In a school system where the California Education Code has overreached, teachers and students alike suffer. Teachers with creative and innovative ideas are being turned down due to “seniority.” Essentially, tenure is an academic’s contractual agreement not to have his or her position terminated without just cause. The tenure system does not benefit education as much as one might hope. Furthermore, it is a very cumbersome process to dismiss a teacher once they have tenure. There are several changes that ought to be applied to the California K-12 tenure system and it needs substantial reform in order to be beneficial.

One of the main reasons why the tenure system needs to change is that it harms the free market because of a decrease in competition. Once a teacher has tenure, the work it requires to dismiss a teacher means that they are almost always there to stay. This limits the amount of movement that occurs in education because teachers are more locked into their current job; once they have tenure it becomes irrational to move. The market operates most efficiently when the highest level of competition is achieved, according to Pomona professor Gary Smith. For example, when buying groceries, one looks to buy the cheapest possible. This creates a need for options and competition because without them, consumers would be forced to buy overpriced groceries. This same concept applies to all aspects of the economy. Unfortunately, with tenure, teachers become more inclined to stay with the school they are at and schools are forced to keep the teachers they have. This is harmful because it creates a decrease in competition and incentive to work. The loss of competition that occurs here will decrease the incentive for teachers and schools to operate to the best of their abilities.

This failure in free market economics causes students to suffer from the tenure system because their education is lacking in quality. In California, a teacher will have the opportunity to receive tenure on the first day of their third year teaching at a K-12 school. This gives the administrative staff less than two years to decide whether or not they will be giving tenure to a teacher. Two years is a very short amount of time to evaluate a teacher resulting in a higher probability of inaccurate evaluations. In comparison, the time most college tenure programs require is six to seven years. It is clear that colleges feel they need more time to evaluate a teacher and there is no reason why high schools would require less time. Furthermore, unlike the most college tenure systems, the students are not formally consulted with when a teacher’s tenure is in question. Students deserve to be heard, especially when their education is being discussed. The administrative staff do as much as they can but no one is capable of evaluating a teacher the way students, who are in the classroom every day, do. It is more than likely that a less than ideal teacher joins the education system permanently under these precarious standards. Education loses its value as a result.

Both students and teachers can be harmed by the tenure system. For instance, colleges may hire more part-time professors, who they are not required to give tenure, in order to save the money it would cost to hire a full-time tenured professor. A full-time professor’s salary can average from $72,000 a year up to $160,000, while a part-time professor’s average salary may range from $25,000 to $27,000 a year, and often much less, regardless of where they teach, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Essentially, tenure may incentivize schools to hire more part-time professors than they would without tenure because it would be financially logical from the employer’s point of view. Harm will befall the teachers as a result of increased part-time professors in replacement of full-time; this reduces the average income per teacher because there will be more part-time teachers that have substantially lower salaries.

However, tenure is not all bad. Colleges expect their professors to research and get published in journals on a fairly regular basis. Without tenure, the professors at these schools may feel restricted from discussing controversial ideas if there is a possibility of job loss. This danger exists at the K-12 level as well. Tenure is important for controversial research and discussion, and although it does not need to be abolished, serious changes to the system should be considered. The negative effects that tenure can have on both students and teachers cannot go unnoticed.

It is clear that tenure needs serious reform. The current system in California is hurtful for both students and teachers. These impacts of lower-quality education and pay will follow all unchanged systems of tenure. Schools should allow more time to consider teachers for tenure. Furthermore, tenure and benefits should be extended to part-time teachers. It is time that students receive quality education and teachers receive the pay that they deserve.