Question: Should teachers get tenure?

Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: I accept

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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...

Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: 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...

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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.

Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: 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

Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: 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.

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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...

Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: 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...

Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: 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...

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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.

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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.

Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: 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.

Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: 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.

Title: Teacher Tenure Content: 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...

Title: Teacher Tenure Content: 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*

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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.

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: 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.

Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: 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.

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

Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: 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

Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: 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.

Title: Private school is better/safer than public school Content: The public school system has numberous issuesTeacher Tenure - this protects any poor quality teacher from being fired. This also terminates a teacher's fear of being fired, so even a good teacher can get lazy.Students are assigned to the public school in their area. This forces some students to attend a more corrupt, or dangerous school, and ensures that the school will have enough students to stay open. The school can change the additude of the students, and lead them to failure.Common Core Standards - the poor teachers that tenure protects are now educating their students with common core standards. It would be bad enough if all teachers were at least average in performance. Common core is widely known as not being very efficient, and soon will be limmiting students. Government officials could soon start poisoning the minds of students with common core standardsPublic schools can be under-funded, which can lead to cancellation of activities like choir, band, dance, and theater. Over-achieving, intellingent kids are often a minority. They will be discouraged among students, and taught that smart means unpopular. There are many popular misconceptions and myths about private schoolStudents can use money to pass a class, or get good grades - this is a common, and hilarious myth. Private schools have very strict rules about giving a teacher any money, even as a gift. Especially in middle and high school, where students are more likely to try cheting. If you were to ask anyone at a private school, student or teacher, they would all tell you that no one tries to use money to pass classes.All students in private school are rich, and upper class - this is a steriotype. Students in private school are mainly upper-middle class, or somewhere in that area. Some students even get work-study oppritunities, which lets lower-class students attend private school for cheaper. They only have to help with a little work, like helping to clean after school. Low-8ncome students also can receive free lunch. Of coarse, some students in private school are richer. What other school would these students go to?Students are all very sheltered from the real world - a very common steriotype. Since most people go to public school, private school students will live in neiborhoods with public school students, and can become friends with them. All private school students are aware of the problems low class families face. They learn from the news, from public school friends, and from common knolwdge. Anyway, is being sheltered from drugs, alcohol, and other illegal activity really a bad thing? In a private school, students have a safe, pure, and healthy learning environment.

Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets. I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement "someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills. Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day. You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.

Title: Teacher Tenure Content: 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.

Title: Teachers Evaluations in NYC Content: 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.

Title: It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union. Content: I am not against unions per se. In certain industries unions are useful, but unions with excessive power are a problem. I have a particular issue with teacher's unions that make it near impossible to fire a teacher after tenure, which in itself is an insane system. What other job do you have guaranteed security after three years no matter how bad you are? Teacher's unions hurt the education system by creating a system where there is little or no incentive to really be excellent. Instead a teacher will just do the basics because they aren't going to be fired after tenure. And many teachers are let go right before tenure just because it is so hard to fire them after it. The tenure system rewards mediocrity and ensures that departments and schools will continue to be filled with poor teachers. This is terrible for kids who are taught by them. The real crux of my problem with unions is when they get arrogant and demand excessive things. Incredible union demands in the auto industry now cripple domestic companies who are forced to pay massive health care and pension costs. All of these things hurt industry. I also hate strikes. They serve little purpose other than to irritate and disrupt the lives of thousands. If a teacher's union calls a strike then the people hurt are the kids; if it's a transport worker's union like the recent ones in New York and Philly the entire area suffers. No group should have the power to do this kind of damage to an entire economy. Finally, I hate the way unions act politically. They endorse Democrats almost always and use member funds to further their agenda, which almost always means funding Democrats regardless of member's wishes. They support laws like the destruction of the secret ballot so they can bully people into unionizing. They engage in smear campaigns against non-union companies like Walmart and use their political influence to try and hurt Walmart by the force of government. In general unions are constantly diminishing in this country and they're desperate to gain new members. In conclusion my problems with unions can be boiled down to four things then - excessive demands that cripple business, strikes that hurt entire economies, extremely biased political action using member funds, and the attempt to abuse the power of government to force people to unionize and hurt companies that don't wish to organize. Unions must be put in check and the unholy Democrat-union alliance must be curtailed.

Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Accept

Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Thank you for the more challenging rebuttal. I think the topic over teacher's unions/contracts/tenures is a separate issue. Yes, it is very hard to fire a teacher who performs poorly, even after years of parental complaints and poor performance reviews from administrators. I had a very bad teacher in 6th grade, everyone knew she was bad, and for years, people wrote formal complaints about her, eventually the school administrators moved her into a mobile-trailer classroom outside the school to teach 'basic skills' just to get her away from the rest of the students. Private schools do not have teaching unions, so this problem is non-existent there. There's no perfect system for finding perfect employees, but once again, that's another issue. As for the time scheduling, schools release their students around 2:30 PM, which is still way before the standard work day. If the student plays sports, then they attend that. If they are not old enough and require additional care after school, almost every public school has an after-hours care. I attended one for a time as well. The time there was spent doing HW and playing games with the other kids. This was an additional cost to parents, but it's within reason, (i can not give accurate costs) my parents were by no means wealthy. The money/funding is really the biggest issue and what education will come down to. We all want a better society, a better economy and job market, but how can we expect that with low education standards, and sinking education rankings relative to other countries? It all starts with a good education, it's not always a tangible thing, but it's something society has to make a decision on together for the greater good. We already put a high value on education at the advanced level (college). I have friends that just graduated with $120k-$180k in loan debt over 4-5 years. This was from an expensive university, but you see my point. Why is a 4-5 year education worth so much, but the education you receive for the previous 13 years any less important? The school budget in my hometown was often voted down because there was a large population of senior citizens that would vote the budget down because they didn't want their taxes to go up, even the smallest bit. The school system was not very good, and my parents sent me away to private school because of this. Now that many of them have died (sry to say this), and people with children have moved in, the people who care about their children's education vote the budget up knowing their taxes are being spent on their own children, thus granting the school more for the students. My younger brother is now attending a school that my parents once dreaded the thought of ever sending me to. I personally do not have all the details figured out, I can imagine smaller school districts merging with larger ones to make the system more cost effective. But the idea is to enable and push the minimum standards of education, and this is a decision that society must make. I believe that a viable approach through year-round schooling can be achieved. My inspiration for this topic came from TED Talks conference on Education, and from one of the talks in particular. I will post the link below. Thanks for debating. This is the specific talk. http://www.youtube.com... If you are interested in other education talks, just YouTube search: TED Talks Education 2013

Title: Teachers Evaluations in NYC Content: What are you talking about obviously you are not aware of how these evaluations work they are graded according to their overall classroom successes. The children have a very small part in deciding which teacher gets a grade of achievement or under achievement. The Department of Education grades them on their own merit system and procedure that the department calls for. Why would nyc leave the grading system up to students who are in the learning process themselves that would be ridiculous. The teacher is the one who has to follow a curriculum and depending upon how well the information is portrayed and received by the students the teacher has the obligation to go forth and give the students an outlet to scoping the minds of tommorrow. The teachers will be graded based upon their attendance, their overall rates of the reading and math scores of the students, the parent teacher meetings about the student, the interaction between the students and the teacher. The teacher is no longer comfortable in having tenure they have to work hard in order to keep their position. This gives the teachers a heads up on how well or not well they are doing their job and also it gives those who want to have a career in teaching an incentive or how they can change or better the school system for the students learning and for the teachers who are constantly learning everyday. The Department of Education has the guidelines for these teachers conduct and achievements and the students can only be surveyed as to what the class has given them not much of a which teacher needs to go or stay but what each teacher can do to keep the students attentive and how they can make it more interesting and exciting to learn new material. The students are like the lab rats except there is no harm being done to them intentionally.

Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: 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...

Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: The American Schooling System is quite unique in its own way. The education system is the one of the only systems where someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education. I would have to argue that even though your idea is moral it would bring a huge burden to the tax payers in this country, you claim that it would save money to parents but at the same time they would be paying much more in taxes for these salaries going to teachers

Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: 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...

Title: Universities are bastions of free expression Content: Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students.[1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people. [1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), ‘1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940, http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

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

Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate. I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job. In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go? I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year? Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up

Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: 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.

Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: 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.

Title: Should teachers be able to take things from you Content: Extend

Title: will youtube replace teachers Content: should youtube replace school teachers

Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: I accept

Title: Better teachers should be paid more Content: 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]

Title: Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School Content: Students should be paid to go to school because we do not have a choice as to whether or not we can go yet teachers decide to beome teachers. Teachers get paid a large sum of money and although our reward as students is our education, to prepare our selves for our future, we should be rewarded with more of a physical treatment such as money, a free day of just not having to go to school at all or being allowed to do whatever we want.

Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: 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.

Title: Yummy debtors for lunch. Content: Great argument! I concede. We're on the same page. How much should a professor with tenure be paid? What's a fair value in a failing country? $200k? When .gov provides the loans, yup.

Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: Extend

Title: Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Content: 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!

Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: No. Teachers should not have guns in school. Let me first just say that I own a rifle, and am not an anti-gun person. I am not a member of the NRA because I disagree with their stances on many issues. This issue being one of those. Pro says they can have the gun if A. They want to be armed and B. They pass a mental evaluation and C. They get training How much training is a teacher going to need? Well, how much training does a police officer or a SWAT team member get? It's going to have to be comparable to that if they are going to defend themselves (and/or their students) from an armed probably mentally deranged assailant. That's fine for people who have elected to go into public defense as a career, but that's not why a teacher becomes a teacher. Pro also states that the gun be kept in a "safe place" where none of the kids know where it is. In order for a gun to be used in defense, it has to be accessible. That's just logic. If you can't get to a gun in a crisis situation, and get to it quickly, the gun is useless. And if that gun is accessible to a teacher, then it will be accessible to others as well, and possibly accessible in turn to a student. There rarely are any "secret locations" in schools. 7 states already allow teachers to carry guns. Like this teacher in Utah who accidentally discharged her gun http://www.sltrib.com... no one was hurt in that case, but what if a child had been around? Even experienced gun owners have accidents sometimes. You're also opening the door to teachers who maybe don't have the greatest experience with handling guns. Say a teacher who has never fired a gun decides they want one. Pass the mental evaluation then goes through the "training" you say they can get. Now that person is packing heat. They will be making in some cases instantaneous decisions about whether or not it's time to pull their gun on someone. With a school shooter that decision is obvious. But what about an angry parent? What about an out of control student? What about a gang leader defending turf? I wouldn't pull a gun on those people, but some people will. And there will be shootings at schools. You haven't stopped the problem, you've accelerated it. Letting teachers carry guns will ultimately cost many more lives than it saves.

Title: It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve. Content: 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.

Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: 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.

Title: technology should take place of teachers at school Content: no i dont think that a teacher should be replaced by the latest technology that has made human life easy. a teacher at school is not just preparing you for some sort of small examinations such that we give at school instead they prepare us for the world we have to face ahead. the term teacher is a very meaningful word and we should not consider a teacher only teaching bookish knowledge but they are also our spiritual teachers and no matter how advance the technology becomes the glorious personality of a teacher cannot be replaced.

Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: 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.

Title: Being an teacher is awseome. Content: When you are a teacher, it is very likely that children will look up to you. The problem with that is that when they become fond of you, it is only to convince the teacher to give them better grades. This has happened many times in my school, and when the teacher finds out, I can tell she seems hurt. Plus, what is so great about getting along with children? It has no benefit at all. Of course, it might be for self-pleasure, but look what happens in the end; the teacher ends up getting hurt. Even if the bond is real, the teacher probably has friends of her/his own and the student too. The teacher would spend an overall of only 45-55 minutes with that student. As you teach, it is true that you review things from the past, but it gets even more boring every single school year that passes by. You would get tired of teaching the same thing over and over again. If it is boring to some students, it would just be a waste of the teacher's and the student's time. Being a teacher comes with risks. A report from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, published earlier this month, found that threats and assaults were becoming a 'daily reality' for teachers. More than half of school staff had been attacked or intimidated by pupils or parents in the last year, according to the report. Of those, more than eight-in-10 said the aggressive behavior from pupils took the form of insults, seven-in-10 said they had been intimidated or threatened and almost half had been physically attacked. SOURCES: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Title: Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot! Content: Hello, My name is Cray-cray as you see. I think they should get paid $100 each month because they give us a lot of education, happiness and funny times. Even though athletes are the problem, they get $130,000,000 just to give us entertainment. Teachers give us education and get paid way lower than that. So do doctors, fire fighters and polices, they work there butts off saving lives and they get paid less then athletes. Do athletes save lives and give education to us. NO! So,Love It or Argue It!

Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: 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.

Title: Should Monday be a school day Content: I admit that teachers would have more time to grade stuff and relax, but I don't really think that is an excuse. Teachers signed up for being teachers knowing that they would be stressed a lot, just like any other job. But, that's normal. Anyway, the teacher job application requires them to be "friendly with students" How can they do that if they only see them 4 times (or less!) a week?As for the students, they would be more relaxed due to the shortened school week. They would be less likely to pay attention in school, to do their homework, to do their school work, and other bad consequences. Sure, they might have more fun in the short term, but in the long term, about 10 years from there, they will do badly in college because they didn't study when they were young. Does that sound good for you?

Title: children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, ) Content: I disagree ! Teachers are no different, it has nothing to do with being a teachers pet or teachers showing more attention to that student. Teachers are human beings who are no different than me or you. they have feeling and personally i think it would be a great idea and shoudn't be frowned upon or looked down. I'm sure many people will agree that they had a teacher they were close with or they had a teacher that they liked and wanted to keep in contacted with or what ever, but because of all these stupid, silly, pathetic rules they couldn't or didn't. i think a if a child gets on well with his/hers teachers or confides in them then i think it's perfectably exceptable I'd rather my child be happy becasue they have a teacher or someone to talk to then upset and lonely because they didn't want to talk to me about a certain problem or issue. Yes it would bother me that they didn't want to talk about it but i would be happy knowing they had somone else to talk to or a helping them with there problems

Title: Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Content: 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.

Title: Students should be allowed to grade their teachers. Content: I definitely think that us students should be able to grade their teachers. I find that this should be an annual or bi-yearly practice. I believe that over years, teachers could alter their teaching styles, maybe for better, or worse. I think it is fair that, teachers who mark their students daily, through ability, understanding, and control, students should be able to do the same. Students are marked, and judged everyday based on ability, and effort. With a lot on the line, their marks. So teachers should give the option of being marked either anonymous or otherwise. So they could improve their teaching ethics. True, teachers have already been through school, but non other than students to judge how well of a job their educator has done.

