Schools Weeding Out Veteran Teachers to Save Money?

In a well-run school district with strong administration, a good teacher never has anything to worry about. At least that is my general assumption about my profession. However, stories creep out every once in a while that reinforce the reasons teacher associations hold tightly to tenure, due process, seniority, and other standards of teacher contracts. Because, we've all heard rumors and accusations that school districts seek to save money by dumping veteran teachers in search of young, inexperienced, and ultimately cheaper staff.

That's the charge coming out of Denver Public Schools, according to veteran teacher Cynthia Masters.

I've heard similar stories of teacher turnover recently from different school districts. And in one particular district, I have no doubt the superintendent has intentionally sought a younger and younger staff that he could control while keeping costs down. Of course, there are bad apples in any profession, and it shouldn't surprise us that these stories occasionally surface. However, as school districts face increasingly tight budgets, and the public perception of teachers and government workers continues to plummet, the attrition of veteran teachers to save money is a situation to watch for very carefully.

So, About All Those Bad Teachers

The general - though misguided - consensus is that public education is a failure. And the general cause of this failure is assigned as "bad teachers." That seems to be the mantra of every education reformer from Michelle Rhee to Bill Gates. And, of course unions and tenure get a pretty good shot.

In response, teachers will often acknowledge the presence of bad teachers and the weaknesses of due process for "bad teachers" but assert that there are far more complex issues at stake - particularly the lack of accountability for students, parents, and administrators. Few people outside the field have ever experienced the challenge of trying to promote learning to resistant adolescents. And even fewer have knowledge of just how many bad teachers are out there or why they might be "bad teachers." It's worth noting, for example, that education does have a self-selecting system of attrition. In that, I mean 60% of new teachers leave the profession in the first three years. Thus, they quit - as opposed to sticking it out and keeping that "easy job for life."

And, then, every once in a while the curtain is pulled back for just a moment, and one honest soul provides some insight into the schools where all the bad teachers are blocking achievement from these children thirsty for education. Such is the case with the recent expose "Confessions of a Bad Teacher" from John Owens, an editor with a long career in the publishing industry who decided to step into the classroom to "make a difference."

He got quite the education.

OK, Let's Talk About Tenure

“Why do teachers get a lifetime guarantee of employment?” The simple answer is “they don’t.”

Far from being an irrevocable guarantee of employment regardless of performance, tenure actually gives teachers the same protection any employee in any profession takes for granted. “Tenure” simply means that a teacher who has passed a probationary period – usually three years – cannot be dismissed without cause. That’s a revolutionary idea, isn’t it? By contrast, probationary periods for other jobs are often 30 to 90 days. Any organization that employs someone for three years ought to be able to determine whether he or she is a quality employee. Tenure also requires that a dismissed teacher be given due process – another standard right of any profession.

Tenure is necessary simply because probationary teachers can be dismissed without cause or justification – a precarious situation that doesn’t exist in any other profession. In that time, school boards have unlimited authority. Thus, tenure is designed to prevent proven, competent teachers from being dismissed for reasons unrelated to their job – reasons such as personal beliefs, low grades or disciplining of influential students, personality conflicts with parents or administration, changing administrations, union activity, etc.

Of course, people argue that it’s impossible to get rid of bad teachers; that simply isn’t true. Any school district in the country can dismiss tenured teachers for incompetence, and they should. North High School in Denver replaced roughly a third of its staff several years ago by requiring that all teachers – even tenured ones – reapply for their jobs. The school simply didn’t rehire the teachers it found to be ineffective. This practice is not unheard of in struggling schools, and it debunks the notion of “invincibility.” Yet, this is not to say some schools don’t have trouble. Anyone who has seen John Stossel’s “Stupid in America” can point to the ridiculously convoluted teachers’ contract in New York City. The obvious question, though, is why any school board or administration would have signed such a disaster. Clearly, that system should follow North High School’s lead and start from scratch.

Sadly, I’ve read reports – of dubious validity – that describe schools that claim they can’t dismiss teachers who were drunk in class, teachers who sold drugs, and teachers who were unable to demonstrate basic math and literacy skills. That is ridiculous. Any school board or administration that can’t dismiss teachers in those situations is completely incompetent. When I talk to friends who work in the private sector, they often speak of the ridiculous bureaucracies that protect – and even promote – incompetent workers and administrators. Thus, there is no reason to oppose tenure for qualified teachers after a lengthy probationary period; doing so simply gives those teachers the same rights as anyone else.