Should Teachers Have Tenure?
By Randall Holcombe • Thursday April 15, 2010 9:41 AM PDT • 3 Comments
That has been a hot topic in Florida this past week, because the Florida legislature passed a bill that would remove job protection from tenure for teachers, prohibit teachers from being paid more for holding advanced degrees, or for being paid more for number of years on the job, and require merit pay based on the performance of their students.
Governor Charlie Crist vetoed the bill today.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of doing what’s best for Florida’s schools, there were some politics involved on both sides. Teachers’ unions lean strongly Democratic, and Florida’s Republican legislature was, at the very least, not concerned about passing legislation the teachers’ unions opposed. Democrats, of course, supported the union line on this and opposed the bill.
A host of Republican heavyweights in Florida came out in support of the bill, including former Governor Jeb Bush and two former Speakers of the Florida House of Representatives. There was a clear partisan divide on this bill: Republicans in favor; Democrats against.
The veto by Republican Governor Charlie Crist is interesting in the context of the upcoming election, as Governor Crist has decided not to run for a second term as governor, but to run for an open U.S. Senate seat instead. He is being challenged (on the Republican side) by former Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio, who now leads Governor Crist in the polls.
It appears that Crist’s veto will cost him even more Republican support, making it more likely he will lose the Republican primary. Meanwhile, a poll indicates that if Crist did lose the primary and ran as an independent in November, he would win a three-way race.
Despite rumors that Crist might run as an independent, he has said he is a Republican and will be running as a Republican for the Senate. But his veto of this legislation with strong Republican support suggests he’s setting himself up to win a three-way race in November, should Rubio win the Republican primary.
Setting aside all the political maneuvering, it’s also worth considering whether it’s a good idea to pay teachers based on the performance of their students rather than on years on the job, with a pay premium to advanced degree holders, and whether job protection for tenured teachers is a good policy.
The entire debate pre-supposes that the government has the authority and the competence to be controlling the education process. It has neither.
One could almost overlook the fact that the scheme is funded by looting the public, many of whom have no children to educate. Yet is should be painfully obvious that its track record regarding education has been abysmal.
No amount of tax money can possibly fix an inherently broken system that rewards failure and is openly hostile to success. The results are predictable: Poorly motivated teachers propagandizing to classrooms full of students that have no desire to learn in a prison-like environment.
We’re a bankrupt country full of ignorant people. Our day in the sun is over.
Steve Hogan | Apr 15, 2010 | Reply
Substitute “employee” for “teacher”, and you have the answer.
richard | Apr 16, 2010 | Reply
While state governments may claim authority to provide public education, they certainly have not shown competence. Parents who homeschool or pay for private education do so for many positive reasons — they are also rejecting the premise that the public system is providing better preparation for their children.
In a competitive system where all parents and their children choose and pay for education, some providers would offer pay for performance, premiums for degrees, and possibly job protection, and others would not. “Experts” could argue as they do now about the merits of each approach, but in the end the customers would decide which combination of techniques and pedagogy produces the desired result.
It might turn out that character building and values are more important than the current focus on facts and thinking skills. Planned systems are good for having opinions — markets are better at sorting out what works.
Martin Buerger | Apr 16, 2010 | Reply