“You’re fired!”
Trump is famous for those two words. They’re also a pair of words that most of us dread.
But what if it was almost impossible for your boss to let you go? Imagine that just to fire you, your boss would have to dedicate countless hours of time, sift through mountains of paperwork, and set aside thousands of dollars in court fees. You would be certain that there was little you could do that would cost you your job. As long as you didn’t show up to work naked, or steal large sums of money, you were fine.
Do you think your behavior at work would change? Would you take more risks? Would you slack off? Or would you actually put forth just as much effort?
If you’re a teacher with tenure, the above situation is a reality, and you would be one of the few who could honestly answer those questions from experience. For about 2.3 million teachers, tenure ensures that they cannot be fired, unless they commit a heinous act. For instance, relations with a student, or other illegal acts can still earn you a pink slip. However, disregarding students or their families, lacking motivation, or having little interest in education will not.
A Mini-History of Tenure
Until recently, I knew little about tenure. Thus, I decided to do some research in order to find out its historical past, its present status, and its future role in education.
The tenure system began in the early 1900s to protect the rights of public school teachers. Under these systems, teachers were safe from being fired for religious or political beliefs, or for allowing controversial topics in the classroom. The system first began in universities, but soon extended to K-12 schools. While tenure in a university often required being published and producing research findings, tenure in a K-12 school was generally based on satisfactory service for a minimum of 2 years.
In the latter half of the 20th century, tenure became widespread, and an important issue within school unions. Today, terminating a tenured teacher requires the involvement of many parties (board of education, legal courts, non-partisan evaluators etc.) as well as great amounts of time and money. Many people still defend tenure as a system that allows teachers to use progressive and sometimes controversial materials or methods within the classroom. It can protect a teacher in the Bible belt from being fired for talking about evolution in the classroom. It can protect a teacher from being let go for holding a debate about the War in Iraq within the classroom. It allows teachers to openly disagree with his or her principal, without fear of unemployment.
The future of tenure, however, is not so clear. While tenure may protect certain rights, it is also seen as a prerequisite for burnt-out, unenthusiastic, apathetic teachers.
The Good, The Bad and The Evil?
I think the main benefit of tenure has been explained at this point; tenure allows teachers the freedom to take risks, experiment, disagree with superiors, and touch upon controversial issues. Other supporters (particularly older teachers) like the idea of a structure of seniority. The older the teacher, the safer his or her job is. If a school needs to downsize, the newest teachers would be the first to leave.
Additionally, tenure means that those who have taught for the longest are rewarded by a set-in-stone pay scale that is based only on duration of employment, not on merit. Therefore, if the principal you work under takes a particular disliking to you or teaching style, his or her personal opinion cannot influence your paycheck or your yearly raise.
Last, I have heard some teachers say that strong job security is an appreciated and necessary perk for an occupation that is challenging, tiresome, and sometimes underpaid (however, teachers’ salaries is a whole separate debate, one that I’m not attempting to get into in this article).
Now, let’s talk about the negatives – the most obvious concern is that tenure creates hurdles in the way of dismissing poor teachers. Some teachers start out bad, and for whatever reason are kept in the district long enough to earn tenure, and thus are virtually granted a job for life. Other teachers start out enthusiastic and passionate, but lose their spark post-tenure.
There are many stories out there of tenured teachers who use out-dated practices, teach students very little, humiliate children, offend parents and co-workers, and who frankly don’t give a crap. It is not hard to see why this would be frustrating to community members, the board of education, parents, students, and colleagues. It is also not hard to see that these teachers keep their jobs due to tenure. In the end, the students suffer greatly due to these types of teachers.
My Own Two Cents
If this was a dichotomous issue – if we had complete tenure or no job security at all, then I would support those who say that there are many more dedicated teachers out there than apathetic ones, and thus, we need tenure to protect those who strive for excellence, and take risks, in the classroom.
However, this is not black and white. Creative minds in the education industry are developing alternatives. One alternative is for teachers to accept a much higher salary in return for giving up tenure. This, in essence, would mean switching from a pay scale based on duration of employment to a merit-based scale. A teacher would risk being fired for “bad practices.” “Bad practices,” of course, would be defined by whomever is in charge of evaluating the teacher – could be a progressive, kind-hearted superintendent, or a my-way-or-the-highway type superintendent. It is indeed a gamble.
Another alternative, which I admittedly support, is signing teachers on with multiple year contracts – limited job security. Consider a 5-year contract in which teachers have ample time to build up a good record in order to earn themselves their next contract, but do not have the luxury of a job for life. This would provide concrete motivation, without causing constant fear of unemployment.
