Ironically, the reason for this nightmare is the absurd historical relationship between unions representing industrial workers and those representing professional teachers.

It was the mid 1960s when the Michigan Education Association started negotiating contracts that closely resembled industrial union contracts. Teacher compensation and advancement was suddenly based almost completely on seniority, along with an understanding that a teacher in good standing didn't murder or rape anyone.

Any idea of merit pay for superior teachers, if it existed before that, was gone with the prevailing labor winds. Any idea of sorting out and dumping bad teachers, particularly those with tenure, was off the radar screen.

Decent wages and benefits were guaranteed for most teachers, regardless of their value in the classroom. Uncertain opportunities were guaranteed for most students, who could never be sure if they would find a motivated, effective teacher in front of their chalkboard in the fall.

Ray Spear, a former superintendent of a public school in Michigan, remembers those days. He recently told the Providence (R.I) Journal that he was an early supporter of collective bargaining rights for teachers, but has since become convinced that they've gone too far.

"When I sat down at the bargaining table for the first time, their contract proposal looked more like a General Motors contract than an education contract," said Spear, now a highly respected school administrator in Coventry, R.I.. "They'd gone to the automotive industry for advice. Those are the roots of the situation we're in now."

Luckily, it's becoming apparent that our schools may not be stuck in this horrific trap forever. As impossible as it may seem in a year when a liberal Democrat is the leading presidential contender, the idea of merit pay for good teachers, and the power to fire bad ones, has friends in high places in both parties.

That's right, Democrats of Michigan. Sen. Barack Obama has twice looked the National Education Association in the eye and called for more teacher evaluation and merit pay for standouts. He did it when addressing the NEA convention in 2007, and he repeated his stance last week when accepting that union's endorsement.

It's a position he's bravely held for several years. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus points out a section of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which the senator calls for higher pay for all teachers, "with just one catch. They need to become more accountable for their performance, and school districts need to have a greater ability to get rid of ineffective teachers."

The union teachers of America must be feeling lonely at the moment. Not only are their traditional antagonists, Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, threatening their guaranteed bread and butter, but suddenly their protectors, the "education" Democrats, are also hinting at classroom accountability.

Here's hoping Obama will stick to his guns when the going gets tough, probably during the Democratic Party's platform hearings in Denver later this summer. The traditional pro-labor crowd, starting with the NEA, can be expected to do everything possible to push their candidate away from the concept of forcing teachers to earn their keep, over and over, year after year, student by student.

But even if Obama eventually caves in, the idea has obviously gained momentum among other liberals, which is a very promising sign. Consider the "Hamilton Project," authored by several leading Democrats.

"(The study) cites research done in Los Angeles public schools that suggests that there is a huge difference in performance between students with the best teachers and those with the worst and that it's possible within two or three years to discern if a teacher has what it takes," a Wall Street Journal analysis said. "Weeding out bad teachers and recruiting better ones, they say, would be smarter and more cost-effective than shrinking class size."

But even if Obama stands his ground, and the merit pay movement gains momentum across the nation, it will remain a state-by-state issue. That means the citizens of traditionally pro-union Michigan - Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike - would have to take a new look at the issue, jump on the bandwagon and pressure officials at every level to take action.

Michigan school boards have the power at their fingertips to force change. It's not very well known, but the State School Code specifically gives local school boards the power to impose performance-based wage scales on their teachers and staff, and it's not open to negotiation.

But bucking the traditional trend, and picking a fight with the Michigan Education Association, would not be easy. In a realistic summation of the situation, columnists Frederick Hess and Martin West of the Boston Globe suggest that real reform would require a lot of work by a lot of dedicated people at different levels.

"Improving teacher collective bargaining is not only a question of knowing what to do, but of persuading school boards and the public to tackle the issue," they wrote.  "State policymakers must change the environment in which negotiations take place by maintaining pressure on local officials to raise student achievement. Local newspapers must shine light on contract provisions that serve adults rather than children. School boards and superintendents need to push for fundamental changes in contract language and fully exploit ambiguous language where it exists. Civic leaders and citizens must support management measures that may entail, at least initially, disgruntled unions and increased labor unrest."

Can we do all that, and make sure the cream of the teaching crop guides our children into the future? It's your call, Michigan.