Question: Should teachers get tenure?

There should not be a teacher tenure. Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that ‘there should be a teacher tenure.’ Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that ‘teacher tenure’ should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word ‘tenure’.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn’t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that’s required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers’ academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo’s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com...

Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Since I assume their opening statement was made in their R1 post, I will begin mine as well. I will be arguing against the idea that tenure for college professors should be abolished. I have three main claims: [Claim 1]: Tenure is a necessity [Claim 2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) [Claim 3]: Research supports tenure [C1]: Tenure is a necessity The concept of tenure dates back over 100 years ago to the early 20 century, when working in the field of education was much different than what it is today [1]. It was female-dominated, classrooms were larger, and working conditions were poorer [2]. Before tenure, teachers could be fired for any reason. If a teacher had the audacity to get married or, even more horrific, pregnant, the schoolboard could immediately fire her. Tenure and teachers' unions were created to guarantee some amount of job protection for teachers. They wanted the peace of mind to know their job wouldn't be terminated for seemingly no reason. At the high school level, most schools require teachers work at the same school for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, and there are many factors taken into account, with the most important one being a teacher's ability to teach. At the university level, I believe you have to have taught for 6 years before tenure consideration. Once a teacher is granted tenure, however, it does not mean they are immune from being fired. "Tenure protects academic freedom. In the absence of tenure, teachers may be fired for any reason. Teachers may be fired if the principal doesn't like them or if they are experienced and become too expensive. Teachers may be fired for being outspoken. [2]" In other words, tenure gives teachers a safeguard to be able to be more involved with the decisions being made at their school, as opposed to being complacent and accepting any and all changes. At the college level, this is incredibly important as professors want to challenge their students and (sometimes) have them confront and critique their already-established beliefs. When I took a Sociology course my senior year of university, our professor warned us of an upcoming lecture the following week where she was going to discuss religion and look at many of the popular ones under a critical lens. I thought this was a strange warning, as anyone whose convictions are strong enough should be fine with having their beliefs challenged. To my surprise, however, many students' parents would contact her to complain. Tenure in this situation protects the professor from being fired simply because a student didn't like one of their lectures. [C2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) There are a lot of myths surrounding the idea of tenure, which is primarily the reason why I accepted this debate in the first place. Some people, for example, think that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security forever and can therefore sit back and be a less effective teacher with no criticism whatsoever. This is absolutely not true. Again, tenure grants teachers job security and the inability to be fired without due process. Ineffective (or "bad") teachers can still be terminated. However, I think firing someone with no intervention or professional development workshops to help them is a bit harsh. Tenure (especially at the university level) is something that needs to be earned from the hardest-working teachers after a long and arduous process. They have to have committed some amount of research outside their teaching hours, demonstrate very strong teaching abilities, among many other factors. Tenure does not "protect" "burnt-out" teachers either. "How many students have complained about a teacher they see as too strict or "boring" - only to realize later in life that this teacher made a profound difference in their lives? Research shows that there is no one style that equates to effective teaching - which underscores why a fair hearing is needed before the imposition of a serious consequence such as firing a teacher who has demonstrated years of effective teaching. [3]" [C3]: Research supports tenure Not only have we established tenure does not help bad teachers keep their job, but there is abolutely no research that suggests students perform worse on standardized tests when taught by a tenured teacher, nor is there evidence that supports perform better with non-tenured teachers [2]. Not only this, but tenured teachers and professors also feel to have a higher obligation to be involved in school-making decisions. "Research finds that when teachers have a say in how schools are run, they are more likely to be invested in the school and to stay longer, and are more engaged with colleagues in cooperative work. [4]" In conclusion, tenure is a necessary provision for good teachers and promotes a stronger school culture, thus increasing academic achievement, not hindering it. The myth that tenure protects ineffective teachers is simply untrue. I await Pro's response. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.peoplesworld.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nysut.org... [4] . http://www.aft.org...

There should not be a teacher tenure. Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle

There should not be a teacher tenure. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for "academic freedom"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: "Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. "(Rebuttal for "high standard"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. " This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.

Teacher Tenure Here are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. [2] [4] Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality. [21] Tenure laws maintain the "last-hired, first-fired" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as "low-income students and persons of color." [22] On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. [23] Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. [3] With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal. [24] For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. [25] Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. [27] New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms") where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. [6] With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude." [28] A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. [29] Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing. [10] According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. [18] Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around" for a short period of time to receive tenure. [30] A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. [2] Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured." [31] [32] Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults." [27] Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. [33] Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. [34] Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to "a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable." [34] Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. [18] ~http://teachertenure.procon.org... *You present your facts and then we will post rebuttals for facts from this round*

Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Teachers who perform below benchmarks such as retention, attendance, academic performance results, assessing required learning outcomes and student feedback, should not be allowed tenure because students suffer to be successful and colleges suffer in graduation rates.

There should not be a teacher tenure. Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn’t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: ‘a’ (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that ‘reason 1’ is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 2 and 6’ ‘b’‘c’ What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn’t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don’t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn’t have been employed and wouldn’t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn’t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. ‘d’ Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators’ fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure’s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 3’ A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ ‘e’ This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 5’ ‘f’ This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 7’ ‘g’ I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled ‘Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis’ [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn’t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro’s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for ‘Reason 8’ ‘h’ 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro’s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn’t ‘collective bargaining, state law and federal law’ be unnecessary too because ‘job protections granted through court rulings’ can offer this protection already? Wouldn’t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I’ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: ‘i’ The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. ‘It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is ‘not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.’ In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn’t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ I have explained in my Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn’t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (‘j’) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. ‘k’ This, I have already explained why it is not true in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: Pro failed to support ‘reason 1’ with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. ‘l’ If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro’s assertion ‘m’ (incidentally, she uses the wrong ‘then’) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn’t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. ‘n’ [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro’s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn’t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro’s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro’s arguments heavily rely on ‘appeal to emotion’ and ‘circular reasoning’. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...

Should Tenures Be Taken Away I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:1. Tenure PossibilitiesTenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include: - New people with new techniques for students- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach- People with new knowledge of a particular subjectBy barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques. 2. Economic View From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living - Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while givingolder people the majority of money -- an imbalance3. Abuse of Teaching PositionsThrough allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as: - Those with corrupted moral standards- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity- Teachers not conductive to learning environmentNote that this "corruption" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...

The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. To My Future Opponent: Thank you for accepting my challenge. I started this debate to learn the pros and cons of this subject, and I chose the side that is my personal opinion (for now). Please feel free to any styles of debating. However I find it a more constructive debate if you hit each of my points as well as making your own. Hobey ho, lets go! In public high schools, tenure is considered a right for teachers who have passed their (usually) 3 year probationary term. Roughly 2.3 million public school teachers in the U.S. have tenure. (Time) Tenure is job security aimed at impeding wanton firing of "unpopular" teachers. Although noble in theory, tenure is simply wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 1) If a teacher deserves to be fired, it is a daunting task for the school district to do so, leading to bad teachers staying in the system. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, "Though tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment, it does make firing teachers a difficult and costly process, one that involves the union, the school board, the principal, the judicial system and thousands of dollars in legal fees. In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismissed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and substitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives." As I mentioned before, a noble attempt at stopping corruption, yet it fails to recognize bad teachers in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 2) There are numerous cases of teachers that deserved to be fired, proved difficult because of tenure. Yet again, from Time, "A Connecticut teacher received a mere 30-day suspension for helping students cheat on a standardized test; one California school board spent $8,000 to fire an instructor who preferred using R-rated movies instead of books; a Florida teacher remained in the classroom for a year despite incidents in which she threw books at her students and demanded they referred to her as ‘Ms. God.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 3) Tenure can easily lead to teacher complacency. This point is simply logic. If a man or woman has a job they know they won't be fired from (within loose limits), are they really going to work extremely hard to better themselves at their job? In today's world, probably not. The same goes with teachers. Please note, I'm not saying all teachers are lazy scumbags who deserve to be fired, but this is simply a problem with tenure. I'm 100% sure that we've all had a teacher who just didn't care anymore. Mine was in a science class. She never taught a thing. All we did was handouts. Easiest ‘A' I've gotten in my life, but that's not the point of school. Tenure allows for ‘Blow off classes' and ‘easy a's', but is that necessarily a good thing, especially with legislation requiring standardized tests. If students are doing poorly, school districts get less grants, making it even harder to educate new students. It's a slippery slope that many schools are finding themselves in. You may be saying that tenure isn't the only cause of this, but it is a factor. Bad teachers = bad students. Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possible Solution: Get rid of the tenure system and create a new teacher grading system in which good teachers are kept and bad teachers are fired. I've been thinking about the education system a lot recently, and the only possible alternative I could find in my mind, is a merit based system. It would keep crass politics out of the system by assuring teachers their job (if they are up to it). I propose a three part test. A) Course Knowledge Exam- The teacher ought to know what they are talking about. B) Teacher Improvement Standards- There are numerous workshops and the like that are available to teachers. They should be required to attend a certain amount of such meetings yearly to keep up with the times and teaching styles. C) In Class Examination- Although teachers are often subjected to scheduled "watching" periods in which an official of the school sits in on a lesson, this is not enough. They should have a set number of random sit ins to insure the teacher is actually teaching, instead of simply making a show on that one scheduled day.

Should Tenures Be Taken Away Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: "It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality."(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Unions sometimes protect teachers that shouldn't be protected. Some teachers are stuck in a rut, "babysitting" until retirement, or getting complaints and being shuffled from school to school. They can't be fired and so they continue to take up space that could be used for younger/newer teachers with incredible ideas and innovative lessons.

Should Tenures Be Taken Away Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted.The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students.CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com...CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, "The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers."1)http://www.dukechronicle.com...R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment.1)http://www.joebaugher.com...R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking?1)http://blog.timesunion.com...The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students.

Teacher Tenure 1) Tenure: : the right to keep a job (especially the job of being a professor at a college or university) for as long as you want to have it. 2) Tenure (As defined by American Association of University Professors): Since its founding in 1915, the Association has seen tenure as necessary to protect academic freedom. Tenure, briefly stated, is an arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee. The Association, also from its inception, has assumed responsibility for developing standards and practices, sometimes in cooperation with other organizations, to give concrete meaning to tenure. Key Association policy statements are the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. I would like to allow the Pro to decide which definition will be used. So far as the debate structure goes, I would like the second round to be stating preliminary arguments. he third and fourth used for rebuttal and concluding statements accordingly, as long as this is amiable to the Pro. I look forward to this debate, best of luck. Sources 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.aaup.org...

Should Tenures Be Taken Away I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, "it has nothing to do with tenures. "C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions.2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals.3. Drops all arguments in round 44. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4.

Should Tenures Be Taken Away First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments:R1: The fallicious logic connects being "arbitrarily fired" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated- Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachersR2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away "great teachers. " He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not "arbitrarily fired" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following:CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. . http://tinyurl.com... [2]CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. . http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted.

Should Tenures Be Taken Away This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that: Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U. S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures.

Should Tenures Be Taken Away Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's:Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. "What administrators want" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that ""The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. " In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals:CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that "they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers "unfirable", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole:1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments.2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic.3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time.

There should not be a teacher tenure. Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.

Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions We are going to make two points. The first is to stipulate as factual Instigator's contention bad teachers are allowed to remain in the classroom rather than give an opportunity to more innovative and qualified teachers. The second is to state it's not the unions fault. The fault lies with the administration and with the school board. What Instigator suggests is the unions not do their job or at least one of their jobs which is to represent and protect the interests of their members. Ethical standards and legal requirements do not allow them to decline to represent 'bad' teachers. There is a way to get rid of bad teachers-- school boards can enact policies allowing for removing such teachers; and administrators can document cases against them. Unions can fight it as they should but if the school boards and administrators do their jobs the bad teachers will go-- and the good teachers who may be unfairly or mistakenly targeted. will be protected. It is the last point why unions should be allowed to protect bad teachers

There should not be a teacher tenure. I accept

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed I will not debunk some of my opponents claims. Introduction I resent that my opponent stated that it is ‘unfortunate’ that we are having this debate both here on a national level. This statement is outrageous. Should the status quo not be challenged, especial If the status quo is harming America’s economic performance, and damaging America’s schools? Also, this debate is not about whether education and teachers are important. Of course I realize the value of teachers and education. This is the common ground that we both agree on. However, it is because I favor them that I am opposed to teacher unions. Education and the future of America should not be hijacked by special interests aimed at helping adults rather than students. To state that anti-union is anti-teacher is like saying being in favor of antitrust law is anti-business. Protecting Teachers My opponent first claims that teachers need protection. This is a false claim. Here’s why a school board would be unwilling to fire a teacher haphazardly: First, the process of searching and finding a teacher is a lengthy and expense process. To find a teacher one has to look over many applications, set up interviews, and pay for advertising the job. Once the teacher is hired, one has to pay for teacher orientation, and file paper work for the new employee. Second off, it’s risky business to fire a teacher that is competent and replace him or her with a teacher that has the potential to be incompetent. In the hiring process, even If one thoroughly looks over credentials, there is still a great possibility that the applicant is incompetent. So as long as the teacher has a decent level of competency, it is much better for the school to keep the teacher then to fire the teacher and risk a new teacher. Third, If a school or school district is known to have a high turnover rate, then it’s unlikely that competent teachers will apply there. Therefore a school district is unlikely to do this. Employees in the private sector do not need to be protected, in which 93.1% of employees in the private sector are not part of unions. Even in the public sector, 63.8% of employees are not unionized. However, it should be noted that If incompetent teachers are not fired, then it means that recent college graduates and those seeking a teacher position that are component are unable to do so. The problem is that teachers are protected too much. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher once he or she receives tenure. In New York City, a “rubber room” was creates specifically designed to pay bad teachers to do nothing. Literally, teachers that got in trouble for sexual misconduct, unwilling to follow the curriculum, or abusiveness were just sent to a building to do what they wanted with pay and benefits[1]. Teachers receive more job security than any other occupation. There is no reason for this. Protecting bad teachers simply hurt the schools. Students do not learn what they need to. Often times, teachers need to review material that should have been learned previous years, but an incompetent teacher simply did not teach the material. This drags everyone down. Education is too important for bad teachers to recieve protection. According to this video, If just the bottom 6-10 percent of all teachers were eliminated, then American education would be at the level of Finland, a nation with top education. (watch 1:08 onward). Past Practices If I am correct, my opponent’s main argument here is that teachers have the right to collective bargaining because it is not specifically prohibited in state and local law. This argument fails for many reasons. For one, this debate framework is based on moral principles not legal principals. I specially stated that I was using an Unitarianism framework. This is a basic appeal to authority argument, using the law as a legit authority. It would equivalent to if this was the year 1940 in Nazi, Germany for me to argue that one should not hide Jews from the government because it is against the law. Second, this argument easily fails once a law is introduced to bar teachers from collective right bargaining. Other Legal Issues I will repeat my argument that I stated earlier. Legal issues should not be a major consideration since laws can be changed, and are not a moral authority. My opponent states that teachers should receive collective bargaining rights since other public employees like firefighters, police, etc. also maintain the right. Just because other public employees engage in collective bargaining does not make it morally right. This is analogous stating that a murderer should not be locked in jail since other murders get away with it scot free. I am against collective bargaining in the public sector. I would remove the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and other public employees, however this debate is specifically about teachers. In terms of the argument that the NLRA does not cover public employees, there are also many checks that exist in the private sector that reduce the power of unions while these checks do not exist in the public sector. It should also be noted that many public employees can not engage in specific collective bargaining tactics. For example, police officers are not allowed to go on strike. So it is not unreasonable to remove teacher’s rights to collective bargaining. Specialization and Demands My opponent states that since teachers invest in a college education to obtain a teaching degree, that he or she should be protected. I will explain the problem with this. There is no reason to suspect that teacher unions increase teacher employment. If you protect bad teachers you can’t let potentially good teachers enter the market. So this argument actually works in my favor, since college graduates spend many years studying the field and get into debt, only to find that they can’t get a job because there are no vacancies. It’s also another point in my favor that teacher unions increase the salary and benefts of teachers, creating a surplus of teacher applicants and increasing the number of those who will invest in a teaching degree but will not be able to find a teaching career. Many other jobs that require more specialization are less protected. For example, Doctors and Lawyers have to spend much more years and tuition to practice in the field. However, neither doctors nor lawyers are unionized. One out of every 57 doctor will lose their medical license and one out of 97 lawyers will lose their license to practice law. Remember, this is losing their license to practice, not just getting fired, the latter a far less severe punishment. For teachers, 1 in every 1000 teacher is fired after tenure for performance based reasons [2]. However, the question is: should people be protected from the financial risks they make? No. Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice. An entrepreneur that decides to start a new business must bear the risks as well. Consumers should not be forced to buy the product and the business should not be protected. If new technology automates jobs, then there’s no reason these jobs should be protected. Once one gets into the mindset that jobs must be protected in order to save them from mal-investments, economic growth, consumer choice and efficiency cannot be maintained. Jobs will always exist through this creative destructive process; they will just be reallocated to different fields. Even If a college graduate is unable to find a teacher career, a college degree is versatile and many people enter careers outside of their specialization. Conclusion: I have refuted the legal claims and protectionism claims my opponent has made. I look forward to my opponents response to my arguments. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3]

Should teachers union be abolished "Verizon and general motors aren't teaching the future." Of course they are not but a union is a union. If it is my opponent's argument that the teachers union should be abolished because they have the ability to strike, perhaps my opponent can state how many times teachers have took to the picket lines, the length of time of the strikes and exactly how these strikes hurt the future of America. Please elaborate how this is relevant to the debate. The barrier to entry into the profession is relevant to this debate. A teacher in New York City has a to achieve a level of education comparable to doctors and attorneys. New York is a right to work state, meaning that employees can be fired at any time for any reason, except if the employer violates the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. With this being said, it is my argument that it would not be beneficial to society if a teaching professional who has obtained a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, passed state licensing exams, and completed an internship to be terminated simply because a principal may not like the teacher personally. A principal could do this if it were not for the protection that the teachers union provides. "Your right. There are a lot more variables to why a student might fail. But when you have a teacher who is show over and over again to be proven ineffective, that's not a coincidence. But because it's nearly impossible to fire that teacher due to the unions, there's a problem." It takes 3 years of teaching in a classroom before tenure is awarded. When a teacher becomes tenured the teacher is considered to be qualified to continue as a teaching professional. In the event that a school board or city wishes to terminate a teacher, the first step in the process is remediation, where the teacher is given a 1 year period in which to improve his or her job performance. In the event the teacher fails during the remediation period a series of hearings take place to ensure the reasons for the teacher to be fired are warranted. This process takes approximately 10 months but only takes place if the teacher requests the hearings. At the end of the hearings, which again take approximately 10 months if the school board agrees with the finding the teacher is terminated. [1] As you can see, this process takes approximately 2 years in which a majority of the time is spent trying to correct the teacher's deficiencies. It's not impossible, it's called due process. "That's not a sufficient enough argument to justify why teachers deserve union protection." Fair enough, "the point of tenure is to protect teachers from arbitrarily being fired. Teachers need protection from over-zealous bosses and ideological politicians. This is the same thinking behind seniority rules, which protect more expensive teachers from being laid off due to budget cuts. Teaching is not a high-paying job compared to jobs in the private sector, and one of the benefits is some job security. Occasionally this means bad teachers take longer to fire." [1] I have an idea! How about we make teachers unions illegal, and if a teacher is show to be effective we give them a pay raise, if not we fire them. Simple. Merit pay is a topic for another debate but if a teacher is not performing as he or she should they can be fired via due process. I fail to see how abolishing the teachers union will have a positive effect on the education the future of America receives. [1]http://www.forbes.com...

The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Thank you for accepting this challenge. First defense: Private vs. Public While the topic says ALL high schools, I did mean public schools (hence my first round not saying anything about private schools.) This was my fault. I should have been more specific. I didn't do that to be abusive and attempt to present a moving target. I hope this will no longer be an issue in the final round of the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second defense: USFG Although my opponent makes a very good point, the USFG does have federal laws passed that have to do with public education. Examples are Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which established confidentiality for student records as well as allowing a request of modification. Another: Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 which dealt with discrimination based on gender. Although the government shouldn't butt in in businesses and the like, it is my strong belief that the federal government should be devoted to the well being of its citizens. And it has been conceded (silence is compliance) that tenure affects the well being of students. Therefore, the federal government (1) has this power; and (2) should use this power.

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed CON falsely claims that I have not shown that collective bargaining are responsible for education inefficiency. I have shown multiple reasons why collective bargaining is inefficient. It is mathematically proven to be inefficient based on the theory of monopolies. It is also responsible for inefficiency by blocking education reform. CON states that school districts cannot raise taxes. However teacher unions finance politicians in exchange the politician raises taxes, which would allow increasing the budget. AFT has donated millions of dollars in campaign contributions. However, teacher unions do increase the size of the school budget. CON even states that the biggest expense is labor. Yet teacher unions are directly responsible for the high cost of labor since collective bargaining raises that cost. As I already showed, teachers are paid more than psychologists, and public teachers receive much higher salaries then private nonunionized teachers. CON states that removing collective bargaining rights will create bad teachers since they will get paid less. First, If a teacher cannot be fired, then the teacher will have less of a financial incentive to teach well. Second, If falling salaries create poor teachers, then the school district will increase teacher salary. No unions required. Privatized schools do better than public schools, yet pay teachers less and do not unionize teachers. CON dismisses the difference between public and private sector bargaining, but does not give an explanation why even though I showed why public sector bargaining is quite different and more dangerous to economic liberty than private sector bargaining. Rejecting an argument arbitrary is not a form of argumentation. CON states unions are responsible for many government worker regulations, yet there is no proof that either unions are responsible or that the regulations are good. OSHA safety regulation has done nothing to increase safety, and the rate of reduction in workplace fatalities has not decreased due to OSHA [1]. Mandating a 40-hour work week is also pointless. People choose work based on how much he or she is willing to work. Hence, this is why part-time jobs exists. The market works so that workers salaries and working conditions improve as capital resources and technology improves, and no unions or government intervention is needed. Henry Ford decided to pay his workers a higher salary, give them less hours of work, and created a sociological department to improve workers lives. Henry Ford did not do this out of generosity, because he wanted healthy workers and less turnovers. He was actually quite anti-union as well. CON’s only rebuttal to education being a public service is that ‘It is what it is’ and even confirms that teacher unions are responsible. What he is rebutting is wrong, since I favor school choice. School choice is what makes US universities the best in the world. CON argues against a program proven to work that the teacher union blocks. CON states that tenure and dismissal is set through the states and should be part of the debate. This is wrong. His own source shows that teacher unions play a part in tenure. “The following are some of the matters that are often the subject of this bargaining: Tenure”[2] Also: When school attendant, Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntarily two-tier track to either have teachers have tenure or give teachers the potential to earn as much as $140,00 per year, the teacher union needed to vote on the proposal. Why are they voting if they have no say? [3] Introduction: CON is using ad homeinum attacks to discredit me. He says that the status quo is not being challenged for the right reasons. I just provided arguments and reasons in this debate to explain the problem. And somehow I should be discredit since I have a financial incentive, yet somehow teachers do not have a financial incentive to keep the status quo. Really? Also CON accuses me of not being an expert and should listen to the teachers, yet what about the school attendances that try to push education reform yet fail? Isn’t the school attendant the expert in education? Why aren’t the teacher unions listening to them? What about the teacher in the video I showed that spoke out against the teacher unions? Con is trying to discredit me without providing any arguments. This is a foul debate tactic. Protection: CON states that this is a clear turn, without actually citing why it should be a turn. Does he want teachers that commit sexual misconduct, abusiveness, and do not follow the curriculum? Extend arguments that teachers do not need to be protected due to internal system that protect teachers. CON keeps on going on the fact that teachers are at the mercy of the students. This is like stating that doctors are at the mercy of their patient. Everyone realizes that a patient dying from terminal cancer is different from a patient dying from a broken arm. Everyone knows that teaching students that are not educated to begin with is difficult. I already explained that teacher performance can be evaluated by measuring the performance of students before and after the school year. CON then tries to attack my claims, stating that I’m not a teacher. So what? Does he seriously believe that somehow private teachers and lawyers attract much more bad performers then public teachers, and that’s why the teacher firing rate is so low? Give me a break. I was a high school student a few years back with good grades. There were some really bad teachers out there. Past Practice Resolution: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removedImplementation: Create a law that removes the collective bargaining rights of teachers There, refuted. Other Legal Issues Create a law that removes collective bargaining rights of state employees. There, refuted. As explained earlier, state budgets can easily be increased through taxation obtained through coercion. The product in the public sector does not need to be demanded unlike products in the private sector. If you have a relentless private union who refuses to compromise, the company goes bankrupt. If you have a relentless public union who refuses to compromise, the government raises taxes or increases the debt. Teacher unions and other public unions pay off politicians to raise taxes or increase the debt in order to finance their budgets. Specialization CON states that it is not the job of the union to create jobs. So this argument is nonsense, since a teacher is still taking a huge risk since a job cannot be guaranteed. In fact, based on my previous analysis, unions make the risks greater. The AMA and bar association are quite different from AFT since lawyers and medical professions lose their license much more frequently then teachers, do not contribute any campaign money to politicians, and are used to improve the profession. Go on to the AMA and bar association and you’ll find published peer reviewed journals, ways to improve oneself professionally. Go on AFT and you’ll find almost none of that. CON uses the excuse for lawyers and doctors that many of them work individually. Note that many doctors work at hospitals, and many lawyers work at law firms and corporations, yet are not unionized. Also note that a teacher can work independently as a tutor. CON still not explain why teachers should be “protected” due to financial risks, but not others. Conclusion: CON fails to defend his arguments and instead uses ad homenium attacks and appeal to (false) athority arguments isntead of actually takig on my arguments. I look forward to the final round. . http://www.coyoteblog.com...[1] . http://www.enotes.com...[2] . http://teachersunionexposed.com...[3]

