Performance versus tenure

I heard something the other day from a Middle School teacher that has stuck with me.  She was talking about the current budget environment and recent firings of teachers as a consequence.  Her comment was that she's been in the system long enough that there are plenty of teacher's newer than her so that her job is safe enough ... or something to that effect.  This bothers me. 

In most jobs, your ability to remain in your job has everything to do with your performance, very little, if anything to do with time-on-the-job.  Truly, in my profession, you may be more likely to get fired in times of tight budgets if you've been around a long time, if only because your "cost" is too high; this, sometimes, is irrespective of the value you bring, in more schizophrenic organizations.  The only time I can think of where short-tenure means less stability is when an employee is completely on overhead.  Even then, if he or she can produce, tenure means nothing. 

I'd never been smacked in the face with the question of tenure versus performance in the schools before.  The discussions have always been hypothetical.  My sympathies have more often than not been with the teachers, knowing many and not trusting most administrators.  Still, there can be positive results when a person has to prove himself everyday at his job; when you are only as good as your last success.  There is the question of measurement, though.  How can you tell?  It's easy to pick measurement criteria that results in undesirable behavior.  It's much harder to devised good measurements.  I won't get on any soapboxes today – no time.  It seems as though the whole system is broken. 

I do wonder, though, and I've been thinking.  Long and hard.  These thoughts very well might lead to actions.  What kind, I've yet to decide.

Oh, the thinks you can think! – Dr. Seuss: a reprise

My post from Wednesday, April 3, 2013 belongs here, but here didn't exist yet.