The Blues of Young American Teachers

Times are hard for young American teachers. In New York this year, nearly half of primary school teachers who were up for tenure, having taught for at least three years, were denied, according to figures published Friday, August 17 by the New York Education Department. About 2,000 public school teachers will be re-evaluated by their principals next year. Some of them were fired (3 percent of those up for tenure) and more resigned (16 percent).

The teachers of New York are not the only ones. In 2011, at least 18 states across the country legislated on tenures, teaching posts that some denounce as jobs for life. Regardless, they offer security that is rare in the American public school sector and unknown in the private one. Teachers and their unions consider them a defense against possible abuses of power, discrimination and a principal’s political affiliations.

This issue is very recent. In New York in 2007, barely three percent of teachers up for tenure were put on probation until the following year or were fired. In 2009, not one state had touched tenure legislation. A year later, Barack Obama pleaded for a better evaluation of teachers, and several conservative governors launched a crusade against teachers deemed “unfireable” and unmotivated.

Additionally, Idaho completely rid itself of these types of contracts last year. The conservative Northwest state adopted a law that denied all employed teachers the guarantee of seeing their contracts renewed for another year. Florida adopted a similar law, and last year New Jersey facilitated the dismissal of teachers with poor performances.

Awarded for Performance

In New York, the crackdown began in 2010 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as a major venture of his third and last term in office. The billionaire, who is not affiliated with the either of the two major American political parties, stated that he wanted to “put an end to tenure as we know it, so that tenure is awarded for performance, not taken for granted.”

In order to evaluate performance, principals in New York schools first look into a class’ standardized test results, which the teacher will have attempted to improve throughout the year. A team recently established by the mayor trains principals to observe classrooms and evaluate the contribution of each teacher “to the school community.” Each of these three criteria is evaluated on a scale from “highly effective” to “ineffective.”

Shael Polakow-Suransky, the chief academic officer of the city’s education department, which employs around 75,000 teachers, said Friday to the New York Times: “I think New York City has some of the best teachers in the country. It is a good place. People want to be here. So we are very fortunate. But we also want to keep pushing them, just like we want to keep pushing our kids.”

Budget Cuts

Unions keep from completely admonishing this incentive for good performance: Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), affirms having always defended a “rigorous but fair” allocation procedure. Yet, he notes that many young teachers leave the profession after a few years of practice, lacking prospects. According to the union, among the 2,500 teachers employed in 2008, 30 percent had quit after three years.

This debate is part of a feeling of unease concerning performance in the American school system and severe budget cuts. According to a report from the White House, since 2009, the American education system lost more than 300,000 jobs (all types included), principally because of these cuts. On Saturday, President Obama asked local and federal legislators to stop laying off teachers to balance their budgets.

By doing this, Obama attempted to differentiate himself from his rival in November’s presidential election, Mitt Romney, and Romney’s Republican running mate, Paul Ryan, known for his austerity regarding budgetary matters. Recently, the Democratic candidate proposed a plan to give $25 billion in aid to prevent teacher layoffs. This program has been blocked by conservatives opposing additional expenditures.