Merit Pay for Teachers

With being said, on with intellectual jousting I say! I shall start by rebutting PRO's case and shall then move on to dealing with her rebuttal to my own. ============= RE: PRO's Case | ============= 1) RE Obama Quote - First, it should be noted that the both of us are concerned with the economy as indicated by our respective quotes. Keep this in mind as it is quite crucial in this debate. Second, Obama's claim (though well said) is faulty as my evidence of merit based funding cited in R1 did not result in the economy improving. In fact, the very administration which instigated this is the reason for the dismal economy right now. On the other hand, my quote indicates that poor education can lead to a poor economy and merit based funding has shown as easily being a great cause of poor education. 2) RE First Contention - Even if teachers can be assured a short term gain (I say short term because this system is going to hurt everyone in the long run), it's not worth education quality slipping, hence increasing the very problem which both myself and the opposition are concerned with. There are other ways stimulate the economy right now anyway, so it's not like we even have any real reason to take this risk in the first place. Not to mention that we could just easily give teachers the chance to have bonus pay (i. e. excelling to a high level in grad school, hence giving potential teachers the incentive to improve their teaching skills) without risking poorer education quality. 3) RE Second Contention - Once more, there are other ways to motivate teachers via financial incentives. As insisted above, rewarding potential teachers who have excelled well enough or have a certain level of accomplishments would be an alternative that doesn't involve degrading education standards. Colleges are more likely to lower a potential students tuition (sometimes even giving students a full ride) based on their academic achievements in highschool. The same goes for grad schools when in comes to collegiate achievements (note that this isn't a counter plan. I'm simply pointing out that one of the reasons affirming the resolution is a terrible idea is because it's highly unnecessary). 4) RE Third Contention - Cross apply what I said above. There are other words to solve the problem of teachers being under-payed that don't revolve around the likelihood of teachers willing to tarnish their students' education all so that they'll make a few extra bucks. 5) RE Another Quote from Obama - Like I said already, merit pay is most certainly not a way that students' education "could be further improved. " It does quite the opposite. ================= Rebuilding my Case | ================= 1) The affirmative speaker has not responded to either of my quotes at the beginning of my case, thus you are to take them as being dropped. Extend both quotes! The impact of this on the debate is that one of my quotes insist that Poor education = Poor economy. With the economy being the affirmative side's primary concern, her case is utterly demolished should my points regarding poor education go through. 2) In regards to my first contention, PRO misunderstands my argument. The evidence I offered served to show that teachers have already shown themselves willing to lower the difficulty as well as limit the level of education offered in their classes so that their school would be better funded, hence resulting in better pay. If a student is given a poor education that is poor because it is pathetically easy for the student to excel in, the teachers will achieve a higher salary. As for her response to the B part of my contention, this merely fuels my case. If Merit based pay were not based on standardized testing (which exist so that student's educational knowledge can be measured on an even scale throughout the entire nation) , it would make it all the more easier for teachers to manipulate their respective curriculum in a way which lowers the standard of education and make it easier for them to maintain a high salary. 3) Cross apply my above points when it comes to part A. If standardized testing isn't the measurement system, it becomes even EASIER for teachers to sabotage student education so that they may increase their salaries. In regards to smart kids achieving more with a teacher aiding them, what good is that when teachers will likely be working in a manner which does not benefit them education wise? As for part B, if some teachers (who aren't as likely to flat out manipulate the education) have the benefit of having an administration which is actively doing it's job (i. e. Principle disciplining out of hand students so that they are less likely to be out of hand in the future), they can focus more improving education quality. The same cannot be said for teachers who essentially have to do their job as well as their administrations. IN terms of having rowdy out of control kids, PRO responds by pointing out that all teachers have these kids. Even if this is true, not all teachers have the same amount of students like this (the more there are, the harder teaching becomes). Finally, PRO points out that merit pay is extra pay, hence teachers would not be getting any less money, simply bonuses. However, getting less money is precisely what she just said. Some teachers are going to be getting more money than others. This is okay ideally, but the fact of the matter is that the conditions to earning more money is completely unfair. And that'll do it for now.