This just goes back to my original comment--It's not about the "crappiest" of the crappy. In those cases, I imagine that it's not hard to cite the gross incompetence needed to remove a teacher. But it's NOT so easy to cite the generally incompetent practices that you can find in the average and complacent, populating classrooms today. Now, I know at this point people here are gonna tell me that 100% of the teachers at their school are Jaime Escalente or LouAnne Johnson reincarnates. But I'm here to tell you that some schools are not as lucky as those. I would guess that you have one, two, three classrooms in each school who have a teacher in there who, either feel secure in their employment--in which case it reflects in their teaching methods and output. Or they are lacking in class management, and their class is the routine emination of loud, unrespectful students... and/or the teacher is routinely yelling to get their point across... and so on. I don't understand why schools should have their hands tied, in keeping any workers who they don't feel are the very best they can get. You can't get rid of anyone who you feel is quite ordinary, but manages to do his/her part in covering their bases. Despite what you may personally see, there are LOTS of ordinary teachers in the classrooms. Sorry to say it, but why should these ordinarys have a job, and some of the best coming down the pike not? It makes no sense, and I think those who argue tenure's need should be able to see that. I recognize the need to protect the rights of teachers, just like Reality Check said. But this is not the way. The biggest failing in this way (tenure) is that it acts not like a filter (filtering the good from the rest) for the new blood... it acts like a plug (keeping the good, the bad, and the ordinary out).