[SUBMITTED] - Teachers Tenure Trouble

[Sacara]

Name: Teachers Tenure Trouble
Validity: has public education
The Issue: The @@ANIMAL@@ City High School made national headlines after @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ was fired for having political disagreements with the school's administrator. @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@, who taught for thirty-five years and is now out of a job, has made a considerable ruckus about the implementation of tenure in @@NAME@@.

[Option 1] "By not giving assurance to experienced teachers, no one will enter the profession," states the teacher at the center of the debate, matter-of-factly. @@HE_1@@ then proceeds to point at a make-shift chalkboard that has been assembled in your office and goes on. "Teachers should be protected if they disagree with the school. Educators with three years of experience should be kept permanently. We cannot allow schools to fire teachers without a just reason, such as being dead, or worse."
[effect] teachers under ninety years old are a common sight

[Option 2] "Complacency, Complacency, Complacency!" angrily yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, the most money-oriented member of the @@ANIMAL@@ City High School Board. "By giving these teachers immunity from being fired, they have no incentive to continue to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. The annual raises they receive far outweigh their productiveness. We don't have the @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to keep teachers forever."
[effect] schools are filled with first year teachers

[Option 3] "And what about those teachers who do not preform well?" questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, a former school administrator who knows all too well of the troubles that revolve around hiring and firing teachers. "I agree we need to extend tenure to educators, but only to the best of the best, specifically those who are willing to take pay cuts. This seems like a reasonable compromise, no?"
[effect] classrooms double as sleeping quarters for teachers

[Option 4] "The school administrator actually had it right in this case," whispers your rarely seen Minister of Brainwashing the Next Generation. "Maybe it would be a good idea to only allow teachers who support you to continue to educate our next generations of the wonders our great @@LEADER@@. After all, this is why we have public education."
[effect] arguments in school break rooms are unheard of

Name: Teachers Tenure Trouble
Validity: has public education
The Issue: The @@ANIMAL@@ City High School made national headlines after @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ was fired for having political disagreements with the principal. @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@, who taught at the district for thirty-five years and is now out of a job, has made a considerable ruckus, and the case has finally been presented to you.

[Option 1] “By not giving assurance to experienced teachers, no one will enter the profession,” states the teacher at the center of the debate, matter-of-factly. @@HE_1@@ then proceeds to point at a make-shift chalkboard that has been assembled in your office and goes on, “Educators with three years of experience should be kept permanently. We cannot allow schools to fire without a just reason, such as being dead, or worse.”
[effect] teachers under ninety are a rare commodity

[Option 2] “Complacency, Complacency, Complacency!” angrily yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, the most @@CURRENCY@@-orientated member of the @@ANIMAL@@ City High School Board. “By giving these teachers immunity from being fired, they have no incentive to continue to do their jobs at the best of their ability. Competition always brings out the best in teachers. Besides, we don't have the @@CURRENCY@@ to keep teachers forever."
[effect] schools are filled with first year teachers

[Option 3] “And what about those teachers who do not preform well?” questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, a former principal who knows all too well of the troubles that revolve around hiring and firing teachers. “I agree we need to extend tenure to educators, but only to the best of the best, specifically those who are willing to take pay cuts. This seems like a reasonable compromise, no?”
[effect] classrooms double as sleeping quarters for teachers

[Option 4] “The principal actually had it right,” whispers your rarely seen Minister of Brainwashing the Next Generation. “Maybe it would be a good idea to only allow teachers who support you to continue to educate our next generations of the wonders our great @@LEADER@@. After all, this is why we have public education.”
[effect] arguments in school break rooms are unheard of

• Fixed many grammar mistakes, reworked option two's speaker, removed any references to the term 'district'.
• Mentioned why it costs more to keep teachers in option two and removed the final reference to the term 'district'.
• Removed all references to 'principal'.
• Removed last sentence of description, removed all references to 'principal', and a few other minor grammar mistakes.

[Australian rePublic]

What's a school district?

[Luna Amore]

What's a school district?

I don't understand questions like this. Google* exists. Use it. It takes longer to get a response by posting to the thread than just searching yourself.

*Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Ask.com, Wikipedia

[Australian rePublic]

What's a school district?

I don't understand questions like this. Google* exists. Use it. It takes longer to get a response by posting to the thread than just searching yourself.

*Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Ask.com, Wikipedia

My point is that you shouldn't use America specific terminology

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fair point, Aussie, though perhaps you could have said that..

While I don't think it's a bad thing to have generic terminology that exists in some but not all countries (e.g. parliament, senate, etc.) I'm personally not too keen on terminology that only exists in a minority of countries. There's a fine line to be drawn though. I think "school districts" are a common term in the USA, not unknown in Canada, also a thing in Italy. Oh, and in Australia as well.

However, I think a good thing to do here would be not to assume that a School District in @@NAME@@ works like a School District in the USA. Keep the term if it is needed, but make it ambiguous what their role is.

I think though that the issue probably could work just as well if just talking about schools rather than school districts.

I'd also note that I drafted a similar issue myself in the past...:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=426734
...though mine was more about political bias in education rather than the right to fire based on politics, so I think we're good to co-exist. Not that overlap with unpublished issues is any sort of limitation anyway, of course.

[Australian rePublic]

Never heard of it being used here

[Sacara]

Never heard of it being used here

I didn't realize calling them school 'districts' was such a foreign concept. Weird.

I'd also note that I drafted a similar issue myself in the past...:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=426734
...though mine was more about political bias in education rather than the right to fire based on politics, so I think we're good to co-exist. Not that overlap with unpublished issues is any sort of limitation anyway, of course.

I'm not seeing much overlap, as you mentioned. I actually quite like that issue. Education issues always intrigue me.

[Chan Island]

I only know of the term school district thanks to playing Cities Skylines.


Anyway, I think the bigger question is why we have to deal with two former principles who know only too well the troubles that revolve around hiring and firing teachers. Why can't one be a current principle? Or why not use some of the richness and variety available in this glorious English language? Surely these principles know all about the trials and tribulations, the bother, the inconveniences and the difficulties that surround, concern and appear when appointing, taking on or contracting and laying off, booting out or expelling professors, tutors and educators?

Also, my rarely what Minister of Brainwashing the Next Generation? Praised?

In option 1, this individual is talking Mater-of-factly? I'm assuming the teacher is this guy.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Never heard of it being used here

Maybe just a Queensland thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... Queensland

[Australian rePublic]

Never heard of it being used here

Maybe just a Queensland thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... Queensland

Ah yes, Queensland's weird.

[Sacara]

Anyway, I think the bigger question is why we have to deal with two former principles who know only too well the troubles that revolve around hiring and firing teachers. Why can't one be a current principle? Or why not use some of the richness and variety available in this glorious English language? Surely these principles know all about the trials and tribulations, the bother, the inconveniences and the difficulties that surround, concern and appear when appointing, taking on or contracting and laying off, booting out or expelling professors, tutors and educators?

Oversight error. I changed options shortly before I published, and forgot to switch this part.

Also, my rarely what Minister of Brainwashing the Next Generation? Praised?

In option 1, this individual is talking Mater-of-factly? I'm assuming the teacher is this guy

I really shouldn't publish these drafts when I'm running on less than five hours of sleep.

[Sacara]

Fixed many grammar mistakes, reworked option two's speaker, removed any references to the term 'district'. If anyone has any suggestions for effect lines, let me know.

[Chan Island]

Anyway, I think the bigger question is why we have to deal with two former principles who know only too well the troubles that revolve around hiring and firing teachers. Why can't one be a current principle? Or why not use some of the richness and variety available in this glorious English language? Surely these principles know all about the trials and tribulations, the bother, the inconveniences and the difficulties that surround, concern and appear when appointing, taking on or contracting and laying off, booting out or expelling professors, tutors and educators?

Oversight error. I changed options shortly before I published, and forgot to switch this part.

Also, my rarely what Minister of Brainwashing the Next Generation? Praised?

In option 1, this individual is talking Mater-of-factly? I'm assuming the teacher is this guy

I really shouldn't publish these drafts when I'm running on less than five hours of sleep.

Thou art forgiven, don't worry


This draft is much better. Evidence of plenty of sleep

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Nice issue.

So, who is exactly in charge of hiring and firing teachers here? The school district or the individual principals? (The description and Option 3 suggest that it might be the latter, while Option 1 suggests it is the former. Which one is it?) And if there are ties between principals and school districts, what is the nature of their relationship?

