Eliminating "Poor Teachers" Is a Poor Excuse

I have posted today's Star Ledger editorial in its entirety and highlighted the most objectionable part - "a tenure system that has protected bad teachers for a century".
What about the good teachers that it has protected? I guess that doesn't count.

Will the tenure "reform" law continue to protect:

Those who speak their minds and are then harassed, poorly evaluated and fired by a vindictive administrator (many of whom have been appointed via political connections and cronyism)?

Those who may be harassed and fired because the relative or friend of an administrator or politician needs a job?

Those who may be harassed and fired because they are at the top of the salary scale?

Those who may be harassed and fired because they have supported the "wrong" candidate or political party?

The old law protected all of these people. Is it reasonable to use the excuse of eliminating the very low percentage of "poor teachers" in order to justify "reforming" tenure and thereby denying the majority of "good" teachers the safeguards tenure now affords them?
Is tenure "reform" the result of ulterior motives? I surely think so!
PS
If the real motive is to remove "poor" teachers at a reasonable cost it can be done without "tenure reform".
Read my posting of Sunday, February 19, 2012 - $100,000 Questions About Tenure