Group 4: K-12 Teacher Tenure

Tenure is a form of job protection given to teachers. A teacher who is tenured cannot be fired, barring certain violations or misconduct. The first tenure laws in the U.S. were passed in the early 20th century. These laws prevented teachers for being fired for racial bias, change of local political party, or personal bias. Additionally, tenure laws allowed a sense of academic freedom. Tenured teachers could teach potentially unpopular subjects which they believed were important without the threat of being let go. Assuming teachers were productive, they could teach in any manner that they wished. Recently, however, controversy has been raised over the issue of tenure. It has been blamed for the under-performance of U.S. public schools, and has also been related to school budget crises.

Those who support tenure have many arguments in their favor. The practice of firing experienced “senior” teachers and replacing them with younger teachers who require less pay has become relatively frequent in some areas. Those in favor of tenure realize that one solution to this practice is tenure. If a senior teacher is tenured, they cannot be fired simply to make more money available to the district. Another argument is that tenure itself draws many teachers into the education field. It can be argued that without tenure, potential teachers would take their talents elsewhere, leaving a shortage of teachers and subverting the educational process. Tenure itself also encourages a more careful hiring process. A school board which knows that a teacher will be teaching in their district for years to come will likely me more particular, being sure to choose the best teacher for the job. Tenure also protects teachers from false accusations of misconduct by students or parents. A teacher who is not tenured could be quickly fired to prevent potential scandal, even if the accusation is false. Tenure forces a fair investigation of the matter. Lastly, tenure gives under-performing teachers a better chance to improve.

On the other side of the argument are those who wish to abolish tenure. Tenure, they say, causes complacency and keeps under-performing teachers in schools. A teacher who knows he or she cannot be fired has less incentive to work hard. Even if a school tries to fire an under-performing teacher (which is a legal action), they usually choose not to. The reason for this is the bureaucratic red tape involved with firing a teacher. This process can take up to a year, and costs most districts tens of thousands of dollars per teacher. Additionally, the requirements for receiving tenure have changed significantly. Initially, receiving tenure was based on a teacher’s performance. In the present day, tenure is simply given to teachers after only 2 to 5 years in the classroom. According to critics of tenure, this is not enough time to determine whether a teacher is actually performing at a level which makes him or her deserving of tenure. Those against tenure also cite the fact that not having the ability to fire teachers prevents schools from being financially responsible in a time when schools are already struggling financially. Even worse, they argue, tenure is no longer necessary. The recent increased focus on standardized testing has in and of itself limited academic freedom-- because teachers have to teach more to the test, there is less room for teachers to teach potentially controversial materials. Also, many other due process laws exist which prevent anyone from being fired without just cause.

Tenure laws remain in many states, but are being challenged in many. Is tenure still necessary? Should it be reformed? And does it do more good than harm, or more harm than good?