Question: Should Instructors Receive Tenure Status?

Teacher tenure is a practice that should be reconsidered and potentially eliminated. Here are several reasons why:

1. **Complacency Among Teachers**: Tenure can create a sense of complacency among educators, as they might feel secure in their positions and less inclined to continuously improve their teaching methods. When teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs, there is a risk that they might not put in the same level of effort and dedication as those without such job security.

2. **Difficulty in Removing Underperforming Teachers**: The process of dismissing a tenured teacher is often lengthy and complicated, involving various stakeholders like the principal, school board, teachers' union, and courts. This complexity can discourage schools from pursuing the dismissal of underperforming teachers. For instance, a 2009 study by the New Teacher Project revealed that 81% of school administrators were aware of a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school, yet 86% did not always pursue dismissal due to the costly and time-consuming nature of the process. In Michigan, it can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher before court involvement.

3. **Widespread Opposition to Teacher Tenure**: Surveys and studies show that a significant number of people, including school administrators, education professors, and the general public, are against teacher tenure. A 2011 survey found that 49% of Americans oppose teacher tenure, while only 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure, but 32% oppose it. Additionally, 86% of education professors favor making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers, even if they are tenured.

4. **Lack of Educational Value for Students**: Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee argued that teacher tenure benefits adults, not students. It is important to remember that education should prioritize the younger generation's best interests. If tenure undermines this principle by focusing on the job security of teachers, it can be detrimental to the quality of education.

5. **Easy Acquisition of Tenure**: Unlike university professors who must demonstrate contributions to their fields through research, K-12 teachers often receive tenure simply by staying in the profession for a certain period. A 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. This statistic highlights the ease with which teachers can obtain tenure, regardless of their performance.

6. **Costly Removal Process**: F

Seeing as there is no arguments for me to rebut, I will bring up some more.My opponent obviously doesn't have any arguments against my plan, so therefore, the four planks of my plan still stand. I will restate the plan one more time, in hopes that my opponent will actually rebut my plan and 3 contentions.Plank 1: Madate: The United States should implement a plan in which all High School, Middle School, and Elementary School teachers will be required to know how to use and operate a handgun. This plan should also implement teachers taking a firearm saftey course.Plank 2: Mechanism: The United States will implement this plan by requiring all teachers to learn how to operate a handgun. This will require a handgun saftey course. Plank 3: Funding: The funding for this plan will occur through a 1 penny increase on gas. According to think progress [2] raising gas 1 penny will transfer to a 5.8 billion dollar payday for the government. By requiring the Government to implement a gas tax, we can make enough money to pay for a handgun. On average, the typical handgun cost's between 500-800 dollars [3]. Plank 4: Enforcement: This plan will be enforced through the United States Department of Education, then transfered down the Each and Every School District to enforce this plan.The inherent barrier still stands, and as does the harms with the plan that the United States has already in place. Thanks

His first real argument is that there aren't enough resources for all students. Again, if you would prefer to work with technology that's fine. if you prefer to use an E-Book that's great. But the passing of the resolution would compel EVERYONE to use it. and it's simply not best for every student. next, he states that since lectures aren't recorded so you could research irrelevant things. or you could borrow a classmate's notes or talk to the professor after your next lesson. he states that some lecturers are very bad. Unless you plan on somehow eliminating professors, they would still have to be the ones to record your notes which would result in a poor professor producing poor video notes. I'm going to skip down to where he ties in computerized learning. 1. again, putting resources online would be a supplement but not the primary method of education ( I would like to point out that he in no way contests that his position as pro advocates for the elimination, or near elimination, of traditional learning methods. thus all of his points involving potential supplements to learning are approaching non-topicality) If you want to use online resources I'm perfectly fine with you doing that. I want students to have that choice. Emphasis on choice. 2. His next point about recording lectures has a few fundamental flaws. first off, some professors teach the same course for a long time thus by the time they retire the curriculum is likely to have changed meaning that a bad professor may be teaching current information while the old professor may be teaching outdated or non-topical information. moreover, this is still just an online resource. recording a traditional lecture for later viewing is not making education "mostly computerized" 3. again creating an app would be supplementation not changing the primary method of education. Stop treating them like the same thing. they're not. 4. This paragraph dips into some frankfurter50 or backwardseden level insults. I'm not going to stoop to your level so I'll just address your points and move on. My plan involves people being able to select the method of learning that's best for them. in my plan, they wouldn't have to try significantly harder because they are being compelled to learn in a method that doesn't suit them. The student would have the freedom to choose their method of learning. Your plan involves compulsion and forcing some students to learn in a method that doesn't suit their minds or personality. 5 I believe this program could be helpful if a student is allowed to choose it instead of being forced into it. In conclusion, my plan is all about the freedom of choice. the student must have the ability to choose between virtual learning and traditional learning so everyone can learn in an environment suited to their individual needs.

Weapons in schools should not be allowed. Faculty should not feel the need to take it to another level with weapons and if they do then they should call the police immediately. There are other objects around a classroom that teachers could use as a weapon to stop someone from acting up, firearms are not necessary.

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are lesser? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

Exams should remain, they are a reliable source of information for the teacher. Exams prevent students from cheating. They are more formal meaning that the student will work harder

no they should not my brother could not read until grade three for example because he had dyslexia and he would have failed grades 1 and 2 if this was true

I accept. Thanks for this debate. Pro has the burden to prove two things: That teachers should bear arms and that bearing arms will make a school a safer place.

So why not sell it to the Ivory Tower? Sign up for yer education here!

Sorry about that forfeited round. I know this will be a penalty in conduct. However, my opponent stated that the teachers should take a mentality test to keep people from doing this type of event, but if a teacher has to take a mental test, I wouldn't want them to be teaching. If teachers are given the right to carry guns, then teachers must be sure the guns will be used to keep people safe. But then, teachers will be hired on whether they can shoot somebody and not if they can teach someone. That is why we have officers at schools: to help prevent those types of events happening. But now it seems that if teachers are given the right to bear arms, then life will be reverted: teachers will be shooting and officers will be teaching.What if a student gets a hold of a gun? Many bad things can happen when the wrong person holds a gun. Many people can get hurt. Giving teachers the right to hold a gun can make things worse.

I am a 13 year-old with a rather uncommon disorder named Aspergers Syndrome, this means that I am able to challenge the modern psyche of children are inferior to adults, which some people take for granted and have never thought to challenge. Essentially, even when it isn't a smart thing to do, my brain makes me say things to teachers which I regret later. I first truly realised the extent of teachers disrespect for their pupils on the 21st of may at 2 o'clock. I had recived a detention based on the school's new "double removal system" which has evidently been set up to punish repeat offenders who have given up on school and think there is nothing left in education. I had recieved the detention for not having my homework diary signed. I immediatelly thought that this was unfair, on the whole, I behave impeccably towards my betters and I didn't see why I should recieve this for not finding time to get my parent's to sign my diary. Admittedly, I did spend time playing games that I could have spent getting my diary signed. I asked the teacher from whom I had recieved the detention why I had it, and all he said was that it was important to sign your diary so that the school knows my homework has been seen by my parents, and that the school uses diaries to communicate with the students parents. I knew for a fact that this wasn't true, in nine out of ten lessons, teachers write nothing in diaries. And here was where my Aspergers became a problem. I responded by saying that I didn't believe this was nessesary, I didn't speak my mind because of the precise reason I created this debate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I want the school education system to be run by rampant youths and that I want to be exluded from justice, I am merely trying to help the education system understand it's pupils better.Teachers need to respect their pupils and give them the right to speak to each other as equals more often.Thank You for your time.


Question: Should Instructors Receive Lifetime Job Security?

The concept of teacher tenure should not be upheld. In this debate, I will address the various arguments made by the opposing side and provide evidence to refute them. Firstly, the notion that teachers become complacent once granted tenure lacks substantial evidence. A study conducted on economics and finance faculty from top institutions shows that academic performance does not decline after tenure, as measured by productivity and impact (number of papers and citations). Moreover, there are other incentives for teachers to continue working diligently, such as pay raises, reduced teaching loads, and increased research funds. The pressure from colleagues and the academic discipline also serve as motivators (Reference [1]).

The argument that tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers is misleading. While it may be true that tenure complicates the process, it also protects good teachers from unjust dismissal. The purpose of tenure is to ensure academic freedom and maintain educational quality. The number of under-performing teachers is relatively low, as most are either unable to perform well or unwilling to put in the effort. In the latter case, I have already disproven the likelihood of complacency in my previous argument. In the former, an inept teacher would not have been granted tenure in the first place. Therefore, the disadvantages of tenure are outweighed by the benefits it provides to a larger number of teachers and students.

It is important to note that there are laws in place to remove tenured teachers when necessary. The issue lies with administrators who do not utilize these laws effectively. If tenure is managed properly, it can ensure that under-performing teachers are removed while protecting good teachers. The argument that a large number of people are against tenure does not necessarily indicate its inherent flaws. The opposing side has failed to recognize the indirect benefits of tenure on students. Tenure allows teachers the academic freedom to teach controversial subjects, which fosters critical thinking and exposes students to a wide range of topics. This is evident in the positive impact on students' education.

The claim that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is incorrect. Tenure attracts individuals to the teaching profession, as it provides job security and a high standard of education. With an estimated shortage of 440,000 teachers needed to replace retiring baby boomers, tenure plays a crucial role in addressing this issue. The opposing side's argument about the example of a school in Sacramento does not represent the general pattern and overlooks other factors that may attract a higher number of teachers, such as high salaries. The evidence provided by the California Teacher Association supports the need

So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are "lesser"? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

no they should not my brother could not read until grade three for example because he had dyslexia and he would have failed grades 1 and 2 if this was true

First, my opponent states that we could push a button that lets students tell the school that they are present. but in order to make it to where they eliminate truancy, they would have to press the button in every class. at that point why not just take attendance like it's always been done. my opponent states that there is no evidence that face-to-face learning is better than virtual learning. 2013 - Xu, D. & Jaggars, S. S. Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences Across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas Community College Research Center at Columbia University 2002 - Brown, B. W. & Liedholm, C. E. Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? American Economics Review 92, 444-448 A533; May 2002 2000 - Efendioglo, A. & Murray, L. W. Education at a Distance: Teaching Executives in China T.H.E. Journal, January 2000, 27(6) 2002 - Hartzoulakis, V. Investigating Computer Mediated Instruction in a Greek State Lykeio Doctoral Dissertation, 2002 2009 - Ferguson, J., Tryjankowski, A. Online Versus Face-to-face Learning: Looking at Modes of Instruction in Master's-level Courses Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 33, Issue 3, August. 219-228 And many more. what I meant in 5 was that you need to encode the information in a face-to-face environment then an app could help to reinforce it. But it should not be the primary mode of encoding. No, you won't have google on the exam. and every citation I've provided shows that face-to-face instruction is the best way to make sure that the information is in long term memory. As my citations in my first post show, using the internet to learn inhibits long term encoding. "What's actually driving up tuition are the redundant administrative positions that are growing in number. not hiring professors. but that's a debate for another day. And that point shows that you like talking about something else and not address my point. I was talking about them being high in the current rate. Not why they are growing." The reason they are high in the current rate is because of the redundant positions. Not because of traditional learning. Again, I said that an online community could be HELPFUL but should not be the primary method of learning. Yes, you do need to encode information into long term memory before you can reinforce it. I don't see what's hilarious about it.

To stop war you must not make more war. To stop war you must make peace. A teacher having a gun in class wil increase the chances of a school shooting. In no way would it make the school safer. If anything the school should have armed guards trained by the U.S. government. The money that this would cost to train the teacher would raise taxes enormously. Also the cost of the guns and ammo will cost a great amount. The school will have the same amount of fear as a they would have before. Knowing that there is a gun in every classroom. Having a lock would not change the effect. If an intruder come into the school and starts shooting the teacher will not have enough time to take out the gun and shoot. The goal should be to keep intruders out, not stop them when there in the school. Stopping the problem before it happens that is the goal, not stopping it while its happening. That is the goal.

That is true, the banking system is like educators depositing money, and without teachers reciting the information we will never know it, however are we truly learning or our we just memorizing what we are taught. The banking system does work but, its just feeding us information, how can teachers recite this information if they don't know if we can or will outside of the classroom?. Reciting information to us, as they banking system describe is students sitting and starring blankly. Teaching in this method can be oppressive and boring. How can the teacher be sure we are comprehending well?

Also would like to apologize for not stating, yes I am referring to the American school system. "My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. " I see where you are going with this statement. The Military is not only a national security position but it is also a job. As crucial the Military is to our security it is not reliant on a single person. Their job within the Military determines their part in national security, to an extent in my suggestion. As I mentioned," There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. " End result being that are more responsible for maintenance or even janitor duties. "My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U. S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. " You are correct by saying that public funds also go to the Military. Public funds also go to housing inmates on petty charges that cost more than a child's education. [1] One way or another these students will cost the tax payers money but which choice is more rewarding to the people paying the bill. Clearly I argue that the Military offers a much more worth while end result. There are, in the Marines, eighty different job types and that is not including sub positions in those jobs. [2] At first glance that may seem small but the Marines are meant to be the smallest branch and they employ which is approximately 180,000. "My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. " Correct I have failed to provide aqueduct information towards nation security. Below will explain more. "Military schools are most appropriate for children and teenagers who do not have any underlying emotional or behavioral problems. " [3] Students without emotional problems, as elaborated on in cite three, assist in their discipline. Discipline is one of the crux's of my argument not nation security. Yes nation security is always a concern but young students would not be on the front lines or any other high risk areas, I would also take the liberty and say Intel job would be off limits. [1]. http://www.insidehighered.com... [2]. http://www.aspeneducation.com... [3]. http://usmilitary.about.com...

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are lesser? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

I'm sorry to see my opponent forfeit his third round argument, so I'll leave you with this thought... Is it really necessary to change the current curriculum, hire new staff and create vast numbers of new study material, all of which will be paid for by taxpayers, when all the information and financial help students may need is so readily available online. Students can easily find it as and when they require it. Thank you.

To begin round 2. I will first admit my following statements will probably be poorly suited for a 'debate' though I prefer simple honesty. Thus, in posting this debate I hoped to have my paradigm challenged respectfully, and to be enlightened as to possible points of view that I myself had failed to recognize. I can honestly, and gladly say my opponent has offered me just what I so desperately sought in this debate. So, I offer you my sincerest gratitude for a wonderful first round! Also, as I believe you've already perceived, when I refer to 'teacher' I use it in this debate as an all-encompassing word for anyone that is involved in helping someone to improve their skills in a particular field. Now, onto my rebuttal. As for the argument to my first point. I disagree, what sort of person can grow without self-evaluation, and what sort of teacher can perform well without growth? Have we not all witnessed the older generation's handicap of not being able to properly utilize modern technology. We see many among the older generation quite capable of utilizing technology for wonderful benefits to mankind, while others are completely illiterate in the subject. I attribute this primarily to failure to evaluate, to evaluate both the environment, and the self. Those older ones whom are skilled in technology obviously evaluated it's increasing usefulness in society, and their own uses for it. This required evaluation of environment, and self. A teacher likewise must evaluate the environment, to see what new problems their students are facing, and what new materials are available to teach, and to teach with. Then to evaluate themselves to see if they have within themselves the necessary knowledge to properly guide others with these materials, or if they themselves need to grow. Can a history teacher help their student with a history question from a newly updated text book, if the teacher themself is still relying on knowledge from an outdated twenty year-old text book? No, of course not, they must evaluate themselves, to see that they are not familiar with the knowledge contained in the new text book, and then grow by studying and gaining that knowledge. So that they can answer their student's questions aptly. Leading back to the case of the Drama teacher in the Astro-Physics class. If a student points out a particular paragraph of the text book and asks the teacher to explain it, how will this teacher untrained in Astro-Physics, and never before looking upon that text book be able to explain the paragraph? Thus, this teacher, while being able to 'act' like they know the material, truly does not know it, and cannot help the students in their quest to learn it. Truly one cannot teach, what one does not know. As to point number two, fine points for the con side of this debate! Though, I must point out that these points in fact validate my original one. Let's use the "Freedom Writers" example: what good would teaching them to interpret, and formulate beautiful works of written word do, if the students did not know their 'ABCs', or how to write at all? Obviously, they would need to learn those things first, then, learn the art of formulating beautiful writings. Could Shakespeare have become such a famous play write, had no one ever taught him how to read and write at all? Thus, if a teacher attempts to teach what they believe a student 'should' know regardless of the student's ability to actually learn it, then they are not only failing the student, but insulting the student by making them feel inferior. Yes, a teacher should challenge their students, but challenge them at their own level. Using martial arts as an example. It is fine to teach someone to perform an amazing flying kick, but if you have failed to teach them how to, along with the importance of stretching first, then your student will snap a ham string, and you have, in turn failed the student. Concluding this round, I will offer this: while a teacher's quality is indeed more than mere numbers and words can measure, it is universally true that certain qualities simply must be adhered to, should a teacher actually teach someone. These qualities include the ability to know what they already know, and therefore can teach, and to know what subjects they are ignorant of, and therefore what they cannot teach the student. To be willing to meet the student at their level, to help the student overcome any current weaknesses, through careful instruction, considerate observation, and compelling challenges, to help the student see, and be their best. Concluding with the quality of remembering why they are there, as the con has stated, to help the younger, less knowledgeable to grow, and become better. I will now return this debate to you, my very worthy opponent.


Question: Is it appropriate to grant tenure to teachers?

Should the role of teachers' unions be reconsidered?
Anticipating a fruitful discussion, let's explore the reasons why teachers' unions might need to be reevaluated. These organizations can harm the public education system in our country, as they enable teachers to strike, disrupting students' learning. They also support ineffective educators through the tenure system and influence political decisions by funding campaigns, prioritizing their own interests over the primary responsibility of educating our children.

From my personal experience in the Education system I am quite certain eleventh and twelfth grade where useless to others and myself time. To add insult to injury to the current system most students I have interacted with not only think the same way but completely neglect the resources to learn and just sit back and wait for the timer to run out. For me I started sitting back during those last two years and ever since it has impacted me and made me careless. The staff at the school I have attend know who these students are and I am certain teachers all around can spot those such students. Students like myself contributed nothing to the class room and only cost the tax payers money without the people getting their worth. Those students that embrace the education system should be allowed to further their learning career in any manner they wish. The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military. Questionable about their learning: Blatant disregard to fellow students and staff. Fail to do any work even when helped is offered by staff. Constantly interrupt the teachers dug lessons. Constant refusal to do anything productive within their environment. Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service. There are certain restrictions I would propose such as they are NOT allowed to go into combat or near it and any job that is considered high risk. They could be useful in other jobs throughout the Military. Two years of Military service would also provide for a much larger job base for those with no skills such as private security. Those that embrace it could get skills that may assist in other areas of work and further their lives. High level education should be earned not given. Give to much than it may be taken advantage of and mocked.

I respect the belief to retaliate in violence in the event of being harassed. However, it should not be stressed, because allowing students to have every right to self defense will be fallible; students using "self defense" as an excuse to hurt others, etc. It is indeed the expectation, and requirement that teachers and administrators are the ones who instill the punishments, and protect the students. It is stressed that teachers "enforce regulations concerning student conduct and discipline," (Refer to Source 1). "manage student behavior in the classroom by establishing and enforcing rules and procedures," (Refer to Source 2).Sources:Source one: http://www.ware.k12.ga.us...Source two: http://www.best-job-interview.com...

California's Court of Appeal ruled this past week that home-schooling parents are required to have state certification to continue homeschooling. This is, despite the fact that home-schooled students consistently complete the ACT or SAT higher than privately AND publicly schooled students, forcing Parent-educators to pay thousands of dollars to receive certification or else put their kids in a school system in which they place no trust. There was a reason for the Compulsory Public Education Act when it was first founded, because the Public School System (which was originally founded by Christians) was the only reliable way to school children. Sure, there were a few private schools, but they were far too expensive to send children to. Now, since Just before I entered 6th grade, Home-schooling was recognized by nearly every state (excepting, obviously, California) as a competent method of educating children, due to the test grades of people who had home-schooled without the government's consent being higher than the public school's. The decision of the court should have stuck to the evidence at hand, being the one single case of a child who had been abused by one parent without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. Because of one single case, the court has decided the throw out the baby, bathwater, tub, and bathroom all in one foul swoop. This is not only forcing students who have home-schooled their entire life to drop back an untold number of grades, but forcing the parents to do all of the following if they decide to disagree with the state: Pay a fine of up to $3000 ($1000 for Education Code Section 48293 and $2000 for Penal Code Section 272) Go to jail for a time not to exceed one year (Penal Code Section 272) Child to be removed from what the state of California considers an unsafe environment (because it is unsafe to not educate children exactly how the state says to, apparently, therefore, the parents lose their children) I say all this is the court overstepping its bounds and the state of California trying to put a leash on the next generation, instead of allowing them to make new discoveries. I know this much, I will never go to California if this decision is not amended or removed, and if I had lived there, I would move out immediately.

Like I said, I am not totally for this debate. It matters on the child and if that child is responsible enough they should be ten to get it (or older). Take your friend, for example, your friend is not one of the responsible type. So, That is all I have to argue too.

A big thanks to my opponent for his rebuttals! First of all I ask you to really review the line of logic my opponent has been making throughout the course of this debate, what you will notice is that his logic is incredibly well-formed and he makes stunningly on-target arguments. While his knowledge and navigability of the site may currently be benign; he is not at a loss for logic. So now consider his rebuttal to my prior statements in which he gave us this clear example of his supposed lack of apptitude. Point being I still cannot evaluate my "student" especially on such a benign weighing mechanism such as him being new to the site and not quite grasping it's functions completely yet. Now going on, my opponent claims that the ability to weight certain situations is something we have and use everyday. But point is we are not talking about gauging a situation, or evaluating our own ability. We are debating the teacher evaluating the student. So extending my arguments from the last paragraph we can never do this. Also I would like to extend my example in my prior argument about the artist and his art teacher, while the artist themselves can most definately weight their skills and know their limitation, if the teacher did this it would halt education. The teacher would see where they were, what they where capable of, and only give them what they where capable of; or even worse, the teacher would not properly gauge where the student was at, and give them work below their level. Now the teacher could do exactly as my opponent is advocating in their argument here, but that would not make them a good teacher, it would only suffice for mediocre. and as for my opponent's illustration of his own art teacher, look to the later example when she asked his permission to display his art. let's talk about moderation for a moment. I do not contend that a teacher is to constantly push their students beyond their limits, but because this teacher was willing to do both in moderation she is a good teacher. whereas on the opposition my opponent would have you believe she must only stick to what my opponent could have handled (was that wording understandable?) now again on the Drama teacher teaching astro physics, yes there would be evaluation here, but not in the sense that my opponent advocates in round 1. This is something obvious and necessary, again we must take everything in moderation. And as for the second point, I content that a teacher doesn't need to know where a student is to take them to the next level, but instead should think about their maximum potential. To be a good teacher, they should be able to recognize potential in this student that they could never dream of! Where there is a mutual faith among people, the teacher believes in the student and vice versa they can grow even without knowing their current status. When I was in middle school I suffered from a learning disability know as dysgraphia; I could hardly hold a a pencil, let alone write. However my wonderful teacher didn't do what others before me had done and give me less work, or not have me do writing assignments, instead she pushed me beyond my capability, exercising both determination and kindness. Even today I will tell you she was the best teacher I ever had, she taught me a confidence I could have never grasped myself simply because she saw more in me than was actually in me. Again carrying the argument on the conclusion just a little bit further, I still say there are no universal qualities that must exist, at least not in teaching. My opponent offered you the illustration of an Olympic runner, something very precise and tangible. However the nature of being a teacher is not like this, unlike these two athletes of the same sport two teachers of the same profession can vary immensely. How could you even begin to cross-apply this logic between say, a Home Economics teacher, an Ag teacher, and a Seminary professor? and extending my own point made in the last speech, my opponent's proposition could only even be possible if the teacher where only a teacher. What about say, and athletic coach, or a Sunday school teacher being you dad, or parents teaching their child how to drive? Point being the Pro stance is not even possible And while I agree that ever teacher must meet a certain criteria, it does nothing to further my opponent's stance. Now also, my opponent is beginning to change his stance here, instead of arguing my opponent's three points this has become a debate over what the alleged universal requirements for each activity would be. there is none, whether a debate coach, tennis coach, football coach, or any other; as long as that drive to teach and expand the minds of students exist they will be a good teacher. I now hand the debate back over to my highly capable opponent.

Lol you copied and pasted r1 to r2 Okay on to the argument Teachers should not have guns 1. The presence of a gun can turn a petty or small situation into a lethal one When a teacher needs to diffuse a uncontrollable situation they have to call the school police officer. If they happen to obtain a gun then the teacher may pull a gun on them or the student themself may snatch the gun and use it against a teacher or another student. The school is a gun-free zone for a reason. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... (This source is linked to police shootings but can easily be applied to any situation) 2. Intimidation Students may feel intimidated or threatned with the very notion of a gun near them. I am a high school student myself and lockdown drills (Drills where a shooter is in the school) make some kids very scared, one even passed out. Now make that a gun in the classroom and you will see my point. Not only this but this will make teacher to student interactions a lot more tense. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. Talking can be a greater weapon than a gun If a student or an intruder comes into your classroom pulling your gun will not only endanger you but the children as well in the classroom. Pulling guns on people makes them even more enraged and can lead to a massacre if you aren't the fastest trigger puller. Talking someone out of it is not only easier but is widely used by teachers to defuse situations. Here is a story of a teacher who defused a situation really quickly with just words. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. Guns just make things worse Guns are 22 times more likely to be used in suicide than for self defense A gun in a petty situation can make it lethal and not even for the defender. Sometimes the defender is the one who dies. Do we really need that in our classrooms? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Once again I'm not quite sure you understand the idea of telling a 5th grade to make lasting life choices on what he will do as a adult. This decision is sometimes not even answered by the time they enter the workforce or college. Also ow exactly to to envision children getting a broad knowledge for all their academic subjects by 5th grade. For instance l loved history in 5th grade and I though I wanted to be a historian when I grew up. However, as I learned about the work of a historian and as I took CAD drawing classes I realized that I wanted to become engineer. How would I completely change my courses when the decisions that I made in 5th grade decided the rest of my life. In your relation to the common core being to broad broadness is exactly what students in elementary and secondary education need in order to provide as many doors as possible to the American youth. Also to imagine that our education system should be based on a few geniuses that were the exception o the rule. However, even they need cross disciplinary skills, for imagine if Einstein had the writing skill of a 5th grader do you really think his discovery of he Photoelectric effect would have won him Nobel prize. No it wouldn't have because he wouldn't of been able to because presentation is almost as important as substance. Thus to base our entire school system based on the experiences of the super geniuses wouldn't make sense Also socialism has never worked but thats a debate for another time

We will stick for the argument of public schools as you wish, and I prefer it as well. I am actually glad you started this debate for public consumption as I see a lot of people form the opinion that you have without thinking it thru. I disagree with it for a number of reasons and the stance you take. I will first go over your statements and its flaws in round 1 (save a single statement that has some merit) and in round 2, unless you have a legitimate offer of proof for your statement, I will then present mine as you have said a lot. Hopefully we will all get something out of it. R1-1a – “First off, let’s look at evolution; ‘As per Edwards’s v Aguillard, Creationism teaching creationism is illegal and not allowed in public schools in the United States. If it is, it should be reported. This is an argument from exception and anecdotal. This is not proof or evidence it should not be forced. . http://en.wikipedia.org... R1-2 – ‘Freedom. . . “This entire paragraph is all over the map. Not only that, your arguments by comparison are not valid or show proof of your argument “that religion should not be forced or taught. ” You present two impossible tenants to follow, 1) to express your religion freely and 2) religious free zone. This implies that I can be turn on and off my beliefs dependent upon a state rule or a location. Does a pro life individual become pro choice or stop being pro life when they enter say a hospital or voting booth or clinic. They both cannot be true, either you limit my religion in public sphere, or allow it to be present it in school. Again this is not proof and raises a point that validates neither your side of the debate or mine. . . . As for your begging the question about a defenseless woman because she is in a hajib - I calling her faith morally bankrupt and based on ignorance is not a restriction of free speech. That is free speech. Me duck taping her mouth through legal means or not giving her the same ability to speech is a restriction of free speech. Your assumption of free speech is one sided, ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with the debate on hand. As for your question of a stressful situation. Math is stressful, Shakespeare is stressful, the holocaust is stressful and so honestly is presenting atheism to religious individuals whose whole world view would be destroyed. Comfort level is not a legitimate basis to avoid a subject. Also so you don’t straw man this point and mistake what I am saying, I would not advocate algebra in kinder garden or a presupisitional argument for anyone without the being able to understand logic, as they are beyond the capabilities of what a child at that stage could understand. Either way it’s not an argument for your BOP, or at least a weak one depending upon where you stand on an issue. This is argument based on special privilage. Your 2nd last assumption that there are no atheistic schools, I refute completely. All public schools at least up to high school, are essentially atheist, they are not allowed by law to convert or actively promote one religion over another. Nor are they allowed to convert or preach. If they do they are in violation of the law. This is not an argument that Religions should not be forced upon students; it’s just restating what the current state is. As for Alternate schools, within 30 minutes of me there are a number of Jewish Schools, Muslim Schools. I am in Canada. You present an argument of ignorance, just because you do not see it or have heard it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or can be shown to be true. . . 1) . http://cjetoronto.com... 2) . http://dailymuslims.com... Even if they did not have Catholic, Jewish or Muslim schools, none of this is an argument as to why religion should not be forced. . . I have refuted all your opinions but this one below . . . “So, as my first argument, I do heavily disagree that schools should say that Christianity is the only faith, also, I disagree with schools using the bible as a teaching method. ” This is the only objection that I have not refuted as its a statement of oppinion that supports my possition, not yours. I will address it but in round 2 as response is limited.

NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children’s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...

Actually, you don't win just yet. You state that some clothing isn't appropriate for a learning enviroment. That I agree with but I never said anything about dress codes. Should there be dress codes? YES! So, don't get all snappy with me about that. Creativity is something that lives inside us all. We should be able to express ourselves in our clothing and in the actions we do. I have just one thing to ask you, do you even go to a private school?


Question: Should Instructors Receive Tenure Status?

There should not be teacher tenure in its current form.
Thank you, sara_ann_dee, for your input. In this debate, I will argue that there should be a modified form of teacher tenure. Whether it is reformed or limited to certain teachers, it should exist in some capacity. Voters should consider my arguments on the importance of teacher tenure and its role in protecting academic freedom and ensuring high-quality education. I will address my opponent's points in the next round, but for now, let's discuss the benefits of teacher tenure.

Tenure is a form of job security for teachers after a probationary period. It does not guarantee lifetime employment but protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Tenured teachers are entitled to a hearing where the school district must prove the teacher failed to meet specific standards. Teaching is a crucial profession, as it imparts knowledge to the next generation and challenges the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that this profession can be carried out without hindrance and maintains a high standard of education.

1. Teacher tenure safeguards academic freedom. Academic freedom is essential for preventing political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hindering knowledge discovery and intellectual debate. Without academic freedom, teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. This could result in a lack of intellectual advancement and critical thinking skills among students. Tenure protects teachers' ability to teach controversial subjects, exposing students to diverse perspectives and fostering critical thinking.

2. Teacher tenure is necessary for providing high-quality education. Tenured teachers can focus on their job and act in the best interest of students without worrying about job security. This ensures that education meets the highest standards. As more talented individuals are needed to fill teaching positions, teacher tenure attracts these individuals by offering job security and stability. This is crucial for providing high-quality education to students.

Brief summary of my arguments:
1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to conduct research and teach controversial subjects freely.
2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to the teaching profession and enables them to concentrate on teaching, thus maintaining high educational standards.

I will address my opponent's points in the next round. 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...>

I hoped, and still hope, that my argument would not rest on semantics, but given a profound lack of detail to Rutgers' statement, something I could not have predicted, my argument will take advantage of vague definitions. The first part of Rutgers' mission seems fine, but it is about the only thing okay with it. Rutgers' statement errs on its other two fronts. To begin, I argue that universities should not have any public policy, economic policy, or any policy except an educational policy. The dangers inherent in a more expansive notion of what universities should be doing were dramatically illustrated and proven in April 2006 when a major association of British higher education professors voted to boycott Israeli universities and refuse to do business with Israeli academics until they publicly disavowed the policies and practices of their government [1]. This case, although extreme, demonstrates the same kind of thinking blatantly expressed in Rutgers' mission: that universities can somehow save the world through their research and public service. The Rutgers' mission states: "conducting the cutting-edge research that contributes to the medical, environmental, social, and cultural well-being of the state." But in reality, all that a university can do, or does in reality do, is produce research (that is read almost exclusively by other academics) and educate students. True, it may be argued, as the note at the bottom of the mission's website suggests, that "research creates the new knowledge so necessary to support quality instruction," and that by producing research into the "social and cultural well-being of the state," professors are equipped to produce students who will promote the "social and cultural well-being of the state." But this, I contend, is clearly too ambitious. Think about it: what research could possibly contribute to a definitive "social and cultural well-being" when the category itself is undefined, unstable, and constantly being debated? Furthermore, how can teachers fashion students with social and cultural virtues? How can teachers inculcate, among their students, respect for others? University teachers, in truth, can legitimately do two things: (1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge that had not previously been part of their experience; and (2), equip those same students with the analytical skills that will enable them to engage those bodies of knowledge. Anything else that a teacher does is by chance, and should not be expressed in the university's mission. What teachers can do is introduce students to the various debates surrounding the state's social and cultural well-being, and they can even show students how to analyze and evaluate these debates. But, contrary to Rutgers' mission, they cannot create citizens willing to promote particular teachers' personal view of the state's "social and cultural well-being." 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the last round, I am not going to reiterate what I counter-argued in the last round. It would be a waste. You could read the last research that he posted. It has more valid points pertaining to the arguments or point of view that I adapt. 2009 - Ferguson, J., Tryjankowski, A. Online Versus Face-to-face Learning: Looking at Modes of Instruction in Master's-level Courses Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 33, Issue 3, August. 219-228 or you can read the extract that I posted in the previous round. About how long term memory works and the techniques behind storing something in it, you could read online. Use google or forums to find out, dont enroll to any courses ;) Research also the difference between a causal relationship and a simple correlation between two variables. I am not going to lecture the debate on what I studied years ago, he is too ignorant to listen. In this round, I will talk about a possible applicability of the technology to a university. I will take harvard and its business management course. I took a business management course in kings college London university, so I am familiar with the difficulties. I will outline some the difficulties that existed back in the time. I dont think it would be so wise for the debater to deny my experience, because it was and is pretty common to many other places. So here what the difficulties were: - Not enough resources for all students. Books in the library were limited to few students. You had to wait for students to return particular books or order them online. - Lectures werent recorded. If you missed a particular point in the lecture or simply didnt attend it (perhaps was ill), thats it, there is no other way to refer to it. That could mean that you could write irrelevant things in the exam, which would lower your score. - Lecture notes most of the time didnt become available online. - Some lecturers were very bad, which lowered the score of all the class or big part of the class. - Sections of the material were difficult. Some sections in managerial finance and managerial economics were difficult even to bright students. - There was no assistance (or extremely very minimal) from the lecturer outside the class or from any of the member of the group. - There was no preparation before the exam. So how some of the points that I mentioned can be fixed? - Put as many resources online.. So accessibility is very easy by all students. - Record all lectures. Dont record new ones unless they are better than the old ones. That also means, bad lecturers should not participate in the recordings. If a student, decides to go to classes, and he finds out the lecturer is bad, he can always fall back on the online previously recorded lecturers. - Use university forums to create a community that helps. - (Preferable) Create some web apps to help students drill some of the material. So for example, if you are taking a spanish course. Create some Spanish quiz apps. So how can all that be applied to a university such as Harvard. Such a university needs to shift its business model to cover greater number of students. From a hundred to thousands or even more. That means shift learning online. Through online courses. I know the debater will bitch about he fact that he provided some research for face-to-face learning being superior to online learning. But lets assume it is true, and there is a difference of lets say 10%. All what a student has to do is try 10% harder than the student that is present on campus. .. or alternatively attempt to come to US and pay quarter of million tuition fees (or $158,800 if you decide on taking MBA). My opponent will ignore that point and go back to reiterate his old statement "that face-to-face interactions are necessary for long term memory encoding..", that is because he is either totally oblivious to what I write or simply ignorant, or thick as a brick.. I dont even know. Okay, so Harvard, could transform to online learning gradually without hurting its profitability. First, it could shift all its resources (apart from the books) online, including recorded lectures. Wait a generation of students and conduct research to see the effects of the change that it made. If the change didnt havent a bad effect or if it had a positive effect it should keep the change, and incorporate it to an online program, which would allow it to profit more and make education accessible and cheap to a lot of potential students. Online students would mostly have to travel to the campus to attend the exam, and pay for the marker to check his/her exam. With time, the university could build an online community that would support different students, and build apps that assist students in their learning. Thats it! a very easy implementation.

Well I'm so glad that think that way.. You must be ignorant of the feeling of having a teacher in your life that cares and doesn't put you on some "one way of learning things" program.. When you have a teacher, they conform the way they teach to accommodate each student and make sure they understand the curriculum. Once again I'm in love with technology and I do think that it makes things a lot easier, but I think our generation OVER USES it (in school).

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

So why not sell it to the Ivory Tower? Sign up for yer education here!

The PE courses that even offer beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels are only a select few of the sports. Some are offered at just the beginner level while others are offered at a level that is more strenuous. For example, I feel I am an athletic person and work out on a daily basis. I enrolled in a 100 level aerobics course at N.C. State and though it was not difficult for me by any means it did challenge me. Some other students in my course who were not as athletic could not keep up and by the time they realized they were in over their heads they could not drop the course without penalty. So if courses are being offered at different levels to help students then the courses need to be explicitly outlined, which they are not at this current time. Different levels should be offered for all the sports and students should be warned about the levels of intensity in more detail then just beginner, intermediate, or advanced. Well if N.C. State is requiring students to take physical education courses to understand why they should exercise and stay healthy, why if they had the means would they not provide nice facilities for students to work out without any requirements aside from being a student? There should be no hour requirements for a student to be able to use the workout facility, because that would go against what N.C. State is trying to impress upon students by requiring them to take PE and understand physical health. Furthermore, you cannot assume weather students in the summer courses are taking 6 hours of summer school or not, therefore you statement cannot be deemed as true or fact. Although you're supposed to gain understanding of general education PE courses, you have already covered that in most high school curriculums. Since college is supposed to broaden your education as you said, then why would you be required to be re-taught something you have been taught since elementary school? Naturally for those who have not been taught Physical Education they can enroll in the courses. But for those who have already taken and passed the courses, shouldn't they be allotted more hours for other subjects they have not yet had the chance to take. Therefore, it seems quite redundant and a complete waste of time to require PE courses that most students have a solid history with.

No, I do think there should be a dress code. No mistake. But a uniform would mean all the male teachers dressed the same, and vice versa for the female teachers. These are professionals, so they absolutely should maintain an air of professionalism, but uniforms wouldn't be in any way helpful. As far as for students, if a teacher is judging them on their fashion choices, that is a whole separate issue. But some sort of dress code should apply. Like, no ripped clothes, no underwear showing, etc.

The banking concept is not oppressive because it is simply individuals who are trained to teach lesser minds such as students and guide them into the world. Students don't know everything and that is why The Banking Concept is a good concept because students need to be taught and molded into functioning members of society and that could not possibly be done without being taught and molded in a classroom by professionals. "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students."

Thanks again to Logic_on_rails. Let’s make this short and sweet. First point: Pro , The Instigator of this debate, determined his resolution and the rules for this debate. Pro has attacked me for not rebutting his arguments in my Second Round. Readers will recall the rules, as provided by Pro. Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Resolution / Model Outline and Definitions Round 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals (see below on this) Round 3: New Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments) It is my opinion that in the spirit of debate we should follow the rules set by the instigator, criticizing me for not attacking his round two arguments with my round two arguments (which is clearly outlawed by the instigator) is not very sporting and is an outright misinterpretation of his own rules. This is likely an attempt to distract readers from my argument and its merits and cast doubt among readers as to the competency and validity of my arguments. Know this, my Burden of Proof is ONLY to prove that the Benefits of maintaining the status quo with regard to the current school day/homework model sufficiently outweigh the benefits of extending the school day and simultaneously decreasing homework assigned. I need not refute every one of pro’s arguments ( My arguments in Round Two were meant simply to show the merits of Homework and the potential consequences of adding time to the school day. With regard to Pro’s rebuttal of my arguments: Pro’s argument and rebuttal seems much more concerned with my inability to attack him and his policies than with stressing the merits of his own. Consider some of the guidelines written by Pro: Dropped arguments are not concessions. Logistics, on the school level, is not meant to be a crucial issue in this debate. The greatest overall good resulting from these policies is to be preferred when judging. School Day: Pro has attacked my evidence and claims regarding length of school day. He has stated several times that logistics are not the primary concern of this debate, yet he continues to retreat to the intricately laid-out School day model, supporting his claims and attacking mine by arguing logistics. It is not necessary to get bogged down in major details in this debate. Readers are challenged to consider the implications worldwide of imposing extra school hours, no matter how they are spent. On Pro’s rebuttal of my ‘Merits of Homework’ argument: Homework done at school IS NOT HOMEWORK, IT IS BY DEFINITION SHOOLWORK. It does not make sense for Pro to argue that we should reduce homework yet imply that homework can still be assigned as schoolwork. This is a waste of resources and is largely impractical. On that note, we will quickly address some additional arguments. Feasibility: School Systems in many parts of the world, including the United States of America, struggle to fund their departments and their staff as is. With a nominal increase of even one hour to the School Day, we would see Teachers laid-off because School Boards could not afford to maintain their already meager budgets with an increase of roughly 5 to 6 additional man-hours paid per employee. This would send hourly employees into overtime and would add additional unpaid work hours to salaried professors’ already gruesome worked hours vs. pay ratio. Teachers will become increasingly dis-satisfied with their work and will either voluntarily leave the workforce in favor of other jobs or will provide a lower standard of service to students or their performance will suffer because of the exhaustion of an increased workload on already poor salary. Also: More teachers cannot be hired because of budget constraints, which means that Pro’s argument regarding the benefit of School Teachers assisting with ‘homework’ (school work) means an unreasonable student/teacher ratio in most schools. (Not Plausible) It is my hope that readers will consider the simplicity of this debate. My burden of proof is not to disprove that school is good, it is only to prove that maintaining the status quo is better than making an unreasonable and less than pragmatic change. Homework offers benefits as does the school day at its current length. Neither need be changed.

Neither the teachers nor the students should wear uniforms. It restricts freedom, promotes conformity over individualism, and neither stop bullying or improve test scores(or any other success metric).


Question: Should Instructors Receive Tenure Status?

The concept of teacher tenure should be reconsidered and potentially abolished. Tenure makes it exceedingly difficult to remove underperforming teachers from their positions, as the process is often lengthy and involves multiple legal parties, including the principal, school board, teacher union, and courts. This complexity often discourages schools from pursuing the dismissal of underperforming tenured teachers. According to a 2009 study by the New Teacher Project, 81% of school administrators were aware of a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school, yet 86% of administrators did not pursue dismissal due to the costly and time-consuming nature of the process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before court involvement.

The majority of school administrators and education professionals are against teacher tenure, with 86% of education professors favoring easier termination of unmotivated or incompetent teachers, even if they are tenured. Additionally, 56% of school board presidents disagree that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom.

Teacher tenure does not contribute to the education of children, as it primarily benefits the teachers themselves, not the students. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee stated in 2008 that "tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults." This suggests that teacher tenure is focused on the interests of the teachers rather than the students.

Furthermore, tenure at the K-12 level is not earned but given to nearly all teachers after a short period of time. At the university level, professors must demonstrate contributions to their fields through research to receive tenure, but K-12 teachers only need to remain in their positions for a brief period to receive tenure. This discrepancy is problematic, as it may lead to teachers being awarded tenure despite poor performance.

Teacher tenure also results in significant costs for schools, particularly in removing teachers with poor performance or who have committed wrongdoings. For example, it costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City, and the city spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers, which were shut down in 2010.

Tenure is not necessary to recruit teachers, as evidenced by Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, yet received 900 teacher applications for 80 job openings. This demonstrates that teachers do not require tenure to continue

Who exactly, is elligable to determine which minds are lesser? The Banking Concept of Education defines students existing knowledge as mundane, and unimportant, and therefore oppressive. Freire states "Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence." In other words, the instructor bases his importance off of the assumed ignorance of his students, when in reality there isn't any way that one person would be able to completely evaluate and understand the basic knowledge derived from life experiences of every single student they encounter.

Before I delve into my argument, I will post two definitions. School: An institution for educating children. Schooling: Education or training received, especially at school. Education: The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. Schooling and education are distinct concepts, and not explicitly congruent, but very closely related. Based on the definitions posted above, education may or may not take place in a school setting, but schools are intended to be places of education. Education may not explicitly mean that every human must "go to school" in order to be successful, but school is arguably the best source for education. Public schools provide education in language arts, mathematics, sciences, social studies, and arts. This is a tremendous resource in education that is far more accessible than attempting to find these lessons in the real world. Outside of school, you are typically forced to focus on job-specific learning, rather than true, mind expanding education. To suggest that education is nothing more than a reference of trivial facts is to confuse education with some sort of memory game. For example, keeping with Pro's Twain reference: if I ask you "what does The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn mean to you?" First, if you are not in a school program, this book will likely be unfamiliar. The only people who will have interest in this book are those who have specifically been introduced to it at some point. Second, if education is to be an "encyclopedia of dry facts," then you may as well look up the book's meaning on Google and repeat it as your own. However, being that this is not what the book means to you, the response is dishonest and void. Education is about understanding, rather than simply remembering. Being that I do not know which particular period of school Pro intends to be debating, I will focus on both high school and college education. According to the National Dropout Prevention Center, high school dropouts face exponentially more adversity than those who finish their high school education. High school dropouts are four times as likely to be unemployed as those who have completed four or more years of college. Alternatively, graduates earn $143 more per week than high school dropouts. Dropouts are also more likely to be dependent on public assistance than graduates of high school. Finally, about 75% of America's State prison inmates, almost 59% of Federal inmates, and 69% of local jail inmates did not complete high school (Harlow, 2003). All of this, in addition to having less opportunity to pursue legitimate and meaningful education. Finally, a survey was taken by an organization known as Career Connections. This survey revealed that 74 percent of high school dropouts wish they would have stayed in school, and 76 percent admit that they would happily re-enroll if they were able. Moving on to the college level, I first am compelled to tell you that, if you are hoping for real mind expanding education, then college is far more interesting than high school. College allows you to pursue your interests and choose classes that you will genuinely enjoy. However, in order to reach college education, you have to make it through high school so that you can earn the opportunity to attend. That being said, entering the job market without a wealth of experience or a college degree is simply suicidal in this current economy. Employers are only looking for the best candidates for each position, and the employee market has already saturated most positions with applicant after applicant. Because of this, college degrees, especially reputable degrees, are absolutely critical to being successful in the current economy, and to suggest otherwise is deeply misleading to future generations; this misleading concept has arguably ruined millions of potentially successful lives. This isn't difficult to believe when we consider that college graduates earn $336 more per week than high school graduates ($479 more per week than high school dropouts), totaling a difference of $17,472 per year. If the average person works from age 24/25 until retirement at this steady pay rate, then you will make roughly $700,000 dollars more in a lifetime than someone who did not attend college. School may not always be the most effective form of education, but I refuse to believe that school is a factory of facts, as you portray it to be. A school's intent should be to encourage education and productive discussion, not to cater to every interest. If your "thinking outside of the box" has legitimate educational merit, and is beneficial to the group as a whole, then teachers generally will accept and encourage it. If it is disruptive or disrespectful, then teachers have cause to shy away from it. With a group setting, and the high regulations that force schools to cram more and more into each lessons plan, school classes have little time to explore unnecessary matters. And at the end of the day, unless "thinking outside of the box" is a revolutionary approach to a tired concept, than it is unnecessary. School isn't trying to make you "just good enough for the next level." Schools attempt to provide you with a rounded base so that you are not at any disadvantage once you reach the next level. If I may ask a rhetorical question: when is the last time that you fell asleep in class? The followup that I will ask is whether this is because of the teacher, or your own lack of attention. The statistic that you posted about a student dropping out every 9 seconds is actually every 29 seconds according to Do Something. You suggest that this is because students find school irrelevant and uninteresting. I would argue that this is just as much the fault of the student as it is the teacher's. Teachers have anywhere from 20 to 400 students at any given time, and schools do not have the luxury of tailoring their lessons to each students. If teachers have a responsibility to provide students with real educational content, than students have an equal responsibility to respond with both attention and enthusiasm. Real teachers, will always attempt to engage their students in discussion, and many of those students do not lose interest, either because they make a sincere effort, or because they have no interest in the first place. Some students fail to engage themselves in any substantial learning or thought, because they do not want to have to put effort into understanding text, or precedent, or the intricacies of a subject. Rather than force themselves to participate in a class that seems difficult or uninteresting, these students would rather blame the school for not holding their interest. It is an unfortunate reality, but hard-effort is necessary in school and exponentially more-so in unschooled education. If Pro truly loves education, then my only resolution can be to endure school. The junior and senior years are both educationally and socially fulfilling, and then college is a unique educational experience altogether. If Pro's response is that education can be obtained outside of school settings, then I propose that unschooled education is exponentially more difficult and less profitable than schooled education. Finally, if Pro's position is that school is irrelevant, uninteresting, and, for lack of a better word, boring; then I will close with a few quotes which I hope will accentuate my points. He who opens a school door, closes a prison. - Victor Hugo A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad. - President Theodore Roosevelt I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.

I believe that guns should be allowed to be held by teachers at school. First, the teacher would have to have the right amount of training and meet certain requirements before being able to obtain this weapon. I believe that the teachers that have obtained these weapons should have the training of how to use them, so they do not harm any of the people at risk in the process of using such a weapon. Secondly, the teacher must have the right safety precautions in motion. If they are to keep a fire arm with them, they will not be allowed to have the gun case unlocked any time, unless there is an emergency. Also, if they do unlock the desk there must also be a combination key to the lock on the gun trigger that has an easy set of numbers that the teacher could remember, e. g. their birth year. The school would also have the combination so that if there was a substitute teacher in the class that day, they would also have the combination. If the teacher had the gun in the classroom with them in an emergency, like the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings they would be able to shorten some if not all of the death toll that would happen as well as keep a safer environment where the students and teachers would know that they were safer. This could ultimately lead to better grades because the students would feel safer, and there would be less fear through out the day of certain situations happening. Also, if the teacher felt like they were in a safer environment that would also have an effect on there teaching and could lead to them having a better teaching experience, and a more steady job and income. As well as the teacher may have more of an income because they are protecting their students and the parents might pay more to ensure that there is better protection for their kids. Overall, if a school were to allow teachers to have weapons in a controlled environment, it would lead to better grades, income and security throughout the school. Sources: My thoughts ;D, no seriously.

Warm welcome, my opponent. Hopefully, this debate is going to be a splendid one. Well, I do not want to lengthen my speech any more and so that, I am directly going to my main arguments. First of all, I would like to resolute the main term of today's topic "Self-Learning" and show my opposing point. * The first term to be defined is "Self-Learning". It indicates the process of one's being educated oneself, without going to any traditional educational institution. Here is my side of oppose. I want to show the logical importance of Academic Learning rather than that of Self-Learning. My logics are stated as follows: 01. Before everything, I would like to inform you a splendid thing. That is, when politicians in the countries of the third world are asked about their educational qualification, their answer goes, "I am self-educated." even, you can say this. Not only you, everybody can take it as a chance. You may ask of what the relevance of this example is. By showing this example, I want to let you know that self-learning enables the learner to learn the way as he wishes. It means, even if you are learning something in the wrong way, there is nobody to overlook you, nobody to observe you. So, the learner does not get himself or herself in some sorts of discipline. Therefore, we should not leave our young learners in a indisciplined manner of education, your so called system, self-learning. 02. There is competition in academic learning which is quite simply inconceivable in regard of self-learning. If you are not in competition, you won't feel the necessity of upgrading yourself, progressing yourself, developing yourself and lastly, advancing yourself. Is that OK for you? If it is, I have no problem. But I will be very happy if you keenly feel the necessity of competition. If you are in that situation, you will have an automatic attitudial change. And not needed to say that you will be greatly benefited. 03. Then, you will get the touch of modern facilities in your institution. Suppose, you need 10 technologies for the purpose of your study. You may have 3, 4 or 5 ones out of the 10. But in your school or college, you may have all of these. So in this respect also, self learning lags far behind than academic learning. 04. You have talked about eagerness for study. Yes, that also can be produced in academic learning. Eventually, academic learning will let you have most of the opportunities. Finally, I do hope I have been able to make you understand the unsubstantiality of today's topic. So, Bye Bye for now. See you later in the next round.

Recently at school I have noticed that some teachers aren't given the respect they so surely deserve. Then I hear some students talking about footballers like they are gods. I just don't understand it. Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect. Well I've had it. Teachers give teach give us skills for life, whereas footballers just kick a ball about. If anyone disagrees with me, then please, feel free to make an argument.

If a teacher wants to bring a weapon to school they can? So you wouldn't mind having teachers in our school walking around with weapons? Teachers with weapons is the same as a student with a weapon. It is not necessary you are there to learn not to fight. Teachers with weapons is dangerous and the school would have a big liability.

You are not making bad arguments, but I am simply tryinmg to debate them as is my purpose in this round. Now on to the round (p. s. this is off the flow) ----- Now let's just tak a minute and look to my opponent's first two paragraphs. In their second paragraph we understand the consenual idea that teachers come in all shapes and sizes. we do not have to look at them simply in the term of say a high school english teacher, or algerbra teacher. now cross-applying this thought with their first paragraph, in this sense I am their teacher for this site. And I assure you none of the three principles noted in my opponent's prior speech apply to me. For example if I "knew my limitations" I would not be able to grow as a debater, if I knew my "studen't limitation" then my opponent would not get better as a debater, and if I "Knew my station" then I would be unable to win this debate. However through this very debate we see my opponent's stance is untrue. now going onto my own refutations, first my opponent asks the rhetorical question, "how can a person grow without evaluation"? look at the illustration of an artist. If an artist relied on their teacher to know their limitations they know nothing for themselves, instead it is not the teacher's job to know the artist's limitation, but the student's responsibility to know where they stand so that they can grow as an artist. So please, do not mis-interpret my thoughs, I do not thing evaluation is a bad thing, I think that a teacher evaluation the student is a bad thing and on the example of the Drama teacher, they might not be able to pop the answer off the top of their head, but they can research the answer; ask their collegues, and give the student an appropiate answer. Thus by not knowing either their own limitations nor their students' they both grow. And all the while when the drama teacher Acts as though she completely understands what they are doing the student's will have confidence in their teacher and they will learn. Going on to the second point, this does not disprove my point. If the teacher in freedom writers knew "her student's limitations" she would have never pushed them to the point she did, and they would have never moved past their current position. And maybe if Shakespear's teacher had pushed him past the point he did, the great literatures we have from him would have been even better! In fact who's to say his teacher didn't push him like that? And I personally love my opponet's martial arts example. Look to any great Kung Fu movie, before the main character becomes a great fighter he usually has his butt whooped by some-one way beyond his level. Finally going on to my opponent's conclusion. They claim that there are "Universal" qualities that must be adhered to. well for this I have two arguements, first there is no warrant for why we must accept these as the universal points. my opponent never explains or expands on these points, they only further their claims and offers expansion on them. more so secondly, this is still putting teachers in abox and sayign there are certain qualities. Now also my opponent dropped many points in my last speech, this only proves my tance that we cannot define a good teacher in only three qualities. For these reasons I urge a Con vote I now hand the debate back over to my very capable, and humble opponent. :3

Let us go straight to the arguments. I. Life For the rest of this debate, aka. this round, let us assume that my math was incorrect. Let us assume now that there are 100 minutes of lessons and 20 minutes of break. This was not clear at the beginning. It must have been a brain block on my part. Notice that pro has not in the least addressed the dilemma I created. In it I showed that teachers would have to teach twice as much if half the class elected to take their 40 minutes free time (As presented by Pro) in the morning and the other half in the evening. This would create added work on the teachers. Unintended by Pro’s model, maybe, but present nonetheless. According to Pro, his model actually increases free time outside school. This is weird. There is only 24 hours to a day. Let us assume that the current school time is 9-3, his proposal would be an effective of 9-2:40. However, as stated in his resolution, the model proposes a 9-5 schedule. If he wishes for students to come and go throughout the day with small snatches of time, this would mean small portions of time with no adult supervision at all, aka. time which can be spent committing minor crimes. As far as my experience goes, no company would employ any workers for short snatches of time before seeing them head back to school or something like that. Thus, unless pro meant a reduce homework, reduce school time in his resolution, this model is absolutely impossible to implement for just these two reasons alone. Unless Pro wishes to stay up past midnight doing homework and getting up at 5:30 the next morning to go to school, I suggest not implementing the particular model in which I am familiar with. II. Memory retention Pro has unfortunately continued to ignore the counter-proposal I made in the previous two rounds. Digitalize homework. This is already happening in many places, as I found out through personal experience. Unless Pro wishes for the model to change somewhat when students come of working age, his counter to my points about working is mute (:D). As I showed in the previous point, increasing net free time is not effective unless those free time comes in large blocks, which as far as I understand Pro’s model, is not part of.It would seem that our two studies contradict. However, although Pro’s opinion poll was from CareerBuilder, mine was from Stanford. It is up to the reader to determine whose is the more reliable.The whole point of my citing the study, I thought I clearly linked the two, is that as workers are more productive at home, it must be because they have better memory recall. Note that I have as such turned Pro’s quotation against him, showing that people are more productive at home, aka. remember more, than at work. This also ties in with the conceded point about comfort. All these factors argue strongly against Pro’s model. The fact that most school students do not work is a testament to short-sightedness and lack of life-planning. III. Cost Even were we to concede all of Pro’s points here, they will still not increase the quality of learning. In fact, my point regarding teachers working all-nighters have not been addressed. How does spending 95 minutes at school accomplish what is done in one night? It does not. Not in the least. Should I extend arguments here? IV. Social Mischief My opponent has not shown that crimes are committed disproportionately between 3-5pm. Even if we forced students to complete their homework in school (Negating the whole purpose of homework), you can only keep them in school for so long. Let us assume that we release students from schools at 5pm. Not only does students who have completed their homework have absolutely no motivation to do anything, as pro noted, not even work. This would increase the motivation, brought on by boredom, to commit crimes, reversing any benefit intended by Pro’s model. If, on the other hand, more net free time is given in which no homework needs to be done, like as I noted above, not only would companies not hire such students, they would actually be motivated by boredom to commit crimes. V. Mindset All counters have been adequately addressed for this point in other points. The net effect would not be beneficial, rather, destructive to students. VI. Teacher Instruction As I clearly showed in the earlier round, this is merely an assertion. From personal experience, I know that even though I self-studied for much of my high-school equivalent syllabus, I still outperform the average high-schooler who have the “advantage” of live teachers. This also is an assertion, but is one that at least is backed by my own experience. Iron only sharpens iron if both iron are as hard as each other. Have you seen katanas cut through long swords? Conclusion So it can be clearly seen that teacher instruction is not a requirement for memory retention, mindsets are the result of nurture, which is impossible to implement for varied reasons I mentioned above, the cost of health for teachers would be catastrophic, unless one increases drastically the number of teachers. Life and memory retention would not benefit from this change in school schedule. In regards to voting, note everything Logic has said. With that, I would like to thank Logic for a thought-provoking debate. I have certainly learned not a few things.

Bring It OnI would like to point out that since Pro is arguing against the status quo, burden of proof is on them.

"You previously said, "the banking system cannot be oppressive since there is no real oppressor, that is, a group of people exercising power over another"" in the banking concept of education there is clearly a person(s) who have power over others. The teachers have complete control over everything concerning the classroom. They choose the material that is taught and the students must learn it. They perceive that the students know nothing and they know everything. Freire says "narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into "containers", into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teacher." Students are therefore degraded to less than human while the teachers are elevated to positions of power because students regard them as essential to their education. In the banking concept of education students are not truly learning what they are doing is storing information. Since students do not possess the knowledge to change their environment they must adapt to the reality created for them by the oppressors. For the student to not be oppressed they have to be given power through knowledge which the banking concept of education does not provide.