We high school students know it well — our best work is never done in the last hours before something is due. Perhaps the Kansas Legislature could take that lesson from us.

In recent weeks, the Legislature passed a controversial bill eliminating teacher tenure and due process, which Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law.

In addition to the bill itself being poor, so was the merit upon which it was passed. Lawmakers waited until the last hours of session to even initiate the bill, giving the public no time to respond.

“The bill should have been given more floor time,” math teacher Greg Farley said. “Passing legislation in the middle of the night seems shady.”

Giving the people no time to respond is a clear indication of how little obligation the legislature feels it has to the people. The legislature is a body that works for the people, and if its members don’t think they do, they should look into new careers.

The bill is based on the idea that schools are unable to fire bad teachers. That’s not true. Under the previous law, administrators could still fire teachers but with the possible step of a due process hearing. If a teacher was bad, they would still be fired.

But if teachers were targeted for personal reasons, like refusing to change a star athlete’s grade to a passing mark or being pursued by overzealous parents, they had a chance to make their case and keep their jobs.

The new law is antithetical to teaching. Why teach if you can’t give an honest grade or punishment without fear of being fired?

“Teachers may choose to ignore problems to avoid confrontation or job loss,” Farley said.

The bill will only discourage quality teachers from coming to teach in Kansas, because there is no longer job security for teachers here.

“It may impact teacher recruitment by reducing the pool of quality teachers willing to teach in Kansas,” Farley said.

In North Carolina, teacher tenure was revoked, but a new system was implemented. Top teachers in districts could be offered four-year contracts while other teachers would only be offered one- or two-year contracts. This system still allows for some gratitude toward its best teachers.

The Kansas bill is the most unfair to teachers who have already earned their tenure.

“I was a little shocked,” senior Chase Oehlert said. “It even took away teachers’ tenure that had already received it.”

Giving tenure to teachers not only ensures that the best quality of teachers will be drawn to the state, but it alsoallows for teachers who have put time and hard work into their careers to be rewarded for these efforts for education.

“If a teacher has held a job for that long, they obviously are doing something right,” Oehlert said. “They deserve the tenure, especially wanting to continue on a teacher salary with the current economy.”

Perhaps lawmakers would have been able to better discuss and understand the negative effects their bill would bring had they spent the proper amount of time and energy to learn about it. The kind of effort the public expects of them. The kind they get paid for.

In my eyes, the bill ceases to have any benefits but a long list of faults: poor practice precedents were set by the Legislature, good teachers will seek job security elsewhere, teachers will hesitate in necessary disciplinary measures and administrators will gain more undeserved powers. While teachers are losing the ability to fight for their jobs, most lawmakers will be doing just that this November.

Voters should consider such irony when walking into the polls.