Should teachers union be abolished I would like to begin my rebuttal by addressing my opponent"s statement that "teachers have to strike." As with any unionized profession a strike is a last resort and normally occurs when there is a standstill in negotiations. However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law [1]. The Taylor Law makes it illegal for any unionized public employee to strike. In the event that public employees do strike they are penalized by having to pay two (2) day"s worth of wages for each (1) strike day. Stating that teachers have to strike is the same as saying that auto workers have to strike. With regard to tenure, tenure is earned after a probationary period of 3 years. [2] During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Although the term tenure is, for the most part, synonymous with the profession of educator the term probationary period is not. Correction officers, police officers, firefighters and others in public service must also serve a probationary period in order to be afforded union protection against unfair and unjust termination. Non effective teachers are not protected by tenure. As with any unionized member in any profession, a non-effective employee can be terminated for job performance whether tenured or not. However, being tenured allows for due process should a school district or city wish to terminate a teacher for ineffectiveness. My opponent is correct in the statement that "unions donate to politicians to push their own agenda." However, the teachers union is one of many unions. Basing an argument on this statement, I could easily argue that all unions should be abolished on this premise. However, unions donating to push their own agenda are no different than a person voting Republican, a person voting Democrat or for any other party line. Politics in itself revolves around agendas. Why does the National Rifle Association donate approximately $7,000,000 per year to Congress? [3] One has to ask, what is the agenda of teachers in the public education system? Personally I feel it is to educate the future of America. If not, why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximetly $42,000 per year. [4] [1] http://www.perb.ny.gov... [2] http://teaching.about.com... [3]http://ivn.us... [4]http://www.payscale.com...

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed As part of the debate format, in each round one is either affirming one's own case or making a rebuttal. Never both in the same round. This is to save character space. The final round is a conclusion, in which no arguments or rebuttals are made. Each side just makes a case why he felt his arguments were better. If my opponent accepts these conditions then we shall proceed. Definition Collective bargaining – workers do not bargain their salary as an individual, but collectively as an organization, usually through a trade union that represent their interests, using various tactics to obtain higher salaries and benefits, which would fail under individual action. I will use the moral framework of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that an action should be taken If the utility, or well being of society, will be improved overall from that action. I concede that removing collective bargaining would harm employed teachers. However in this policy, the benefit teachers obtain are so low in comparison to the utility society would receive that the good outweighs the bad. I will make the assumption that education benefits society. Education teaches students critical thinking and students learn information that can benefit themselves through a higher salary and benefit society as a whole. Schooling is an issue that affects everyone. Everyone has had to go to school at some point in their life and many parents have children in school. A well educated population is necessary If a nation wants to remain a wealthy nation and to uphold the ideas of the republic. I can embark more on why education is important, but unless questioned, I will assume it is a given. I will also demonstrate that removing collective bargaining rights would increase the efficiency of school systems and would allow for school reforms that would improve education. This benefits society since it reduces costs on education and improves education. It will note why collective bargaining in the private sector is vastly different then collective bargaining in the public sector. The collective bargaining power of unions in the private sector is relatively weak. If a labor union demands higher compensation, the private firm may be unable to deliver it, since the polices can bankrupt the firm. This is the reason why only 6.9% of workers in the private sector are privatized[1]. However, labor unions in the public sector are more powerful because they receive compensation from the state. State programs do not compete fairly against private programs. As a result, 36.2% of public employees are unionized[1]. The state can obtain funds from tax payers, offer their services for ‘free', and create laws that either disallow or make it difficult for private companies to enter the market. Private companies can only make a profit If consumers are willing to pay for the product, while the public sector can extract money through force. If one does not want a ‘public good', then he or she has to pay for it anyways or else be thrown in jail. Therefore, since the public sector does not need to worry about bankruptcy and acquiring funds as much as the private sector, labor unions can increase the price of their labor and block reform that will improve education. Teacher unions also have incredible political and social power. If a teacher union decides to go on strike then news media and parents will be in a frenzy. Parents will be upset that their child is not getting an education and it will obtain press coverage. Politicians will be blamed, and possibly lose reelection over the ordeal. Therefore, teacher unions can use strikes far more effectively more than almost any other organization. In terms of political power, teacher unions greatly influence public opinion. For example, many people believe the myth that teachers are overpaid, which I will explain later. Parents, teachers, and celebrities were able to create a huge rallies in Washington DC and Wisconsin to support them[2]. Teacher unions use their fees to pay for politician's campaign fees and lobbying. The National Educational Association has spent over 12 million dollars in Washington from 2008-2010. [3] "Coincidentally" , the NEA spent over twice as much money they do normally during the same time period that school choice movement became big and three well made documentary videos advocating school choice and reform. Even liberal president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for dramatically increasing the size of the public sector stated: "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," [4] It is a myth that most teachers are underpaid. As John Stossel segment shows, teachers are paid more than the average wage in America. They also enjoy many perks such as pension plans, job security, and summers off. Hour per hour, teachers make more than psychologist, chemists, and physical therapists. People choose a job based on a number of reasons. However, people are free to choice a job that he or she finds most satisfying or pays well. Nobody is forced to work an ‘underpaid' job. If teachers were indeed ‘underpaid' we would expect to see a shortage of teachers and people would not apply to be a teacher. However, If anything there is a surplus of qualified teachers. In some cities, there is a 12:1 ratio between applications and open jobs [5]. These statistics are from BEFORE the great recession. This surplus is bad since potential teachers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attain a degree in education, only to find that there are no jobs in education. It should also be noted that it is nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher. While in most occupations, If one is bad in one's profession or behaves poorly, he or she is fired. However, due to tenure, the legal fees, amount of steps and length of time it takes to fire a tenured teacher makes the process impossible. Accordingly, approximately only 1 in 1000 of teachers are fired while most other occupations have a much higher firing or turnover rate. For example 1 in every 57 doctors will lose their medical license[6]. Teacher unions have also successful been blocking educational reforms that would improve America's education. For example, school vouchers have been proven to improve children's reading, math and writing comprehensibility however teacher unions are taking measures to make sure these reforms do not occur[7]. Likewise, teacher unions also blocking reforms to use merit-pay. For example, in Washington DC, the school chancellor offered a plan in which teachers could give up tenure-pay for the opportunity to potential earn as much as $144,000 based on merit per year. The union would not even allow the issue to come to a vote. [6] With improvements in technology and access to capital, almost all goods and services have improved since 1970. Modern cars, phones, televisions, and computers have all improved. Many of these products are even cheaper than they were 40 years ago. However, education has become more expensive and test scores have not improved at all[8]. It is because the collective bargaining power is so strong that America has not seen any improvements in education. Removing collective bargaining power would improve schools, and reduce cost on education that taxpayers have to pay through coercion. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://www.youtube.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8]

Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Teachers provide an essential education to our future generations. It is unfair to allow them the power to simply walk off the job because they feel they're not being paid enough. There are other ways to ensure that they are being treated equitably without sacrificing the benefits to our children. For example, mediation has worked in the past for other professionals such as in the healthcare industry to avoid detrimental effects on society. If we allow teachers the ability to go on strike, they will never be happy with what they have.

The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Extend.

The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Though on the surface tenure is problematic, I have to object to the resolution's requirement of the USFG banning it from ALL high schools. After all, not all high schools are public high schools.The government, federal or otherwise, does not have the right to invade contracts between private schools and teachers merely because it disagrees with the prudence of those contracts. Incidentally, though this is not central to my argument, the US FEDERAL Government has a specific meaning. We have a federal system, in which constitutionally all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or "the people" . I find it doubtful that my conservative American opponent will really feel comfortable so blatantly violating the constitution (since Education is not among those powers granted the federal government, which is why at present the Department of Education is limited largely to "collaborating with the states," helping them out, granting them, rather than bans) for the purpose of education reform, and also doubtful that an amendment on the matter is likely to happen, and that there aren't better things to do with the effort that such an amendment would take.

Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority but new teachers need experience to teach like any other teacher out there. Students should choose because its there education.

Should teachers union be abolished The teachers in Chicago did indeed strike. As I stated earlier in my argument a strike is normally a last resort and is a result of a breakdown in negotiations which is exactly what happened in Chicago. [1] Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. My opponent has stated that "In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired." My opponent is correct in stating that firing teachers in New York is costly. I will attack this argument making two points. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? With regard to my opponent"s final point with regard to salary and negative stigma, salaries in most professions will vary depending on cost of living within different geographical areas. However, when considering the level of entry and education needed to become a teaching professional there are easier alternatives that can earn a person with the same level of education. In fact, approximately 20% of teacher quit the profession with two years. [3] According to a survey conducted by The National Center for Education Statistics "61% cited more professional working conditions in their new careers verses their time teaching. That same group said their workload was 65% more manageable outside of teaching and they were 65% more likely to better balance their personal and professional life after leaving their teaching career." [3] There is no denying that being a teaching professional is a difficult career. In my opinion it makes it even more difficult when the general population has no idea of how difficult and challenging the career is. Especially when politicians who have never been in a classroom setting wish to dictate exactly how to educate students and wishes to terminate teachers as being ineffective when there is no concrete way to judge exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection. I fail to see any argument that my opponent has made thus far that shows how abolishing the teachers union will have a positive impact on the education received by America's students. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://schools.nyc.gov... [3]http://teaching.monster.com...

Should teachers union be abolished As i'm looking forward to a productive debate. To begin, i'd like to state why teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions are detrimental to this nation's public education system because, teacher's have the to strike which interrupts learning of the student, tenure, protection for proven noneffective teachers, and union's donate to politicians to advance their own agenda. These unions put their own agenda in front of what be a number #1 priority for them, teaching this nation's children.

Should teachers union be abolished Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. Verizon and general motors aren't teaching the future. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. Please elaborate how this is relevant to the debate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? Your right. There are a lot more variables to why a student might fail. But when you have a teacher who is show over and over again to be proven ineffective, that's not a coincidence. But because it's nearly impossible to fire that teacher due to the unions, there's a problem. http://www.youtube.com... For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection That's not a sufficient enough argument to justify why teachers deserve union protection. I have an idea! How about we make teachers unions illegal, and if a teacher is show to be effective we give them a pay raise, if not we fire them. Simple.

