I was recently watching a little portion of “The Lottery”. It’s a documentary about the failing public education system in Harlem.
This was mentioned:
"According to the Department of Education, of 55,000 tenured teachers, 10 were fired in 2008.
In New York City, the cost to fire one incompetent tenured teacher is about $250,000 of taxpayer money."
Just wondering, what makes the cost of 250,000 dollars?
I understand for some unemployment (yes?)?
But why is it so high?
Probably the cost of hearings and the paperwork involved.
Perhaps that’s an average that includes several high-price lawsuits and settlements? Some chunk of that might be severance, the cost of hiring a replacement, or hearings including the cost of legal counsel. But the majority of that might be a few very expensive wrongful dismissal cases, where the legal costs and payouts might be seven figures. Thus the total cost to fire ten teachers might be 2.5 million, but in nine cases it just cost $50k, and one case eventually led to a $2 million settlement.
Also, an independent verification of that number might be nice. I am not saying they made it up, but the movie likely has an agenda.
Plus, what does tenured mean in New York? People love to use that word to denigrate public school teachers (she has tenure, so she doesn’t care), but few actually take the time to find out what it means in terms of an actual contractual relationship in the place in question. Hell, most people don’t understand what tenure is in a university setting, where tenure actually exists.
It costs money to hire a replacement. Depending on the district, an out-of-area search may have to be conducted to find a qualified teacher to replace the one who was fired. The district also has to do due diligence to make sure the new teacher is qualified, that s/he is properly credentialed, and that s/he doesn’t have a criminal record. (Many districts are doing their own background checks as a CYA measure.) These checks can cost serious money. I don’t know that these were included in the $250,000, but they’re still an expense related to the firing of anteacher.
I wouldn’t call it typical for the country as a whole, but those numbers don’t seem out of line for NYC, which has a huge problem with an inability to fire teachers in something resembling a timely manner. Teachers instead are assigned to rubber rooms - where they have no responsibilities but continue to draw full salary - while decisions are made/processes followed.
Eight years, $2 million to fire this teacher.
And a series in the NY Post about firing teachers in NY
It certainly doesn’t cost anything like that in central Illinois, especially if the administration does it in the first three years before tenure is granted.
As other posters have noted, there may be all kinds of costs included in that figure. In my district (western US), it takes two years of evaluations, meetings, documentation, mentoring, legal consultation ( a biggie) , etc. to get rid of an obviously bad teacher. One poorly-performing teacher in my school was such a severe alcoholic, he collapsed and had to have CPR. However, alcoholism is considered a disability, so he couldn’t be fired for that alone, even though he’d missed a whole lot of work days due to it. (True at any private company, as well, or so I was told by the principal.) I imagine those fees would be even higher in NYC. There was also the cost of substitute teachers. If you live in ia state where bad apple teachers are paid to vegetate while their termination is being processsed, that could be a huge expense.
However, the fact is, it’s expensive to fire almost any salaried employee. Every employer has to face those same costs (except maybe the continuing “rubber room” salary–ridiculous). It’s not just in education.
Not to derail too much, but in a non-union environment in a right-to-work state the bar to fire someone is basically as long as you aren’t doing it for prohibited reason (race, gender, etc.) than go ahead.
And your principal is overstating that a private business would not be able to fire an alcoholic for missing work. Some would give the employee a chance, some wouldn’t.
I don’t know about the cost issue, but something else here certainly give me pause.
Only 10 fired out of 55,000? I don’t care what the actual job is, but I can’t imagine 10 out of 55,000 in ANY field being a realistic number for needing to be fired. Have you ever worked at place (or interacted at/with a business) where you thought ONLY one out of a whopping 5 THOUSAND needed to be fired?
Not remotely true. Absent a union, or an individual contract, individuals can be fired at will for any reason, as long as it has nothing to do with discrimination against a protected class.
I presume the Disabilities Act puts some employees in a category of “protected”.
