Should public school teachers have tenure? Posner

The narrow question whether public school teachers should continue to have tenure, as they mostly still do, opens into the broad question of the extent to which education should be provided by a free market or by the government. It is rare for private employers to offer tenure contracts to their employees unless the employees are represented by a union, as public school teachers often are; and so the question of tenure for public school teachers is unavoidably a question about the desirability of permitting teachers to unionize. However, quite apart from unions, public school teachers have traditionally obtained tenure after a short probationary period, by statute. Teacher tenure is now under fire in many states as are teachers’ unions. 

There is general recognition that education provides significant external benefits—significant enough to warrant public subsidy. But public subsidy needn’t imply public provision of the subsidized service. Government subsidizes health care but does not provide the health care itself, with a few exceptions, such as for soldiers (including veterans) and prison inmates, and, in big cities primarily, for indigents. There are many private schools, religious and secular, and a good deal of home schooling. There are also many “charter” schools, which are quasi-private. But most Americans continue to be educated in public schools, owned by local governments (I do not discuss higher education, and hence state-owned as distinct from local schools) 

Is this a mistake? Should education be privatized? Conversely, should private schools be discouraged? 

The nation has evolved a two-tier education system, in part because of local funding of public schools. The children of the well to do, who tend also to be the most intelligent and well disciplined (though there are many excceptions), are educated primarily either in elite private schools or in well-funded public schools in wealthy suburbs, though some public schools regardless of location have selective admissions, such as the Bronx High School of Science in New York, and “magnet” schools in other cities. 

Well-funded public schools appear to do as good a job in educating kids as private schools, and at comparable cost, which is reason to doubt that a free-market model of education is superior to a government model; this conclusion is also supported by the data periodically compiled and reported by PISA (OECD Programme for International Student Assessment) on the educational performance of 15 year olds in 74 different countries. 

The student bodies in the well-funded public schools and private schools in this country are heavily white and Asian. Our large black and Hispanic populations, along with lower-class and lower middle-class whites, tend to be educated in public schools that are not well funded because they are located in poor communities; and as I said public schools are financed primarily by local taxation. Some residents of poor communities are educated in Catholic parochial schools, but these schools have been in decline for many years. 

The lower-tier populations are poorer as well as residing for the most part (of course not all of them) in communities that do not have a large tax base. Poverty retards educational achievement, and the combination of poor students and poorly funded schools seems highly inimical to educational success. The effective (though incomplete) segregation of students by income and educational aptitude and promise probably hurts the students in the lower tier more than it helps the ones in the upper tier, provided there are more in the upper tier; for such a mixed-student-body public school will continue to attract good teachers and to be able to pay them well. 

The focus of reform efforts is therefore, and rightly so, on the lower-tier students, who appear to be poorly served by their public schools and to have little access to private schools, other than Catholic parochial schools, which as I noted are in decline. The charter school is the principal tool of reform, and as it is quasi-private it provides a test of the proposition that privatizing education would improve eductional outcomes in the lower tier (in the upper tier, as I said, public education seems to work well). The goal of the charter-school movement is to increase competition in elementary and secondary education, in part by enabling parents to choose their children’s school and in part by freeing schools from traditional constraints, for example on firing underperforming teachers. But at present, despite many studies, the evidence that charter schools produce better educational outcomes than comparable conventional public schools is inconclusive, which suggests that if they are better, it is by only a small margin. 

So, to return after this long detour to the opening question—should public school teachers be tenured (and should teachers’ unions be allowed, or at least allowed to negotiate tenure contracts for the teachers they represent)?—the answer may be that it doesn’t much matter from the standpoint of educational quality. On the one hand, tenure makes it difficult (though not impossible) to get rid of dead wood; on the other hand, like the long summer vacation of teachers, tenure provides a valuable nonpecuniary benefit to teachers, and this enables public schools to hire them at lower salaries than would otherwise be possible. Perhaps more important—and perhaps tipping the balance in favor of tenure—effective teaching is difficult to evaluate. The movement against tenure has coincided with a movement toward standardized testing to determine teacher quality and hence salary and retention. “Teaching to the test” may not be the best way of educating kids, though it works well in some countries, such as Japan. 

It is not even clear that abolishing tenure would do much about the dead wood. tenure doesn't actually prevent firing an incompetent teacher; it just makes it more difficult because the employer has to show that he has "good cause" for firing. The fact that many public schools apparently don't bother to fire even their worst teachers suggests they wouldn't do much, maybe any, firing were there no tenure. It's when teachers belong to unions that it's hard to fire them, because the union will often act in effect as the teacher’s lawyer, making it costly for the school to fire the teacher. But this is a more an argument against teachers’ union than against tenure. If tenure is a big factor in public school quality, one would expect stronger evidence fo the superiority of charter schools. 

When job performance is difficult to evaluate, employers make a greater effort at screening; unable to evaluate output, they hire on the basis of input (credentials, qualifications, etc.), hoping for a positive correlation between input and output. Maybe more careful screening of teacher candidates, as by insisting on graduate training other than in education departments, would be a better approach than abolishing tenure. Or perhaps the economist James Heckman is right that educational resources should be shifted toward very early childhood education plus aid to parents of poor children. 

The problem with American elementary and secondary education may not be its primarily public character, but income inequality and the tendency to segregation of students by family income.

Comments

[Jane Stutsman]

The problem is not tenure or unions - it is the system that we have for educating teachers. When I attended college in the 70's all students had to complete at least 2 levels of college algebra and either biology, chemistry or physics to graduate - unless you were an education major, then you took "Math in Society" and "General Science". Teaching is a profession and should be treated as such - why not expect the same level of training as a university professor? The requirements should be higher and the pay should be higher.