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed He and I discussed this issue in the forums, a while back, and had some differing opinions so it should be fun to formally debate this topic and see what comes out of it. I will be representing the con position, arguing that the bargaining rights of teachers should not be removed. Opening Argument It's unfortunate that we're having this debate, not just on DDO, but on a national level, as well. Teachers are instrumental in shaping who we are as individuals, in some cases even more so than parents. We rarely stop to consider just how important they are in establishing a foundation, for the success of our nation. Everything we are, everything we will become, every success we have in life, will be at least partially attributable to the contributions of teachers. The thought of taking collective bargaining rights away, thus removing all workplace protections, seems appalling to me. If any group of people deserve to be protected, it's teachers. Throughout this debate I will attempt to show good cause for allowing teachers to keep collective bargaining rights. I will also make a number of points, in support of my position through refutation of my opponents arguments. Hopefully after this debate, you'll agree that this group of dedicated professionals that we entrust with our most prized possessions, our children, deserves to have a means of protection, in the workplace. Teachers Need Protection Few ever stop to consider the tremendous amount of liability that teachers carry on their shoulders, on a daily basis. In today's letigious society, the simple act of hugging a child, even if initiated by the child, can be misconstrued as inapropriate contact, by an angry parent. Every aspect of a teacher's life is tied to their job. Their morality, their beliefs, what they do in their private lives, both past and present, what they do on-line, can subject them to disciplinary action, under the broad term "moral turpitude". In the classroom, teachers are evaluated formally, or informally, a number of times each year. A big part of their effectiveness though, is based on how their students do on standardized testing. This part of the evaluation leaves out many important factors, not the least of which, is the quality of the students themselves. If students don't understand the importance of, or simply don't care how they do on these tests, and many don't, this can have a negative effect on administrators' view of how effective that teacher is. The simple fact is that not all kids want to learn, and try as they might, teachers can only do so much. At that point, a teacher is dependent on school administrators and parents being engaged. Teachers are willing to accept responsibility for their students, but at some point, we have to accept the fact that they are severely limited in what they can do, and stop holding them responsible. The problem is that the public, and many administrators, don't draw a line, holding the teacher wholely responsible for that student, in spite of failed parents and administrators. Unions provide fair representation for teachers in disciplinary matters, and strive to assure that the action taken against teachers is just. Later I will go into some legal issues involved in the argument over collective bargaining. In meeting his burden of proof, my opponent needs to show why these laws, dealing with the constitutional rights of individuals, should be changed. It should also become apparent to the reader that in enacting these laws, our legislatures are conceding that teachers need protection in the workplace. The very nature of their work makes them vulnerable to unfair treatment from the public, school officials, and the public agency that employs them. There are many other reasons why teachers need protection, and they will be discussed throughout this debate, things like financial issues, difficulty in firing teachers, etc. I'm intentionally leaving them out of my argument because I'm sure they'll be introduced by my opponent, so they will be addressed in refutation. Past Practice"Past practice is a labor relations term of art that is used to describe a pattern of behavior that is clear and unequivocal, longstanding, known to both parties, and accepted without protest or significant attempt to stop the behavior. If the pattern of behavior is not in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations, and if it involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, it usually qualifies as a "past practice"". (1) As a representative of the United Steelworkers of America for nine years, I argued a number of grievances and contract issues on the grounds of past practice. It's usually easy to win a past practice case, however there are exceptions. The above description is a very good guideline for what it takes to win. The supreme court has ruled that past practice can be sufficient for setting precedence. I'm not going to post a whole lot of case law though, because bottom line is that the effectiveness of a past practice argument is dependent on whether it is, or is not, "in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations". If state or local laws expressly prohibit collective bargaining for teachers, past practice will likely fail as a legal challenge, even if they've had that right for 10 years, simply because it conflicts with law. However, if state or local law is ambiguous, or does not "expressly" prohibit collective bargaining, and those rights have been given to teachers for a time, then there is little reason to deny that as a legal precedent, given the supreme court's findings on past practice as precedent. From a legal standpoint, the effectiveness of a past practice argument is going to vary with each state, according to the law, as written. It DOES become an effective argument in this debate though, when you stop to consider that if it were "expressly prohibited" in state law, those rights would likely not have been given to teachers, in the first place. Other Legal IssuesPublic employees are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal act that gives private sector employees the right to unionize, and requires employers to bargain with unions (2). There are some states though, that have their own version of the NLRA specifically for public sector employees, that does give them those rights (3). Removing collective bargaining rights from teachers may be discriminatory. Other public employees have collective bargaining rights, firefighters, police, etc. Removing these rights from teachers, because they are public employees, while allowing them to remain for other public employees is difficult to defend as non-discriminatory. Of course this issue will vary by location, and law. Specialization and DemandsTeaching is a specialized field, in that the educational requirements have few applications in other fields. We demand that teachers be highly qualified, and highly educated. We require them to get a degree in education, but above elementary school, we require a more specialized degree. We demand that they have these things, which require student loans for most people, so we must be willing to pay for them, and allow protections for those who do what we require. I look forward to Dark's response on these issues. 1. . http://www.ilrf.net...2. . http://www.dol.gov...3. . http://www.nysdeputy.org...

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed I thank Dark for his argument, and will now attempt to chip away at his opening."I will use the moral framework of utilitarianism."I would argue that utilitarianism is self-contradictory, and immoral. It purports to protect the well being of society but, in practice, it forces the morality of some to govern all. Society includes all of us, but who benefits from allowing my opponent's morals and values to rule our country?? Only my opponent, and those with a similar ideology benefit. To allow a few to decide what is best for all, based on their own values, while ignoring the values of others seems immoral. How can this be what's "best for society"??I would be remiss if I didn't admit that utilitarianism, to a degree, is the basis of our legal system, but there's another principle at play, within that system, that was much more prevalent on the minds of our founding fathers. My opponent has the right to protest the status quo and push for change, because of that principle. It's because of that principle that I argue that teachers should keep their right to unionize, and have collective bargaining. That principle was the guiding ideology, as the framers of our constitution hashed out the final language. That principle is "Individual Rights". The rights of an individual, in a free society, to make decisions for themselves is the very reason that our founding fathers knowingly, and intentionally, tried to limit the power and size, of the government(1). Our constitution tries to protect individuals from the "tyranny of the majority", but if not kept in check, that tyranny is exactly what utilitarianism brings to the table.Another problem with the use of utilitarianism is the fact that my opponent wants to use it as grounds for fighting against unions, in general, but his ideology demands an "all or none" approach. It doesn't leave enough flexibility to come to some common ground, a way in which many of the ends he seeks can be realized, while still respecting the rights of workers to make their own decisions. It simply assumes that there can be no middle ground, and refuses to allow it. That is the problem with the ideological hard-liners on both the left, and right. This "my way or the highway" approach to governing should be rejected by all of us because it is usually ineffective, polarizing, and unnecessarily unfair to it's victims. There IS a sensible middle ground on this union issue, and when there IS a middle ground, utilitarianism need not be invoked. That is what's best for society. My opponent concedes that teachers will be harmed, but claims that collective bargaining has little value for teachers, and removing it is "best for society". My wife is an English/Literature teacher, she has two Master's degrees and a Bachelor's in Adult Ed. She has taught at every level, including a prison education program. Over her 23 year career, she has worked both union and non-union jobs. Although non-union now, she realizes the importance of collective bargaining rights, and the positives those rights have for ALL teachers, not just union. Unions strive to raise the standard of living for workers, and in doing so they also indirectly effect non-union workers in a positive way. The fear that their employees will unionize inspires employers to make changes that are beneficial to the employees, who are the backbone of their organization. This raises the standard of living, and brings dignity and financial stability to employees, who are otherwise at the mercy of their employers. Those on the far right, who I usually side with, seek to remove this positive force. That puts employees back at the mercy of employers. If the employer wants a new yacht, what's to stop him from simply cutting pay, increasing his profit margin, thereby justifying a huge raise or bonus for himself?? Removing unions, and bargaining rights, effectively lowers the standard of living for both union, and non-union employees. How is that best for society??A big part of my opponent's argument is based on him wanting education to be privatized, instead he is "coerced" into having to pay taxes to help pay for education. That seems selfish to me. People were coerced into paying taxes for his education, but now it's time to return the favor and he doesn't like it. That illustrates the nature of humans to be greedy, and that's the reason that teachers don't want such a vital service, education, turned over into the hands of corporations who's main goal is financial benefit. Teachers unions aren't the only ones not wanting that. My opponent has a right to fight for that change, if he wishes, but is it fair for him to take away the rights of others who oppose him, so that his ends become easier to attain?? I say no, but that's exactly what my opponent advocates. Do we need education reform?? Do we need to make the system more financially efficient?? Absolutely, on both counts, but a common sense way of accomplishing that can be found without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That answer begins with identifying the real problems rather than using the teachers as pawns for political gain. Those on the anti-union side have created a witch hunt against "bad teachers". What about the nearly four million other teachers, who serve the public well as educators for our kids?? They watch the coverage of bad teachers, and are more ashamed than the rest of us, yet they go to school the next day and work hard, focusing on what they got into education for, the kids. The problem with my opponents' argument against tenure, in this debate, is that tenure and dismissal proceedings are a matter of state law, not the subject of collective bargaining. Lawmakers made firing teachers, and the process, intentionally slow and cumbersome to discourage firings for personal and political reasons. The union's only role in tenure, is that it's required by law to represent it's members during the process. Perhaps the "rubber room" video should be shown to my opponents state lawmakers instead of being used to prejudice the public against unions. Here is a quote from the page linked below(2)."Each state provides laws governing education agencies, hiring and termination of teachers, tenure of teachers, and similar laws.Subjectivity and cronyism are reasons that unions oppose the merit pay system. Another reason is, as I mentioned in my opening, teachers are at the mercy of the quality of their students. They can, and do, reach many difficult kids, but they are not miracle workers. I ask you, how would you feel if your pay was decided by how well your co-workers did??On the pay issue, perhaps my opponent needs to speak to teachers, instead of John Stossel. You can't figure an hour-by-hour comparison unless you factor in ALL the hours that teachers put in. He bases his figures on the school day, but doesn't factor in all the hours at home and weekends, grading papers, preparing lesson plans, private tutoring, on the phone with parents trying to find a way to reach a difficult student, spending 800-1000 dollars out-of-pocket for supplies for kids that can't afford them, etc. They usually spend 1-2 weeks after the school year in meetings, packing their rooms, etc., then 1-2 weeks before the start of the year in meetings, and unpacking, prep, etc. This is one of the problems with people who know so little being given such a big voice over people who are actually trained, and have years of experience doing. They don't show the public the whole story, just their own spin.I contest the other parts of his argument, but am out of space so I'll deal with them in round 3.1. http://www.usconstitution.net...2. http://www.enotes.com...

Should teachers union be abolished However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law This is true. However teachers in other places can still go on strike as they did in Chicago (the 3rd largest district in the US) in September [1]. During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Again this is true. One again though after tenure is earned the process of firing a teacher is long complicated process that is costly [2]. In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired. I'd agree with my opponent’s agenda point. why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximately $42,000 per year. It's important to that teachers wages tend to rise with experience and there are other factors too like cost-of living. For example a teacher North Dakota makes half of the average salary but living costs are cheaper in North Dakota then in New York [4]. The reason we should deal with the negative stigma is because as said they're teaching the future of America. There only a handful of jobs that guide the direction of America’s future economic viability. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://nj1015.com...[3] http://www.oprah.com...[4] http://www.payscale.com...

Year-round schooling impairs summer teacher development. The summer time is a good opportunity for teachers to seek additional training and develop their skills. It also offers employment opportunities that can help broaden the experience that an educator brings to students. Year-round schooling makes this impossible, and so can diminish the quality of teaching and learning as a result. It can also make teaching a less attractive profession.

The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. First: Regardless of intent, the resolution remains what it is, and must be defended as it stands, like any other resolution. Second: FERPA is a restriction on the state's gathering of information about individual students, in a manner that calls to mind the "Search and Seizure" clause. Title 9 contains the same essential principle as the 14th amendment, applied to a slightly different trait. Civil rights laws, which is what these both are in essence, are a very different field than state labor policy that has nothing to do with discrimination. The precedent set by those two laws does not cover the domain of such policies, as it would extend a very narrow exception in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution into something so broad (The undefined and undefinable "general well being," as though wellness were generalizable as to render effectively no weight whatsoever to the Constitution's limits on federal power.

