Tenure and Salary — Motivation Killers

If you want to get your union representative fired up, simply tell her that you do not believe tenure or salary has a place in teaching. Watch as her eyes become filled with rage, the vein on the side of her forehead begins to pulsate, and her fists clench as the cellphone in her hand is reduced to a pile of dust. It is this reaction that prevents discussion on the impacts of both tenure and salary in education.
Despite the fact that there are numerous red flags with both, tenure and salary are considered the pride and joy of teachers and, many times, the deciding factor that pushes people into the profession. It gives the sense of a safe, secure job and allows employees to know that they will be guaranteed a pay increase every time they go up a step on the salary guide. It is this “safe and secure” job that leads to teachers who are frequently in massive debt, are unmotivated to grow and have a positive impact in their field, and who talk negatively about their profession.
At the root of the problem is the association between teaching and money. The thought of obtaining good money for teaching has become voodoo. Teachers do not get into education for the money, they do it because they care about students and want them to succeed in life. If is often considered greedy and selfish to think that teachers could earn a higher income. Teachers should have the means to provide comfort for their families and afford luxuries that will motivate them to work even harder in life. The belief that money is shallow and not what is important needs to be eradicated. It is perfectly normal for someone to desire money and the things that money can provide. In fact, it is irresponsible not to want money and to believe that one is does not deserve it.

Obviously there are deeper meanings to life beyond the spectrum of money, although, money plays a significant role in life that is often overlooked. Money not only provides for our basic needs, but also contributes to our overall mental well-being. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association, money is the number one cause of stress for Americans[1]. If the stressful effects of money are lessened or eliminated, the quality of education for students will improve, as teachers will be much happier to come to work each day.
In addition to a subpar salary, teachers are presented with what is made out to be the Holy Grail of the working world: tenure. Tenure essentially guarantees that you do not lose your job unless you do something negative that is major and significant. In other words, tenure promises that as long as you do the bare minimum you will have a job in a particular district. What lovers of tenure fail to recognize is that it is creating a culture of safe teachers who, although are excellent at what they do, often times do less than what they are capable of. It is hard to blame tenured teachers for not working as hard or putting certain tasks to the side because they are tenured.
Let’s look at a theoretical example. Joe sells cars for a living and is just starting out. If he stays with the dealership for four years, he gets tenure and the dealership can do very little to Joe so long as he meets his requirements and does not break any rules. Joe must sell at least 15 cars every year and for the first 4 years that he works there is a chance that ownership can terminate his position, no questions asked. Joe, in fear of losing his job and wanting to show ownership that he is a great car salesman, sells at least 65 cars each year for his first four years, significantly above the minimum requirement. The year after Joe gets tenure, Joe only sells 45 cars, a number still above the minimum requirement but less than what he has done in the past. Joe’s numbers continue to drop as the years go on, and although they are above the minimum (maybe 30 cars each year), Joe is clearly not reaching his potential like he did in the first 4 years.
This is example can easily be converted to the teaching profession. Although teachers’ “sales” are much more abstract and difficult to measure, the important aspect to recognize is that tenure leads to underperforming teachers. They may not be underperforming in the sense of what is required; however, they are not reaching their full potential and giving students the same level of time, energy, and effort as they did as non-tenured staff. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but for the majority of teachers this holds true. Often times it is to no fault of the teacher as when a teacher gets tenure it often syncs up with a busier time in one’s life. The teacher may have an upcoming wedding or a family to take care of. These take priority because there is no need to worry about putting forth one’s best effort at work. Why? Tenure.
Tenure has the potential to be an effective reward for great teachers. It tells teachers that the district loves what they are doing and that we want you to be a part of the district for a long time and continue to give our students the best education possible. The issue, however, is that tenure is watered down with underperforming teachers which leads to the lazy getting lazier. If tenure is to stay in education, the requirements must be much more demanding and thorough in order to ensure that the only teachers receiving tenure have proven their effectiveness and their willingness to grow and attempt to reach their greatest potential. This would mean an entire overhaul of the tenure process and some serious, non-biased discussion that will bear in mind that the ultimate end goal is to get students the best teachers possible.
There are systems currently in place to determine teacher effectiveness. Most states now have mandatory teacher-observations multiple times throughout the year, most of which have non-tenured teachers getting observed more times than non-tenured. In theory, this makes perfect sense as administrators should be keeping an extra eye on the new teachers to get a full read of how that person teaches and to get a greater understanding of teacher effectiveness. The problem lies in the quality of the observations, an issue that is part administrative and part systematic.