Also, is money-orientated (which I assume has been turned into @@CURRENCY@@-orientated in this issue) really a word? I am not a native speaker, of course, but I think I would have said money-oriented.

[Sacara]

Nice issue.

Thanks!

So, who is exactly in charge of hiring and firing teachers here?

The principal fires teachers.

And if there are ties between principals and school districts, what is the nature of their relationship?

I don't follow.

Also, is money-orientated (which I assume has been turned into @@CURRENCY@@-orientated in this issue) really a word? I am not a native speaker, of course, but I think I would have said money-oriented.

I was thinking money, but I thought eh, but I'll go back.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

So, who is exactly in charge of hiring and firing teachers here?

The principal fires teachers.

And if there are ties between principals and school districts, what is the nature of their relationship?

I don't follow.

I thought Option 1 suggested that the school district was firing teachers.

[Option 1] “By not giving assurance to experienced teachers, no one will enter the profession,” states the teacher at the center of the debate, matter-of-factly. @@HE_1@@ then proceeds to point at a make-shift chalkboard that has been assembled in your office and goes on, “Educators with three years of experience should be kept permanently. We cannot allow school districts to fire teachers without a just reason, such as being dead, or worse.”
[effect] teachers under ninety are a rare commodity

[Sacara]

I thought Option 1 suggested that the school district was firing teachers.

I use those two interchangeable, my bad. I forget not everyone is familiar with the terms native to me.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I thought Option 1 suggested that the school district was firing teachers.

I use those two interchangeable, my bad. I forget not everyone is familiar with the terms native to me.

OK.

Is it the same in the US in real life?

[Sacara]

OK.

Is it the same in the US in real life?

I don't follow your question?

Anywho, bump after some minor edits.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

OK.

Is it the same in the US in real life?

I don't follow your question?

Anywho, bump after some minor edits.

I meant to ask if the principals are authorized to fire teachers in the US. Never mind

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Agree with FuF here. Better to make option 1 ambiguous about who is doing the firing.

[Sacara]

Implemented. I think this is getting close, what do you guys think?

[USS Monitor]

You still have a reference to "the district" in the intro. If you wanted "districts" out of the equation, you should probably go ahead and take out that last reference.

Also, is money-orientated (which I assume has been turned into @@CURRENCY@@-orientated in this issue) really a word? I am not a native speaker, of course, but I think I would have said money-oriented.

It should be "oriented." AFAIK, "orientated" is not a word.

Just in general, I think option 2 is the weakest part of the issue. It has underlying assumptions about how teachers' pay works and how @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ think about money, which I am not really into. Does keeping the same teachers inherently cost more than hiring new ones? Only if you assume that teachers are getting annual raises so that the more experienced ones have higher pay. If you don't have annual raises, or if the raises are not that much, the administrative costs of replacing teachers outweigh the costs of keeping them on. HR staff need to be paid for the time they spend recruiting new teachers.

The other options are kind of growing on me when I reread them separately, but option 2 isn't. I think the concept of someone complaining about complacency is fine, but there's room for improvement how it is presented.

Implemented. I think this is getting close, what do you guys think?

It's getting there.

[Chan Island]

Just in general, I think option 2 is the weakest part of the issue. It has underlying assumptions about how teachers' pay works and how @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ think about money, which I am not really into. Does keeping the same teachers inherently cost more than hiring new ones? Only if you assume that teachers are getting annual raises so that the more experienced ones have higher pay. If you don't have annual raises, or if the raises are not that much, the administrative costs of replacing teachers outweigh the costs of keeping them on. HR staff need to be paid for the time they spend recruiting new teachers.

It also discounts the possibility of training being done by the school in a way that I'm not entirely happy with either I have to say. Why would a school, after having run the gauntlet of getting the new person up to speed with the way things work, then immediately fire them? It wouldn't be for profit, because that's an easy way into the red right there.

In order to make option 2 viable in its current form, you'd need to mention that annual raises or some kind of seniority-based pay scale is in place.

[The Free Joy State]

You still have a reference to "the district" in the intro. If you wanted "districts" out of the equation, you should probably go ahead and take out that last reference.

Also, is money-orientated (which I assume has been turned into @@CURRENCY@@-orientated in this issue) really a word? I am not a native speaker, of course, but I think I would have said money-oriented.

It should be "oriented." AFAIK, "orientated" is not a word.

Just to interject. "Orientated" is the British version of "oriented".