The Instigator
Kylie.Cunningham
Pro (for)
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Con (against)

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kylie.Cunningham has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 273 times Debate No: 101099
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Kylie.Cunningham

Pro

if the teacher is unable to commit to her students, then she should get fired. It's hurting the students education Andy they should find a better teacher that is sable and can be here ready to teach 98% of the time.
QueenDaisy

Con

I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*:

"Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired"

^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech.

My argument will be as follows:
1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education.
2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired.

Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education.

Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent.
Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave.

So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion.

*(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: https://www.youtube.com... from 1min 15secs).

**(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*)

***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*)
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RC-9282 10 months ago
RC-9282
Are you assuming all teachers are female? Im triggered! Pro has only used the pronoun "she", not any male ones!
Posted by Kylie.Cunningham 10 months ago
Kylie.Cunningham
Lol
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
Because what your resolution is currently saying is that 90%, in any case, should amount to a teacher being fired.
If you want to fire teachers diagnosed with late stage cancer, be my guest, or clarify your resolution.
Posted by Kylie.Cunningham 10 months ago
Kylie.Cunningham
Why would I put that if a teacher is sick and I know that? I have a teacher that gave birth and she is coming back. But she still comes to school more times than my Spanish teacher. She hasn't been here except for four days.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
That's not what your resolution says.
Posted by Kylie.Cunningham 10 months ago
Kylie.Cunningham
Yes but they get a break and time to recover but if a teacher is just not going to school to their job , then they should get fired.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, especially if they give birth or have a fatal disease...90% is 90% teachers, no room to be human!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.