The demands placed on administrators have increased drastically and the expectations have become overwhelming. To say that administrators are spread thin is an understatement. With all the guidelines, state reports, and procedures that administrators must follow, time in the classroom and time spent teaching teachers is minimized. It is nearly impossible for an administrator to get into a classroom and perform a meaningful and thorough observation. Because of this, administrators refuse to have the lack of time impact their teachers, whom they are supposed to be monitoring and looking out for, so administrators give nearly all teachers a great report. This is essentially like most grading systems that are in place across schools nationwide. The “A” becomes the norm and the only ones who get less are the ones that blatantly do not deserve it. The same concept applies to teacher observations as the majority of teachers get threes and fours despite the fact that, in a more rigorous observation, they would be earning lower scores.
What is further concerning is administrators’ lack of ability to provide constructive criticism to teachers. All too often teachers are not reprimanded and issues are not addressed the correct way because administrators fear how the teachers will respond. Administrators think they are protecting one’s feelings or preserving the relationship with the teacher. This happens with teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships as well. The person’s feelings are protected in the short-term, but in the long-term the concern or issue was not addressed and, as a result, no change occurs. This is why the “A,” as stated above, has become the norm. It is why the power of the majority of schools has shifted from teachers to parents and students.
Administrators need to apply constructive criticism techniques so that teachers understand that the feedback being presented is not to be taken personally, rather it is offered so that the teacher can grow and become the best educator possible. When criticism comes from a place of honesty and respect, the recipient is often honest and respectful of the criticism. This is what leads to the growth of the individual teacher, which in turn leads to the growth of students. The end goal of achieving maximum student success, again, always needs to be kept in mind.
The current set up of tenure and salary does not encourage teachers to work hard throughout their entire careers. Demonstration of commitment to teaching is front-loaded and the number one priority becomes working for job security rather than working for job success. Non-tenured teachers are encouraged to go above and beyond, to volunteer their time and efforts, to fly under the radar, and to stay quiet until they get tenure. Once teachers are tenured, they are encouraged to minimize time spent on activities without compensation, work closely with their union, and to voice their opinions. This is like dating someone for numerous years and making yourself out to be the perfect wife/husband that will do anything for his/her partner, then shifting 180 degrees after the wedding and letting your true colors show. It is a recipe for disaster that is insincere, deceiving, can lead to destructive relationships in schools.
Tenure is detrimental to teaching except on the rare occasions when high quality teachers are rewarded. Beyond that, it gives teachers reason to commit less effort to their work and results in less-effective teaching. Salary has its own flaws as well, however, they are not quite as black and white as tenure.

Salary is hard to replace in the teaching profession because students are not copy machines, cars, or Cutco knives; they are not easily measured. Despite the best efforts of some of the greatest minds in education, there is yet to be a sustainable measure of teacher effectiveness. Different levels of student ability, home lives, resources, and an abundance of other factors make it very difficult to put down on paper whether or not a teacher was successful in a given school year. To base teacher pay solely on whether or not a student passed a certain test or met certain criteria is not at all fair. It makes sense to guarantee teachers’ base salary, just as a sales position often does. But, just as in sales, there should be incentives and bonuses that encourage teachers to strive for more and motivate them to put forth their best effort. The current system in place simply rewards teachers for showing up to work every day. As long as you stay with the district you move onto the next step on the salary guide and you get a raise with each step. Does a teacher who has been working for 35 years but does the bare minimum deserve to make the same amount as the person who has been working five years but has made drastic improvements to the school? Teaching is not prison and is not about serving a sentence. There is room for reward at all stages in a teacher’s career.

Rewards can come in many different forms. Running clubs, advising students, applying for and obtaining grants, increasing sense of community, demonstrating significant growth as an educator, and so much more should all be monetarily rewarded, and the reward should be substantial! Teachers should be able to negotiate the amount they are paid by explaining why they deserve the compensation through demonstration of achievements. This will encourage teacher participation in the school and the community, which will help even the best of schools grow.
Tenure and salary are two parts of teaching that are solemnly talked about, yet are coveted by teachers nationwide. The ineffectiveness of each are glaring but are unlikely to be addressed and changed because school districts, just like many of the teachers they employ, are set in their ways and prefer to take the safe route. If there is to be meaningful change in the schools we must start with the teachers. In business, if the employees are unhappy, the customers will be unhappy. Likewise if the employees are happy, the customers will be happy. Right now, in education, the employees are teetering towards unhappy. This means that the customers, or students, are doing the same.
By creating a more efficient system that distributes educational funds more appropriately, school districts can create an environment that encourages teacher success, which in turn leads to student success. Teachers will not only be happier because of the monetary rewards, but because of the sense of fulfillment and the acknowledgement they receive for putting forth their best effort. Teachers that are motivated to change and grow for the better can have a profound impact on students and their futures that is endless in opportunity.
Do you agree? Disagree? Have a comment about a particular point in the article? Share your thoughts it the comments below! Better yet, write a response article for posting on educationpatriots.com!
[1] Bethune, Sophie, and Angel Brownawell. “American Psychological Association Survey Shows Money Stress Weighing on Americans’ Health Nationwide.” American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 July 2017.
