Michelle Rhee’s proposal to abolish teacher tenure in Washington, DC has sparked some great commentary in the blogosphere. Wendy doesn’t think it will improve education. Megan writes, "If Rhee’s plan goes down, it will indicate that a majority of DC’s teacher’s think that they’re incompetent.  Which does comport with the data coming out of DC schools."

Megan points out that Rhee’s plan isn’t simply about abolish tenure. Her plan is:

Ms. Rhee has not proposed abolishing tenure outright. Under her proposal, each teacher would choose between two compensation plans, one called green and the other red. Pay for teachers in the green plan would rise spectacularly, nearly doubling by 2010. But they would need to give up tenure for a year, after which they would need a principal’s recommendation or face dismissal.

Teachers who choose the red plan would also get big pay increases but would lose seniority rights that allow them to bump more-junior teachers if their school closes or undergoes an overhaul. If they were not hired by another school, their only options would be early retirement, a buyout or eventual dismissal.

Proposals to give up tenure in return for a bigger paycheck have been kicking around for a while. Teachers unions always vote them down. Why?

I think, but I’m not certain, that most academics would give up tenure, if they had assurances that their pay would double. People willingly go into all sorts of careers that don’t offer tenure. It seems incredible, but most teachers must be certain that a loss of tenure would mean automatic termination. Otherwise, why not go for the double pay? Are teachers an especially risk-adverse group? Does this have anything to do with the fact that most teachers are women?