Last week, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu struck down California's teacher-tenure law in Vergara v. State of California. Nine public school students brought the suit, arguing that their teachers were "grossly inadequate" thanks to tenure. Conditions in the schools these students attended are no doubt grossly inadequate, but a few ineffective teachers are not the primary problem.
Tenure should never prevent a school district from getting rid of bad teachers. Tenure has never been—nor should it be—a guarantee of a job for life. The Los Angeles Unified School District clearly has a flawed system for dismissing problematic teachers, as the district's Chief of Human Resources Vivian Ekchian testified during the case. Fortunately, California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon sign AB 215, legislation that would update and streamline the process for removing inadequate teachers. This is sensible and appropriate. Eliminating teacher tenure is not.
Ideally, tenure helps low-income schools to attract—and retain—good teachers. I've studied urban schools for many years, and it's clear that disparities in teacher quality contribute to unequal academic outcomes among poor students. Students in districts with large minority populations are much more likely to be taught by new, inexperienced teachers who have only a bachelor's degree and are often not certified in the subjects they teach. These teachers often earn considerably less than their counterparts in white, affluent districts, and frequently work under adverse conditions. Tenure has no bearing on how school districts chose to staff their schools.
Schools in high-poverty communities are also typically underfunded, as revenues from local property taxes tend to be meager. That makes it difficult for low-income schools to find and keep top teachers. Educators may not be motivated solely, or even primarily, by salary, but it still influences decisions. A highly sought-after teacher would be unlikely to Pedro Noguera: In Defense of Teacher Tenure - WSJ: