What Teachers Think About Unions, Merit Pay, and Tenure

Introduction: Teachers Under Scrutiny

Stand by Me: What Teachers Really Think About Unions, Merit Pay and Other Professional Matters, a 2003 report by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda, is a timely survey of teachers and their feelings about their profession. At this juncture, national and state attention is focused on improving the quality of teaching in public schools. State aid for education is often linked to public schools' adoption of merit-based pay, and No Child Left Behind's use of standardized testing has become ubiquitous. In light of such political pressure and scrutiny, it is perhaps unsurprising that 78% of teachers feel they are often used as scapegoats for all the problems facing education. Still, many remain in their profession. One teacher featured in the Public Agenda report had actually left and re-entered teaching several times, stating that it was in his blood and that he could not stay away, no matter how frustrated he felt.

In public discourse, there is an often-repeated expectation that teachers must ensure students leave school intellectually and emotionally prepared to do battle with the world. Critics from outside the profession — particularly business and industry leaders — view the use of tenure and non-merit-based pay as evidence of what is wrong with teaching. Yet teachers feel pulled in two directions. On one hand, standardized testing sets high standards and their competency is measured in terms of their students' overall performance. On the other hand, they may have little control over a student's life outside the classroom, which inevitably affects that student's performance at school. Assessments may not adequately measure students' growth. And parents, though quick to blame teachers, were often absent when it came to helping children with homework or ensuring it was completed at all.

Tenure: A Necessary Imperfection

While teachers were dissatisfied with many of the uncontrollable forces acting on their students — and felt that parents and administrators did not fully understand their struggles — they were also critical of their fellow professionals. They acknowledged that tenure could allow incompetent teachers to remain in the classroom: 78% said they had seen teachers going through the motions rather than really teaching, and they recognized the difficulty of removing an incompetent colleague. Yet they maintained that tenure, for all its imperfections, is necessary to protect teachers against unfair allegations.

Teachers seem to have a love-hate relationship with tenure. They acknowledge its benefits and can see how it serves an important function, but they also recognize the argument that it can reduce the incentive to excel, given the comfort level it fosters. Only 28% of tenured teachers said they would trade tenure for other benefits. Tenure protects teachers from administrative politics, pressure from parents, and from newer hires who come straight from college and would accept a lower salary — thereby undercutting the wages of experienced educators.

Teacher Unions and Job Security

As for the much-criticized teacher unions — accused of securing lucrative contracts and benefits for their members at the expense of accountability — a similarly ambivalent relationship is evident. Just 19% of surveyed teachers said the national union reflects their values, yet 81% believe their working conditions and salaries would be significantly worse without unions. Teachers are among the few professional groups in America today with meaningful job security, and it is worth reflecting on the often dramatic differences in salaries, duties, and job security between unionized public school teachers and their non-unionized counterparts in private and parochial schools. According to teachers in the report, even a whisper of misconduct — such as striking a student or perceived unfairness — can result in immediate dismissal or a coordinated campaign by parents, in the absence of union protections.