Title: Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms Content: Thanks

Title: Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. Content: 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?

Title: A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Content: 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.

Title: Should Bad Teachers Be Fired Content: 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.

Title: should teachers be allowed to have cellphones at school Content: Continue to next round

Title: Teachers Should be Paid More Content: You have argued that more funding should be allocated to teachers in order for them to achieve more of their goals and yet more than enough funds have been allocated to the education department for that purpose. In such countries as Zimbabwe, some kids dont even have a clue as to what a computer looks like and yet they have the highest literacy rate in Africa. Now if you compare the funding of the United States to that of Zimbabwe you find that we actually have an excess of funds and there really arent any needs to match those. Why should government waste resources on satisfying contented wants of the teachers. There is no need to augment the wages of the teaching staff. What they do is out of passion and not the love of money. So what if Floyd is earning $83k per sec. Its his job to wow the millions of enthusiasts that watch across the world and these enthusiasts also include a sizeable number of teachers...He is bringing in a large volume of foreign revenue through boxing yet the teacher is bringing nothing more than boredom to a small uninterested class. If a teacher would get as much as an engineer, who do you think would want to go to varsity for some challenging task when you can just get a teaching degree in college and get just as much cash..clearly this motion does not stand

Title: Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired Content: 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.

Title: Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers Content: Rebuttal of argument 1: This isn't really an argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be teachers. All you state is that homosexuals serve as examples through their traits. By no means do students "become" homosexual because they may have a homosexual teacher, in the same way that a gay or lesbian student is unlikely to become heterosexual if they have a teacher who isn't a homosexual.Rebuttal of argument 2:Anders Behring killed 77 people. He was Christian. He was also heterosexual. I certainly don't want this man teaching my children, so it's a good job that one heterosexual killer does not mean all heterosexuals are mentall unstable murderers. So there was a heterosexual terrorist. Does this mean that heterosexuals shouldn't teach our children? You may say it's preposterous to generalise all heterosexuals because of one man, but you have done the same just with homosexuals.Rebuttal of argument 3:There is no proof that homosexuals are Satanists, or that Satan exists at all. This argument is invalid as it doesn't have any evidence to back up your "homosexuals are condemned" argument.I hope that you take my rebuttals into account, I look forward to your future arguments.

Title: Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers Content: I accept.

Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino "Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. " Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.

Title: Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles Content: "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]

Title: P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight Content: It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for a job due to any physical characteristic and impedes on freedom of choosing a career they want. Also by "overweight are you referring to the BMI? Someone can be extremely muscular and be shown as Obese. A PE teacher doesn't get paid much at all and they aren't the ones being educated. It is the students themselves who are doing the physical work. Plus there are overweight students as well, Having a teacher that they look too (provided it isn't a fake overweight thing) can give them more motivation since it comes from someone who understands.

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Better teachers should be paid more

Title: Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers Content: Ah well.I beleive that my argument is true, but you are clearly the better debator. I don't concede, but besides your sexist term mishap, you have presented your arguments very well in this debate. Voters, vote whoever you think was best, but I'm not going to waste my time debating when I feel I have lost.Well done to my opponent, you put up a great case!

Title: Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired Content: 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...;*)

Title: Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Content: Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Yes it's true. i have seen in some schools and some universities, teachers are showing racism in giving marks. They are giving more marks to the students those who are good for them and familiar to them. I'm strongly disagree with this kind of teachers. Some teachers are looking country wise to give marks. They are giving more marks to their own country students. What is the purpose of this?

Title: That would be the better solution Content: 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.

Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: "However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays." True, but teachers have an extremely difficult job, similar to doctors and lawyers. They are educator, disciplinarian, and sometimes counselor. They have to watch over children for 6 hours of the day, not to mention how much times they work before and after those 6 hours, and the amount of correcting they have to do, which takes up most of their free time. "You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link." I would argue that actually, but that is not the matter at hand. "I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, "excellent teacher" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay." Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience.

Title: Teachers should have their students go to the restroom. Content: "Mrs. Yates? Can I go to the restroom? It's an emergency!" "No. You have like 5 minutes to get to class, you could've went to the restroom". "5 minutes isn't enough". "Yes it is!" Most students have dealt with this at least once every day in school. Drank too much water and KABLAM! They need to go down to Bathroom Lane, asap. But that isn't an option. Teachers won't allow students to go because either they had "5 minutes before class" or "you can hold it". Which isn't a good thing to do. Little do teachers know, holding in urine or waste is not good at all. An average bladder can hold about 15 ounces of liquid. Which is eight glasses of water which, is 64 ounces). Holding in your urine for a long periods of time can stretch your bladder. The automatic feedback mechanism in the bladder sends a signal to the brain when it's full, giving the signal that it's time to use the bathroom. NOW. Resisting the urge to pee, could have your body lose the ability to know when it's time to go. "The longer you hold your urine, the bladder can become a breeding ground for bacteria to grow," Dr. Bali says. This bacteria can lead to infections, which can spread to kidneys and cause greater damage to the body. School teachers and crane operators are two professions who disagree with allowing students to use the restroom which is not in any way the right thing to do. Bacteria can de deadly and dangerous. If a child needs to go, then they need to go. Simple as that. Norma urination is 8 to 10 times a day. If you aren't using the restroom 8 to 10 times a day, something isn't right. It might be you're not hydrating yourself enough. But still, bacteria is the last thing that any student would want to have just for holding in urine. It's a heck of pain to go through and no one would want to go through it. But teachers will never understand.

