Question: Should teachers get tenure?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teachers should be paid more; based on merit

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: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed

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: Changing the school year to all year Content: "With the extra time that teachers would have to work, the more they would get paid." Yes, but as I said in Round 1, that money has to come from somewhere. It would benefit teachers, not the economy. Besides, if teachers are really deserving of a pay-rise, it should come without having to extend the school year, for the reasons I've provided. "What is stopping these students from getting a job during the school year?" Trying to do well in school. Students would, obviously, do worse overall if they had less time to spend on school-work. This is a bad thing. "And I'm sorry, but the most evidence I can provide for you is that I myself am a 11th grade teacher. I know it sounds illegitimate, but true." This is not "evidence" at all. Also, my opponent stated in Round 1 that teachers "often" struggle to get through the material in a traditional school-year. I would ask why some teachers manage to get through it while others don't. Seems some teachers need to try harder.

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: 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: 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: It will attract more teachers Content: It will not attract more teachers. As said above, teaching is a calling. Many of the expected new teachers will be motivated solely by the increased pay, not by any intrinsic motivation. Because they are not intrinsically motivated, they will underperform. They might leave again after a year, but in that year they will have taught a class without the requisite skills and inspiration, possibly spoiling the educational experience of an entire class for the rest of their lives.

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: Is learning a child's responsibility Content: No because of Blah. The teachers are entitled to teach and so we should let tehm teach and blah if they want.

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

Title: The teaching of Shakespeare should be compulsory Content: Freedom of teachers to teach what they want

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

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: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: My opponents *) only states that some teachers teach better than others. Unless it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements, my opponents *) does not disprove my 1). And no evidence has been put forth to support that it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements. My opponent's argument 1) from round 2 does not support the claim because although my opponent pointed out many teachers who like their job, whom correlates with good teacher, will quit due to low pay, my opponent never argued the the number of good teachers quitting due to low pay will outnumber the number of bad teachers quitting due to low pay, thus the argument that the average teacher quitting due to low pay is a better teacher than their replacement has not been made. Thus my argument was not disproved. 2) My opponent didn't give evidence to support his claim, so my opponent's argument was based on speculation on what might be true. 3) Now my opponent is arguing that success results in respect, which is not at all contrary to what I argued. I argued that more pay doesn't result in more respect. Whether or not being successful results in respect is irrelevant to the argument. Saying earning more is a factor in success, and being successful results in respect, therefor earning more is a factor in increases to your respect is the logical equivalence of saying being taller is a factor in how much you weigh, and weighing more increases your health problems, therefor being taller is a factor in increases to your health problems. It is a logically flawed argument.

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: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers

Title: pay state school teachers based on merit Content: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.

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: Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Content: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teachers. -- I will let my opponent go first and purpose definitions as I'm lazy.

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: 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: 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: School pupils shouldn't be punished with detentions. They are practically imprisonment. Content: Teachers nowadays are giving out way to many detentions leaving students liable to more, Is this acceptable. I would like to welcome my opponent to this debate on a ever lasting topic. Debate starts next round.

Title: Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students. Content: Teachers 'will' have a higher-pay incentive: If they improve standards then they'll get a higher pay.

Title: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Content: It will not give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Teaching is a calling, not something you choose for the money. Teachers are what we call 'intrinsically motivated': they want to realize an ideal, in this case, educating and raising responsible citizens. Recasting this ideal into a financial reward system actually demotivates teachers who feel the inherent value of their work now suddenly has become sullied by chiefly monetary rewards, which is why performances pay hasn’t worked in many places.[1] [1] White, Performance pay for teachers is a terrible idea and here’s why, 2011

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

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: 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: pay state school teachers based on merit Content: It will attract more teachers

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: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation Content: What a shame. After CON's last rebuttal (or lack, thereof) I would posit that not only should we give teachers merit based pay, but we should give debaters merit based pay also. This might encourage people like my opponent to stop posting debates and not following up on them. The problem is rampant. Of the 16 total debates I've had, 5 had forfeits. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... (due to someone's poor judging, I'm actually losing this one) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...

Title: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: 1) There is nothing wrong with teachers quitting their job because of low pay, as long as someone else is willing to take their place. 2) Unless you can give evidence to support that teachers would use extra spare time to prepare for their next lecture, it can't be assumed. If a teacher really wanted work less hours for the same pay, he or she should have picked a different career that pays better. 3.) More pay doesn't result in more respect. For example, lawyers make lots of money but are not well respected. Besides, respect and admiration for teachers should be based on the teachers' teaching skills, not how much they are paid.

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

Title: Year Round School Content: Teachers do have breaks, they have the weekend breaks and two week breaks each season. It is just a total fact.

Title: Merit pay works in markets, can work for teachers Content: Darcy Ann Olsen. "Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay". CATO. May 22, 2001: "Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say "sayonara" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done."

Title: Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers Content: Darcy Ann Olsen. "Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay". CATO. May 22, 2001: "Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say "sayonara" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done."

Title: Changing the school year to all year Content: "There are 6.2 million teachers..." While I agree it WOULD have an impact on the economy, what I'm arguing is that the impact would be negative. The money to pay these teachers has to come from either the Government or parents. Either way, the economy is worse-off. My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the other negative economical impacts I presented in Round 1. "Sooner or later, the students..." I agree, but I argue that later is better than sooner. School years are for schooling and setting one's life up by getting the best grades possible. They have 60 years after high school with which to learn to manage time between tasks. "I'm sorry that I have no evidence.." That's fine, but it's a point you can't use to make your case. My opponent didn't answer to my suggestion that if SOME teachers can manage the time effectively, ALL should be able to. My opponent has not answered to my evidence that year-long schooling has no impact on student performance.

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay for teachers risks favoritism and cronyism

Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: Thank you again. Sorry for time frame again. First of all there is no dropping of the issue of it dismissing teachers who use blackboards (like my science teacher) as antiquated and archaic. My opponent refers to my intro of round one and as already explained is not as relevant and acts as a guideline for my position. =Con 1= My contention one shows that Merit -Pay is effective, it has worked and it can work if implemented. As already stated by my opponet, non-merit by is ineffective. My opponent also provides no evidence against my contention, and as already stated, this debate is Public Forum and shall be judged according to evidence. =Con 2= First of all, Merit-Pay can ONLY be based on student achievement. As posted in my definition earlier, student achievement "Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high." It has various meanings. Merit-Pay is essentially extra money paid for outstanding advancements. How else would a teacher be given merit-pay? Other than how well they are doing their job, which concerns the achievements of the student they are teaching. Remembering that this resolution regards K-12 teaching, not colleges as I believe he mentioned in round 2, Merit-Pay essentially incorporates a form of student achievement. So when I provide the evidence that most Americans support Merit-Pay, it is completly relevant to the resolution stated. So we can safely assume that my opponents arguements have been rebutted sufficiently regarding my contention two. =Con 3= Contention 3. My opponent semmingly intertwines this with contention two. He says that he advocates Merit-Pay based on teacher degrees. This however is faulty. For one, this is already implemented. Second, there have been various accounts of teachers across the nation forging their degrees to earn more cash from Merit-Pay. (I understand you want a source, but because of my fault, time frame, I wont be able to get it.) Most professions offer bonuses and salary increases to exemplary employees. Why should teaching be the exception? The fact that a sloppy teacher and a dedicated teacher earn the same salary just doesn't sit right with most people. Conclusion. I believe ample evidence has been provided to debunk my opponents claims against merit-pay. I plead for a PRO vote. Thank you for your time.

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

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 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: teacher pay should be raised Content: With that said, I will explain why teachers pay should not be raised. But before I do that, let me say that the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. PRO must prove why teachers' pay should be raised, as she does not in R1. Contention 1: Pay is enough currently. Currently, teachers get an annual $47,602 (. http://www.aft.org...) The average salary for an American is $43,444 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As we can clearly see, teachers are earning more than the average person, so a pay raise would not be needed. Contention 2: Most teachers don't deserve it. Most teachers do not even earn the money they receive. 1/3 of Americans can not locate the US on a map, 3/4 can not locate Iraq on a map, and US high schoolers are the 2nd least educated (stupid, if you will) out of 13 major countries tested like Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and the UK. Indeed, certain teachers, like gym teachers, do not even put that much effort into their jobs and do not provide their students with the skills they need. Contention 3: Benefits. Teachers, in addition to the salary they receive, get multiple benefits. Most teachers get a guaranteed salary, summer break, free lunch, and a pension plan. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.

Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers

Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Social Policy for satisfied teachers

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: Merit Pay for Teachers Content: I have been very busy. Today, I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. In my opponent's first contention, part A, he says that teachers will go far enough to deprive students of a good education. You can see that teachers would be attempting to give students the best education possible to improve their achievement. If a student was given a poor education, wouldn't they achieve nothing? And because this merit pay is based on students' achievement, it makes sense for teacher to give the best education possible. And also for part B of my opponent's contention, I have nothing to say but this. We cannot say for sure if this merit pay, if the student achievement that the merit pay is based upon, is even going to be based on standardized tests. Therefore, teachers "teaching to the test" or narrowing curriculum may not even be a problem. We cannot worry about it in this debate. Moving on to my opponent's next contention, again, in part A, we cannot be sure that these students will be measured by which percentile they fit under. And also that "smart kids" can work without teacher assistance, but will they not achieve more with a teacher aiding them? And as for part B, though a teacher may have "an incorrigible jerky administration" I do not see how this would affect their pay. Or if they have students that are out of control, all teachers have these kids. There isn't a way out of getting them put in your class. But let me remind you that merit pay is extra pay. These teachers are not getting any less money, simply bonuses. I was a bit too short on time to gather evidence, but I hope this will do.

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teacher merit can be measured and help determine pay

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: All teachers should be paid more, not just a select few

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit-pay helps attract teachers where there are shortages

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

Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: Resolution: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. This is my first debate. This will be a Public Forum style debate, mainly because the case I wrote is for Public Forum. I would like to provide a general judging scale for a Public Forum Debate and clarify that a Public Forum Debate is scaled on evidence that supports the competitors position. Thank you for accepting and I would like to open up first. INTRO: "Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness." In response to this need, the authors developed a framework for a performance-pay system that is "fair, strategic, and likely to win teacher support." Their recommendations include the following: (1) Reward teachers who help their students make significant academic gains. The research supports plans that measure student gains over time; that recognize both individual and team performance; and that allow schools to use credible data from classroom assessments. (2) Provide more pay for additional degrees and professional development that are relevant to school and district goals. (3) Offer incentives to teachers in low-performing schools but only if those teachers can demonstrate that they are effective with high-needs students and will be able to address the school's specific learning needs. My partner and I stand in affirmation that merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. DEFINITIONS: Student achievement- Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high. CONTENTION ONE: Merit Pay is an improvement. A performance pay system will tend to attract and retain individuals who are particularly good at the activity being incentivized and repel those who are not. In 1963, Hoxby and Leigh found, teachers from topnotch colleges earned significantly more than teachers from so-called safety schools. As of 2000, teachers earned the same regardless of their alma mater, the study found. Offering teachers merit pay might lure smart people to the job, Hoxby suggests. The national union's opposition to new forms of compensation is "wrongheaded," said Brad Jupp, a former vice president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, an NEA affiliate. Mr. Jupp, now an adviser to the 72,000-student Denver district, helped design an alternative compensation program while he was the Denver union's lead negotiator in 1999. The union agreed to pilot a pay-for-performance plan. The plan, which has since been adopted districtwide, rewards teachers for improving student achievement, choosing to work in hard-to-staff schools, and earning positive appraisals from peer evaluators. CONTENTION TWO: Merit pay gains support from most of America. Barack Obama wants to start a new program supporting an innovative-schools fund that his campaign says would allow districts to create "portfolios" of schools modeled after existing success stories. In short, our presidency supports this idea of merit pay. Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., and Joseph I. Lieberman, IConn., and others put forth a proposal this month on major changes to the No Child Left Behind Act that includes incentives for states to look at performance-pay programs to attract teachers to underperforming schools. This shows that merit pay is being recognized at a federal level. 72 percent of respondents say they favor merit pay in general for teachers, with advanced degrees, student test scores, and administrator evaluations ranking as the top measures for assigning raises. Competition is good, not bad. And parents have a right to demand high, measurable performance from those who would teach their children. Lawmakers should listen to the public, with its common sense born of experience, not to the union bosses who want more benefits for less work. Finally, the public demonstrates that they favor merit pay for teachers. CONTENTION THREE: Traditional salaries are ineffective. The chances of a high-performing student becoming a teacher fell from 21% in 1964 to just 11% in 2000, according to a University of Maryland study. Although the obvious culprit is new opportunities, fixed pay in education also contributed to the nosedive, said Caroline Hoxby, a Harvard University researcher who conducted the study with Andrew Leigh. Supporters of merit pay plans believe that the old pay structures are outdated and don't give teachers incentive to achieve or reward good performance. "Some of our first- and second-year teachers who are at the bottom of the pay scale do brilliant work that often goes unrecognized," one younger teacher told us. "Conversely, there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who have not changed teaching methods in twenty-five years to meet the needs of the kids they work with now." For these reasons my partner and I stand in full support of the resolution.

Title: Children should play a role in choosing their teachers. Content: I find this a very interesting topic both as a parent and as someone who works with a lot of teenagers and other young people. I must point out that as Pro my opponent bears the burden of proving that children should play a role in choosing their teachers. I don't believe she has provided any evidence supporting this yet. I totally agree with everything my opponent says except her resolution and the following sentence: "Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. " This is basically just a clarification of the resolution. I agree that teachers should be held accountable if their students persistently perform badly and with my opponents description of current recruitment procedures. I don't however see how this supports the resolution. Her initial paragraph seems to instead suggest that other teachers or principles should observe prospective candidates in a classroom 'audition' type setting. This to my mind is indeed a good idea but quite separate from the debate headline. It is my contention that on the whole children are not the best qualified to assess a good teacher on initial impressions. They are likely to make superficial judgements on whether they like a teacher or not and the majority of students would probably want to employ a teacher they thought would give them an easy ride, rather than one who would make them work harder. I await my opponents response. Thankyou.

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: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay gives teachers an incentive to work harder

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay undercuts valuable cooperation between teachers

Title: Children should play a role in choosing their teachers. Content: In this day in age teachers are chosen from a pool of eligable people. They are not observed in a classroom setting when other adults are not present therefore, the principal/dean etc. does not know what is going on in that particular classroom. Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. When a significent amount of students are failing or doing poorly in a class, the teacher should be held responsible. Children these days have such little say in the people who control their future.

Title: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: *) Some teachers are teaching better then others. 1) People who like their job are on average doing better then people who don't like their job. Many people who like the job of teacher will quit cause low pay. 2) In order to earn more money, teachers are holding private classes. They could possibly use time they spent on private classes preparing for their next lecture in regular school, or they could use that time for relaxing. 3) Kids would respect and admire teachers more if they were earning more. Naturally, everyone wants to learn from successful person.

Title: Merit based pay for the Education System Content: Claim: 1. It is impractical on the federal level. 2. State and Local levels would complicate the grading and rewarding of teachers. 3. It is difficult to prove there is improvement. 4. 'Scores' on standardized tests to measue improvement would result into the same problems of the past. 5. Teachers will care less about their students and more about getting raises. Rebuttal: 1. My opponent is correct, it is both impractical and unconstitutional at the federal level. Education has been delegated a state function. In turn, states often pass this along to the local level. 2. Certainly states could be convinced of the benefit of a universal grading system. Even if they could not, would it not be simple enough to devise a conversion system between the two (or more)? More importantly, it is to a particular state and/or region that each teacher must answer. That makes this an unimportant issue. Finally, private schools already measure teacher performance in a number of ways: peer review, parent feedback, standardized student testing, subsequent education levels (for students), or any variation thereof. 3. The same method that suggests the U.S. is beginning to lag behind other nations would be the same method to 'prove' student improvement. If we can measure a drop, certainly we can measure improvement. Quick facts on student test scores in relation to other nations: http://nces.ed.gov... 4. You may be correct in this respect, however there are other was to measure a teacher's performance, as mentioned above. 5. Almost every other profession has a merit based pay. If you are a poor lawyer you will not retain clients and/or lose your job. Teachering as a profession is in the minority in a tenure track system, that is to say, pay based on years on the job and degree, not performance. Is it my opponent's contention that all professions that are merit based suffer the same as he claims teachers would? Is it necessarily a bad thing for a teacher to care about a raise? On a merit based system, in order to receive a raise a teacher must earn it based on his/her performance. Therefore the fate of the student and that of the raise go hand in hand. Resolved: That more pay with rewards based on merit will attract a higher quality of educator. Resolved: That more pay for teachers will justify raising the education requirements for educators, resulting in a higher quality of educator.

Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot

Title: Year round schooling Content: Students, parents and sometimes teachers are not in agreement with this plan. Some teachers have actually left the district as a result of year long school as stated in an article from the Atlanta Journal. The article goes on to discuss teachers and students feeling "burned out" as a result of attending school for a longer period of the year. This plan would also prevent students from gaining meaningful employment during the summer months when they are not attending the public school system.

Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: ====== The Intro ====== My opponent: 1) Concedes that it is an unwarranted generalization 2) Drops the issue of it dismissing teachers who use blackboards (like my science teacher) as antiquated and archaic. ======== Contention 1 ======== The evidence provided only gave info as to which colleges teachers came from. It gave nothing related to merit based pay. Now my opponent links me to a source. I don't have time to read through that whole source in a 15 minute debate and still have time for an adequate rebuttal. Further, he didn't post it in his original round. He hasn't even posted the specific parts I'm supposed to attack, or the ones that he says are directly related, in this round either, so it stands that he has no reliable evidence for "Hoxby's suggestion." Simply saying "He has merit pay and his plan is effective" is far from enough evidence to draw a conclusion. There can easily be confounding variables, it could simply be correlation, not causation, etc. etc. etc. Further, there is still no source for this 72k survey he claims. ======== Contention 2 ======== My opponent has misunderstood my argument. He posted a source saying America supports merit pay IN GENERAL. The problem is that he is defending a specific type of merit pay (student achievement-based.) Many American's, like me for example, recognize the problems with student based merit pay, but don't reject merit pay as a general concept (I, in fact, advocate it) which means him posting evidence of merit pay in general does not allow him to draw conclusions of America's opinions of his specific form of merit pay. ======== Contention 3 ======== The resolution is "Merit pay BASED ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools." I advocate multiple forms of merit pay (such as the 2 PRO listed in his original contention 2, teacher degree based and administration evaluation based.) That does not mean that I in any way support merit pay mased on student achievement, which is what Pro defends. In fact, I would say that it leads us to quite the contrary conclusion, that we should reject student based merit pay, because we have alternatives that solve the problem (teacher motivation, etc.) without the harms student based pay brings (teaching to the test, grade boosting, etc.) ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent confuses his burden. He is not advocating merit pay in general; he is advocating student achievement based pay in specific. He has listed other, better, types of merit based pay that will equally well (if not better) solve the problems of which he complains, not be affected by the problems he argues about in C3 (because they aren't salary based), and avoid the problems his system has, namely, teaching to the test, which I see almost on a daily basis. We thus reach the conclusion that instead of merit pay based on student achievement, we should instead endorse merit pay based on teachers' college degrees and administrator evaluations, thus we negate the resolution and vote CON. Good luck again to PRO in the final round, and be careful with that timer. That last round was posted with 2 seconds left and if you aren't careful, the lag time can get you.

Title: Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Content: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Merit Pay -- a term describing performance-related pay, most frequently in the context of educational reform. It provides bonuses for workers who perform their jobs effectively, according to measurable criteria. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Advantage One: Pride Merit based pay will increase the pride that teachers take in their work. Teachers now dont have to worry about their performance, they get paid (. http://www.payscale.com...) relatively the same. If they were getting paid by performance, teachers would take more pride in their work, and devote more time to their career. The blunt fact is that not all teachers want to teach, and this would only force them to either a) begin devoting more time to helping their students or b) quit. This would lead to a brighter, more knowledgeable future for our childern. Advantage 2: Returning the Original Purpose of School Merit based pay would be a big step towards the return of the original purpose of school, knowledge. Gaining more and more knowledge. In the status quo, teachers just need their students to pass so they can keep their jobs. Moving to merit based pay would make them focus more on the knowledge aspect of school that we have long forgot about. Knowledge is subjective towards the student, basically the student puts in effort and he gets back based upon how much he put in. This wont change if we move to merit based pay. Merit based pay would make a consideration of teachers caring alot more about how much the student is putting in. Advantage 3: Incentive Merit based pay, in the most blunt way possible, is just incentive to do more. To put more devotion into their work. For teachers who dont like teaching, this may be a turning point in that this is a incentive to start caring about their career, and they may find a rejuvenated love for teaching. For teachers who already love teaching, this would just give them the benefits that they have long earned. Conclusion Merit based pay is good, in that through my advantages of pride, original purpose of school, and incentive, we will look to a brighter future.

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: A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards. Content: If teachers feel that their student's performance will have an effect on their own salary. Then teachers will be monetarily motivated to push their students harder. Normally, schools have this incentive(better results, more funding) and teachers receive a fixed pay that gives them no reason to push their students to do their best, apart from the love of the teaching field. Teachers end up coddling pet-students and ignore/mock pupils that need their help the most. But if teachers will be rewarded for improving 'the overall' performance of a class,( And not just make sure Mr/Ms.First position maintains his/her high standards) then this kind of unfair elitism will eventually die out.

Title: Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students. Content: If a teacher's pay is based on performance, teachers who work with students from bad neighbourhoods and illiterate/non-academic families, will get the least pay; even though they will have to work harder than other teachers to get their students to perform well. This will act as a disincentive for teachers to be employed in such schools(and conditions for the school and its students will exponentially worsen). When something is harder and more dangerous it should have a 'higher'-pay incentive as compensation not the opposite.

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: random drug-testing in schools Content: Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship

Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Certainly, I agree that the job of a teacher is multi-faceted. This, however, does not separate it from the multi-skilled professions we are comparing it to. With time management skills and a reasonable expection of what can be achieved in a day, most teachers are able to come home at 5pm, using their contracted non-contact time with pupils to complete planning and marking (as you yourself have stated, the actual contact time usually accounts for around six hours, leaving the rest of the day for preparation.) "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." This must be an unusual situation in Canada, then. There are many opportunities for teachers in most places to move up pay scales and take on other roles and responsibilities to increase their pay.

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

Title: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed Content: Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need. In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations.

Title: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation Content: I advocate making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) [1] a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation. It is a form of merit based pay that assesses how much a student has improved since last year. This allows us to be sure teachers are actually teaching. The source I provide talks largely about ensuring accountability for schools, and I contend that we can use the same accountability to ensure quality teachers. I'll let CON attack this first so that we will have an equal amount of rounds to debate, then defend AYP in my next 2 speeches. I will end with a single question for CON to answer in the next round: What alternative system of teacher compensation would you propose to ensure that schools have the most educated teachers? [1] http://www.ed.gov...

Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Teachers, what would we do without them? Not a whole lot when you think about it. So why aren't they paid as much as doctors, entertainers, lawyers, etc. We would not have doctors without teachers, nor entertainers or lawyers. Without teachers the world would be, quite frankly, "in the crapper". Why then are the taught paid more than the teachers? The pupil's salaries surpass the pedagogue's. I await for my opponent, and would in advance like to thank them, and wish them good luck. Sincerely, Kat

Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Teacher training

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