BIRT The Student Body & Faculty Members Be Able To Appoint Their Principal and Vice Principal

Thanks, shootmisslayup, for providing such an interesting topic. And thanks, also for your civil and high-esteem debate style; you've earned my respect. I apologize for the brevity of my last round, I was preparing for a midterm that I completed an hour ago. I'll try and make this round more coherent. === Content === o Observations o Rebuttal of Pro Case o Defense of Con Case o Summary o Sources (if necessary) ============ o Observations My opponent has clarified the system to be a democratic election among multiple eligible principles, voted on by faculty and students. So, we must realize that: 1. Several "candidates" will be necessary for schools; not all will win. 2. An "election" requires campaigning. With that, I'll move on to Pro's case. o Rebuttal of Pro Case 1. Confidence My opponent's advocacy is that, if students got to know the principals better, they would be more comfortable with who is running the school. I disagree; most students are apathetic anyways. For those students who do care, they would go and get to know their principal, i.e. it's not that students aren't CONFIDENT, it's that they don't really have anything engaging between them and faculty. A study by the NSSE says that 62% and 47% of freshman and seniors, respectively, have never worked on anything with faculty except on coursework [1] . In other words, they don't care about faculty for anything but work. Not only that, (looking back to my observations) the ability to actually know one's principal with transparency and total lucidity would require campaigning. As a distraction that would take away school time, I argue that this is not only counter-intuitive given our system, it is counter-productive and a squandering of time. Furthermore, I disagree that it would be a good thing to have a principal who agrees with the students. Explained in Defense of Con Case, point 2. The final issue, looking back at Observation 1, is that we would need to have an output of significantly more principals in order to fulfill election criteria of having a sufficient number of principals running. This would also mean that we would have a significantly higher number of principals unemployed. This is indirectly harmful to our economy; drop this point for all the above reasons. o Defense of Con Case 1. Credibility My opponent asks what constitutes credibility. In a more relevant context, what constitutes credibility in civic participation in politics? Adulthood, which is not available in a high school; knowledge of candidates, which is problematic for several reasons- see Refutation of Pro Case; honesty, which is hard to find in high-school voting- see Defense of Con Case, point 2. 2. High-School Voting The students' interest in high-school are generally contrary to what is in their best interest. A survey found that the majority of students want to digitize their schools; to allow the use of cell-phones, smart phones, laptops etc. in class [2]. If students found a principal with the same advocacy, here is the pitfall that would result [3]. A) We would have the incessant distraction of ringing phones not on silent, or texting students who quit paying attention. B) Cheating would be facilitated. C) Students may use phones for bomb threats to the school, to get out of class or miss a test. These are becoming more and more popular, and they are extremely disruptive as one can infer. [4] Clearly, we see that, if students were to know a principal's policy outlined the above, he would get voted in, ultimately causing the schools downfall. 3. Democratic Education If the idea was just that students should vote, my opponent agrees that this point is moot and should be dropped. My opponent advocates a full, democratic-esque election. This would be burdensome and time-consuming, not to mention difficult to run, the way I envision it. But, so that I don't skew what my opponent was saying, I'll leave this off until my opponent provides the actual system to be set in place. A few questions I have, just for clarity. Will there be campaigning? If so, who will fund it? If not, how will all students know the principle? How many candidates will run for principality? Will there be elections every year? Do faculty votes count for more than student votes? Does any part of this take place during the summer? How long will it take? Are there parties, and party primaries? o Summary We are left to question the vague system my opponent hasn't provided. How will it work? Will it be effective, and will it be compatible with our school system? I contend that it will be problematic and won't work, for all the reasons mentioned. To recap, 1. Students wouldn't really care enough to partake in such elections. 2. Elections would take too much time, and would be a distraction from the purpose of an educational institution. 3. Students will not vote with their education in mind; just their comfort and happiness. 4. Too many principals will be demanded to partake in what is essentially a lottery; unemployment will result. 5a. Students don't have the credibility to vote on something that will determine their future prior to their adulthood. 5b. Technology (the students' interest) is counter-productive; we don't want students to vote. 6. Voting on a principal ultimately does nothing to benefit the students. For all these reasons, I urge a con vote. Thanks for your time shootmisslayup, and the readers. o Sources [1] http://newsinfo.iu.edu... [2] http://www.eschoolnews.com... [3] http://life.familyeducation.com... [4] http://www.popcenter.org...