Last year, only five percent of Detroit Public Schools Community District students scored proficient, even as 99% of teachers were rated “highly effective” or “effective.” Baltimore Public Schools had a similar story: in 23 schools, not one student scored proficient in math. Yet, these schools and districts continue unchanged today.

These two examples might seem extreme. But they are not the exception. Sadly, most large urban school districts nationwide fail to successfully educate students.

It is hard to imagine that any organization can fail to fulfill its basic purpose and continue to operate. However, our government K-12 schools not only continue to operate, but they receive more taxpayer money each year to sustain this poor performance.  

What’s the cause of this poor performance? One could point to a number of factors. But tellingly, since government employees, including teachers, were allowed to unionize in the early 1970s, U.S. public schools have experienced virtually zero growth in academic achievement. According to the Nation’s Report Card, math and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams show minimal gains over the last 50 years.

In fact, the recent release of the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress exam score reveals the largest decline since the assessment was launched in 1990.

It is not a matter of whether children can learn. Instead, it is the failure of the public education system, which is largely driven by teacher union rules. These negatively affect both teaching and leadership, and the problem is often intensified in urban school districts where unions are most influential.

Specifically, the seniority rules of teacher unions do not incentivize or reward teachers who produce strong student learning. Additionally, the termination of poor teachers is almost completely prohibited. As a result, mediocre teachers are not only allowed to retain their jobs but also receive an annual salary increase as part of the school district’s seniority pay schedule.  

Good teachers, on the other hand, often move to better-performing schools or move outside the district public school system to teach as they gain seniority. Some leave the profession altogether. That leaves novice and poor-performing teachers in the more challenging schools, which are often part of the urban school district.

School administrators, particularly principals, are in a similar situation. The worst-performing principals tend to be in schools where students and teachers need the best. My book, Every School: One Citizen’s Guide to Transforming Education, explains that “[h]igh-performing schools share many characteristics, but none is more important than leadership.” Poor-performing schools won’t substantially improve without excellent leadership, and the negative effects on students assigned to low-quality schools are devastating.

Even if they graduate, students who aren’t adequately educated are not prepared for success in the workforce or life. And the lack of a good education is tied to substantially higher rates of poverty and crime.

The remedy for reducing poverty, crime, and other societal ills in our country lies in adequately educating our future citizenry. For that to occur, public education must change course. The system needs to reward teacher and administrator performance linked with student learning. Additionally, ineffective teachers and administrators must be removed. This will require a change in union contracts. Maintaining the status quo keeps kids from learning and robs them of the future they deserve.

Donald P. Nielsen is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, Chairman of the Institute’s America Center for Transforming Education, Former President of the Seattle School Board, and author of Every School:  One Citizen’s Guide to Transforming Education.

Image: Kelly Hunter