Title: Being an teacher is awseome. Content: If you be a teacher you could get along each other with children. Also, as you teach you could have a tine reviewing things what you learned in the past. Also, I think being a professor is good because it's not dangerous and not do dull

Title: Should same sex people go to the same school Content: My opponent has no provided a response, so I will further extend my arguments. I will discuss how single sex school are more beneficial to the teacher as well a sthe student. The teacher: A teacher teaching a class of 25 boys is going to have an easier job than teaching a group of 13 girls and 12 boys. The reason being is that boys generally do certain aspects of learning different than females. Males are generally better at pracitcal work as opposed to females who are generally better are languages. Teacher's that can adapt to this teach better. The student: In a class of boys, a male will not be afraid to speak his mind, as he is himself as male. In a mixed class, he is also under the pressure of the other sex and therefore may not speak his mind. The Consequences of this are that he may not learn the topic as good as he would if he participated. This is my further reasoning and hope my opponent responds.

Title: Student performance should be a factor when determining K-12 teacher salary Content: If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement" and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success. Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational. Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques"plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities just like the rest of the workforce. In the end, it is inherently ignorant and flawed that perfor

Title: Teachers promote the leaders of tomorrow which should entitle them with higher salaries Content: Hey, i assume when you say teachers, you mean public school teachers. your argument is sound in the sense that mothers should be paid the most cuz without without mothers there would be nothing and following the same logic grandmothers should be paid even more for being grandmothers. This is what you said, "Let me put it simply, without teachers there would have been no man on the moon. No vaccines. No indispensable medicines. "Blacks" and "Whites" would still be segregated and the hole in the Ozone layer would be twice as big." It is true that teachers have profound role on their students but only some, not all. On the other hand there are teachers who are horrible, and further more teachers are not only bad but criminals who can be indulged in heinous crimes against the children. Given the reality of situation first you need to get all teachers to be the best group in the world's history then maybe you could argue for your cause. Till then your assumptions are juvenile. And secondly you brought the stats for teachers in Australia, if teachers are teachers then why didn't you argue for the teachers in the third world countries, should they not be paid the same as others in different countries according to your aforesaid principles. I appreciate you trying to talk about this with the minister even though i might different on your way and talking points. Simply quoting a newspaper doesn't prove the findings, what was the methodology, until you come to terms with that, your arguments fells short that learning is proportional to teacher's pay. Having received no contact from the deemed "education" experts, I relied on two of my lecture and homework giving teachers for their views on the issue I was raising. Visualising a teaching utopia with the aid of my question, both teachers were quick to respond. To my surprise, both Teacher A and Teacher B had contrasting views on the issue I was raising. From Coming from the United Kingdom, Teacher .................................................................. of teachers, Teacher B addresses the issue in a larger picture including the Australian workforce. Till here, nothing whatsoever was a any source of your point just a story. Yes, I agree teachers can inspire the leaders and workforce of tomorrow, but also can parents, friends, family and so many other sources. I am not against paying teachers higher or as a matter of fact anybody else for that matter. But the world we live in is primarily run by economics. Personally I would love everybody to be paid enough that they would spend their lives peacefully, but you should bring in more economic argument for this to happen and maybe a selection process where you can find the best teachers. I would love to have a healthy debate.

Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: As I have to repeat again, why should somebody retake a test not needed when they have qualified for that thing. Teachers have been thought to teach, if they don't know how to use a blackboard which in normal circumstances in very rare, they shouldn't have a test but should show their understanding through actually teaching a basic class not as a test. Many teachers who may not be use to the new environmental modern world are generally old due to the fact they haven't grown into the modern society, but most old teachers are retiring so new teachers with the modern understanding don't have to be tested for this.

