Tenuous Tenure

Academic tenure was created at a university level to protect the intellectual freedom of superior professors who had earned the right to be protected from the whims of political storms and popular protests, to teach their courses and conduct their research even though their findings and philosophies might not jibe with mainstream critics. Simply, at the edge of high level academic exploration, research and reasoned opinions often produce startling social conclusions, and without tenure, many brilliant minds could be dismissed before they were permitted to complete their work. But there is nothing particularly cutting edge about primary and secondary education; the goal is to prepare younger minds for either further study or to step into society to begin what is hopefully a life of production contribution. Tenure at this level is not about academic freedom; it is about seniority and little else.

The justification for primary and secondary tenure (which I will call “seniority-tenure” to differentiate the concept from the university concept) is born in the notion of civil service protections and union collective bargaining agreements. Except for seniority-tenure, the unions argue, long-standing and more highly compensated teachers would constantly be at risk for being replaced by their considerably less-expensive younger counterparts. And the teachers unions are exceptionally powerful organizations, with millions of dollars to parse out to sympathetic candidates – almost always Democrats – with deep and powerful lobbying forces at just about every level of political endeavor, from local and state to federal. They are a force to be reckoned with. Ask Michelle Rhee (now chairing the StudentsFirst non-profit and pictured above), former head of the Washington, D.C. Public Schools, what happens when you challenge the seniority-tenure system and incur the wrath of the local unions.

At a time when our deficits are staggering and budget-cutting is sweeping the nation, the fact is that without a first rate educational system at all levels, the United States of America will lose what remaining competitive edge it once held and slide into the realm of “nations that once were great.” The 2006 standardized Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test (given in the industrialized nations only), indicates that 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. Sad news for a nation that placed first in the 1970s on standardized tests. The plea for immediate attention to stem that slide and to take steps that might even replace us at the top of the heap appears to fall on a lot of deaf ears these days. Aside from the radical or overly-wealthy candidates (who don’t need two parents in the workforce) suggesting that home schooling is the alternative (“it’s the parents’ responsibility, not the government’s”), the big reason so many voters have no problems slashing public educational budgets knowing that education is key to our future is summed up in one word: waste.

That lazy, underperforming or just plain ornery and incompetent teachers – sometimes even those with criminal charges against them – at the longer-reaches of the seniority-tenure spectrum survive every attempt at removal (an expensive process than can consume years at full pay) and are virtually immune to layoffs because they have been in the system so long. We’ve seen that there are in fact complex but reasonably accurate metrics to evaluate teacher quality and performance based both on test scores and other objective performance criteria as well as the success of their students in the following years, but seniority-tenure blocks the application of those criteria even to some of the most egregiously unqualified teachers.

These aren’t your archaic “teach to the test” No Child Left Behind standards, but newer and better performance measurements that go well beyond simple testing and that take many variables into consideration. An April 26, 2011 report (Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher Evaluation Systems) from the Brookings Institute explains: “A new generation of teacher evaluation systems seeks to make performance measurement and feedback more rigorous and useful. These systems incorporate multiple sources of information, including such metrics as systematic classroom observations, student and parent surveys, measures of professionalism and commitment to the school community, more differentiated principal ratings, and test score gains for students in each teacher’s classrooms. The latter indicator, test score gains, typically incorporates a variety of statistical controls for differences among teachers in the circumstances in which they teach. Such a measure is called teacher value-added because it estimates the value that individual teachers add to the academic growth of their students.”

I’ve blogged on how pockets of outstanding teachers often make huge differences in their students’ subsequent academic lives as well as the hard-dollar earning power of their students. Studies now show that the best teachers always pay for themselves in the increased earning power of their students. But so many voters today hate the system that suborns waste and incompetence that they are loathe continuing what they perceive to be bloated budgets supporting unqualified teachers. They’d rather unravel the system than continue such manifest wasteful practices. This profoundly negative view prevents a number of voters from supporting the very thing that teachers unions say they want: better schools, smaller class size and obviously more teachers. In short, these unions have created the very atmosphere that derails their goals. By enabling the “few bad apples,” the unions are threatening the viability of the entire system.

So assuming for a moment that there is some justification for the union fear that the older, more highly-paid teachers would often face job-loss if they could be replaced with younger teachers, is there a way to protect teachers without having a system that coddles the wasteful incompetents? Let me propose a compromise that, in some form or another, may provide enough protection to competent teachers and opportunities for newer pockets of excellence. Applying the above objective criteria, accord de facto seniority-tenure to any teacher who achieves a top 25^th percentile in two consecutive years or two out of three consecutive years… and implement seniority-tenure forfeiture for any teacher who falls into the bottom 25^th percentile in two consecutive years or two out of three consecutive years. For the rest, seniority-tenure can continue as it currently is. Oh, and for good measure, take away the teaching certificates and right to teach of any teacher who falls into the bottom 5^th percentile in two consecutive years or two out of three consecutive years.

You can bet that many teachers unions would oppose such a system tooth and nail, even though they would continue to incur the wrath of the public whose support they desperately need to preserve and grow their educational budgets to implement smaller classrooms and better schools. Some would challenge the efficacy of the tests (particularly when applied to teachers in hard-core failing inner-city schools) – not so easy anymore with the improved metrics (even in the tougher schools) – and argue that contractual seniority-tenure is a vested constitutionally-protected property right. But whatever it takes, from bankrupting offending school districts to state and federal constitutional amendments, if the teachers unions cannot find a voluntary path to improve this system, the risks to our future are simply too great to ignore this issue any longer. I would deeply hope that, in fact, it is these very unions that can help configure a new system that generates enough support to enable their most noble goals.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the threat to our continued existence as a viable and economically competitive nation from our educational failures is as real as a massive military attack against our shores.