Video transcript
NSW Premier's Debating Challenge 2023 - Years 5 and 6 State Final

[intro music]

RUBY HICKS: Welcome to the state final of the Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 5 and 6. My name is Ruby from Timbumburi Public School, and the timekeeper today is Hope from Timbumburi Public School. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Tharawal people of the Wodi Wodi clan. And on behalf of the Department of Education, I want to show my respect to the Elders past and present of that nation and of all First Nation peoples.

The affirmative team today is from Balgowlah Heights Expressers. Their first speaker is Sienna; second speaker, Sophie; third speaker, Emma; and fourth speaker, Georgia. The negative team is from Timbumburi Blues. The first speaker is Claire; second speaker, Zoe; third speaker, Ha-Na; and fourth speaker, Ni-Ya.

The adjudicators for this debate are Tim, Tony and Archie. The speaking time for this debate is 4 minutes. There will be a warning bell at 3 minutes, 2 bells at 4 minutes, and a continuous bell at 5 minutes. The topic for this debate is that we should pay primary school teachers a bonus when their students' results improve across the year. Finally, please take a moment to make sure all mobile phones are switched off. Now please welcome the first affirmative speaker to open the debate.

[applause]

SIENNA RUTKOWSKI: We should pay primary school teachers a bonus when their students improve across the year. There is a huge problem in today's society. Teachers are not getting paid enough and some teachers are slacking off and not putting their full effort into students' education. Primary school is crucial to kids' development and the teachers need to all be trying their best and being paid accordingly.

We, the affirmative team, define this topic as teachers whose majority of students make a noticeable improvement will be paid a bonus. This bonus will be judged on their test results throughout the year, such as NAPLAN or check-in, bookwork, and assignments that they complete throughout the year. The teachers will be paid a bonus depending on how much their students improve.

For example, if a teacher's students, or a majority of them, improve drastically, the teacher will get a higher bonus than if a teacher's students improve, but not that much. If their students make no improvement, no money will be taken away from their salary. They will just not be paid that extra bonus.

This bonus will come out of the Australian government and it will start in NSW. And if deemed successful, it will spread across to other states. The amount of money set aside for this will depend on how much the students improve and how much teachers get. This change will take place starting in 2024.

This change is important, as some teachers-- the majority of teachers do so much and need to be rewarded for that. And some teachers are slacking off, and they need extra motivation and this needs to stop. Primary school teachers build the very foundation for students' learning. They teach us how to read, how to do maths. It's so important that primary school teachers are doing their best and being paid accordingly. We need this, as it is a crucial part of their life. And if teachers try their hardest, their education benefits will outweigh the harms.

Over a long term, this change could improve students' grades across the state and maybe even the country, and help teachers financially and help their efforts. Today, I will be talking about how this change will motivate teachers and how this positively affects students' education.

My second speaker will talk about how teachers need more pay, how it is unfair that some teachers are putting in not much effort and teachers are putting in 110% and they are being paid the same, and how this will attract more teachers to the profession, which we definitely need.

My first argument is motivation. Right now there are 2 types of teachers in our school system-- teachers who put in so much effort for the students and who try their hardest, who get up early and plan the lessons, and teachers who don't care and just want to get the day over with. We cannot have this division among teachers. We need all teachers to be putting 100% into their students' education, as they are the future generation and are really important.

This change would benefit both types of teachers. First, it would benefit the teachers who try so hard. They will finally be rewarded for that extra effort, for that things that they put in. And the second type,--

[bell]

--it will help them be more motivated. It will help the ones who don't care will be more motivated. They'll probably put more effort into their students and help them improve because they will be getting rewarded if they do. And this is important, as every child's education, no matter who they are, matters, and students should be taught with the same level of effort.

We don't want any child to be left behind, which brings me to my second argument. Not only would this greatly help teachers, it would also benefit students. A majority of teachers will now put so much effort into their students. Imagine-- you had a teacher who didn't really care about you. They didn't really care about how much you improve, or what you do, that maybe they just don't put that much effort in. Maybe they just want to go home.

But then after the change, your teacher might start caring. They might start putting more effort into you, creating a better learning environment for you and your classmates. They would be more focused on you improving as an individual, more focused on you helping reaching that goal.

[bell]

Majority of kids will improve, as majority of teachers will be helping every individual student get better at maths, English, and all core subjects. This change has so many benefits to both students and teachers, as it will benefit students' education greatly as well as teachers' financial state and their well-being. This change needs to happen, and this is why I'm proud to affirm. Thank you.

[applause]

CLAIRE MCCULLOCH: The other team stated that teachers will be motivated by money, instead of slacking off. However, this can actually cause negative effects towards both the teacher and the students. When teachers' paycheck is determined by how quickly a student learns, children who have trouble learning will be pressured by teachers.

This often means we are also putting stress on our teachers to make kids immediately learn. For example, some kids specialise in different areas. If a kid is struggling in a certain area, in math, of course, right now, teachers would calmly handle this. However, if this change takes place, teachers would be stressed about immediately making sure this student understands.

But when people don't handle things calmly, the person they're directing will get so stressed, but not only the person they're directing it into, so will the teacher. We agree with the affirmative definition, but we are strongly dedicated to not make this our new status quo because, if we do, this will majorly-- this will cause major harms to teachers, parents, and especially students.

I will be strongly stating how teachers' jobs are to help students. Therefore, we shouldn't give bonuses. Our second speaker will strongly state how paying teachers more for good grades will put students under stress and pressure, as they are the reasons for their teachers' pay. Our third speaker will sum up our case.

My first argument is that the whole reason for teachers is that they are here to help kids get better grades. What else are they here for? The whole point of a teacher is that they teach kids and help them improve. Right now, teachers aren't getting overpaid from students' good grades, and it is as perfect as it is. It is a teacher's job to get students to have good results. So why do we have to give them more?

After the change, teachers will be unfairly paid for mandatory work that is in part of the curriculum. We aren't paying them now, and we shouldn't pay them more for mandatory reasons. It's fine how it is. Teachers are supposed to help kids. That's their whole job. So why should we pay teachers for no reason? Teachers will just do their job like usual and teach the kids, when, at the end of the year, they will improve like normal teachers when they get extra money for doing what they have done before.

Kids learn in different ways, some faster than others. The kids are doing the work, not the teachers. The teachers can teach, but usually the kids don't understand. All teachers who teach normal classes, by the end of the year, are hoping for their students results to improve. They're not wanting money, just a strong mind, filled to the brim with education and happiness.

If we make this our new status quo, the whole teaching industry will mislead kids into thinking it is OK to be overworked and teachers can be overpaid for no reason. If all teachers are getting paid,--

[bell]

--does that mean casual teachers and relief teachers? If casual teachers are getting paid-- if casual teachers are getting paid, it will be chaos trying to figure out how much those teachers help the kids. This is vitally important that we don't change things because teachers need to be paid fairly like everyone else. If this change was bound to happen, it would not benefit students because they would feel like their teacher's pay would be relied on them.

So this is why we should clearly stop this change. Do you really want your student's paycheck to be your fault? I don't think so.

[applause]

SOPHIE YEATES: The opposition stated that teachers were being stressed and pressure a student. But this is wrong for 2 reasons. Our first reason is that a teacher has been taught for years education. They know how to teach a student who is struggling. Say that one child isn't as good at math. They can just work them through it. It's simply ineffective to pressure them.

And our second reason is, surely it doesn't matter how much one individual student does because the score will get averaged out, like we said in the model. And if maybe one child doesn't learn as quickly as the other, the teacher can turn their attention to the person who is struggling and not improving as quickly, instead of stressing the person who is already good at what they were doing.

And this is important to the debate because if teachers care more, they will be more-- they will see the benefits. And with the change, the teachers will have a better work ethic and give out better education. They also said that kids work at different paces, but teachers won't get all the students that work slowly or all the students that work quickly because classes have different types of workers. It's not all the same types of people in the one class. It's different people.

It's also not just the score that they have to get to. It's not, if you get to this test in the score, the teacher will get a bonus. It's if you can improve from your previous test. They also said that the whole point of a teacher is to help students. But many teachers don't do this. Many teachers do not put in the effort. And we need all teachers to put effort into this.

They also said that many teachers will be overpaid. But wouldn't you rather have teachers who care about us and work for us be overpaid than underpaid as they currently are? And as we clearly said in the model, they will be paid in their effort. [? inaudible ?]

Teachers put in so much effort for us, whether it be making lesson plans, marking bookwork, putting in the extra work to make assignments understandable. They put in the extra work and deserve to be rewarded. Right now, the average teacher will work late nights, early mornings, and during lunches and recess. And all for what? A measly paycheck that is not reflective of the hard work they put in.

In our model, however, teachers' pay will be reflective of all the work they put in. A bonus may not seem like much of an impact, but it can be incredibly useful for a teacher's life. Maybe it's paying your rent. Maybe it's meals for a month. Maybe it's a well-deserved break in the Bahamas.

No matter how the money gets spent, this bonus will be way overdue, at least for most teachers. Which brings me to my second argument. The status quo is extremely unfair to the teachers who, like I said, put in incredible amounts of hard work and effort. However, that isn't all teachers. Some teachers slack off doing their job. Eh-- just not do math. It's fine. Who cares?

These teachers are getting the exact same paycheck as the teachers who put in 110%. This is utterly ridiculous, however. This is utterly ridiculous. However, in our world, teachers who put in extra effort will finally--

[bell]

--get what they deserve. Our change will also be an incentive for the teachers who don't care as much. The students who were subject to uninterested teaching can have their learning significantly damaged. For example, a student whose teacher always puts in maximum effort to make sure that learning is easy and fun will have a fun time learning, as their teacher cares and puts in the effort to make school as simple and easy, but also enjoyable, as possible.

However, the student whose teacher slacks off and cares more about her boyfriend than a class of 30-something kids would have their learning incredibly damaged, as teacher enthusiasm is one of the reasons a child will do well in class. In our world, this unfairness will be eradicated, as slacking off teachers will suddenly have motivation to do well. They finally can pay that month's rent or something.

And my final argument is more teachers. Some teachers have had to leave their job, and many never returned. This has had the amount of teachers in schools drastically drop. However, with our model,--

[bell]

--many teachers will come back to school for the incentive of the paycheck, because if you want your students to learn, but it's also an added bonus that if they learn, you get money. So in this debate, the benefits of our model far outweigh the harms, which is why I'm proud to be on the affirmative side of this debate. Thank you.

[applause]

ZOE MCDONALD: The other team stated that teachers aren't putting enough effort into their students. However, this change would cause a negative impact, meaning that teachers will be far too motivated from the money, causing teachers to stress out their students, overwork them, et cetera. Not only will this stress out students due to the teachers overworking them, but it will also stress out the teachers.

Teachers will be far too eager to make sure their students immediately learn. However, if a student is struggling in a certain area, teachers will stress out their students and themselves, leading to a negative impact. The other team said that teachers doing 110% are getting the same pay as the teachers doing 10%.

We have 2 reasons why that's wrong. Teachers have to go to university and study. They have to pass tests and exams. Schools don't have to accept bad teachers. They can pick. They also said that they won't be stressed because they can help a struggling student. We also have 2 reasons why that's wrong.

The affirmative team stated that teachers would be slacking off. If they're slacking off, they wouldn't be able to help the struggling student. My first argument is that teachers are now relying on 6- to 12-year-olds to have a solid financial status. Kids will now feel pressured, as they are the reason to whether the teacher is getting paid extra money or not.