Title: Teachers sharing political opinions Content: A teacher is there to teach. If they bring up the topic of politics I assume it would be open to discussion. I see no reason why a teacher would just stand in front of a class and just start lecturing on about their personal political preference and not letting anyone oppose them or their views. A teacher would have a certain amount of influence over their students of course. But if it's not the teacher it will be their parents, friends, neighbours, the party with a large advertising budget or the news etc. So throughout life they are always going to be hearing other people's political views and they're going to have influence on them. So surely it must be better for them to be encouraged in a school to look into politics and decide for themselves. It's the perfect place and time for them to start hearing other people views and expressing their own. A teacher should be leading by example by sharing their views too and why they have them. There isn't as much as a connection if they just show both sides especially when there could be multiple parties and people involved. They may as well not bring it up and just tell them to go look at each parties own website and see what they stand for. Would be rather boring. If a teacher can't openly discuss their political views because it may influence their students choices what's next? People have opinions on everything in life so why try shield them away from reality? They're at school to learn real life skills too not just to be able to sit tests well. If they can't handle someone else's option and be able to form one of their own then they have already been failed. As long as it's a fair debate and both sides get a fair say there can be no negatives from it. It's exactly like we and everyone else on this website are doing, having free and open debates that are fair and allow people in the end to come to their own conclusion. If we stop the teacher from speaking because he has influence then who else? Should the most intelligent, the most popular or the most knowledgeable student on the subject being discussed all be stopped from speaking out and expressing their views too? Because surely they will also have a higher than average influence over their fellow students.

Title: Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot! Content: Teachers get paid over 1500 dollars a month. The government does not have the money to pay teachers six or seven figure salaries. The government does not pay atheletes so they get paid more. Cray-cray, your argument is cray-cray...

Title: Teachers should have guns Content: i accept your'e challenge

Title: Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers Content: My response to your points:"we are justified in refusing work to those that we choose"This is true if you are refusing work based on lack of job suitability, not discrimination. It seems you have vastly misunderstood the concept of freedom of hiring. Yes you can refuse work to people, but it can't be based on discriminative terms. This is against the law. (1)" schools don't have to hire those they don't want to hire"Any evidence? Any sources? You haven't shown me anything to back up your false claim. See my answer for the last quote." the principal was in charge of hiring staff." , "as long as he is principal, he chooses who gets hired or doesn't get hired."Again, it seems like you have vastly misundestood the hiring process. You can't hire discriminatively, and even though the principal is in charge of hiring, doesn't mean that he or she can do it wrong. For example, just because a dictator is in charge of a country doesn't make it legal to subject his subjects to genocide."man up"Lets try to avoid sexist terms shall we!?"why do I have to respond to this? "No one said you had to, but as I explained; your point wasn't entirely true so I couldn't rebut it, but your point was untrue though in certain circumstances; and I just wanted to point that out to the voters. Situation One: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher and a homosexual teacher are at equal merit and skill as a teacher. How are we to decide who is better if, in a professional sense, they are of equal talent and merit? There is no other way to decide except for personal belief. So unless you'd rather not hire anyone at all, there's not a reason to reject one off of their personality if they are of equal merit In a situation where both applicants are of equal merit, further interviews should be carried out until the best candidate is chosen. It's impossible that two candidates will have the exact same merit. Personal beleifs on the applicant's sexuality shouldn't ever come into account when hiring.Situation Two: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of greater merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent. If what you believe is true, then I would have to hire the teacher STRICTLY because she is homosexual, or risk the cry of sexual discrimination in the job place, which wuldn't be good for me as the principal. But if I were to hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a reverse sexual discrimination charge, basically that I hired her STRICTLY because she was homosexual, which still wouldn't be good for me. Who's going to accuse you of sexual orientation discrimination? Details of the applicants for a job are kept discrete, so unless the applicant themself believes you have discriminated, you have no problem. If the applicant does have a problem the case will be reviewed by a judge, and then an unbiasd decision is made. Apart from the one applicant, no one can accuse you of sexual discrimination!"If what you believe is true"Please be more specific when reffering to my argument.Situation 3: Like I previously said, no one can really accuse you as details are kept discrete.In conclusion, Con should take a logical approach when creating scenarios, be more specific when reffering, and avoid sexist terms which may offend the competitiors!1. http://www.emplaw.co.uk...

Title: should teachers be able to hold students in at recces Content: no

Title: Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students Content: I disagree with my opponent because I think that teachers should not show affection to individual students because other students will naturally feel left out. A teacher has to be a model of justice and fairness. A teacher has to show affection with his or her words to all of the students in the class. In this manner, all of the students feel the affection from the teacher. It is very dangerous to show affection to some individual students and not to others. The affection may be misinterpreted by the individual students and the teacher may have to face a very uncomfortable law suit. Also, students perform better academically when they all feel included and cared for equally. This has been the topic of many books and movies on teaching and education. (www.emotionallyhealthychildren.org) (http://northtexaskids.com... )

Title: Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane. Content: Students nowadays are walking around aimlessly worrying about exam grades, whilst all our teachers do is take abuse from us, whilst saying "do what you want, atleast im getting paid". R1- just acceptance, then in the comments we can lay out our bullet points before starting r2 to make it longer, and fair.

