Labor & Employment Law

Tenure v. Salary - Which is More Important?

Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2008, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

The Washington Post reported on August 14, 2008, that D.C. teachers are split over the Public Schools Chancellor's proposal to offer salaries exceeding $100,000 for teachers willing to give up job security and tie their fates to student achievement. The rift reportedly is occurring largely, but not exclusively, along generational lines, with younger teachers more willing to accept the risks of the ?green tier? salaries and older ones often questioning the proposal.

This proposal is the linchpin of the chancellor's quest to overhaul public education. It would make D.C. among the nation's best-paid public school teachers, enabling those with just five years of experience to make more than $100,000 in salary and bonuses. Under the proposal, teachers who want to accept lower, but still significant, pay increases can keep the job security that comes with tenure. Those opting for top salaries, however, relinquish that protection. Those coming into the D.C. system would be required to enter the so-called ?green? plan. Supporters of the plan are pushing the union to bring the plan to a vote of the membership. More seasoned teachers, who have seen years of dysfunction and political turmoil in the school system, are deeply leery of placing their employment in the hands of a principal.

To me this issue is a no-brainer. Tenure is the most important benefit of teaching. Boards of Education are political and if one believes that they always act in the best interest of their students, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Keep tenure.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein