Hi rick, actually its the outline of what will be written on the paper..However, I do need someone to write the debate paper

Topic for debate paper:

Should Teachers Have the Authority to Remove Disruptive Students from Their Class Permanently?

I. Disruptive students make teaching difficult and ineffective and interfere with the learning processes of other students, but permanent removal of students should not be decided by the teacher.

II. Removal of disruptive students can be temporary (such as one class, or one semester) or permanent, and so permanent removal is not the only option available.

III. Reasons why teachers should have the authority to remove disruptive students from their class temporarily:

A. Removing a disruptive student makes learning easier for all the other students.

B. Removing a disruptive student makes teaching easier for the teacher.

C. Having a disruptive student in class, whom the teacher cannot remove, undermines the teacher's authority.

D. Having a disruptive student in class, whom the teacher cannot remove, may encourage other students to be disruptive, thus creating a snowball effect.

E. Having a disruptive student in class may disengage other students from the learning process.

IV. Reasons why teachers should not have the authority to remove a disruptive student from class temporarily:

A. Part of the job of the teacher is to control students in the class, so if a student is disruptive this may indicate the teacher is weak or at fault.

B. Teachers do not decide who has a right to be educated and who does not, as this is a decision to be made by higher educational authorities than the teacher.

C. Life is not always ordered, peaceful and predictable, and students must learn how to deal with conflict, and this is a valuable part of their education.

D. Positive reinforcement of good behavior is better than negative reinforcement of bad behavior.

V. Reasons why the teacher should be able to remove disruptive students from their class permanently.

A. Teachers have a right to work in an environment that is conducive to effective teaching.

B. Students have a right to be educated effectively.

C. A normal classroom is not the place for dealing with anti-social behavior.

D. Other students need to understand that if they practice disruptive, anti-social behavior, they can also be excluded from class permanently.

E. Once temporary exclusion has been tried and has failed, the only recourse is to exclude the disruptive student permanently.

VI. Reasons why teachers should not be able to remove disruptive students permanently.

A. Students, even those with behavioral problems, have a right to be educated, and removing a student permanently effectively denies that student the right to an education.

B. Teachers are paid to teach the students in the class, and not to select which students they will teach.

C. The decision to remove disruptive students permanently should be made by the principal, faculty, school board, or other educational system authorities, in consultation with the teacher.

D. Removing a student permanently implies the student would not be able to return, even after rehabilitation and an end to the disruptive behavior.

E. Prevention measures are a better option than the ‘quick fix' of removing a disruptive student.

VII. Weighing up the arguments leads to the conclusion the teacher should not have the authority to permanently remove a student, but may have the authority to temporarily remove a student.

A. Temporary removal of a student improves the teaching and learning environment for all, and indicates to the disruptive student (and other class members) that his/her behavior is unacceptable.

B. Permanent removal of a student should be decided by education authorities higher than the teacher, but with input from the teacher.

C. The definition of ‘temporary' removal must also be determined by higher authorities than the teacher.

Bibliography

Hill M. Walker, E. R. (2003-4, Winter). Heading off Disruptive Behavior. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from American Educator: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/winter03-04/early_intervention.html

The authors examine anti-social behaviors in schools and look at its causes, both in the home and in schools. It asks the question: "What can schools do?" and looks at three levels of intervention. It advocates reinforcement of positive behaviors and the use of "time-out" as a last resort. It also outlines effective courses for preventing anti-social behavior.

Robert H. Horner, G. S. (2000, February). American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from A schoolwide approach to student discipline: http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3860&snItemNumber=950&tnItemNumber=951

This article looks at alternatives to tough measures for reducing violence and anti-social behaviors in schools. These measures include increased monitoring of students instead of their removal from school, and high intensity support for high-intensity behavioral problems. It cites the fact that expulsion is one of the most common responses to disruptive behavior, but also one of the least effective, whereas preventive measures are much more effective.

Vicki Cowling, J. C.-T. (2005, November 27). Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from Responding to disruptive behaviour in schools: Collaboration and capacity: http://www.auseinet.com/journal/vol4iss3/cowling.pdf.

This paper describes recent studies on disruptive behaviors among students, and a Disruptive Behaviours project, which ran a number of seminars on the topic of disruptive students. The project emphasized the need for schools to gain a greater understanding of the causes and results of disruptive students, and recommended collaboration between education, public health and mental health systems to promote the mental health of young people in schools, as a means to reducing disruptive behavior.