Title: Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms Content: "It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings"No. It doesn't. Your right but you missed the point. I provided it for those who need a reminder on school shootings and the statistics of deaths."We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students.I said this in the beginning: "If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]" A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Which as we know is harmless.You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org...) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed. Looking at the shooting of Washington:http://www.nydailynews.com...http://www.kirotv.com... Where a teacher tried to stop the shooter..."She’s the one that intercepted him with the gun. He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her. She tried moving his hand away and he tried shooting and shot himself in the neck” Imagine the scenario if the teacher has a taser:1)"He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her."2) Teacher tasered student.3) 911 dispatch arrives in time to prevent any further deaths."We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"Will the students feel more insecure if the teacher just saved their lives?"Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns."Which will be easier?1) Arming teachers with tasers2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control.Situation 1 seems more likely to happen.Furthermore, students die of alcohol poisoning all the time (https://www.google.com...). What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?In conslusion:It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe...

Title: Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School Content: I have learned as a student that when students are rewarded they work towards getting the reward over and over. My teacher is using a method where she would give out teacher dollars to the students at the top of the class and for doing an assignment and getting full marks and even perfect attendance. right now there is a battle for who has the most teacher dollars in the class which means that in all our marks that are being recorded no one in my entire class of 25 kids has any marks below half.

Title: Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students Content: I think it would be hard to give all the kids equal affection. Especially since one kid might want more affection than the others or the teacher might like one kid a little more than the others. If any of the other kids see it then they will get jealous. Also, I think it places an undue burden on the teacher who now has to be extra cautious to give all the kids equal affection all the time. And I think teachers are already overworked as it is because they work about 1,080 hours a year and the world average for teachers is about 794. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

Title: Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. Content: To avoid problems like this a board of members should be appointed they should be maverick from government. They should be controlled directly by an Educational Head. This board of members can have frequent visit to any schools and can inspect the students any time and can review the students and compare them with the tests they have written. This Board can even blame the Educational system if there any riddle and can give astringent punishment if any malpractices happen. Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance because Teachers' whose service is interminable should be noted and should be lauded with more salary this is an appreciation given to them for sacrificing themselves for their students. This can even encourage other teachers to work hard.

Title: should the teaching in schools be changed Content: I thank taterface for instigating this debate.CON - I believe the teaching methods in school should NOT be changed.1) PRO states that he believes "teachers should get ride of the kids in the class that do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there they should just not be there."I fully agree with PRO on this point, however, teachers already have a method to deal with these kind of kids. Teachers are able to get rid of kids that don't apply themselves by giving them failing grades. These students get held back while other kids progress through the education system. There is nothing wrong with the teaching method.2) PRO also states that the "teacher will waste his/her time on that kid and not the kids that want to learn so they are not getting a good education and a better chance to be successful."PRO fails to realize that these teachers are NOT wasting their time on these kids, but are trying to get them to learn. The teacher is doing his or her job to perfection by trying to get these kids to learn. The teacher is doing a great job here.For kids that want to learn, that want to get a good education, and show a demonstrated ability to learn, there are honors classes for these kids. Again, there is nothing wrong with the teaching method. 3) PRO also states that "the bad kids are already going to bring down are society why waste are time with them." By "bad kids", I will assume PRO is referring to kids that "do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there." "Bad kids" often face disciplinary measures. They are often taken out of class and put into detention, or some other form of punishment. If these kids cause enough trouble, they get expelled from school. There's no need to change how this work; again, I don't see anything wrong with the teaching method.CONCLUSIONThere are measures in place in schools to address all of PRO's arguments. The teaching method is fine and does not need to be changed. I agree with PRO that the fewer "bad kids" the better, but we have to give them a chance. If they mess up, they will face the consequences.

Title: Teachers Should be Paid More Content: I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools and I also feel like they should be paid more for the services that they are offering to the community that they are engaged in. Teachers are raising the future engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. But they are not being paid anywhere near as much as the students they are teaching go on to make in those professions. In the mean time, Floyd Mayweather is earning $83,000 per second to beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp in his fights. I feel like America is really placing an emphasis more on sports and entertainment achievement than rewarding those who are actually contributing to the future scholars of America.

Title: Students should be allowed to grade their teachers. Content: I will try to keep my points short and to the point, as I'm sure you are probably bogged down with homework right now. Schools are inspected by Ofsted, at least in the U.K., and it is true the reports describe the quality of teaching as a whole rather than focus on individual teachers, but this is because there is not a particular teaching style which is favoured [1] The fairest way is to ensure you receive a good education, and this is made possible by being taught in different ways which can challenge and inspire you, it's why you will usually have a new teacher every year. When an adult inspects the quality of teaching it allows students to continue learning. If students could grade their teacher after one year - the time when you will probably have a new teacher, their suggestions may not represent what the next students want. You say you are judged, however teachers don't give you homework in order to access your understanding (why you won't find a leader board in their closet). They mark your work, give corrections, and if you still don't understand it is your responsibility to seek help. If students could grade their teacher some students might choose to criticize their teacher instead of seeking help. Teachers do from my experience give their class anonymous feedback forms to fill in, which removes any need for students to grade teachers. sources: [1] http://www.clerktogovernors.co.uk...

Title: Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook Content: I'm happy that this topic interested you. So, Pro asserted that teachers can show the real photos or facts, which prove his or her innocence and I absolutely agree with this. Nevertheless, do you think that the victim could still work in this school with tarnished reputation? I think, no, because students will tease or always remind her or him this incident. My second argument is that nowadays, we cannot trust on anyone, because our world becomes very cruel. A teacher can be pedophile or maniac, which pretended like a teacher. I watched news about one in Moscow school, thirty years old deputy director of school presumably, pumped substance 15-year-old boy, and after to join with him in a sexual relationship. They started communicate on social network and was a close friends. A boy with a mental disorder in hospital and pedophile imprisonment of up to 6 years. Many of you might be skeptical that the director of school will choose a good teacher and with good education, however, it is not written in person's face. The third argument is that the students and teachers relationship must remain a line of a professional nature and there should not be any "friends" on Face book or anywhere else. Teacher is a person who is teaching you, they are not your friends. I understood that these days, we have great opportunity like Internet, which is very fast and makes it easy to communicate. But for students safety we should"t admit to students to be friends with teachers on Face book. For instance, if you really need help of teacher"s suggestion, you can go to her/him and share your problems. I think it"s much better than if you will communicate on the Internet. However, if you shy person, you can write to his or her university/school e-mail.

Title: Liking teachers is just Stockholm syndrome Content: First, Pro stated that I stated that Finnish teachers are nicer than American ones. That is false. I did say that teachers are more appreciated but not that they were nicer. Indeed, the students' perception of teachers is just better, because teachers are better trained and have worked very hard to get to their position (1). This inspires great esteem. This leads me to say that Pro should find better sources and if he does find sources that are trustworthy, he should state them more accurately. Indeed I do not think that such practices as"beat[ing] children with other children when the children get the answer wrong".Secondly, Pro is agreeing with me. Which is nice. So I just wanted to emphasize all that niceness.Concerning the headmasters' submission to Illuminati, that might be right and I wouldn't mind having the sources to read about it. Until then, I have to disagree with that argument, as, after years of searching, I have not found any proof of it. I think it would be nice of Pro to enlighten all of us.ISO 8601 is a standard put in place by the International Organization for Standardization (2). The purpose of this standard is to provide an unambiguous and well-defined method of representing dates and times, when data is transferred between countries with different conventions for writing numeric dates and times. It uses the seven days a week system and the twenty four hours a week system. So I'm guessing that whichever country Pro comes from, he also uses that system. If not, how does he call the extra two days? Thank you.In the state of New Jersey, students are not 'captured' by the police the instant they skip classes. There is a list of procedures (3). In the Student Attendance Policies And Procedures Compliance Checklist, there are a number of procedures that schools have to follow. One of the first is to notify the legal guardians. This goes against the idea of capture, as, in most cases, if you your legal guardians tell you to go somewhere, 1. it is for your own good and 2. the legal guardians can excuse the absence of their child, therefore the capture is not compulsory.Last but not least, here are the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome (4).In order for Stockholm syndrome to occur in any given situation, at least three traits must be present: A severely uneven power relationship in which the captor dictates what the prisoner can and cannot do; The threat of death or physical injury to the prisoner at the hands of the captor; A self-preservation instinct on the part of the prisoner. Although you might (a very improbable might) consider number 1 to be true (although I would emphasize the importance of "severely"), number 2 is wrong, and number 3 is wrong, because there is no need for self-preservation from death. You could argue students need self-preservation from other factors, but that is not the subject of the debate. Therefore, Pro's statement that "liking teachers is just Stockholm syndrome" is wrong, because there are no symptoms of such a condition.1. Teacher's training: http://bertmaes.wordpress.com...2. ISO 8601: http://www.iso.org...3. Student Attendance Policies And Procedures Compliance Checklist: http://www.state.nj.us...4. Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome: http://health.howstuffworks.com...

Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: 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.

Title: Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media Content: First of all, what is stopping them from sharing that stuff over email, is that you wouldn't contact the teachers' personal email. You would contact their school one. There is absolutely no reason to have anything personal of the teachers. So the school would be stopping that gossip because, knowing that the principal checks in on all the emails when something doesn't seem right, would make the teacher not do that kind of stuff. You shouldn't have to go on Facebook to see a homework assignment. Again, the school's email that they set up for the teacher is for that, not Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snap Chat, and whatever else is out there. My argument holds very valid reasons. How long have you been in school? Or out of school? Because obviously you missed that the teachers have emails in which to contact the student. This creates a safe place for the teachers and the students to talk to one another because it is monitored......unlike so many Facebook messages. Therefore, your 'platform' is actually the more dangerous one. The principals are not allowed to get into another persons Facebook even if they think that something wrong is going on. It is against the law. However, they can go onto the email that is set up for the teachers. The safer environment and contacting policy, is obviously the one where it is legal to check up to make sure that the teachers and students are not over stepping their boundaries.