Of course, for a system like this to work, we would have to ensure that schools are full of supportive, sensible and understanding administrators. If a teacher is having trouble, administrators should first do their very best to provide guidance and feedback. However, at the end of five years, if a teacher is still struggling to help students succeed, the teacher may be in the wrong environment, or perhaps the wrong career altogether.
Furthermore, principals often want to see things like student failure-rates of “ZERO.” However, sometimes students truly do earn failing grades. Lack of tenure should not result in pressures for teachers to inflate grades, because this is just another way to hurt students in the long run.
Lastly, it would be a shame if teachers lost much of their ability to try new things in the classroom due to closed-minded administrators. A contract system would require administrators who are willing to trust teachers once in a while and be open-ended.
Overall, there will be potential pitfalls with a contract system, but I personally think that the tenure system is outdated and detrimental to the education industry. I wholeheartedly agree that teaching is a challenging, tiresome, and sometimes underpaid career, but many careers share those same qualities, and are not rewarded with what is practically a lifetime guarantee to a job. My respect for dedicated teachers is infinite, but that is precisely why I think that uncaring or unsuccessful teachers should not hold a reserved place in our classrooms.
I’m very curious to hear what you think! What points have I missed? What is your opinion on the debate?
I'm MLR. After graduating from college debt free, I decided to write a blog encouraging people to adapt responsible and sensible personal finance rules.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:37 am |
As you mentioned either way the system can be abused (no tenure, employers can fire you for whatever reason, tenure employees can just slack).
I would have to side with tenure, although it poses a risk to employers there are generally certain requirements before one can get tenure, like length of employment etc. Having requirements before tenure is given can help filter out those who will abuse the system.
University Professors also have tenure (usually after 10 years of employment) and I think this is one of the biggest groups that need that security. This will protect (to some extend) their research and opinions, they do not have to be scared of the employer not liking what they have to say.
The university I went to was very politically active and the President was biased towards a certain group, a professor start to hand out documented instances where the president and other university officials had shown their treatment difference between the two groups. If this professor did not have tenure he would have not been able to do such task.
I think in certain sectors it is crucial to have such protections.
Ray´s last blog ..Compounding Interest: Best Investment Strategy -Invest Early
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 10:10 am |
Nicely written post! I agree with Ray above, university professors benefit from tenure and damnit, after 10 f* years and the grad schooling they put up with I’m inclined to say they earn it (well, of course they earn it – it’s not automatic. You have to go through a lot of hoops and personal sacrifice even to reach the stage where you might be given tenure, you have to apply for it, and a committee reviews 1,001 things about you and your work, etc., one of which is how well the students have thought of you (i.e., often a popularity contest!) over the last 6-10 years). And the standards for getting tenure also go up over the years – lifestyle inflation is everywhere!
And yes, for the quality of research that research professors are meant to do and hope to do, at that stage of the game it’s really symbiotic that they have relative job security.
As you say, it’s possible to get fired from tenure, so to speak – I’ve known a couple profs who have been – and sometimes it doesn’t have to be something as criminal as a harassment case – it can happen over a quibble on how one marks student tests.
I don’t know anything about tenure at public school K-12 levels – that is probably a whole different ballgame.
MoneyEnergy´s last blog ..Natural Gas Industry Update and Price Forecasts
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
One other aspect of tenure is that it guarantees teachers on the top end of the salary scale continued employment when there is (almost) a guarantee that if they were let they could not find employment elsewhere because the union would mandate they be hired at the top level of the salary scale.
That may be difficult to understand, maybe a situation would help.
1. Teacher A is teaching in XYZ school district for 20 years.
2. New administrator has a history with Teacher A and fires them for a reason that if there were tenure would not be allowed.
3. Teacher A applies to school ABC to teach.
4. Teacher A is the best candidate for the position at school ABC.
5. School ABC can hire Teacher A but contractually has to hire him at the step he has earned by teaching for 20 years. In this case, Teacher A would be employed making $85,000/year plus benefits. (This will only go up until Teacher A retires).
6. The budget has already passed and the Superintendent knows he cannot afford that increase in salary. In fact, he budgeted counting on the fact that they would be hiring a brand new teacher for the position.
7. School ABC hires a different teacher who is a first year teacher.
8. Teacher A is unemployable as a teacher.
Education is one area where experience is actually not helpful when looking for a new position because of the salary factor. A starting teacher has a limited amount of time in which to find a position in a different school. Once moving up the step ladder, they are locked into a school for their career.
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
And for what it’s worth (speaking here at the university level again), until academics *do* receive tenure, they have very little job protections if any – in fact the trend has been towards more part-time contract help – no benefits – really insulting pay for each course taught – and this really destroys quality and possibility of research – research that funds new ideas, better teaching and all kinds of advancements.
So the whole “everyone working harder for less and less” applies in academia too.
