I'm not sure why you put your faith in the professional judgement of the teacher rather than the school principal.
Why?
If you're being paid by tax dollars, taxpayers should be able to fire you for any reason that they please. If you don't like those conditions, work for someone else who offers the conditions that you'd like.
Yes, your fellow tax payers may well disagree with you about how to spend tax money. That's how democracy works. If you don't want "those people" to decide how to spend "your" money, perhaps you should carefully consider when you pay directly vs via govt.
I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives.
I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions.
[1] I don't know if these are the actual terms, so corrections are welcome.
Sorry - you don't get to hide behind representatives.
> I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions.
While there is a difference, the "you can't do things that piss off the voters" rule applies to both.
It was called the "spoils system" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), it turns out to be a major vector of abuse by elected officials, and is the reasons the US civil service has safeguards for dismissing civil servants.
A regulation of the nature you describe would potentially harm the public - an employee might be harming the public under conditions D, but would be unable to be fired.