.

Let’s be clear: Tenure is a system that supports academic free speech in the classroom. Tenured professors CAN be fired for just cause. Tenure merely guarantees due process and an open dialogue between administrators and faculty.

Academic free speech is as vitally important to freedom and democracy as free markets. It ensures critical inquiry will not be politicized and that professors can present ideas in classrooms that might not have current cultural support. An academic medical researcher, for example, might be searching for a cancer cure while working on what some might view as a controversial cloning project. A political science professor might want to argue an affirmative stance for Marxism to generate discussion. A history professor might want to teach American slave narratives that challenge standard views about the nation’s Civil War.

Meanwhile, the mythical depiction of the lazy, tenured professor with a cushy job for life just isn’t true. Here’s the truth at most public colleges: Professors spend years in college past their undergraduate years writing and researching. They often accrue massive amounts of student loan debt and end up in highly sought-after and competitive jobs that don’t necessarily pay that well because they have a calling to teach and study. After five years or so of performance reviews and student evaluations, professors go through an intensive tenure process that includes rigorous review by fellow professors and administrators. If they make it through the process they are normally given a small raise and move up the ranks from assistant to associate professor. (Remember, many of these professors are still paying off student loan debt.) In five more years, they will go through a similar process to become a full professor and are then granted another raise. It can take an academic sixteen or more years from the start of graduate school to become a full professor. Full professors are then subject to varying levels of constant performance reviews and student evaluations through their entire career. That’s the reality.

It’s one of the most rigorous employee review processes in the public or private sector, and the vast majority of professors—though the process can produce a great deal of anxiety—accept that such an intensive review is ultimately a vital component of higher education. They are proud to be part of such a demanding review system.

Abolishing tenure would end this rigorous review process and politicized the hiring and firing process. Professors would be afraid to express unpopular ideas in the classroom in fear of losing their jobs. Our state universities would then become dumb-downed institutions operated on autocratic principles dictated by ever-changing political realities.

The next session of the Oklahoma Legislature begins Feb. 6.

Could cuts to health insurance programs for Oklahoma teachers be next now that retirement benefits have been reduced?

A recent editorial (“Health care costs for public employees—the next big issue?,” Aug. 12, 2011) in The Oklahoman argued that now that so called pension reduction reform in Oklahoma is ongoing it’s probably time for “political reform” of health insurance programs for teachers and state employees. According to the editorial:

We can't help but wonder whether another expensive item for state government — health care costs for public employees — will eventually face the same sort of scrutiny and potential reform.

The editorial cites a study by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, that argues public employees should essentially pay for all their health care costs except for catastrophic medical events. According to the study’s executive summary:

Consumer-directed plans are designed so that, except for catastrophic expenses, employees bear the responsibility of paying their own health-care costs. This sharply reduces the cost of insurance because a smaller percentage of an employee's medical bills are paid by the insurer and because employees have a strong incentive to consume care more judiciously.

Teachers and state employees, some of whom pay astronomical monthly amounts of money out of pocket insuring their families, will be surprised to learn that they haven’t been judicious enough in how often they take themselves and their children to the doctor. Obviously, according to the Manhattan Institute’s and the newspaper’s line of thinking, people who work in the private sector just accept they shouldn’t go to the doctor unless they’re catastrophically sick.

Do physicians support the “catastrophic” approach to health insurance?

Let’s be clear: The Manhattan Institute and The Oklahoman don’t want people to go to the doctor so much, especially teachers and state employees. The idea of preventative medical care or catching a medical condition early before it develops into something catastrophic doesn’t even appear to be an issue for them.

This is yet another effort by the right wing to reduce benefits for teachers and public employees, who are under attack throughout the country, and these efforts will not end here as long as state government is dominated by the current ideology of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, legislators are trying to find ways to cut even more from public schools and higher education here. One Republican legislator state Rep. Lewis Moore of Arcadia wants a summit to study what he calls the state’s “bloated” education system even though Oklahoma is 48th in the nation in per pupil funding. Another Republican legislator, state Rep. Tom Newell of Seminole is upset that despite budget cuts many Oklahoma colleges are actually spending more money this year to, well, to educate a record-high number of students who are showing up to school and willing to pay more in tuition. More students on campuses mean more instructors on campus and more utility costs; some universities are using reserve funds to meet demand. The alternative is to turn students away. Do we want to do that in a state with a low number of college graduates?

A few years ago, a speaker at the state meeting of the American Association of University Professors talked about the “silence of the lambs” when referring to the lack of protest on campuses in the face of stagnant wages and benefit reductions. That silence, with some exceptions, continues pretty much today across all segments of public employment, and working conditions for educators and state employees are only going to get worse because of it.

Let’s hope if the grand education summit suggested by state Rep. Lewis Moore (R-Arcadia) ever materializes it will do more than focus on cutting school and college funding, a focus that seems to be the basis for the idea.

Last week, Moore, pictured right, announced he wants a summit before the next legislative session that would include Gov. Mary Fallin and state education leaders. It would focus on what Moore apparently called Oklahoma’s “bloated” education system, according to media reports.

This proposal comes just as schools and higher education are facing steep cuts again this school year. These cuts are apparently not enough for some in the Republican-dominated legislature.

Here are three things for the summit participants to consider:

(1) Oklahoma continues to have some of the most underfunded schools in the country. The state is last in regional funding behind Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas, Missouri and Colorado. A report published in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics listed Oklahoma as 49th in the nation in education funding. The state has a systemic funding problem for education and because of recent cuts it’s only getting worse. Cutting education funding right now—unless an overall budget shortfall dictates it—would be irresponsible

(2) The state continues to pay teachers low salaries when compared to the national average. According to the website of the Oklahoma State Department of Education, the state ranks 48th in the nation in teacher salaries. Getting paid some of the lowest salaries in the nation has to be demoralizing for teachers here. I hope the summit participants consider this a pressing issue and suggest ways to improve teacher salaries beyond just merit pay.

(3) Oklahoma needs more college graduates. The Lumina Foundation for Education reports that 31.3 percent of Oklahomans hold two- or four-year college degrees. The national average is 37.9. In Massachusetts, the average is 49.6. If summit participants actually consider closing some college branches, it should keep in mind that Oklahoma needs to do everything it can to increase its number of college graduates. That should mean making college classes accessible and affordable throughout the state.

In his comments related to the proposed summit, Moore indicated he thinks the state has too many school districts, university branches and CareerTech institutions, according to a media report. He also said “ . . . common ed needs help, but they're asked and tasked to do a lot of things besides teach. Some of those things could be picked up by churches, church involvement, neighborhood involvement, parental involvement for sure,” the report states.

It’s difficult to tell if Moore is well intentioned about improving education systems here, but his ideas, as reported in the media, seem to be rooted in closing down educational facilities and letting churches and the somewhat nebulous “neighborhood involvement” deal with the myriad and complicated problems faced by many schools in Oklahoma. Those problems include teaching students who live in poverty and with family dysfunction and little parental involvement. It’s difficult to teach students who are hungry or worried about domestic violence at their home. Shutting down schools and colleges seems counter intuitive to improving education here, especially since school district consolidation is ongoing and the state needs as many college graduates as possible.