[SUBMITTED] - Teachers Tenure Trouble

[Chan Island]

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.



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

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

Didn't notice that. But yes, 'orientated' is just a quaint little Britishism. Nothing wrong with it.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

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

Didn't notice that. But yes, 'orientated' is just a quaint little Britishism. Nothing wrong with it.

Interesting. And Americans say "obligated" instead of "obliged."

In any case, it seems one of you guys is always using a redundant 'ate' part in a word. Knock it off!

[Chan Island]

Didn't notice that. But yes, 'orientated' is just a quaint little Britishism. Nothing wrong with it.

Interesting. And Americans say "obligated" instead of "obliged."

In any case, it seems one of you guys is always using a redundant 'ate' part in a word. Knock it off!

Never! >:D


By the way, another thing has occurred to me. What about other lines of work? You could possibly have some radical left wing activist come in and argue that tenure should apply to everyone else, especially manual labour.

[USS Monitor]

Didn't notice that. But yes, 'orientated' is just a quaint little Britishism. Nothing wrong with it.

Interesting. And Americans say "obligated" instead of "obliged."

In any case, it seems one of you guys is always using a redundant 'ate' part in a word. Knock it off!

"Obliged" and "obligated" are both part of American English, but they are not exactly the same. If you say "much obliged" -- and that expression does exist in the US -- that has to be "obliged."

"Obliged" can also be a synonym for "obligated," but has slightly different connotations. If you're "obligated" to do something, that's more like it's required because of rules or an explicit agreement, whereas being "obliged" is more like it's socially expected or you have to do something for practical reasons. There is a lot of overlap where you can use either word, though.

[The Free Joy State]

Interesting. And Americans say "obligated" instead of "obliged."

In any case, it seems one of you guys is always using a redundant 'ate' part in a word. Knock it off!

"Obliged" and "obligated" are both part of American English, but they are not exactly the same. If you say "much obliged" -- and that expression does exist in the US -- that has to be "obliged."

"Obliged" can also be a synonym for "obligated," but has slightly different connotations. If you're "obligated" to do something, that's more like it's required because of rules or an explicit agreement, whereas being "obliged" is more like it's socially expected or you have to do something for practical reasons. There is a lot of overlap where you can use either word, though.

I never really thought about it before, but both words -- and the different associated connotations -- exist in British English too.

[Sacara]

I'm embarrassed to say that I am definitely not British in anyway. I just wrote this issue late one night and used the wrong word and never caught it.

I implement the changes later tonight.

[Chan Island]

I'm embarrassed to say that I am definitely not British in anyway. I just wrote this issue late one night and used the wrong word and never caught it.

I implement the changes later tonight.

*chants*

One of us, one of us, one of us...


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

Looking forward to seeing the new version.

[Sacara]

By the way, another thing has occurred to me. What about other lines of work? You could possibly have some radical left wing activist come in and argue that tenure should apply to everyone else, especially manual labour.

Interesting. After mulling over this, I've decided against it. This is geared towards education solely, and I've never heard of tenure for other lines of work.

Fixed some issues that were presented.

[Paflava]

Great! Just make the language a little less American-school orientated, because I come from England so I had to look up some of the words like 'principal' and 'school district'

[Sacara]

Great! Just make the language a little less American-school orientated, because I come from England so I had to look up some of the words like 'principal' and 'school district'

I didn't realize that 'principal' was an American-centric word.

Removed all references to principal. I like how it looks now, going to put on last call and leave it up for a day or so.

[Hediacrana]

Good and interesting!

A few fairly minor points:
In the introduction, I don't think you need the phrase "and the has finally been presented to you."

In the first option, I think the last line should read "We cannot allow schools to fire them without a just reason, such as being dead, or worse." That's a good line, btw.

In option two, shouldn't @@CURRENCY@@ be @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@?

In option three, "preform" should be "perform".

Option 4 still has a "principal" which I gather you were planning to remove.

There are some “ quotation marks that should be " quotation marks, if you know what I mean.

[Sacara]

Good and interesting!

A few fairly minor points:
In the introduction, I don't think you need the phrase "and the has finally been presented to you."

In the first option, I think the last line should read "We cannot allow schools to fire them without a just reason, such as being dead, or worse." That's a good line, btw.

In option two, shouldn't @@CURRENCY@@ be @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@?

In option three, "preform" should be "perform".

Option 4 still has a "principal" which I gather you were planning to remove.

There are some “ quotation marks that should be " quotation marks, if you know what I mean.

Thank you for catching these! All fixed.

[Hediacrana]

Sorry to be difficult, but I believe you changed the quotation marks the wrong way around. It's supposed to be ", not “.

[Sacara]

Sorry to be difficult, but I believe you changed the quotation marks the wrong way around. It's supposed to be ", not “.

Oops! My bad, changed.

Final last call!

[A Humanist Stink]

Final last call!

The issue seems to equate "tenure" with simple "job security," but they're aren't technically entirely the same thing. The description sets up an issue asking "should a teacher be fired for holding an unpopular/controversial viewpoint?" (a.k.a., should have tenure?) but then doesn't seem to really address this specific question again until option 4.

Option 1 simply addresses longevity, where advocacy specifically for tenure might suggest an argument emphasizing the importance of a diversity of viewpoints and academic freedom.

Option 2 is just a budgetary argument, which is certaily relevant, but opposition specifically to tenure might suggest an argument concerned with the deleterious effects of some hypothetical teacher who turns out to, say, deny @@NAME@@'s role in the @@REGION@@ Holocaust.

