The Instigator
sara_ann_dee
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Yamamoto
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There should not be a teacher tenure.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,193 times Debate No: 78113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

sara_ann_dee

Pro

Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.

This is how the debate will be layed out:

1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)!
2nd round: Opening argument / statement
3rd round: first round of counterarguments
4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement

Any violation to the setup will result in an automatic forfeit.
Debate Round No. 1
sara_ann_dee

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate (This round for me is mostly going to be evidence to set a base for my argument).

Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties.

Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved." (http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www.americanprogress.org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom." (M.J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www.time.com).

Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations." (http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure.

Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.”("Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense.

Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory." (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D.C.," www.manhattan-institute.org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude." (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure?," www.education.com), (http://teachertenure.procon.org...).

Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010." ("Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite?

Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings." (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for.

Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws." (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www.njsba.org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future?," www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure.
The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary?

Citations: http://teachertenure.procon.org...
http://teachertenure.procon.org...
http://teachertenure.procon.org...
Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www.ehow.com
Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www.americanprogress.org
http://teachertenure.procon.org...
"Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com

Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D.C.," www.manhattan-institute.org
M.J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www.time.com
Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure?," www.education.com

http://teachertenure.procon.org...
"Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com
Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker
Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www.njsba.org
Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future?," www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org
Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle

Mr.Yamamoto

Con

Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument.

In this debate, I will argue that ‘there should be a teacher tenure.’ Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that ‘teacher tenure’ should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this.

Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them.

First I will define the word ‘tenure’.
Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period.

Please note that:

Tenure doesn’t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that’s required of the teacher.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired.

In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people.

1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers.

Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer.

Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers’ academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own.

Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo’s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place.

2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students.

Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard.

Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4]

These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students.

Brief summary of my arguments

1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.
2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.

Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate.


Links:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[3] http://www.nea.org...

[4] http://blogs.edweek.org...

[5] http://www.joebaugher.com...

Debate Round No. 2
sara_ann_dee

Pro

I will include my first round arguments down below so all my infomaton is in one place and to help you with your counterarguments:

Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties.

Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved." (http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www.americanprogress.org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom." (M.J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www.time.com).

Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations." (http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure.

Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.”("Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense.

Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory." (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D.C.," www.manhattan-institute.org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude." (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure?," www.education.com), (http://teachertenure.procon.org......).

Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010." ("Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite?

Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings." (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for.

Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws." (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www.njsba.org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future?," www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure.
The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary?

Citations: http://teachertenure.procon.org......
http://teachertenure.procon.org......
http://teachertenure.procon.org......
Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www.ehow.com
Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www.americanprogress.org
http://teachertenure.procon.org......
"Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com
Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D.C.," www.manhattan-institute.org
M.J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www.time.com
Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure?," www.education.com
http://teachertenure.procon.org......
"Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com
Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker
Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www.njsba.org
Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future?," www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org
Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle


Rebuttals:

(rebuttal for "academic freedom"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: "Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.”("Rhee-Forming D.C. Schools," www.wsj.com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense."

(Rebuttal for "high standard"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties." This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.
Mr.Yamamoto

Con


Quotes used in my debate are all included here.



(I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn’t enough for 10 rebuttals.)

Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’:

‘a’ (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go)

Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs.

However,

1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this.

2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure.

3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work.

Therefore, I can conclude that ‘reason 1’ is invalid.

(Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.)

Rebuttal of ‘Reason 2 and 6’

‘b’
‘c’

What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn’t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don’t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn’t have been employed and wouldn’t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn’t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted.

‘d’

Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators’ fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure’s fault.

I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected.


Rebuttal of ‘Reason 3’

A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad.

Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’

‘e’

This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true.


Rebuttal of ‘Reason 5’

‘f’

This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate.

Rebuttal of ‘Reason 7’

‘g’

I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so?

The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention.

Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled ‘Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis’ [3].

Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn’t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary.

In conclusion, Pro’s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers.


Rebuttal for ‘Reason 8’

‘h’

1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro’s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn’t ‘collective bargaining, state law and federal law’ be unnecessary too because ‘job protections granted through court rulings’ can offer this protection already? Wouldn’t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed?

2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I’ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals.

Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes.

3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says:

‘i’

The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. ‘It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is ‘not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.’ In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn’t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate.

Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it.

Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’

I have explained in my Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn’t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (‘j’) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students.

Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’

Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are:

1. ‘k’

This, I have already explained why it is not true in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: Pro failed to support ‘reason 1’ with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work.

2. ‘l’

If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro’s assertion ‘m’ (incidentally, she uses the wrong ‘then’) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn’t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise.

‘n’

[3] of my previous round has already proven this false.

I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students.

Also, I want to point out that Pro’s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion.


Why should you vote Con?

Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid.

This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn’t.

Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP.

Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro’s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources.

Pro’s arguments heavily rely on ‘appeal to emotion’ and ‘circular reasoning’.

[1]http://papers.ssrn.com...;

[2] Deleted

[3] https://www.cta.org...

[4] http://www.njsba.org...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 2 years ago
Mr.Yamamoto
I may have to forfeit the next round but I'll try my best. I have 3 flights in the next 2 days and I'm staying in places where they probably don't have wifi.
Posted by Mr.Yamamoto 2 years ago
Mr.Yamamoto
no new arguments in round 3?
Posted by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
All schools in general
Posted by mapleleaf173 2 years ago
mapleleaf173
Before I accept, are we are arguing college's correct?
No votes have been placed for this debate.