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed Thanks to Darkkermit for his argument. I’m now going to pick up where I left off in refutation. My opponent speaks of increasing efficiency in education by removing collective bargaining. He hasn’t shown though, that bargaining itself, is responsible for the inefficiencies. I’ve seen no fix so far that warrants an intrusion on the rights of teachers to make choices about their representation. Finances are a consideration, but school districts are NOT able to raise taxes. They can ask for an increase in the budget, but are unlikely to see any change, other than negative, when times are bad. A union can not “raise the price of it’s labor”, it can only ask for that raise in negotiations. One of the biggest expenses in any industry is labor costs. That will not change by removing bargaining. Common sense dictates that making a profession less financially secure, and denying rights based on public sentiment will dissuade people from joining the profession. This will lead to having to keep bad teachers, not because of the union, but out of necessity. We’re going to get what we pay for. My opponent talks about differences between public and private sector bargaining, and percentage of union workers. Those things are largely irrelevant to the resolution. It should be noted that the decrease in private sector union members coincides with the loss of middle-class manufacturing jobs, and also an increase in worker protection mandated by law. Many things workers enjoy today, OSHA safety regulations, 40-hour work week, overtime pay, vacations, FMLA and military leave, etc., can be attributed to the struggles of unions. Those benefits aren’t only given to union workers though, thus my contention that unions affect ALL workers in a good way. Unions act as a check and balance system, the only options are to keep them, or depend on increased governmental regulation. Below is an excerpt from a very interesting, and relevant article that all should read.(4) "Legislated labor protections are sometimes considered alternatives to collective bargaining in the workplace, but the fact of the matter is that a top-down strategy of legislating protections may not be influential unless there is also an effective voice and intermediary for workers at the workplace—unions. In all of the research surveyed, no institutional factor appears as capable as unions of acting in workers' interests (Weil 2003). Labor legislation and unionization are best thought of as complements, not substitutes."He argues against education being a public service, but it is what it is. He is free to fight for change, but in the meantime, his disagreement with the system does not warrant punishing teachers. They have a right to fight against that change, just as he does to fight for it. Teacher strikes are becoming a thing of the past. Many states are passing no-strike laws. Though pro-union, I agree with this trend, and so do many teachers(1). I do not defend teacher's strikes, and refer back to my argument about finding a middle ground and not allowing the hard-liners, on either side, to be in complete control. There is a middle ground, and many states are finding it, where strikes are concerned. My opponent keeps alluding to difficulty in firing teachers. I've shown that tenure and dismissal is set by the states, not the collective bargaining process, and should not be part of this debate. These videos and articles do nothing but attempt to prejudice the reader, and distract from the issues. They are highly prejudicial, and should not be given weight in the decision. They are evidence of the highly political nature of my opponents position.Introduction Sorry that my opponent resents my statement. Perhaps if the status quo were being challenged for the right reasons, and teachers weren’t scapegoats for the anti-union movement, I might be more receptive to his cause. With due respect, having a financial stake in something does not make us experts in what the real problems are in that system. Teachers are there everyday, in the classroom, they know what the problems are, they are the experts, not us. If my opponent valued teachers, as he claimed, he would respect that fact. He would also respect their ability to know what they need, and allow them to make choices for themselves, rather than protest against them under the guise of protecting them. The only “hijacking” being done, is that of their individual rights and freedom of association. Protection My opponent’s argument seems to me to be a clear impact turn. First he argues that it’s too hard to fire a teacher, but here he has presented evidence as to why it SHOULD be hard. This argument shows why it is not in the best interest of education, or the public, to fire teachers except in clearly egregious cases. Also, I restate that tenure is usually a matter of law, not bargaining. What if the bottom 6-10% of teachers are those in the most difficult schools, with the most difficult students?? Does that mean that they should be fired just to make room for unproven college grads?? Of course not, that’s absurd and unless they can be shown to be deserving of termination, my opponent’s above argument is why it’s in no one’s best interest. My opponent has yet to address the issue of teachers being at the mercy of the quality of students.I’ll say again that teachers are the only ones who know what protections they need. For someone who isn’t a teacher to claim to know what workplace issues they face, and need help with is absurd. Unions provide many protections for the rights of teachers, not just disciplinary issues. Past Practice There is no pre-set framework that I must abide by in this debate. My opponent is free to make whatever arguments he wishes, as am I. We could not do justice to a debate on this subject if we did not consider legal issues. Past practice means that if an employer gives a right to workers, and it is clearly understood by both parties, they cannot just arbitrarily remove that right without due process. Creating a mob mentality and attacking the rights of a group without due process is immoral. As I said this is a case-by-case issue, applicable in some, not so in others, depending on laws in that state. When laws are passed banning the right, then we have a different discussion. Until then legal issues must be considered. Other Legal Issues My opponent seems to be injecting his morals here, but what makes his morals the authority that all should be bound by?? He doesn't like unions, that's fine, he has the right not to join one. Yet he's in favor of taking away another's right to decide for themself. Why is that the correct moral position?? I maintain that if one group of public employees has a right, it is discriminatory to remove the right from another group. The strike issue has been addressed. The same checks exist in the public sector. ALL employees are bound by budgets, whether they're public or private sector.Specialization It is not the job of unions to create jobs, to use that as an argument them is misleading. Doctors and lawyers usually work for themselves, under their own license. There are many organizations that represent the interests of these professions. The AMA (2), APA, the Bar Association (3), to name a few. Are they politically active?? Yes. Do doctors and lawyers have a right to have a voice in our political system, where it affects their profession?? Yes, and so do teachers. “Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice”- Society demands specialized degrees for this service to the public, those who comply should be rewarded, not penalized and raked over the coals just because there are a few bad teachers.1. http://www.nysdeputy.org...2. http://www.ama-assn.org...?3. http://www.americanbar.org...4. http://www.epi.org...

Teachers can plan their lessons more easily. With a longer summer teachers can plan a lesson to go more smoothely. Then a chaotic lesson on a day that you only have one day to plan the lesson.

Teachers need summer vacation to stay sane and focused. Teaching is a very difficult profession. Teachers often express that they need summer breaks. Year-round schooling takes this away from teachers, and will likely diminish the quality of teaching as a result.

should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Day by day the field of education is getting better and better in terms of new teaching methods, technology and many other things. In this fast changing world ,teachers should keep themselves updated in order to grab the students attention and interest in the subject and thus, teachers find new ways for explaining the lesson and this will also help the students to understand lessons easily.

Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Teachers are workers just like everybody else and if you want to change the industry, striking is a pretty good way to do it. In my opinion teachers are treated like second class citizens, they go to school and obtain their bachelor's degree, then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis. Just like anyone else, if they're not being treated fairly they should be able to demand better working conditions and higher pay.

While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: "Teachers only have so much control over how much and how fast a child can learn. Even if they are willing to go the extra mile, state law may not allow them to do so. For example, in California, teachers cannot require students to stay after class or school to get help."

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed In my opening argument I explained that teacher unions have strong political power and the ability to fire a teacher is quite difficultbdue to teacher unions. He has not refuted these claims. It would also be unfair to refute them in Round 3, since this is the last round I will defend my thesis. However he attacks the moral framework of utilitarinism (w/out providing an alternative framework), believes unions have value, and does not believe teacher unions are to blame for education reform. I refute this. Utilitarianism: CON makes many incorrect assumptions about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is simply maximization of happiness. It is not an arbitrary morality system such as ‘prostitution is wrong’. It does not benefit just the few, but seeks to bring happiness to many. CON believes that “it forces the morality of some to govern all” No. Utilitarianism can be obtained by volunteer transactions. Let’s say I have 100 sandwiches and you have 100 water bottles. With the initial distribution of goods, I will die of thirst and you will die of hunger. However, if we trade so that the final distribution is that we both have 50 sandwiches and 50 water bottles, we are both better off, a utilitarian arrangement is made, and there is no need of centralized planners. In fact economists have a term for this. Pareto efficiency, all persons are made better without anyone else worse off. There is also a term known as Kaldor-Hicks efficiency in which a policy or new technology might benefit some and harm others; however the wealth created from the policy or technology is so immense that the wealth can in theory compensate those harmed. My policy is mathematically proven to be Kaldor-Hicks efficient. I will not go into the mathematical technicality of it since it will be too long to explain. The proof is shown under efficiency and monopolies in this article[1]. I will give a more intuitive example. A teacher union is basically a monopoly on the supply of a labor. One can obvious see why this is a problem, If for example, all the telecommunication companies decide to form a monopoly, the price of cell phones would skyrocket and would be taking wealth away from consumers. The same applies to unions. Also, teacher unions are rent-seekers, obtaining perks without creating actual value. They are able to do this because taxpayer money is obtained not via voluntary action but by force. Getting something for nothing is obviously not a Kaldor-Hicks improvement and a misallocation of resources. CON other contention is that utilitarianism creates ‘tyranny of the majority’. No, A ‘tyranny of the majority’ occurs if a majority creates a policy that benefits the majority a little, but harms the majority quite a bit. For example, a policy that allows discrimination is indeed a ‘tyranny of the majority’ yet not utilitarianism. Hence why limited government is ideal and we are given certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and property. Ironically, CON agrees that limited government is good, yet collective bargaining in the state sector expands government. Furthermore, collective bargaining is not recognizes as an individual right, since collective bargaining would not exist without government intervention. People are forced to pay dues in unions. Furthermore, employers cannot fire an employee for joining a union or cannot design a contract that states an employee cannot join a union, even if voluntarily. This goes against individual liberty. CON accuses me of using an ‘all or nothing’ approach. What does that even mean? Why should there be a middle ground? That’s like me arguing that ‘Blacks should not be slaves’, and accusing me of taking an all-or-nothing approach. Or does he mean we should increase welfare of the nation but only increase it by a little bit? Why not maximize it? He is committing the argument to moderation fallacy [2] The Value of Unions: CON uses anecdotal evidence about his wife, which should be discarded since it is bias and can be faked. CON makes a fallacy that an employer can simply cut back wages to increase profit margins and lower the standard of living for an employee without unions. This is false. To see why, let’s give an example. Let’s say there are two companies, A and B. Company A can hire employees less than their productivity and make a bunch of profits. However, Company B can also hire employees at a higher wage than Company A, still making a bunch of profits, and employees flock to Company B instead of A. This process continues until both companies hire employees at the level of their productivity. With this process, Supply and demand determines the salary of labor. The real salary of labor can only increase if supply of labor decreases or demand of labor increases. Labor unions can achieve this by restricting the amount of workers or using political power to increase demand for their product. Employers cannot simply lower wages at whim, since labor can find other areas of work or even start their own companies. Many labor contracts even disallow the employer from lower wages. If my opponent is still not convinced, I can show empirical evidence that labor unions do not increase standard of livings. The Gilded Age is known as the time in which America has the greatest amount of economic development, in which real wages dramatically increased. [3] Wages and wealth in America was greater than wages in Europe, even though Europe was much more unionized. This was possible because trade unions do not grow the economy. Only through investment in capital and technology can labor become more productive, and thus increase standard of living. Labor unions are only successful through strategies that are not pareto optimal, as explained earlier. Educational Reform: CON strawmans me, stating that I am selfish for not wanting to pay for education. This is incorrect, I see the value of “free” education. However, why should one pay more for education without improvements in it? CON and I both want educational reform. However, as I demonstrated, teacher unions block these reforms. The best way to create reform is to get rid of the source blocking it, teacher unions. My opponent wants to blame lawmakers, however this is like blaming an employer for increasing the salary of union workers, when the employer did everything in their power to stop it. Sure, the lawmakers and employers were the ones that made the final decisions, yet it is not as if the union had no play. I have shown how teacher unions have used political power to their advantage that my opponent has not refuted. CON says that the process of firing teacher is slow due to political reasons however the political reasons are because of teacher unions. [4] Next, CON states that merit pay is too subjective. Perhaps, there is some subjectivism, however is that better than a system that awards seniority over merit? This is almost as absurd as stating that students should not be graded because it is too subjective. Many of the problems of merit pay can be tweaked, for example judging student performance before and after the school year. Teacher Pay: The information about teacher pay comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not John Stossel. If teacher pay is too low, why was there a surplus of teacher applicants during an economic boom? Most professions have to work extended hours, go to meetings, and bring their work home just like teachers. Teachers can also come up with solutions to work more efficiently and avoid working at home such as showing educational films in class, giving work in class, sharing lesson plans and exam formats between other teachers and other sources. Exams that are multiple choices are easily graded. The amount of hours a teacher works outside of the school hours is up to how much effort the teacher wants to put into teaching. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4]

Competition improves the overall quality of education. Measuring teachers' performances will create a transparent market for teaching talent. Underperforming teachers will be selected out because they are less in demand, unless they adapt and learn from what their competitors apparently do better. So, the overall quality of the teacher pool will rise and this will increase the quality of education for all students.

Teacher Tenure I will be debating on the CON side of teacher tenure. PRO will use this first round as an acceptance round. Violation of the following rules will result in an automatic loss for PRO. Rules: Use this first round for acceptance Do not be rude or mean to each other Do not include personal beliefs, personal experiences are fine if backed up by evidence. Do not forfeit, for obvious reasons.

Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Good luck! I negate. Con's resolution: Teachers should be laid off because of seniority. Clarification: Teacher are not laid off SOLELY on seniority. Teachers are laid off based on the number of years he or she worked at the same district. Con: 1) New teachers have little to no experience in teaching by themselves. Teaching a subject takes years of experience. A teacher must learn and adapt to different styles of learning, a new teacher cannot do this off the bat during the first day. Hiring many new teachers who experiment with abnormal teaching styles will detriment the school's placement in the state. This has happened at my school last year (some retired, so the school hired new teachers) and our API score dropped by 61 points. ..860 to 799. Due to the recession, many retirees are returning to the workforce. This has happened in the nurse sector, an influx of retired and experienced nurses are returning to their jobs causing employers to hire veterans over freshly graduated students. 2) Seniority rewards teachers for his or her commitment to the school system of years. Why dismiss a loyal employee? Pro: 1) Your music teacher was probably laid off because there wasn't a satisfactory enrollment demand. Can't wait for Round 2!

Teachers should not need a license to teach Well based off of your terrible spelling and grammar, your teachers with licenses must not have done a good job. The purpose of teachers not needing licenses is so that those with considerable knowledge in areas such as physics can go and teach students about it. In that case, the person with no teachers license may actually know more than the teacher with a license. It is not a bad idea at all.

should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Actually in the topic I mentioned every 10 years teachers should have a basic skill test. and your round 1 opinion tells me that you haven't understood the topic yet. Because according to the topic basic skill test means not only the basics of the particular subject but also includes the new teaching methods ,technology and many other new things. If I go according to you then there is no need to update our textbooks including new topics, implementation of new teaching methods etc. Now tell me weather we are using the old black board . No most of the school have moved to smart board . Like other fields even the field of education has been developed a lot over the past years. So, it is equally important for the teachers to keep themselves updated. The best way to ensure it is to implement a basic skill test.

Should Bad Teachers Be Fired I BELIEVE THAT TEACHERS, who have the rights to be at a school teaching should be responsible and respectful in every way. Otherwise, their is no point of teaching at the first place. If not fired, i believe it could damage many students as well as the schools curricular activities. Teachers who are bad should be fired because students lives are at risk of earning behavioral issues and would ruin their generation. Instead of their fun school life they earn disrespected opportunities which isn't fair if their the ones paying the school for good education. Each teacher should be respectful if want to be respected otherwise their is no point for a student to learn or be able to learn.

