Is Tenure a “Toxic” Influence?

Lately, everyone is in a huff about teacher tenure. From the current debate in New York City between the United Federation of Teachers and the Department of Education about tying tenure to test scores, to Maryland's proposal to add a year to the tenure-track process, to a dozen editorials decrying an antiquated system that protects bad teachers at the expense of student learning, tenure has become, once again, the scapegoat for the shortcomings of traditional public education.

To many, it seems odd that this particular system -- so unlike employee incentives and evaluations in any other profession -- persists. K-12 teachers are often tenured after just two or three years on the job, and once this has occurred, an expensive and laborious process is required to dismiss them.

It seems more than reasonable to require a thorough evaluation of teachers before letting them go. But numbers such as those cited recently in the Wall Street Journal and the IN Denver Times suggest that very few schools bother to thoroughly evaluate teachers at any point, taking the path of least resistance and letting them slide by unobserved. The WSJ cites a New Teacher Project study that found that "less than 1% of teachers receive unsatisfactory ratings, even in schools that fail to meet basic academic standards, year after year" and "less than 2% of teachers are denied tenure in [Los Angeles], where the high school dropout rate is 35% and growing."

On the other hand, it seems opportunistic to pit teacher firing rates against student dropout rates, for instance. Teachers are hugely influential, but are hardly the sole reason for dropouts.

It seems reasonable to make moderate adjustments, like adding a year to the tenure process, as Maryland is aiming to do. But to call teacher unions "toxic," as did the author of a recent editorial in the Washington Post, or to again inextricably tie teacher performance to student test scores (fie, Race to the Top!) strikes me as overkill.

To some, the current debate in New York over tying tenure to test scores might seem totally irrational –- another ploy of the powerful teachers unions to keep teachers employed at all costs. But prioritizing teachers whose students score well on standardized tests might not qualify as boosting "student learning." Take a teacher who is respected by his or her colleagues, who helps to inspire kids to get off the streets and come to school, but who is teaching an underserved demographic that needs a lot of remediation. The beneficial results of their hard work won’t necessarily be realized until a few years down the line, in someone else's classroom.

Does job security and protection for some of the nation's most valuable employees have to be such a demonized system? Is the real problem here the professed inability to fire ineffective teachers? Or might a more extensive teacher-support system and resources for teacher preparation and professional development be part of the solution?

Yet, if teachers' jobs are based on so many factors besides merit, doesn't that also seem detrimental to student education?

Photo credit: iwannt