There are usually a group of students who struggle in the classroom. We are putting pressure on these vulnerable children who come to school for their education, not for their teacher's paycheck. Full grown adults shouldn't be relying on 10-year-olds for how much money they earn. When kids feel as if they're under pressure, they tend to have difficulties focusing because that one little thought in their head won't go away.

This change will lead to overworking their students with unnecessary piles of homework for their developing 6- to 12-year-olds. Right now, we have teachers who teach their students, earn a fair amount of money, but treating them fairly. If we make this change, teachers will be eager to get bundles of money. In order to get students to immediately improve, they have to overwork them.

Like I said, these are young, developing students we're talking about. If we think it's OK to pressure our students so teachers earn more money, what will the teaching industry become? Teachers are being paid fairly. Children deserve to be treated and given a fair education. If we make this change, we're putting our teachers' financial checks before our students' compulsory education by overworking them and putting pressure on students.

Students will feel extremely stressed to improve their results so that their teacher can get a bonus when their results improve. When they find out about this--

[bell]

--which obviously will happen, kids will get extremely stressed. Or if they hate their teacher, purposely lower their results so that their teacher won't get the bonus.

[laughter]

This will cause a negative effect and make teachers' jobs a lot harder. The teacher will be wanting the bonus and pressuring their students to get better and better, but in a stressed and negative way. The kids will get unnecessary pressure to do better in tests. Right now, teachers are focused on giving students the best education possible for the students' benefit. They're not getting them stressed or anxious before tests and teaching them all they can-- and teaching them all they can in the calmest way possible so that students get a more positive education.

After the change, teachers will be trying to rush through lessons, getting stressed themselves, as they try to fit everything, as they try to get everything done.

[bell]

Teachers won't be getting the work properly done because they're being rushed. Teachers will be getting stressed because their students aren't getting the lessons. If this change happens, kids will be getting a rushed and stressed education. It's so important that students get a good education. That's why we should definitely not make the change to allow students' test results to determine if the teacher gets a bonus pay.

[applause]

EMMA SMITH: In this debate, there were 2 main overarching issues and themes. How will this change affect students' well-being and education, and how will this affect teachers' pay rise and how they treat their students in the classroom? The opposition's team stated that teachers will be running around the classroom, stressing out kids and rushing through lessons just because they want this extra pay rise to improve. However, as teachers have been through years of studying education, they know to work through lessons slowly and work through problems step by step with children.

For the teachers who really care, they're not going to be running around the class trying to get these kids to get A-pluses all the time. They're going to be focusing on each individual student to try and get them to work up-- try and get them to get a better work ethic and understand the topic more because this is how they're going to get the real improvement all.

They stated that teachers will overwork these students through the classroom, going rushing through lessons. Oh, here's maths, then. Now we're on to English really fast. However, the teacher has all year to help these students improve from maybe they weren't so good at multiplication from the start of the year, so they can add a few multiplication lessons, instead of rushing on to a next topic really fast. So they can help these students who are struggling on one topic work on it and hone their skills more.

They also stated that kids that-- teachers will try and get students to instantly improve straight away, one lesson to another. However, teachers know, as they've been to many years of education, school, schooling, they know that kids can't just rapidly learn things. They need to have revision. They need to be going through extra lessons before the test they do. They need to have all these extra things to help them improve.

I always said that because teachers will-- won't rush kids, teachers are not evil. They're not going to be like, yes, I want this money, these kids-- because this is not how they're going to make these kids improve. These kids need to be worked through these math problems slowly or how they found out a theme of a book really slowly, how they identify what the strengths of this main character is slowly to get them to understand material and improve.

They also stated that these teachers will just pressure a child, and that these teachers are so evil and they just want this money. However, this is wrong and this change will be really stressed because--

[bell]

--they really just want to help this teacher out. This teacher just-- all they care about is money. However, this is untrue, since students forget about things rather quickly. All they want-- students in classrooms, most students are thinking about what they're having for dinner tonight or how they're just going to go out to recess and play a game of handball.

When they're doing a math sheet, they are not actively thinking of how a teacher is going to get this money. They are not-- kids aren't so malicious and evil that they're going to be like, hmm, yes, I don't want my teacher to get a pay raise, so I'm going to purposely be bad. Kids care about their grades, as well, not just teachers.

The opposition team stated that a group of kids who are struggling class will be left in the dust and pressured to be rapidly improved, rapidly be better like everyone else in the class. However, this is untrue because these teachers, who are now more actively motivated by this new pay rise, will take a second to stop--

[bell]

--and help those kids move along and improve. These teachers aren't so malicious and evil they're going to just focus on the rest of the class, because a group of students is left behind, we'll make sure the majority go down. So they need to make the most of the kids be improved. And that includes those kids, as well.

Say a teacher doesn't really care about the students. They're just in it for the money. They just want to-- they just want to get this over and done with. With the change, if they don't put as much effort in as the other teachers, or they go, instead of doing a math lesson because they just can't be bothered, they just put in 7 second riddles on the board, that is not helping these students improve. So therefore, these teachers who do not care as much as the teachers who put in 110% and they want-- they want to put in 110%.

[bell]

And this is why I'm proud to affirm.

[applause]

HA-NA: The other team had 3 main ideas-- that teachers aren't getting paid enough and some aren't trying their hardest, while others are, that this change will motivate teachers, and that this change will be positive for students and will attract more teachers. Under their first idea, teachers aren't getting paid enough.

Well, this is wrong because your third speaker said that teachers have been through years of study and will go slowly through work and will get enough pay because that's their job. They also said that teachers who are working really hard aren't getting paid enough. Well, if the government cares enough for them to give them bonuses, they'll care enough to make sure that they have enough pay.

They also said that teachers would be motivated. However, this can cause negative effects toward both the teacher and students. When teachers' paycheck is determined by how quickly a student learns, children will have trouble learning because they are pressured by teachers. That often means we are also putting stress on our teachers, as well, to make kids immediately learn these things.

For example, kids specialise in different areas. If a kid is struggling in a certain area in math, of course, right now, teachers would calmly handle this. However, if this change takes place, teachers will be stressed about immediately making sure that this student understands and is OK. But when people don't handle things calmly, the person they are directing at it will get stressed and not handle this concept properly.

The second point that it will attract more teachers. Well, the teachers might come over, but it would only be for the money bonuses, and they would only probably stay for a couple of years or 2 and then move on to the other jobs that they actually wanted to do that didn't really involve the money bonuses. They also said that this change is putting teachers-- will attract more teachers. Well, if this change is putting teachers at a disadvantage by these students being aware of this change.

For example, a rebellious 12-year-old hates their teacher so much that they stop trying, and then this average gets averaged out. And it's usually a lot of people who really don't like their teacher because they keep droning on about awful history.

[laughter]

Then they will get the grades lower. And this isn't helping teachers. They also said that kids care a lot about their grades. Well, not really. They would care more about annoying their teacher, which they really hate. They also said that teachers won't get stressed out. Well, when there's money around, the teachers would really want that and would be stressed to try and get that money.

Teachers, if we pay teachers for bonuses, they will stress about students getting high grades and stressed students mean stressed-- stressed teachers mean stressed kids.

[bell]

And stressed kids lead to a stressed classroom, which is not a very fun place to get your education or learning. They also said that teachers won't get all of the slow workers or the fast workers, so that they'll usually get over the grade and get a bonus. Well, no, they won't. But if the school gets averaged and there are those kids who really hate those teachers, then their school will be below what they need for the money bonuses, and the teachers will get more and more stressed and try and teach their students faster and quicker. But that is not working.

They also said that teachers don't care if a kid is left behind. Well, teachers are supposed to help kids, not leave them behind. That's why they are teachers. They want to help the students the best they can in the safest environment. And this change will just make it more stressing for teachers.

