I was often the student who handed out the obligatory “World’s Best Teacher” mugs at Christmas and my K-12 years left me with many fond memories of my teachers as well as many current role models. I also recognize the importance of educators in society and the general sacredness of education as an ideal.

However, specific educational institutions and laws should be subject to strict debate and dialogue. Teacher tenure, as it exists today, needs to be abolished or severely reformed for K-12 teachers.

To receive tenure, or guaranteed permanent employment, in Alabama, certified teachers must work for a school for three full years. Barring any egregious breach of the law, obvious display of moral deficiency, or a monumental budgeting tragedy, tenured teachers are guaranteed a job for as long as they choose to work.

Many teachers will lose their will to go above and beyond when their salary and job are guaranteed. Over the years, their teaching efforts will often become half-hearted.

It seems most educators teach with passion their entire careers, and though we should in no way make generalizations about tenured teachers, we seriously need to rethink tenure.

Tenure offers teachers unprecedented levels of job security. While some level of job security is good, no other professional field offers the type of job security that teaching does.

This is not to say that we should remove that job security for the sake of fairness; rather, that if that extreme level of job security were removed, it would still be considered fair by the rest of the workforce’s standards. In no other job are employees offered guaranteed lifetime employment, much less after only three years.

The argument that it’s fair for teachers to receive tenure yet not for other professions is based off the principle that education is so important that educators can be, and even should be, treated differently.

Though I agree with the basic assertion that education is so vital it can warrant untraditional business practices, this argument, as it relates to tenure, is paradoxical.

There is nothing inherently sacred on the teaching end of education. The learning process as a whole is sacred, and those who teach are commendable, but our right to write with chalk or grade papers is no more inherently important than our right to fix a car.

Rather, the sacredness, the quality that allows us to excuse ourselves from normal business practices, is found on the learning side of education. The students’ ability to learn is what is of inherent importance. Thus, the abnormal business practices should be found where the “sacredness” is found, namely on the students’ side.

The abnormal business practice on the students’ side is increased accountability for teachers and should thus take precedent over increased job security.

It would be a completely different issue if teachers had to make an incredible financial sacrifice to follow their noble calling. If that were the case, it would only be fair to reward them with exceptional job security.

Though they do make a financial sacrifice in that they’ll never be incredibly wealthy, the average salary of a teacher in Alabama is just over $40,000 a year. There are many employees in this state that work respectable jobs, yet never make $40,000 a year. This is without taking into account the unmatched three months of vacation teachers enjoy.

Tenure does make sense in college. The job security allows professors to come to unpopular or radical conclusions in their research, but in a K-12 environment with a set curriculum, this is hardly an issue.

Without tenure, a teacher could theoretically be fired for a discriminatory reason under the guise of poor performance, but this situation occurs daily in the rest of the workforce. It’s one of the major reasons civil law exists. Such disputes can be handled in court.

Tenure doesn’t just over-protect, it under-protects. If anyone needs job security, it’s teachers in their first three years. Such teachers should be able to experiment with various teaching methods and adjust to a classroom setting without the fear of losing their jobs.

Though a lack of tenure as we know it might deter a certain number of potential teachers, it would essentially provide a filter for teachers whose motives are pure. It shouldn’t make teaching unaffordable for potential teachers, because salaries would remain the same and are unrelated to job security.

Removing tenure wouldn’t be removing the only perk for potential teachers. They still enjoy an unparalleled three months of summer vacation, sound benefits in most cases, and, if they earn it, pension for life.

Teaching is a noble profession that should be compensated appropriately. Tenure, however, isn’t appropriate or needed.

Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship. His column runs on Mondays.