MoneyEnergy´s last blog ..Natural Gas Industry Update and Price Forecasts
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pm |
My dad is a tenured professor and so during this recession it probably feels good to not worry about job security. The problem with not giving tenure to teachers is one of the reasons teachers are motivated is job security. They aren’t paid much but they can sleep easy knowing they’ll still get paid. I’m not arguing for tenure but I can only speak from what I know… my dad, and my mom who is near retirement after a career in public education.
The Weakonomist´s last blog ..Mutually Exclusive: The Friends With Benefits Paradox
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
Of course tenure is not right. It never was. I recall in my university days sitting through a course on “municipal politics”. There was not a class that the professor did not mention a particular strip club he liked to frequent. Most of the rest of the mubo jumbo he uttered was incoherent. But they had to let him teach something, because he had tenure.
David Leonhardt´s last blog ..Want a link on a throw-away domain?
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
Having tenure is a double edged sword. On one hand, it does give some teachers job security and the ability to branch out. On the other, bad teachers will be paid the same rate as good teachers and principals can’t fire them. That’s why I fully support those 5 year contracts. The teachers have some job security, but the principal still has room to exercise some judgment.
[Reply]
August 25th, 2009 at 7:26 pm |
Hi Everyone – Thanks so much for all the comments! They are really interesting to read.
Lots of you talked about tenure for University professors. My post was mainly about tenure in K-12 public schools, because I think there are differences bewtween the two. One difference is that its more commonplace in college classrooms to cover controversial topics becaus of level of maturity, as well as the fact that students are in college by their own choice.
Second, in universities tenure protects professors from publishing controversial research. This protection is essential because in some ways, that is the point of research! It should be knowledge that is at least new, and at best ground-breaking! Therefore, I completely agree that professors need the freedom to publish results without fear of termination.
And last, I completely agree with Money Energy’s comment about a lack of benefits and insultingly low pay for non-tenured professors.
So while the benefits of tenure are more valuable in a university setting than in a k-12 setting, the drawbacks are unfortunately the same. David’s story reminded me of my own version of that professor who would ramble on about his days in ‘Nam (I began to doubt that he had ever even been to Vietnam).
All in all I agree with a lot of the things mentioned, and I think that Jeremey brought up a very interesting point too.
It just always seemed odd to me that teaching and a handfull of other professions had tenure, while others did not. People in other professions often take risks the same way teachers do (think stockbrokers, journalists, etc) and face the same challenges with frustrating superiors, but never recieve a job-for-life.
HerLifeROI´s last blog ..Is Tenure Right in 2009?
[Reply]
August 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
It’s at the college level, but check out Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. They’re doing pretty much what you propose with their professors – five year contracts that get renewed based on performance. http://www.olin.edu
[Reply]
August 28th, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
I can see the argument in favor of tenure at the university level, although that seems to have its own problems – like artificially limiting open positions for new professors with fresh ideas.
But, IMO, tenure and seniority are big reasons the public school system is completely messed up. Rewards/employment there must be based on merit.
Isn’t it just a bit ironic that the very teachers that hand out student grades based upon merit are themselves graded on a system that does nothing of the sort? Of course, there is a reason why that is so – but instead of coming out and directly saying it, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. ;-)
My $0.02 (after taxes)
Len
Len Penzo dot Com – “Common cents approaches to financial freedom.”
Len Penzo´s last blog ..Drive-By Movie Review: Crossing Over
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
You can still be fired within K-12 the tenure system – piss-poor performance can get you fired, but because teaching is a government job, the principal must have their ducks in a row (not actually hard – ensure to document, follow up, & put on a plan – easy for anyone who is organized). The reason citizens don’t balk too hard at K-12 tenure is that teachers earn so little. Also, there is a strong resistance to linking performance to test scores. To have a great product, you need good inputs. Children are not widgets to be turned out because unless located in a leafy suburb, you lack the best inputs: in the inner city, you battle a lack of parental support, nutrition, and are battling against the equal pull of gangs. Also test scores are a ridiculous measure, as everyone ends up teaching to the test and students don’t learn anything of value. As the author said, not an easy subject.
[Reply]
April 21st, 2010 at 6:53 pm |
The problem with merit-based pay is really tricky. How do you define what a good teacher looks like? Is it based on standardized tests? Then teachers will teach to the test, or risk being “bad teachers”. What if it is based on grades as dictated by the school? Well, then you may be forcing a curving or ranking system on the students which would hurt them in the long run. What about evaluations by the administration, or principal? Again, here you are now at the whim of your principal’s feelings about you.
Another issue is that on teacher pay. A logical argument would be, “If we removed tenure, but just payed them a lot more, that would make up for the lack of security, right?” Perhaps it would, however, I live in NJ, and most of the school budgets here did not pass in last night’s election. They have had to lay off non-tenure teachers, and even some tenured ones, just to come in within budget. There are already enough people clamoring that teachers make too much for “6 hour days and 180 days a year” (which anyone who has taught knows is completely false), so raising teacher pay an appreciable amount for the loss of job security is not feasible.
