Two weeks ago a number of newly-elected governors joined a few die-hard education officials in another tirade about teacher tenure. The gist of the argument states that education improves when teachers unions give up tenure.

Even after labor’s one hundred years of bargaining to gain fair pay, safe working conditions, health and pension benefits, and the right to work without arbitrary dismissal, the easy thing to say when revenue dries up is unionized teachers have too much.

Anecdotes abound about highly paid teachers who are past their days of productive teaching. Classes full of students with low scores on state tests are the fault of those teachers. If they were gone, student scores would go up, schools would improve, and districts would not need so much to balance the budget. That’s what the rant tries to make the listener believe.

Nowadays, approximately 2.3 million public school teachers in the United States have tenure. It is true that the system can generate problems. The union system protects incompetent teachers by making dismissal difficult and time-consuming, by doling out money for paid leave and substitutes.

Here is what districts and states do to mitigate the problem of incompetent teachers. (From the November 17, 2008, Time article, “A Brief History of Tenure” by M. J. Stephey.)

The least effective is what California Governor Schwarzenegger called “the dance of the lemons” which means move poor teachers around to other schools. Then comes separation agreements, i.e., pay to leave-sounds like what happens to corporate CEO’s.

In 1997 Oregon abolished tenure, but replaced the benefit with two-year renewal of contracts and programs to help low-performing staff.

In other states, tenure is revoked, but due process remains before dismissal. A few states, like Colorado (see post 9-29-10), are trying a system to avoid tenure altogether by basing evaluation on yearly goals that determine salary and professional movement. A set of steps for improvement is provided before the teacher is dismissed.

The trouble with the obsession over abolishing tenure is that dismissing incompetent teachers and banking the funds will not save the low-performing schools, nor the funds that have disappeared because of a recession or a state legislature’s poor budget management.

Poor school finance measures fail to provide equal opportunities for students. In California in May 2010 (see post 6-2-10) a lawsuit on the behalf of teachers, students, parents, and school boards was brought to court against the state. To summarize, the status of California education finances are inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex.

Here are five proposals (At Issue: School Finance Reform by Margaret Weston, November 2010) from the Public Policy Institute of California, specifically devoted to California’s budget mess, but applicable to many states’ school budget problems. The steps are proposed with the funds available in California’s 2010-2011 budget. No revenue increase is expected.

Meet resource needs. No state can expect success using a one-size-fits-all spending ratio. Some students require more extensive help; for example, transportation costs are higher for distant rural students.

Structure incentives properly. For instance, English Language Learners struggle to achieve academically, but if the state awards failing schools, where is the financial incentive to help those schools improve?

Allocate funds transparently. Dispensing funds to school districts is only understood by a few financial wizards. Why? If the state needs revenue for schools, the tax-paying citizens need to understand the system.

Treat similar districts equitably. Allocate base funds at equitable per-pupil rates. Allocate extra costs equally; for example, to ELL students and special education students. Now, the expenditure rationale is almost always based on historical factors, not the current reality.

Balance state and local authority. Individual school districts have unique needs. Plan for local decision-making authority in exchange for accountability.

The report never speaks of eliminating tenure as a tool to improve school budgets. It does mention accountability, where tenure issues meet a better evaluation process for teacher, administrator, and school board.