Option 3 is just a more compromising Option 2, in any case. See above, but perhaps emphasizing the importance of allowing Holocaust denier to speak so their malodorous opinions can be cleansed by the light of truth, etc.

Option 4 is the crazy/evil interpretation of tenure, where it is granted but distributed so as to stack things in favor of the current regime. This actually does fit the more specific theme.

Of course, all of the alternative approaches discussed above can lay heavily on the "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!11!!ONE" horn.

[Sacara]

The issue seems to equate "tenure" with simple "job security," but they're aren't technically entirely the same thing. The description sets up an issue asking "should a teacher be fired for holding an unpopular/controversial viewpoint?" (a.k.a., should have tenure?) but then doesn't seem to really address this specific question again until option 4.

I can't seem to wrap my head around what you're saying. The definition of tenure is:

status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent.

Option one specifically states:

...Educators with three years of experience should be kept permanently...

That is tenure without specifically calling it by name. Option two states:

...By giving these teachers immunity from being fired,...

Which again, is the opposition to tenure without specifically calling it by name. I could've used the word tenure twenty times in this issue, but I believe the reader will be able to know what tenure means, as I have described it.

Hopefully this helps clear up some confusion.

[A Humanist Stink]

status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent.

Fair enough, I suppose. I'd always understood "tenure" to specifically mean "job security intended to protect a teacher/professor from losing a job because they advocate/explore/otherwise mention an unpopular idea." Or, I've always understood "tenure" to specifically address the issue of academic freedom, and not simply the issue of whether an employee in general can be fired just because (or, to wits, simple "at will employment").

I acknowledge that my experience may differ from others for all sorts of social and geographical reasons, but in all of my exclusively and heavily unionized working life, I have never heard the word "tenure" used to simply mean "permanently employed" or "passed a probationary period." Indeed, I am currently a post-probationary permanent non-academic/non-faculty staff member of a university, and "tenure" is a word I may not use.

I'd still offer that more directly addressing the "political disagreements with the school's administrator" in the options might be more interesting, especially since that's the set up provided in the description. That's all, agree or don't.

[Sacara]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'd always understood "tenure" to specifically mean "job security intended to protect a teacher/professor from losing a job because they advocate/explore/otherwise mention an unpopular idea." Or, I've always understood "tenure" to specifically address the issue of academic freedom, and not simply the issue of whether an employee in general can be fired just because (or, to wits, simple "at will employment").

I acknowledge that my experience may differ from others for all sorts of social and geographical reasons, but in all of my exclusively and heavily unionized working life, I have never heard the word "tenure" used to simply mean "permanently employed" or "passed a probationary period." Indeed, I am currently a post-probationary permanent non-academic/non-faculty staff member of a university, and "tenure" is a word I may not use.

I'd still offer that more directly addressing the "political disagreements with the school's administrator" in the options might be more interesting, especially since that's the set up provided in the description. That's all, agree or don't.

Tenure is used all the time to refer to the permanent keeping after a certain time.

I believe you are confusing higher education tenure with K-12 tenure. However, higher education tenure differs from K-12 tenure as what you described. K-12 is simply being there for a few years and then you hold the spot almost indefinitely. You can make the case in what you're saying if this issue dealt with higher education tenure, which it doesn't.

Personally, I think this issue is strong enough to stand on it's own without dealing with higher education, but that's just me. No one else has raised concern about that, and I don't see a need to change the entire premise at this time. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Source: in the education field and who's mother and father are professor at a university

[A Humanist Stink]

I believe you are confusing higher education tenure with K-12 tenure.

I suspect there's a very significant degree of overlap (addressing the teaching of controversial subject matter), but, again, fair enough.

[Sacara]

I suspect there's a very significant degree of overlap (addressing the teaching of controversial subject matter), but, again, fair enough.

How so? In k12, the curriculum is usually set for you, whilst if you are a professor, you decide what to cover and how to cover it. Plus, there is already an issue (I believe) about teachers refusing to cover a certain subject (sex education?).

[A Humanist Stink]

How so? In k12, the curriculum is usually set for you, whilst if you are a professor, you decide what to cover and how to cover it. Plus, there is already an issue (I believe) about teachers refusing to cover a certain subject (sex education?).

I just googled "K12 tenure" and some variation on "protect school teachers from retaliation for teaching controversial subjects" seems like a fairly common theme. I have to acknowledge that some variation on "protect teachers from getting canned just to save money" does appear too.

In principle, it's not difficult to imagine a high school teacher getting fired for teaching about evolution (or creationism) or safe sex (or just abstinence). Shit, they'll even try to can you just for being really good at teaching math to not-white people. Possibilities abound.

[Sacara]

I just googled "K12 tenure" and some variation on "protect school teachers from retaliation for teaching controversial subjects" seems like a fairly common theme. I have to acknowledge that some variation on "protect teachers from getting canned just to save money" does appear too.

In principle, it's not difficult to imagine a high school teacher getting fired for teaching about evolution (or creationism) or safe sex (or just abstinence). Shit, they'll even try to can you just for being really good at teaching math to not-white people. Possibilities abound.

As I noted, there already is an issue that deals with teachers choosing not to teach a controversial issue. I just can't wrap my head around where you're coming from elsewise,

[Sacara]

Submitted.

Thanks for everyone who has helped.

[Hediacrana]

Submitted.

Thanks for everyone who has helped.

Good luck!