They also said that many teachers don't care about students. Well, yes, they do.

[bell]

They want to see their student get the best education they can. They also said teachers will make sure kids understand and will not get stressed. Well, these are 6- to 12-year-olds we're talking about. They're doing their best. It's our responsibility to help them, not pressure them, by adding this change.

They also said that teachers will walk through the lesson slowly. Well, not with money included. Money means stress, and stress means working fast. The teachers would just rush through everything. They also said that they have a whole year to improve. There is not just one test or subject to learn or improve in. And there are heaps. And this needs time, which teachers do not have much of. And they will get very stressed and rushed through.

Our first speaker has firmly convinced you that making this change will cause so many negative effects, like teachers just teaching for the bonus and trying to force students to get better results so they can get a bonus. Student education is way more important to--

[bell]

[applause]

ARCHIE WOLIFSON: All right. Hi, everyone. We thought this was a very good space. So we're going to start off with some general feedback about both teams. And the first piece of general feedback is that it was absolutely fantastic, and all 3 of us agreed on this, to see just how much teams had improved over the course of this period and had incorporated feedback that each of us had individually given them and put that into their speeches. We discussed with some specific examples exactly what people had done. So before we move on, a huge round of applause for both of our teams.

[applause]

And the second piece of general feedback is about making sure that your characterisations of what teachers are like is nuanced and realistic and believable because a lot of this debate, as you might have been able to see, was sort of reliant upon the way in which you thought teachers might respond to this change, so how you thought teachers would behave. And so what that meant was that a lot of the arguments being made were pretty contingent upon what we thought teachers did and how they worked.

And so it's important, then, to make sure that if that underpins the majority of your argument, the foundations of that argument are ones that are realistic and persuasive, which is why I think some of the pieces of characterisation about how, like how evil teachers might be or how brilliant teachers might be, maybe speak to your own personal example of having one, obviously, fabulous teacher that was here this weekend with you, or these few days with you, or one evil witch teacher that you had one year a few years ago.

But you want to make sure that those are realistic, they're nuanced. And there are some really bad teachers, probably some really good teachers. But the average teacher maybe lies somewhere in the middle, and explaining where the majority of teachers are likely to go. How are things like a university degree really going to impact how teachers behave?

So with that, there are 3 big questions. First of which is does this improve education for students? The second of which is, is this fair for teachers? And then lastly, how would this affect the broader education system? So in terms of the first question, does this improve education for students realistically? The affirmative team start out pretty strongly. They explain that this is motivation for teachers who are, right now, not putting in as much effort as they can.

And they do some quite persuasive analysis in segmenting teachers into the teachers that are already putting in work and the teachers that are being a bit lazy. And they explain that now those teachers are incentivised to put a lot of work in. And especially, they're incentivised to help the students who are falling behind, because they want to make sure that the class, as a whole, improves and those students have the most room for improvement.

The negative team says that this will actually cause negative effects, and they give a few examples of how that might come to pass. They say firstly that children that have trouble learning will be pressured to learn, that teachers are just going to be teaching solely with the aim of making more money, and that lastly, teachers will be overworked in order to make sure that their kids improve. How do the affirmative team respond? They responded in a number of ways.

They say, firstly, teachers have been trained to help kids who are struggling. Secondly, and I think what the panel thought was incredibly persuasive, was that pressuring is not that effective as a strategy to get kids to do better. And because the assumption of the negative team was that kids will be pressured by teachers because the only way to get kids to learn stuff more is to pressure them, when the affirmative team explained that pressuring is, in fact, a bad strategy at getting kids to learn more and learn faster, that explains why that is probably not the strategy that teachers are going to take.

The next thing they explain is that the score will be averaged out, so that it doesn't really matter if one kid doesn't learn or isn't perfect, and that there are tests all year round. So you don't need to do exceptionally well on every single one. So that explains why I think this first argument from the negative team is able to be defeated by those pieces of rebuttal from the affirmative team.

