RateMyTeacher.com

"A useless piece of garbage who wouldn't know chemistry if it ran him over..." “She has really well planned lessons and actually makes science fun.” Clearly a contrast of comments made by students about their teachers on this controversial website. This website allows pupils to make comments and rate their teachers, which has caused a big stir amongst many teachers. Some people may claim that Ratemyteacher.com conflicts teacher’s privacy whereas others may argue that the website allows critical evaluations and constructive comments to be posted.

On the one hand, some may maintain the line that this website has a destructive impact on teachers. Ratemyteacher.com does not contribute to educational standards and is purely a mean of students venting their anger in a childish manner. An unprecedented amount of the comments made are particularly harsh, over-exaggerated and malicious. Consequently, this will demoralise some teachers, thus effecting their teaching. They will try to improve their ratings – exactly how they will set about doing this creates a problem. They will try to increase their popularity and hence, their style and motives of teaching changes, which may compromise the best interests of the student’s education.

In the same way, the basic role of a teacher is to provide an education to its pupils. However, Ratemyteacher.com will merely cause gossip around the class about the teacher’s personal lives. The result of this is that the students learning will be affected as they will be distracted in the classroom and because of this negative impact it has, Ratemyteacher.com should be shut down.

In contrast to this, this debate also brings to life a case of double standards. Why should we be shutting down a student-teacher evaluation website, when teachers are constantly being evaluated anyway. For example, OFSTED assess teachers, students can voice their views with suggestion boxes and a school council.

Furthermore, this website gives teachers an incentive to improve. The website has rules and regulations which do not allow comments to be made about their personal life. Therefore, constructive comments are made identifying what teachers can improve on, benefiting both students and teachers.

In addition, it is not practical to shut down this website. This is because the British Jurisdiction does not allow us to shut down a ‘.com’ website as it is American. Also the internet is a free source and as long as it doesn’t insight violence, there is no reason to shut it down. Besides if we were to shut down this forum then students will still want to vent their anger and consequently go underground. They will make their own website and their comments will not be moderated. Therefore, it will have a much worse effect than Ratemyteachers.com.

To conclude, throughout this debate I have taken concern the right of the student’s voice vs right to teacher’s privacy. These are both important considerations but in this instance the student’s voice conflicts teacher’s privacy. Due to this fact I believe that Ratemyteacher.com should be shut down.

Crisp shirts and pressed trousers.

The subject of school uniform is hotly contested, especially among the youth arena. Those who advocate this motion may solely argue that it provides a means of identifying pupils in public. However, the opposition may use the cost issue as their foothold against this motion. To draw a conclusion with this topic is going to be contentious either way, as both sides put to the table very favourable, bullet – proof and a compelling set of arguments.

Firstly and foremost, some people may claim that a uniform aids a student in appearing tidy and disciplined. This serves a key role of the school; to encourage tidiness and discipline. If one were to adopt a non-uniform regime giving the choice of freedom of dress, then pupils may express their individuality overwhelmingly. The reason why this is a problem is because many students may end up being extremely messy or flashy. This in turn launches another problem as many students are not in the right frame of mind for learning, defeating many aspects of their education. This statement is reiterated in the widely established fact that there is a strong connection between appearing smart and good behaviour, allowing them to thrive in their education – a chance freedom of dress may hinder.

On the other hand, the opposition does not deny the link between appearing smart and behaviour. However this is not a valid argument in this debate as many schools with a non uniform policy demand adequate standards of dress codes, such as forbidding short skirts. Therefore, this again counter’s the proposition’s argument as they do not appear too flash and consequently this is not a hindrance in their learning but merely an opportunity for them to express their individuality. Also by allowing them to choose their own clothes we are giving them more responsibility as they are making their own independent decision.

In contrast to this, when students are out in public (i.e. on a school trip), suppose a pupil is separated from the group. Is it more likely that they will be identified with or without uniform? Obviously the inevitable answer is of course with a uniform.

On the contrary, in actual fact one can infer that many schools do not demand uniforms on school trips, revealing a major flaw in what the proposition have said. This is because this argument does not stand as it simply isn’t true.

Likewise, the cost of uniforms are very high. This arouses two problems. Firstly it puts more of a strain on parents and secondly uniforms are futile as they only have use inside school.

In conclusion, after examining the issues of cost, and studying the pros and cons of school uniform, my mind has unanimously set itself in favour of uniform. This decision has been drawn on the grounds that uniforms improve student’s appearance and tidiness putting them in pole position for educational achievements.

Capital punishment: The Death Penalty

A handful of nations around the world currently enforce the death penalty. Britain can learn from the status quo is some states of the US, China and several Islamic nations, to conclude whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent. Intrinsically, this debate addresses the question “what is the purpose of punishment for murder?” Should it be to simply segregate them from society or perhaps rehabilitation is an area worth considering?

The state has a duty to protect its citizens. The proposition may feel that in the event of serial murders or terrorists, they should be punished with death. The death penalty will be subject to people who have infringed other’s basic human right of life. On the other hand, isn’t it immoral to kill in the eyes of society and thus, the state killing another person is equally barbaric. In our society we follow the principle of “two wrongs don’t make a right” – then surely we have moved on from the principle of eye for eye, tooth for tooth and life for life.

To rebut the issue of whether this motion is moral or not, the proposition may claim that the death penalty deters criminals from murdering. Looking at the states of the USA that have the death penalty, the crime rates have been on free-fall since this legislation has been passed. However, saying that, some may also argue the case that there is no direct relation between the death penalty and murder rates. Even if it did act as a deterrent, would it merely be a short term deterrent (immediately following the aftermath of an execution) or as a long term one?

The cost of life imprisonment is extremely expensive. This will put more of a financial burden on the state. In addition, prison cell spaces are rapidly decreasing and it is not practical due to the fact that it is putting more of a load on the taxpayer’s purse. Contrastingly, we cannot kill prisoners on the grounds of cost. If one were to follow that principle then we would start executing all criminals on the basis of relieving the taxpayer’s purse! Besides, one does not pay taxes for nothing but to provide themselves with more services and to allow the state to invest in their safety.

In conclusion, although the death penalty would only be in effect on those murderers we have conclusive evidence of, I hold the opinion that capital punishment is morally flawed as we have passed the age of our ancestor’s barbaric principles. Furthermore, it is totally unjustifiable to kill one innocent person no matter how many criminals are executed. Additionally, I feel that execution takes away the possibility of rehabilitation and a person being reformed back into society.