Plus, some states do not have “at will”, I assume. Canada has rules about half-way between the US and Europe. You can dismiss someone whenever you want (if not union, if not for a discriminatory reason). However, separation pay kicks in for dismissal without cause. Cause is pretty restrictive - theft, insubordination, chronic lateness or misbehaviour, etc. Separation pay is hard to nail down, et a good lawyer, but falls between 2 or 3 weeks up to 2 years; when the circumstances suggest difficulty finding a replacement job (age, years worked, narrowness of field, number of similar employers) it may reach a month for each year of service.
With unions, you simply cannot fire someone without cause. Proving incompetence is a huge step. In the case of teachers, the person has the papers which presumably include a decent amount of training. If you suddenly want to call them incompetent after, say, 3 or 5 years on the job, the question will by “why did you accept them for so long?”. Questions will be raised about discrimination or picking on someone due to personality conflicts, whether the person was really bad or just “targetted” for other reasons. (Not that bosses ever do that, eh?) Being sure you have the necessary proof and rebuttals to withstand a lawsuit or discrimination charge usually involves a HUGE amount of paperwork, evaluations an other procedural ass-covering.
As for the rubber room… When the hearing finally happens, in 6 months or more - if the teacher is still in the classroom, then someone will ask “If they’re so bad, why are they still teaching?” If the union gave the board the power to simply stop paying a teacher and give them the boot, destroy their life, have their car and house repossessed and then a year later … oops, it was just a cantakerous principal that wanted you out of there, sorry, you’re not really that bad, here’s your back pay.
Even cops are assigned to desk jobs or sometimes suspended with pay while an investigation continues, rather than fired at the first hint of problems. Any surprise the same rule applies to other government employees? At least with the “rubber room” they ahve to show up on time and attend for their money, it’s not a ticket to moonlight and double dip.
If central Illinois is anything like New Jersey, it costs zero to simply decline to renew any non-tenured teacher’s contract.
For tenured teachers here, if they are laid off based on seniority according to negotiated agreements, it costs nothing.
However, to fire someone for cost it is difficult and potentially very costly. I served on my local school board for nine years. The township is rather large and quite diverse. During that time we fired one teacher and another teached was “allowed to retire early” in lieu of being fired. To fire a tenured teacher, you must prove that (a) the teacher was in flagrant violation of some term of the contract, (b) you have notified him/her and (c) provided direction as to how to amend the problem, (d) the teacher failed to improve despite your documented efforts to improve. You must work through the NJEA (teachers’ “union”). There is a county and a state level appeal. The entire process must be confidential and must obviously respect the accused’s consitutional rights.
The teacher we actually fired was believe, although not proven, to be an alcoholic and to be impaired while working. He was fired for failure to prepare adequate lesson plans and it took over two years.
The other one had been accused for many years by students of corporal punishment, illegal in NJ. Dozens of parents complained but refused to actually testify or sign a complaint, and of course you (rightfully) cannot fire someone based only on hearsay. Finally one mom said absolutely I will sign a complaint and my son will testify that Mr. X slammed him up against a locker and we will produce photos of the resulting bruises.
After due investigation our lawyer told us he would love to continue the case and get this guy fired to make an example of him. However, he added, it will take you at least another two years and will cost you more than his current salary. And until the case is resolved you cannot legally remove him from his job. The person in question was within 2 or 3 years of retirement. His NJEA rep said yes, we will defend him to the finish because that is our job. It WILL take 2 years, and Mr. X says he will fight to the finish and then retire as soon as he loses the case.
So – Yes, it could take tens of thousands of dollars to fire a tenured teacher.
It’s still not free. If the person files for unemployment, you either need to dispute it (which costs money for counsel, etc.) or pay more into insurance. You need to pay all of the costs to hire and train a new person. Further, the person can still file suit, e.g. for wrongful termination or harassment. It’s probably not as much as trying to fire a tenured employee but it’s not free.