The debate over teacher tenure comes down to one fundamental question: Do schools exist for the sake of those who run the system or for our children?
I think we all know the answer: We build schools to educate our children. While many public school teachers are doing a fine job, there are a number who don't belong in the classroom. But if a bad teacher gets into the system today and receives tenure after three years, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. Only truly egregious cases are likely to lead to attempts at dismissal. The reason is simple: It can cost local districts a fortune. According to Broward County school official Ronald Wright, it can take two or three years, and $20,000 to $60,000 in legal fees, to complete all the hearings required to fire a bad teacher.
Unfortunately, a more common solution is to simply transfer the teacher to another school. This ensures that in those communities with very active and vocal parents, teachers can be drummed out. But where do they end up? According to Edwin Bridges in his groundbreaking book The Incompetent Teacher, they usually end up in low-income and minority schools, condemning students to a poor education. The practice of transferring bad teachers has become so common it has been given several nicknames: "The turkey trot" and "the dance of the lemons."
Since today we have broad laws protecting freedom of speech and expression, the traditional defense of tenure no longer makes sense. Defenders of tenure justify its existence solely as it relates to the employment of teachers. They never seem to think of any benefits it provides for the education of children. This may be a nice policy for the teachers unions, but that alone is no reason to keep it in place. As Thomas Sowell points out in his book Inside American Education: "By this kind of reasoning, one could justify monarchy on the grounds that it benefits kings. The real test of tenure, as of monarchy, is how it performs as a system serving public purposes."
The fact is, tenure has not served the public education system well. Tenure creates an environment where there is simply no incentive to be a good teacher. Pay and promotion depend on such things as seniority and additional education-course credits amassed during the summers. Thus, serving time is what is rewarded, not teaching excellence. Can you imagine any other profession with such an incentive structure? Even the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, Al Shanker, admitted the system was skewed: "People are paid for coming in the morning and leaving at night," he said candidly, "and for saying 'Good morning' in the morning and 'Good afternoon' in the afternoon and never confusing the two." He proposed some reforms that would create "market incentives" in the teaching profession.
Education Commissioner Frank Brogan has proposed eliminating tenure for all new public school teachers and giving them an annual or multi-year contract not to exceed three years. Utah has already adopted a similar system, and other states are considering it. We would do well to create a system for giving teachers institutional incentives to perform their jobs more effectively. Remember, our schools exist for the sake of our children, not as a source of guaranteed employment.