Teachers should not need a license to teach I am against this topic because all parents in the world can agree that their kids should be teach by someone who knows what they are doing. If someone is allowed to teach without a license they will be allowed to talk about whatever they want in the classroom and the students won't learn a single thing. The students minds will be filled wiht bogus facts that could practically ruined their future. A kids future is everything they are basically the future presidents, teachers, doctors, governors. That is why teachers should need a license to teach at any school.

Teachers should not help students with bad grades. Opposing Argument: #1 A Teacher's Job Students are not all equally smart. Some students learn differently than others. While some students learn with hand-on experience others learn from reading a book. The teacher's job is to help the student succeed. A teacher's evaluation is mostly based on student's test averages and school grades. A teacher job is to teach the students. If a student does not learn then the teacher has not done their job. Opposing Argument #2 Mentally Challenged Students Are you expecting students who have obvious learning dysfunctions to learn at the same pace as normal students. Almost every school I have been in there has been a mentally challenged students. Every one had a personal aide to guide and teach them. The teachers would take their time to carefully teach them at their own pace. Opposing Argument #3 Student Attitude Some students may have a lazy attitude where they do not want to do homework. A teacher then should start to take away their free time. At my high school if you below a 70% then you only got half lunch periods, and you could not leave school campus. During that time whichever class you were failing that teacher would help you. If teachers teach their students good attitude at young ages then it will stick with them through life. It will show them that you can't just give up and not do it. Overall a teacher need to teach consequences. Conclusion: A teacher should be there to help the student succeed in life. A teacher is not Boss at a work but more of a trainer for life.

Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. There are many schools where a teacher with more years of experience is paid more because of his service as teacher. Then why not a person with less experience but dedicated in teaching and working really hard for his students and making them to improve in their performance should also paid higher?

In the United States, the benefits of government regulation outweigh the harms. The federal government is giving us money to teach children. If the government is giving us money, we should use it to help teach. We have flexibility teaching, as we just have to teach what they tell us to, and we can teach it anyway we want, whenever we want (throughout the year). Also, if you finish with your educational requirements early, then you can teach whatever you want for the rest of the year.

Moral Education of children?Whose responsibility ? -(parents+) (school-) That may be so but the parent's can't teach their kids everything they need to know, unless they want their children to be in the same career as them. In that case we would have no need for teachers because then kids would be born into their parents' jobs. Those who were born to be a teacher would have no job because there would be no need for it. We have teachers to teach our kids so they can choose their own careers and make their own future, instead of living a dull life.

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed Pro wins

should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Your point makes no sense in what you motion says. Teachers shouldn't have a basic skill test every year. What is the use? It is just like someone doing a test in year 4 for example and now they are in year 9 and they have to do that year 4 test again! There is no use for that, because they have already qualified to be a teacher.

Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired if the teacher is unable to commit to her students, then she should get fired. It's hurting the students education Andy they should find a better teacher that is sable and can be here ready to teach 98% of the time.

Teachers need protection just as much as students An incident in Medford, Oregon in 2007 illustrated how teachers need to be able to protect themselves as well as their students. Gun lobbyists claimed teacher Jane Doe’s reasons for wanting to be armed while teaching were based on the restraining order against her ex-husband, who had made threats against her and her children. Although local laws dictated that only law enforcement officers could brings guns onto a school campus, she challenged it on the grounds of her own personal safety.[1] In a country like the USA where ordinary civilians can own guns, people often feel the need to carry arms for the sake of self-protection. If people are allowed to do this in their own homes, then if the threats persist while they are at work by extension they should still be allowed to exercise self-protection. [1] Knickerbocker, Brad, ‘Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?’, Christian Science Monitor, 18 September 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p01s01-uspo.html

Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*: "Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired" ^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech. My argument will be as follows: 1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education. 2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired. Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent. Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave. So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion. *(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: from 1min 15secs). **(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*) ***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*)

Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in a controlled environment I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e.g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school.

Resolved: It would be beneficial for teachers to have guns at school, in a controlled environment I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e.g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school.

Student performance does not demonstrate teacher performance "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: "There are several problems with basing how much a teacher should make on student performance. The most important: there are too many other variables besides teacher effort that determine an individual's and a class' performance."

That would be the better solution If teachers get merit pay for the success of their students,then they will strive harder in order to yield successful individuals. And that would greatly help for the success of its nation. Teachers are not just getting into school to teach but also to learn and to study for the betterment of their discussion so that their students would also be interested to learn and be important.

Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms Thanks

Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles "Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains." An Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 14, 2005.: "As substitutes for performance-based standards, school systems now reward teachers on degrees and seniority. Yet neither of those measures may correlate with student achievement. In this competitive economy, companies would close their doors if they paid low-performing employees the highest salaries just because they’d been there a long time or had a grad school diploma on their wall."[5]

should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification If i go according to your point ,if teachers have a basic skill class instead of basic skill test ,then only few teacher will get the concept its just like u teacher teaches u something ,she or he thinks u understood it but untill and unless she or he conducts a test for u on what he or she thought u before ,after u pass the test your teacher will be able to conclude that u understood what she or he thought. Even the concept of basic skill test is like that.

Merit pay discourages teaching disadvantaged students "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: "4. Some Teachers are Punished ... Should a teacher who chooses to teach at a large school, an inner city school, or a special needs school where tests scores are generally lower be punished? Definitely not, but that is exactly what some merit pay programs threaten to do."

Education: Testing Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. "Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, "Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.

Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. There are various reasons for pay-raises due to seniority. It's a system that requires little maintenance, tracking, or otherwise creating overhead. Pay for performance is asking for people to fake their performance. Especially in the world of education, where the performance is based on the students. Sales is a place where commission based pay works well. Teaching is not such a situation.

Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else Freedom of speech and expression are protected by the first amendment to the US constitution[1] and teachers are entitled to freedom of speech and their academic freedom as much as anyone else. If a science teacher does not believe that the evidence supports evolution then why should s/he have to teach evolution as fact rather than just as one of several competing theories? The Tennessee bill protects freedom of expression by freeing teachers to include whatever other angles on controversies such as evolution or climate change as they wish. [1] Legal Information Institute, ‘First Amendment: An overview’, Cornell University Law School, 19 August 2010, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

Teachers should not need a license to teach It is actually quite simple to teach a subject that you went to school for and majored in and know a lot about. A license doesn't mean anything in that sense. There are so many teachers with licenses that don't teach well at all. Just because a teacher has a license doesn't mean that they are better at teaching a subject than a person who doesn't have a teaching license and probably knows more about the subject than the teacher with the license. Actually, the way a student performs after being taught is a perfect reflection of a teachers teaching ability. According to your side on this, a teacher with a license should be capable of teaching any student how to correctly use spelling and grammar skills, right?

Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio The main theoretical argument against merit pay is that it will undermine cohesions in the school, pitting teachers against teachers. Evidence. There is evidence from a recent student of a Texas merit program that indicates that merit pay does not improve educational outcomes. It's not fairly measurable. Merit determinations are generally measured on based on overall improvements in standardized test scores. Standardized testing is a heavily criticized method of measuring educational success. It's not fair. Teachers who teach the developmentally challenged and socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a more difficult time at getting students to achieve according to determined standards

Merit pay focuses teachers on measures over their passion "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: "7. The Definition of 'Merit' is Too Broad ... Every performance based pay program for teachers that is currently in effect works differently. Some programs allow teachers to up their pay for things that don't truly help students-like filling out paperwork-rather than things that can be less easily measured. It makes the idea of merit less meaningful for an individual who most likely became a teacher to help students."

should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Yes, a skill class makes more sense, again it is very rare to see a teacher that cannot use modern felicities. You said "then only few teacher will get the concept" this doesn't make sense, because if a skill class is provided what's the need for teachers not to understand the concept. You also said:" its just like your teacher teaches you something ,she or he thinks you have understood it so makes you do that job ; e.g. well in the rules of teaching and testing anything you have been taught you shall be tested on, the teacher had already passed the test so again I see not need for another test to be conducted to test the teachers basic skills. Teachers have been interviewed by Ofsted (if you live in the UK) so if the teacher cannot teach very well something shall be done about it. Teachers are grown adults, of corse they can make simple and basic mistakes but that doesnt mean they should have the need to have another test, expecially if they have qualified in what they are good at.

It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence The success of a student depends on many factors, like innate talent, the ability for hard work and concentration and socio-economic background. This means that any progress that a student can make is largely outside of a teacher's control. This will result in some teachers being rewarded just because they happen to teach in a good environment to 'advantaged' children whereas other teachers who do a good job in a bad environment to 'disadvantaged' children are just unlucky.

Teachers Evaluations in NYC Teachers who work in Nyc should be evaluated and awarded based upon their overall class achievements. Tenure should not be given easily after two or more years but given at an adequate time or point in the teacher's career. Evaluations can give in detail the overall outcome of the curriculum the teacher is providing for the student and allow the parents to be informed about the class and the setting and the curriculum taught to their child or children. When the evaluations came out in the ny post last month it raise a couple of questions. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to give out an incentive to those teachers who have excelled or achieved the goal within each grade level. He wanted to offer the teachers a 20,000 dollar award and begin to open up 50 more schools including charter schools to have more teachers apply for these positions and scope the children of tommorrow. Teachers need to be recognized not only by their scholarly academics and their potential to have progression within a classroom setting.

School detention Since Con seems to make their first argument I shall introduce mine. I. It's the student's fault for getting a detention. Overall, the reason for the detention/the cause of the detention is entirely the student's fault. The teacher is merely there to enforce the rules set by the school administration and educate the students. If the students disrespect the teacher or do something to disrupt the teacher from doing their job, then the student totally deserves the detention. II. Detention is designed to be a punishment. Especially in the higher grade levels, students have lots of homework they have to do. If the student disrupts the class and ends up getting a detention, then the student will "reap what they sow" for a lack of better words, and they end up, because of their actions, not being able to do their homework or study for the set amount of time of the detention. III. As a form of discipline, detentions help shape a student for the better. Pretty much as the title says. If the detention is used properly, and as a form of discipline, it should prevent students from attempting poor behavior again. For some students this simply doesn't work, and further punishments have to be made. However, for the majority of students, one detention serves to be enough. For the reasons above, detentions should exist, and be used in the schoolplace.

Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Yes, teachers are workers like everybody else but they work in an industry that simply requires a higher level of responsibility than some others. Striking is an effective method of making change, however not when it is at the expense of an innocent third party - especially one that cannot necessarily understand the reasons for, or the consequences of, the strike. And I'm sorry, they "then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis"? If that's the case, they shouldn't be a teacher at all - I'm confident the issue has nothing to do with teachers feeling that the children are unappreciative, it is that they feel they are not being treated fairly by the government. They should absolutely be able to demand better working conditions, striking is certainly not the only means of doing this, and is an extreme and inappropriate method to use in this situation - not to mention the message that it sends to children that when you don't get your way, you should just quit.

Freedom of teachers to teach what they want Teaching is best done when teachers know what they're talking about. Making teachers present material on certain subjects is dangerous in interpretive subjects like English, where teachers may not really know what they're talking about. Shakespeare is not a compulsory part of many English degrees, so the teacher may not be as good on Shakespeare as he is on other, equally deserving, poets, thus lowering the standard of teaching. Pupils get the most out of school when they enjoy what they're doing. A teacher, similarly, teaches best when they enjoy what they're doing. Having subjects imposed on them erodes their ability to teach in a subject like English; allowing them the freedom to tailor their lessons to their own passions and the abilities of their pupils allows for more creativity in the classroom, more enjoyment for everyone, and overall a better quality of education.

A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I argue that a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based, which I define (as agreed to by my opponent in the Comments section) as pay with a basic salary and bonuses based on merit (student achievement.) I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. I think it is far more of an achievement to turn an F-student into a C-student than it is to turn a B into an A. I do not advocate a meritocracy that focuses solely on the elite but one that places emphasis on every child. My simple argument is that to give teachers further financial incentive to concentrate on getting the best out of every single pupil would, overall, have significant benefits to any country. A more educated general population would surely be a good thing in anyone's eyes, especially someone who, like my opponent and myself, is involved in Education. My opponent wants us to limit the parameters of this debate to the US. As a UK citizen who has not travelled a great deal I of course have more experience of the education system here than in America. However if I offer any anecdotal or other evidence regarding the UK school system, my opponent can rest assured that I will try to make them relevant to our discussion of the US system which, by the way, I hope to learn more about in this debate. Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. One obvious example of a field where it works well is Sales, (although of course I do not equate commerce with education), if travelling salesmen and (in some situations) retail staff, did not receive a commission on their sales, then they would be unlikely to put in as much effort to sell their employer's product. An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. Thankyou.

It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve. Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.

