Back in high school, I had this teacher who didn’t want to be at school almost as much as I didn’t want to be there – maybe even a little more. He’d come to class, throw down his briefcase, give us busy work and just sit at his desk. I don’t even remember his name, probably because he never really spoke. All I remember is that it was geometry, and I didn’t learn anything in his class.

It’s unfortunate, but in public schools, it’s not too uncommon to come across a teacher who doesn’t want to be there. And under some circumstances, I can see why. They don’t get paid a lot. According to PayScale, the median salary for an Illinois high school teacher is $44,559 right now. And let’s be honest, how much gratification do they actually get for teaching us? Slim to none.

So, we have to ask ourselves: What keeps ’em coming back day after day, week after week? What’s their motivation? For some, it’s their passion of teaching and introducing new ideas to students. But for others, a passion for the work just isn’t there, and it’s hard to believe any teachers teach for the money, because let’s not kid ourselves, there are plenty of money-making professions out there, and teaching isn’t one of them. That leaves one thing: tenure.

Jeffrey Mirel, a professor of history and education at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times that teachers first began having tenure as safeguards against patronage firings and interference by narrow-minded school boards. Basically, it’s job security, and it’s exactly what keeps a lot of teachers coming back.

The requirements for receiving tenure differ at each school. And after fulfilling those requirements, you’re pretty safe and could do just about anything without getting fired, including handing out worksheets and sitting at your desk without saying a word.

For reasons like that, Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of Washington D.C. public schools, has proposed raises as much as $40,000 to teachers willing to give up their tenure.

Rhee says tenure is a great initiative for teachers who teach for nothing but the benefits and summers off, but also says it hurts the students because it’s harder to fire incompetent teachers.

Job security, especially in today’s economy, is one thing that makes teaching so attractive.

But I couldn’t agree any more with Rhee. Tenure often results in fewer opportunities for younger and newer teachers – teachers who are more technologically advanced than some who have been relying on their tenure. It also results in a lack of motivation. If a teacher has job security, why would they bother to try new things, to teach at all? If that’s the case, tenure just provides inadequate teachers with permanent positions.

And Rhee’s proposal is a rather generous one. She’s willing to double some teacher’s salaries by 2010 in exchange for their tenure lasting just one year. After that one year, the teachers could receive their tenure back upon approval from the principal. The Washington Teachers’ Union hasn’t decided whether they like the proposal because they believe tenure keeps them from arbitrary firing.

Obviously, they’re just scared of losing job security, a luxury that many families don’t have. But of all people and all professions, why should teachers have job security? Teachers have one of the most important jobs today – to educate the future.

It’s not an easy thing to do, and it shouldn’t be, but teachers shouldn’t be teaching for the job security. They should be teaching because they have something valuable to offer the students.

If that’s not the case, why not fire the teacher? Taking away tenure could only increase teacher quality in the long term. If a teacher knew that they may not have their position in a year, and that someone else may have it, then maybe they’d try a little harder, maybe it would improve school staffing and morale amongst the students as well as faculty.

Sure, teaching would become a little more competitive, but a little competition never hurt anybody.

Annie is a freshman in broadcast journalism and she is only five days away from a much needed, home-cooked meal.