[formula 1 herbalife]

tenure provides a valuable nonpecuniary benefit to teachers, and this enables public schools to hire them at lower salaries than would otherwise be possible,there is the advent and introduction of the new electronic teaching aids that have to be paid for and their continual replacement due to planned obsolesence

[observer]

the purpose of public teacher tenure laws is to prevent all the teachers from being cousins of the members of the school board.

without such laws, every school board election would bring a new round of teacher firings and hirings, all teaching jobs being political patronage.

the reason it is an issue is that the right is racist and has absolutely no desire to actually help children in under performing inner city schools so the issue is just offered up as a red herring.

[john chamberlin]

"The problem with American elementary and secondary education may not be its primarily public character, but income inequality and the tendency to segregation of students by family income."

you think? wow. what an insight.

[Carolina Divorce Lawyer]

Jack, technology should help the schools to run more efficiently. However, many administrators opt for technological fads that are expensive and not yet ready for use in the classroom.

[discount oakley sunglasses]

Your comment has been posted 54151

[Marie]

Good article, excellent opinion

[Private Schools]

Poverty retards educational achievement, and the combination of poor students and poorly funded schools seems highly inimical to educational success...Great post, you have pointed out some superb details..

[Anne Stuart]

I think Posner hit some marks here, which might not happen often but still. That's something that makes me keep coming back to this blog.

[TANSTAAFL]

All in all, a well argued post by Posner -- UNTIL you get to the aside he offers at the very end:

"The problem with American elementary and secondary education may not be its primarily public character, but income inequality and the tendency to segregation of students by family income."

It's off topic, at least from the standpoint of whether public school teachers should have tenure. But it's a subject Posner, and Becker, could explore in the future.

Recognizing that Posner does not fully develop the point above, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, I nonetheless take issue with Posner's claim that "income inequality and the tendency to segregation of students by family income" is the root of a problem with American public schools.

This amounts to a claim that parents who work hard and do their best to get their kids into effective public schools, by moving to a better neighborhood if that is what it takes, are somehow a "problem" because lazy or indifferent parents won't do likewise for their kids. That notion is just plain wrong.

[teaching veteran]

Let's get real about the funding of schools in poverty-stricken areas. The school district I teach in has a good number of schools that are in low-income areas, and those schools are rolling in federal money! Those schools have more materials than they could ever use, plus they have extra personnel. Those of us who teach in the primarily "white & Asian" schools on the other hand wind up buying a lot of things we need with our own money. And--I'm in a state that doesn't allow teacher unions, so there's no question of tenure.

[NEH]

teaching veteran, Are you complaining about a "Reverse missallocation" of funding or problems of anti-union or professional organization sentiment within your State? For Education to be truly effective the student needs to bring something to the table. As we say in our area, "Why can't Dick and Jane read and write? Simple. Dick and Jane don't want to read and write. So the solution appears to be "Motivation". But is it? As one disadvantaged group of students I once tutored put it, "Why do I need to learn this stuff. I can steal what I need or sell drugs for the money." As for my Mom and Dad, I don't know who my Father is and as for Mom, all she wants to do is sell her butt for crack". So much for the home front. And yes, "I'm a member of Gang. My brother wouldn't join and they killed him".

Within the disadvantaged Urban Complex, it's a vicious battle trying to beat down the reality of Gangs, Guns and Drugs which is these kids daily reality...

[Saas Fee Holiday rentals]

Very nice article, It is good to hear education is valued!

[saç dökülmesi şampuan]

thank you

[aditi]

Articulation is not possible without practice and your post is like amazing things you have mentioned. Thanks to write the article and keep writing. It’s really good.

[i read the contract]

maybe the teachers posting here should identify themselves? a little fair disclosure perhaps? or same from those who work for the teachers' unions. not that all teachers are biased and more interested in the pay packet than whether kids get an education....

[Nike Kobe 7]

http://www.nikekobe7cheap.org

[Private Schools Australia]

Well The student bodies in the well-funded public schools and private schools in this country are heavily white and Asian. Even Our large black and Hispanic populations along with lower-class and lower middle-class whites, tend to be educated in public..Nice one..

[matt ryan jerseys]

How happy to read your post, I hope I can write the article the same wonderful as you.

[amandaapparel]

Amanda.So, every young people to have a positive, active heart, you must be good at planning and management of their business, for my own life most important decision to make. No one more thanwedding jackets you care about your own career, nothing like active same attitude can reflect more your own individual personality. As American poet Whitman grass set written in it: I can't,tight fitting homecoming dresses anyone else cannot replace you cross that way; you must go to go. McDull eight laws: don't and women make sense, especially the angry woman. You don't respect me, I respect you,bridegroom suits pictures you still don't respect me, I still respect you. You don't graduation dresses onlinerespect me, and I will waste you. Want to cry to cry, want to smile smile, not because the world of hypocrisy, you also become false. Not happy sleep, let it go. Sad well, hurt a stomach is bad.

[amandaapparel]

It is so good

[Beats Monster Headphones]

One thing that we need to clarify is our terminology in this debate.

[Cheap Air Max 2010]

I agree. But the question is the time frame.

[Cheap Air Force Ones]

Thank you for such an informative website and post on the EU debt crisis. This is particularly the case when there seems to be constant and volatile opposition in these weaker EU nations to austerity measures.

[Nike Air Max 90]

Will China Overtake Us? which is good news for both the US and the Chinese people.