Merit Pay for Teachers Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United Sates public schools. This is last months Public Forum topic. Also, this round will be run exactly like a Public Forum round, minus the cross-examination. For those unfamiliar with Public Forum (or PF) each side first presents a case, without a rebuttal. The second round, each side then makes arguments against the other side. The third round, is again, a rebuttal of sorts, but a bit shorter, and emphasizing on MAJOR points, but I won't be nit-picky, argue what you wish. Because we aren't speaking, there aren't limits on how much you put in here. And finally, the "Final Focus" as we, PFers, call it. Summarize why you won, sway the judge(voters in this case). Also, in PF, no sort of formalized plan WHATSOEVER may be proposed. Also, no kritiks (the resolution IS debatable, no arguing that it's not.) or counterplans, etc. We are arguing whether the resolution is true or false, nothing else. Our president, Barack Obama, said in 2009 that, "Many have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom" Because merit pay could boost our economy, motivate teachers, and because the current compensation system is faulty my partner and I stand in firm affirmation of today's resolution, which states: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United Sates public schools. Before I begin, I'd like to clarify a few terms: Merit pay: is a compensation system whereby base pay increases are determined by individual performance according to the University of Minnesota's glossary of compensation terms. Student Achievement: is defined as the quality and quantity of a student's work according to Merriam Webster This now brings me to my first contention, which states, merit pay can boost our failing economy. Most teachers are considered to be middle to lower class. John Elder, Professor at Yale University said that, "Bonus money would best be directed towards people who can't afford to save money at any time — because they're behind on their bills or in need of dental work or a few things for the kids with Christmas looming." If they get bonuses of $1,500, which was seen in Minneapolis's MPPP program or ones as large as $20,000 as seen in Massachusetts in 1998 it will be spent. With approximately 6.2 million teachers in the U.S. even small bonuses could turn into a large sum. Spending this money puts money back into our economy, which helps this entire nation out of this recession. This much money could jump start our economy and help alleviate the effect of the current recession. This brings me to my second contention, stating: merit pay will motivate teachers. No one can deny that money is a powerful motivator. If teachers are paid more based on how their students are doing, they will try to help their students excel. Gary Ritter, Director of the Office for Education Policy has said in 2009 that, "There is one area where the evidence is clear--effective teaching is the single most important school-related factor in determinating student success." You can see that motivated teachers are vital to student success, and merit pay would aid in motivating mediocre teachers. Also Gayor McCown, Executive Director of the Teaching Commission has said, "Ensuring that some portion of compensation is based on student performance is a step in the right direction. Such a system would acknowledge a teacher's abilities and efforts in the classroom, and could potentially act as an excellent motivator for all teachers to focus more on what really matters: student performance." Bringing me to my third and final contention, stating: the current compensation system is not working. It rewards meritocracy, underpays good teachers, and ultimately causes a shortage in teachers across the nation. Mediocre teachers do much less work, and their students do not reach their full potential, and yet they're paid as much as an intelligent and engaging teacher! According to Victor Lavy, Research Associate at the Centre for Economic Policy Research, " Few things are more frustrating for high performers than to be treated exactly like their less committed peers. Today, the profession repels too many energetic practitioners by expecting teachers to willingly sacrifice professional growth, advancement and reward. The steps that need to be taken are straightforward. Teachers' compensation should be based on performance rather than simply on experience and credentials." It's obvious that merit pay is the only way to solve this problem. Even president Obama believes the current system is faulty. He has said, "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high." Here he was referring to our current teacher compensation system. Victor Lavy has also said that, "Assuming that the compensation system accurately identifies productivity, basing pay on performance will attract and retain the best teachers" The current compensation system is unfair and drives the aspiring and current teachers away from the profession, which is causing a teaching shortage. You can clearly see that it is not working efficiently, and that merit pay would be a good addition. I close with a quote from our president last February, "In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a pre-requisite." Merit pay is a way that students' education could be further improved. Because merit pay could help our failing economy, as well as motivate teachers, and because it would be a great addition to our current, defective compensation system I strongly urge a ballot for the affirmative.

Teachers should not need a license to teach So what if they are knowledge that doesn't mean they know how to present the material to a class. Teachers with licenses know how to present the material so students can learn it. Someone may be knowledgeable in a specific subject like physics but they didn't go to school and learn how to present the material like a teacher with a license in today's world. My grammar and spelling doesn't reflect my teachers teaching. Everything I say or write is my choice I write it the way I want to I may have mistakes here and there but doesn't everybody make mistakes. No written paper is perfect because they only have to meet the teachers criteria. Everybody has at least one spelling mistake, one grammar mistake or a simply punctuation mistake. Nothing in this entire world is 100% perfect not even mankind.

Education: Testing Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org...

It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence Teachers are the single biggest influence on student performance. Even though many factors influence student performance, the teacher is still the most important schooling factor. For example, having an effective versus and ineffective teacher has been shown to be equivalent to a class size reduction of 10-13 students[1] and can make the differences of more than a full year’s learning growth.[2] [1] Rivkin et al, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement”, 2005 [2] Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality.” 1992

Should Tenures Be Taken Away Accept

Affordable education Pro Case: -Welcome to the learning society where students are subjected to ceaseless testing, training, and learning in order to activate their "potential." The organizing principle of this society is to optimize the productivity of each student, so that they can be valuable and contributing members of a risk-filled economic system. Lewis 11 " Tyson E. Lewis, PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA The learner is the one who is not yet complete, not yet knowledgeable, not yet skillful, not yet competent, not yet autonomous. The discourse of learning emphasizes education as an economic transaction, the learner is the consumer, who has needs. The teacher, the educator, or the educational institution is the provider there to meet the needs of the learner, and education itself becomes a commodity to be provided or delivered by the teacher or educational institution and consumed by the learner. The learning society is within a society driven by capitalist production and consumption, political life has been overcome by the eternal return of laboring life. Learning becomes an organizing principle for optimizing labor productivity, the citizen becomes first and foremost a learner within a flexible, knowledge economy that demands constant retraining or reskilling to fulfill high-tech, informationally rich jobs. We live in a situation of permanent threat, threatened with exclusion. The learner must be capable of continual adaptation to an unstable economic world where unemployment is always right around the corner. Education focuses on correcting their potentialities in order to maximize competencies and efficiencies. Potentialities within the learning society are connected to self-directed, self-managing behaviors in a form of governmentality of the self. The battery of tests which the individual undergoes help to identity, classify, train, and actualize their unrealized potential as students, workers, and citizens. Agamben"s theory of study enables us to retain our impotential, if the lesson of learning is to become a self-regulating entrepreneur then the lesson of study is to become nothing at all but rather remain within a pure capacity. -In opposition to this learning society which demands that we become good and productive students, I affirm a study of the topic. Instead of activating our "potential" we prefer the role of the studier, withdrawing from the normative pressures of the education system. This interrupts the ultimate demand of the learning society, either be productive or be abandoned. Lewis 15 Tyson E. PhD. in educational philosophy from UCLA If we think of education as oriented towards the measurability of determinate, reliable skill sets, studying suddenly appears to be a useless activity, devoid of quantifiable significance in the life of the student. Studying is a paradoxical state between education for subjectification and for desubjectification. To study is to undergo a certain inoperativity where we are exposed to all its thoughts possibilities and yet are undestined to any one or any set of them. The underlying normative pressures on the studier to project into certain possibilities relation to certain ends are deferred, delayed, and perhaps forgotten. Studying suspends in order to open up new uses within the present. This zone is a real educational state of exception that is issued from below and as such is a challenge to any form of sovereign decision over and against life. The offence here is not one of making overt demands on or against the sovereign but rather is one of studying the law which, renders it inoperative and studying does not directly confront the power of the sovereign. The most threatening gesture to the power of the law is that which is most polite, most inconspicuous, most inoffensive. Without a will to battle against, sovereignty quietly retreats from the scene, ashamed of its own powers. The studious life is a blight on the order of things that quietly prefers not to submit to improve, perfect, and so on. To further disengage the figure of the student from the docile consumer is an activity of sabotage and refusal of the dominant form of capitalist production today: governance. To struggle to study is to struggle to regain the freedom of impotentiality. "We prefer not to" does not make instrumental demands or appeals for reforms, thus frustrating any attempt on the part of the learning apparatus to negotiate. Its struggle is an immanent embodiment of a freedom to come. Contemporary society is indeed infested with the law of learning, then collective study destabilizes its fundamental injunction: either be productive or be abandoned. Pro Responses: -Earlier Education Was for the rich Education needed now, proper pedagogy necessitates focus on strategies to solve oppression "education is a starting point for demanding solutions for oppression and reordering power structures. Giroux 15 Henry A. Giroux, 3-17-2015, Truth out Education must be understood as a democratic sphere which enables students to claim their agency, and learn to respect the rights of others. Education has a responsibility to educate students to make authority accountable Democracy places civic demands upon its citizens, and such demands point to the necessity of an education that is, critical, students, rather than disengaged spectators, must be able to demand a reordering of power arrangements -Education has been depreciated Refer to the Lewis 11 card showing that the learner society has been the real cause for depreciation in the education system, putting emphasis on education as a commodity has determined "acceptable learning" which has depreciated the purpose education serves. Tenure also harms education: Tenures hurt student"s education and are ineffective, Vergara v. California proves Boutros et al, Theodore J. Jr. McRae, Marcellus A. Lipshutz, Joshua S. 2015 Vergara v. California, the Los Angeles Superior Court declared its statutes violate the fundamental right of students to education. The laws create inequalities in educational opportunities being afforded to students the court issued findings. The court found three statutes pertaining to teacher dismissal make it virtually impossible for districts to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom once they obtain tenure. Finally, poor and minority students are relegated disproportionately to classrooms with less effective teachers. These students fall further behind their peers, which exacerbates the achievement gap. -Overcrowded Labor Market STEM jobs aren"t being filled Joint Economic Committee 14 " US Senate Joint Economic Committee, STEM Education for the Innovation Economy January 2014 The increase in demand for STEM skills means that there is a shortage of workers for STEM jobs. The predicted shortage is amplified by the high concentration of baby boomers in STEM occupations. These STEM opportunities will require more education and training than they did in previous decades. Although the federal government has directed significant resources toward STEM education the US is not on track to train enough STEM-capable workers to fill future job opportunities. The economy will need approximately one million more STEM professionals than the US will produce at the current rate. The U S would need to increase the number of students receiving STEM degrees by 34 percent annually. -Not enough teachers Schools can"t attract teachers with current salaries. Eric A. Hanushek 2015 Hoover Institution, Stanford, California Doing something about teacher salaries is high on almost everybody"s reform agenda. Teacher salaries have fallen relative to salaries for other college-educated workers, schools cannot attract a sufficiently high-quality teaching force without raising salaries. The concern raised is that salaries are not giving good signals to the best teachers. This in turn is not only harming the strong teachers but also doing real damage to US society and to the economy.

Raising Teachers Salary This house believe that raising teachers salary is not beneficial to teachers and students. Some teachers cannot focus well on teaching because of their families and the extra work they have to do, not their salaries. Many schools offer activities and interest classes after school hours for students, in order to let them to get more diverse learning opportunities. Teachers has to deal with that. Some teachers need to teach interest classes after school hours, so they have less time to mark their students' homework. Some teachers have kids, so they want to spend time with their kids, play with them, go out with them, instead of preparing for lessons and marking homework. Teachers are usually well-paid, so money is not a problem for them. Also, if worrying the financial problem will cause huge problems to teaching, I believe that worrying other problems like relationship will do the same. Then do we need to ban teachers from dating? Raising their salary will never decrease their workload, and thus will not make better teaching. Raising teachers' salary will make students more eager to become teachers, but it will not make better teachers, but more selfish teachers. They want to become teachers only because they want a well-paid job. Top students who are not interested in teaching may become teachers to get higher salary, while the students who preform less well in academic but want to become teachers may not be able to be teachers. This is a true pity to the future generation because how well a teacher can teach is not measured by how well he/she preform in a test. Only those who are interested in teaching may teach well. If teachers are less interested in teaching, students would learn less efficiently and reduce interest in learning. If the government or the school do have money to raise teachers' salary, why not hire more teachers to reduce the workload? Even though this means that more people an become teachers, as the salary is not that high, those people will still be the ones who are interested in teaching. If you pay the teacher more to ask them to work more, it is not efficient because they need time to relax and spend time with family and friends. So it is much better to hire more teachers. I would like the ask the Affirmative side, does money solve all the problems?

Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Umm. .. awkward So this was my R2 arguments if I did not have so many projects to finish: 1) Teachers have alternatives in teaching in other institutions such as test prep schools. 2) "Students should choose because its there education. " Students should choose what there are no choices? In either cases my opponent failed to address my contentions and rebuttal. Silence is consent, hence my opponent agrees with me.

Should teachers and staff of schools be allowed to carry weapons for the safety of the children But if the students do not know the teachers have a weapon how would they get it?Two points I will make with this statement: my opponent seems to be arguing that a teacher should be allowed to bring a gun onto a campus without anyone knowing. This can put many people in danger because there are many scary teachers in this world who would be in the right mind and pull out a gun on a child when they feel threatened. Also, what if the child tries to steal something from her purse and found the gun in her purse. That is why i think it would be important for people interested in being a teacher they must get a mental test done to make sure they are mentally right for a teaching job.That is how teachers get qualified to teach. Teachers show they are qualified by getting a certification to teach, not to shoot any individual who threatens the environment. Leave that to the security guards.