I am going to be starting my first year of teaching this fall, and I am not looking forward to these discussions. To be fair, all I’ve ever wanted to do is to help kids understand science, and the fact that there is so much politics surrounding my profession is disheartening.
I really wish there were a good solution to this.
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:11 am |
I loathe the tenure system.
The popular mantra is that if there were no tenure teachers would be treated like, what? Sweatshop factory workers?
I don’t understand it.
The rest of the working world doesn’t have tenure, has decent jobs and isn’t treated so abysmally
There is a huge difference between being a completely ‘at will’ employee and having a reasonable employment contract that spells out what constitutes cause for firing rather than the ‘once you’re in you’re in for life’ situation under tenure. Yes, I know that you can be fired ‘for cause’ under tenure as well but it rarely relates to job performance, rather some scandal or other. The bad performers get swept under the rug by the administration – who often only acts where there has been some legally actionable offense that parents are planning to take to court.
Mind you I love teachers for the most part. My best friend is a teacher. I have adored many of my children’s teachers [they're in elementary and middle school] and liked ALL of them.
Teaching is an important job. It has a great load of benefits in time off. But tenure shouldn’t be one of them.
Off my soapbox – it’s a subject that really tickles my annoyance bone
[Reply]
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
Full disclosure: I am a recently tenured university professor.
There is a big difference between tenure as it is applied between K-12 and university.
Let’s start with the fact that nearly 70% of college classes in the US are taught by instructors without tenure. That is made up of adjunct faculty (part-timers) and those on “extended-term contracts,” basically full-time where tenure was ruled out as a possibility when the job was first offered. The reason for this is simple: tenured faculty are a huge financial commitment, sometimes lasting 30 years or more. (At my college more than 90% of the operating costs are personnel related — and we have a pretty impressive infrastructure and beautiful campus.)
Depending on the state, a majority of teachers in a system can be tenured and almost all are “tenure track.” Again, this is a huge financial commitment, as many states and towns have found out with their current budgets. According to many of the state budgets that have been made public, in many districts teachers end up contributing less than half of the cost of their retirement benefits. And unlike a 401(k) or my 403(b), if the stock market goes down, benefits don’t. Instead the school district makes up the difference, increasing their budget.
At the college level you generally need seven years of experience before you can apply for tenure. If you do not get tenure, expect a one-year terminal contract. My tenure review required me to submit a primary “case for tenure” document of about 80 pages with two file boxes of supporting materials. It was reviewed at nine different levels, including three “outside readers” – people in my field who I didn’t know personally who attested that my work was “exceptional.” (BTW, I am now forbidden to judge any of their (or their students’) promotions.) My point is that it’s treated very seriously be everyone involved.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but many K-12 schools in my area base tenure primarily on two to four years without major mistakes or problems. In other words, I do not believe they have to show an unusual body of work or innovation in teaching. (I’m not judging, just stating my perception.) So would the smart move be to keep you head down and hope there are no budget cuts?
Now, even with tenure K-12 teachers get an enormous amount of pressure. Administration, state tests linked to funding, and unions all push and pull. My question is, how much freedom do teachers today really have? Does tenure really protect innovators? Are teachers doing controversial research? HLR mentioned political and religious beliefs — are other protections now in place concerning those things?
These days I think it mostly protects teachers from sinusoidal budgets and irate parents. Firing staff is a quick and effective way to cut a budget quickly and the ramifications are not always obvious. This makes it an attractive option for elected officials looking for a quick fix.
The problem Jeremy points out exists in engineering too: young engineers are cheaper than experienced engineers. But at some point companies are willing to pay for that experience because it saves them money in the long run. Teachers have to find a convincing way to sell that but it means individual accountability rather than treating everyone with N years of experience the same. As Mike points out, that’s a tricky proposition to get right.
My take: In principal I don’t think we need tenure at the K-12 level. (BTW, I also think it should be curtailed at my level as well.) However, since tenure has already created an artificial system, simply abolishing it with no transition plan would be a disaster and the older teachers would be preferentially fired when the budget ax falls. But it’s not a choice between tenure-for-life and free-for-all. A system of extended contracts and jobs protections with renewals linked to review could assuage the fears without committing schools to paying extra for bad teachers mixed in with the good. Not that any politician would touch this with a ten-foot pole. : )
[Reply]
September 5th, 2011 at 6:45 am |
I use godaddy. Probably will continue to use godaddy. Nobody or cooperation is perfect. I love it when people just flip out over a few incidents that they don’t agree with. Get over it folks.
[Reply]