The next argument that side negative brings us is that kids will feel stressed that their teacher's grade is reliant upon them. However, the affirmative team explains that most kids are probably just thinking about lunch or recess or handball and that people aren't super-duper worried about their grades all of the time, or thinking too much about how their teachers are paid most of the time. And I think that's pretty realistically true.

The last argument made on this issue is when the negative team says-- and what we thought was the most 'fun' argument in the debate-- that students will purposely lower their results to make sure their teachers get paid less. And while this was a very engaging argument, the affirmative team was able to realistically explain that, one, kids care about their own grades, so unlikely to do this. And, 2, kids aren't that mean and that evil, and probably aren't going to absolutely destroy their teachers' grades.

So at the end of that, we did believe that teachers would be more motivated to make sure that their kids were doing well. And the way in which they would try and make sure that their kids do well is in a way that is productive, rather than in a way that is stressful. Now, that means that first issue falls towards the affirmative team. The second issue is about whether or not this is fair for teachers.

Here is where the affirmative teams are sequestering of teachers into teachers that could work harder and teachers that are currently working hard, explains why there are currently some teachers who are doing really well and putting in a lot of effort and not being recognised. And we need to make sure that those people are paid appropriately and justice is done for teachers, and that that is incredibly fair towards those people.

The negative team respond by saying, well, teachers should be there to make sure that people are taught properly. It's already their job. And we shouldn't really need to give them more money in order to make sure they do their job. However, the affirmative team explained that, one, teachers are underpaid right now, and that, 2, teachers are putting in a lot of effort, especially relative to the amount of money that they're getting.

So this is incredibly useful in balancing things out and making sure the teachers get what they deserve, given that, as we hear with a set of examples about teachers working late nights, teachers marking papers, teachers grading homework, they're putting in a lot of effort and not currently being recognised. And that piece of analysis is never really attacked by the negative team.

So at the end of that, we do believe that this is probably fairer for teachers, especially because teachers are putting in a lot of work. So that means that issue is able to fall towards the affirmative team. The last issue, then, is how this will affect the broader education system. And here is where there are a few arguments thrown either way, but it's unclear the extent of which they are actually effective.

So the affirmative team says, well, now there will be more teachers and more people coming into teaching because you're able to get more money. The negative team says, well, this would be really hard for casual teachers, and that would be particularly unfair or particularly bad.

However, I don't think either of these issues were explained to sufficiency, given that they are often reaching for incredibly high, high argumentation that will involve a lot of people making different decisions or making big decisions. And I think to explain why that would happen, you'd have to put in a lot of work to prove it and to put in the effort to explain why that will actually occur.

And given that, I don't think either team is able to do this, this issue ended up being a bit of a wash in the debate, and neither team was really able to gain a foothold here. So at the end of that, the panel as a whole unanimously believed that this would probably not affect the broader education system to a significant degree, but it would be much, much fairer for teachers, and it would mean that kids would have their educations improved and teachers would be more motivated to help them, which is why, in a unanimous decision, panel gave this debate to side affirmative. So congratulations.

[applause]

RUBY HICKS: Thank you for that. Please now welcome a representative from Timbumburi to congratulate the winners.

[applause]

NI-YA: Congratulations. You guys are a really good team. You had some really good ideas. Thank you for debating us. And thank you to the adjudicators for adjudicating this debate.

[applause]

RUBY HICKS: Please welcome the member of the winning team to respond.

[applause]

GEORGIA CORDELL: I'd like to start by thanking the adjudicators for adjudicating us today. Thank you to the time keepers and the chairperson for giving up your time to help this debate run smoothly. Thank you to the audience for listening nicely. And thank you to the opposition team for making this a very fun and challenging debate.

You're all amazing debaters. Thank you.

[applause]

TONY DAVEY: Ladies and gentlemen, your 2023 Years 5 and 6 state debating champions.

[applause, cheering]