Better teachers should be paid more President Barack Obama said in March of 2009: teachers should be treated "like the professionals they are while also [being held] more accountable. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools."[3]

Year-round school Teachers need summer vacation to stay sane and focused.

A teacher's pay should be merit-based. I'll begin with my arguments, and then address each piece of my opponent's advocacy. 1. As my opponent acknowledges in his case, nations need more educated children. In order to meet this goal, most nations, and all first world nations, have responded by creating universal assessment tools to gauge student achievement in its public schools. The result has been standardized tests, generally built by states/localities and given to students each year. The federal government then examines the scores of these tests. Per almost all current educational research, these tests are statistically and empirically non-indicative of student achievement, progress, or even potential, which many in the educational field argue cannot be tested or measured. (1) Therefore, there is no way to accurately measure student achievement in a way that is politically viable and accurate, as the political climate of today demands hard numbers, which are impossible to deliver. 2. Grades and corresponding GPAs are equally unreliable for a number of reasons. Teachers, like police officers, directly control all evidence of their merit. Without severe and monumentally expensive supervision, teachers will always be able to corrupt assessment results, even on statewide exams, to increase their pay. There are countless cases of teachers who have manipulated grade systems or test systems for their own benefit. Even state governments have been accused of and confessed to "dumbing down" assessment tools in order to secure monetary benefits or administrative stability. When was it that the number of teachers and governments attempting to cheat assessment tools began to exponentially rise? 2000, when the Bush administration fielded and implemented the No Child Left Behind Act, which directly tied these assessment tools to merit-based benefits for schools. (2) 3. If being judged by a state or nationwide standard, historically and empirically low-performing schools are distinguished by socioeconomics, geographical location, and ethnic background. Urban schools and rural schools routinely get the short end of the educational stick. Those schools are underfunded due to high levels of poverty, they are unable to pay teachers as much so they get poorer quality of teachers, less resources, and less face time with students. Naturally, they will consistently underachieve with standards that cannot physically be met in these schools. Educational research confirms that this is so. Teachers know this, too. This is why the federal government has had to begin offering numerous incentives for highly qualified teachers to take jobs at rural and urban schools, include college loan forbearance, loan forgiveness, and tax incentives. All of this work to get good teachers into the areas where they are needed most, to catch up decades of consistently mediocre education, will be reversed by the merit pay system, since the students in these disadvantaged areas will never perform as highly in quantifiable assessments as advantaged students. 4. The impacts of merit pay are clear. Highly qualified teachers will take positions in schools where they can achieve. Mediocre teachers (the ones left) will take positions in the schools that need highly qualified teachers instead. This will lead to the above-mentioned corruption within the education system in order to gain merit pay, even as high as the state level. This will affect student achievement in myriad, terrible ways. (1): . http://www.fairtest.org... (2): . http://www.susanohanian.org... Note: these are what I have on hand. I have many more extensive, specific studies if you like :) And my opponent's case: Quick note on outside-of-US anecdotal evidence: as long as the example could reasonably be applied to the US, my opponent can introduce any evidence he likes. "I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. " 1. Very true. However, the affirmation's plan will only entrench this mistreatment, as it will clearly discriminate against certain teachers based solely on the area in which they choose to teach. "Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. " 2. This is, indeed, a valid part of student achievement. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure this, along with all of the other facets of academic achievement, in a universal way, which is what merit-based pay would entail for the purposes of accountability. "Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. " 3. Teaching is inherently different than sales, and this is important to note in reference to merit pay. Sales commissions are based on a quantifiable standard: did the person make the sale? Yes: that representative will get a percentage of the commission. No: no commission. First of all, educational achievement and potential cannot be quantified in nearly the same way. The only way to universally quantify it is to use standardized testing, which fails miserably to prove any sort of academic achievement. "An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. " 4. In a similar vein, teachers and states alike have freely admitted to corrupting test results or corrupting the test itself. Several states have been found to manipulate test difficulty, format, and content in order to ensure more passing students. This only happened when the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted under the most recent Bush administration, in which funding and school functionality became tied in the same merit-based way to academic success based on universal, quantifiable academic assessment tools that are in and of themselves deeply flawed. "I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. " 5. The negative impacts are outlined in my case, and affect both students and teachers. Teachers will be paid less for working in certain socioeconomic, geographic, and ethnic locations. Therefore, teachers will leave the schools which need their expertise the most in order to seek pay increases. The US government is already having to lure highly qualified teachers to these areas in order to keep them there. These underprivileged schools cannot stand this strain. This is where the students suffer, as mediocre teachers will be able to find jobs more easily in already struggling schools, which will simply lower the quality of education in urban and rural areas, resulting in an even greater educational gap in the nation. Hence, not only will merit pay for teachers not improve the world, but it will devastate any attempts the government is currently making to level the educational playing field. In essence, using assessment in relationship to teacher pay is a recipe for disaster. While assessments are valid and necessary, tying them to teacher pay is a drastic mistake on the part of any nation, especially if those assessments are universalized, even by state governments. I look forward to my opponent's response!

It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils.[1] [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries:  Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007

A teacher's pay should be merit-based. I'll be addressing arguments in general at first, and then I'll address specific arguments after that. It seems to me that this debate now needs an overview, as my opponent has now offered up a plan from my source (fairtest. org) in order to fix all of the problems I claim are inherent in the prospect of teacher merit pay. First of all, this means that if I can disprove his alternative being viable, I've gained incredibly strong footing in this debate. Furthermore, if I can prove that the inherent harms of merit pay exist no matter the assessment system used, I believe I will have won this debate. I will do so now. 1. The peer evaluation system is not politically, logistically, or ethically viable, or at least not moreso than a standardized testing model. What my opponent doesn't tell you about my source is the reason for its analysis. If you read the entire page I cite, you will find that I cited it because it does a wonderful job of summarizing the problems with universal assessment systems involving standardized tests, which are a cornerstone of US assessment, and probably aren't going away any time soon. What that organization does not address at all is the implementation of the peer evaluation system in any sort of universal sense. That's because not even the most highly qualified educational experts would recommend this. This has been a serious problem for over 5 decades. Why haven't we implemented this yet? We haven't because it isn't a number of important things: a. It isn't universally applicable in any way: keep in mind that my opponent clearly conceded that, in order to pay a teacher based on merit, the measurement of the merit must be universally established. My analogy: if one 5th grade class is on times tables and another is on addition and subtraction, the two classroom teachers should not receive equal pay just because students are showing academic achievement. Clearly, one class is conceptually behind. The peer evaluation system is fraught with bias and subjective opinion. Which teachers will assess? How will the localities be assigned assessment teachers? How will we ensure that all assessors have the same concept of how to meet educational goals? Educational research strongly discourages universal curriculum for the very reason that all students are individuals. They should all end up with the same knowledge at the end, but the students may not apply it in the same ways. Which way is the right way? Standardized tests tried to address this, but are failing miserably. b. It isn't logistically possible: teachers are already incredibly pressed for time, especially with shrinking budgets and school years. Not only that, but the definition of what a good, experienced teacher is varies from state to state, even from district to district. Finding enough teachers who have the time, resources, and proper training and skills to assess millions upon millions of classrooms is unrealistic, and a bureaucratic nightmare. c. It doesn't solve the problem of flawed assessment systems: how will peer evaluating teachers measure academic success? Via grades? GPA? Test scores? Project results? All are still based on flawed systems of measurement. We run into the same problems as before. If a peer assessor is looking for students who are able to score high marks on a given project at the end of a unit of instruction, the teacher, again, can inflate grades or artificially manipulate performance in numerous ways to pass his or her evaluation. This is inherent to merit-based pay. There are always ways to cheat a system, especially one that is so bogged down and bloated as judging teams for each classroom. The ONLY way to stop this behavior is not to base pay on merit. Now, onto the rest of the debate. I'll address my opponent's responses to my arguments: 1. I've disproved my opponents alternative as viable above. I also would like to point out his concession on accountability requiring universal standards, which is key to why his alternative cannot be successful. 2. Corruption is inherent in merit-based pay. When performance affects pay, there will always be individuals who attempt to gain more pay by cheating the given system. The perceived success rate is based on the ability to cheat. My evidence proves that there are myriad ways to inflate academic performance, and that those ways have already been heavily exploited. Furthermore, please highlight my example of state governments manipulating student performance in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. That's huge, because states were not doing this until their educational performance affected school budgets. It is directly analogous to the affect merit pay will have on individual schools and students. 3. The problems of socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic locations will still exist within that utopian plan. These problems are inherent with or without peer evaluation. There is nothing to say that a given peer evaluation team would not be a suburban team coming into a rural school, or an urban team coming into a suburban school, where the learning environment can be completely different. We cannot eliminate human bias from any plan, and we certainly can't expect to solve a couple hundred years of problems with one seemingly simple fix. Even if this system doesn't further entrench the inequities of society within education (which it probably will—statistically, schools are more segregated by specific population than they were prior to Topeka v. Board), the inequities will continue, and my scenario of teachers flocking to places where merit-based pay is far more likely will become a quick reality. And my opponent's initial advocacy: 1. The actual ability of a student is a requirement of testing. That is the accountability I keep talking about. The public will not accept, and should not accept, two classrooms of the same grade with vastly different abilities. How does that serve education? Improvement is only a piece of achievement, as my opponent admits in his initial debate posting. The reason standardized tests are even used was a failed attempt to ensure that accountability. Any solution must include it. 2. While you may think it is easy to implement, two things stand in the way of us accepting this as a possible reality: my above analysis in this post, and the fact that 50 years of research has not led to a peer evaluation implementation for universal student achievement assessment. 3. Well, if the example of sales can't be used to demonstratively prove anything about teaching, I suppose it isn't necessary to the debate. The police officer analogy is much closer to the teaching profession in terms of importance and accountability, which clearly proves my point dexterously. 4. However, the corruption isn't just tied to standardized tests. It's deeper than that. Even the letter grades that my opponent refers to in his initial advocacy can easily be manipulated, as can an observed day of "performance" by students. The system my opponent proposes cannot fix the inherent flaws of merit pay. 5. For the most part, the impacts I list in my case are inherent to merit pay, not inherent to standardized testing. The evidence I cite uses standardized testing scenarios, but the same scenarios are a very plausible reality in any system because any system that is merit-based will invite and encourage (inadvertently, but still encourage) corruption. Thus, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response!

Merit pay for teachers is tied to unreliable standardized tests "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007: "1. Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance."

Teachers don't make enough money. Teachers do make enough money. Firstly, let me state that I agree teachers do an invaluable job. Here are my arguments for why it is fair/useful that teachers are paid less than a number of other professionals. (1) Holidays. Teachers will generally have 13 weeks per year, compared to an allowance of perhaps 4 weeks per year for most other professionals. This discrepancy - about two months' extra time off - should rightfully impact on pay. (2) The absence of monetary incentive to join the profession. Due to the mediocre pay scales, nobody will join teaching "for the money". People who desire to teach, generally, will be motivated by (a) a natural desire to educate, or (b) a passion for sharing their speciality subject. Hopefully this leads to a strong teaching force who are in the profession for wholesome reasons. That's all for now.

Teachers should not need a license to teach All 50 states including the District or Colombia and Porto Rico required teachers to have a license. But why do they require it? According to the Board of Education they require teachers to have licences so parents know that their kid is being thought by someone who knows what they are talking about. Every school wants their students to actually have a excellent learning experience and have a bright future. Teachers have to get background checks while they are in the process of getting their license. They get this so the Board of Education knows that students and other teachers know that this person is safe to be around. Background checks are used to make sure that a convicted felon is not working in a place where they can harm people. Parents should know that their children will be safe at school and is around a positive role model. Now I notice multiple times that you mentioned my grammar and spelling and I know that your just a freshman in high school like me so how do you know what grammatically correct and what's spelled corrected. You know as much about literacy as I do. What gives you the right to say someone doesn't speak grammatically correct or doesn't know how to spell. You and I both have different views on what's grammatically and how something is spelled it all depends on where you were raised and live. For example the UK has different views on language arts and literacy than the USA. Every where in the world grammar and spelling is different. What we think is grammatically incorrect could be grammatically correct somewhere else. I was raised in the south and was raised differently than you. What the south think is grammatically correct is different from what the Midwest thinks is grammatically correct. For example the word ain't I was taught that ain't was a word and is proper grammar that how most kids in the south were taught. Now someone from the Midwest might think differently. So you shouldn't point out someone's grammaratical correctness because you don't know how they were taught especially when they were taught in different parts of the country or different parts of the world. Your also just a highschooler you don't have a degree in language arts and other literacy things so you shouldn't be saying anything about my or anybody grammar or spelling. It was a pleasure debating with you