Inquirer Editorial: Teachers shouldn't get lifetime appointments

New Jersey public school teachers may face the biggest test of their careers this year. A new law that takes effect next month changes an antiquated tenure system that has hampered education reform and made it nearly impossible to fire bad teachers.

Gov. Christie has made tenure reform part of his sweeping education agenda with mixed results. After battling with the state's powerful teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association, to little avail, he reached a bipartisan compromise on the tough issue of tenure a year ago.

The resulting law, sponsored by State Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D., Essex), is not perfect, but it marks the most significant change to the state's tenure rules in a century. The law increases the time it takes to earn tenure while making it easier to dismiss poor teachers. President Obama has called for similar reforms, as well as more training for teachers who need help.

The New Jersey law changes the way teachers are evaluated and for the first time makes tenure contingent on performance. That's appropriate: Tenure was designed to protect teachers' rights, not to provide irrevocable lifetime appointments.

Under the new law, teachers will be eligible for tenure after four years in the classroom instead of three. They must also get high marks on more rigorous evaluations that grade teachers on a scale from "ineffective" to "highly effective."

Previously, efforts to dismiss tenured teachers could take a year to resolve and cost up to $100,000 or more, making dismissal rare even when a teacher's effectiveness was questionable. Now, even after teachers get tenure, they can be fired for poor evaluations in two consecutive years.

In addition, tenure cases will no longer be decided by administrative law judges. Instead, they will be referred to arbitrators who must make a determination within 90 days. Nearly 30 cases have already been decided under a pilot arbitration program, an encouraging sign that the new system will end gridlock that is not in the best interest of students.

There are some provisions of the law that warrant changes (though not a postponement, as some are demanding). Charter schools, for example, should be subject to the new rules. And the NJEA has raised concerns that the evaluations may rely too heavily on standardized test scores. Recent cheating scandals in Atlanta and Philadelphia show the pitfalls of such high-stakes testing.

Overall, though, the law is bound to make New Jersey's schools better. Allowing poor teachers to remain in the classroom hurts good teachers as well as students. Those who fail to measure up should be let go.