Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

The No Child Left Behind Act's standardized tests are not an accurate gauge of educational quality. The reliance on these tests under the NCLB does not effectively measure the true performance of schools.

I agree on your point about testing aptitude - some tests come closer than others, but I don't think standardized tests make much of an effort to test aptitute at all. But that was more of a side note. You said: "To say that you must be wealthy to be good at, and prepared for these tests is foolish" That is foolish, which is why it's not what I said. I said that that the wealthy are more likely to achieve a higher score. The difference is the ease with which the wealthy can prepare - I don't think being rich makes you better test-taker by default, but it certainly gives you an advantage in preparation. Standardized tests, because of their nature, repeat the same patterns over and over again. They test the same concepts, and most of the time they test them in the same exact ways from test to test. Because of that, with enough practice, a student can become completely familiar with the concepts tested, the way those concepts are tested, and the best way to attack those problems. A rich student can find all of this information neatly laid out by a private tutor, and practice to his or her heart's content with the help of that tutor until he or she is fully familiar with the test. A poor student, on the other hand, will find it difficult to practice the same amount or get the same level of advice, because of his or her economic status. Certainly if we compare Student A (who is rich) and Student B (who is poor,) Student B happens to be extremely determined whereas Student A is very lazy, B may very well out-score A on the SAT, but if we compare the groups of students as a whole, because of the ease with which affluent students can prepare for standardized tests, there is a socioeconomic bias built in. I suppose I need to underscore my argument with an assumption about tests like the SAT: they presume to objectively compare students' abilities. Since rich and poor students start off on unequal footing when preparing, that presumption of an objective comparison is incorrect.

Children who are home schooled tend to do better in tests and exams than those who are public schooled. Parents can give their children individual attention in the subjects their students struggle or excel in. Parents can help their children mature through difficult times in their lives. The quality of education is better in home school than in private schools. There are no distractions in the class (Obviously) and parents can stop teaching whenever they feel the child is having a difficult time to cope. The atmosphere is much better than that of a public school.

You don't need to explain to me what schools are, I know they exist to 'enhance learning' and to 'help them get a better education' as you put it. And believe it or not, I know teachers are their to help the children understand something they may not of understood previously. But even with this insight, I don't believe this is being done well by any means. If schools are good for children, like you say, what about the 40% of them that don't achieve 5 GCSE's grade A to C? What has school done for them that couldn't of been done by something else? 40% is huge, its almost half for gods sake! If you had a factory that made 40% of its products faulty, it would be shut down! So yer, school might be good for those kids who typically would of done alright anyways (because of their socio-economic class), but what about all those who fail? School does not encourage learning. Those who are interested may continue to be interested but few, if any, are brought to this mentality purely by schooling. From my experience I have found very few people my own age (and I mean like 2 people) that are interested in anything but man made things. For example football, cars, tv shows, music, celebrities and other shallow things such as, for men at least, women (but purely from a sexual perspective). Things like science, nature, history, politics, the universe, our bodies and biology are 'nerdy' or too an older person simply 'boring'. Funny how these things are the things we are forced to learn against our will throughout our entire childhood. Rule number 1: if you want a child to hate something; make them do it all the time against their will. This is Rule number 1 for human behaviour: that we want what we carnt have, and we don't want to do what we have to do, and we spoil ourselves with what we have. Also the hole process of learning is outdated and frankly boring. I mean, look at David attenbourgh's nature documentaries: if I saw that in school I would be hooked. There are also many documentaries and video's online that just make science wonderful, despite all this however, we still insist children sit in a class room at 9 o'clock in the morning (a time which is proven to be bad for learning for children as they are not meant to be awake at this time) and be force fed information about a subject they have no interest in. To learn something, you must first WANT too. Schools do not do this for children, it expects them to learn things in fear of a result of a test. Also once a child fails a test he/she loses their confidence and can become disengaged further, lowering their self-esteem. Also school only recognizes what we call academic intelligence, anyone who is expert at something that doesn't fit under this category is deemed 'stupid'. I know all the political correctness and all that but at the end of the day, this is the effect it has on the child's perception of themselves. Indeed, the child may not even know they have these talents as the system that is designed to enhance them, fails to notice. Even more worrying, is that even if a child is gifted at something regarded as academic, they can be squandered. Good examples of this include Einstein. School regarded him as a failure and failed him, he went to university through contacts and they thought him usless too. Had it not been for a friend and a string of chance situation, Einstien would have remained a lowly clerk and we would not know his name now. Another example is the Beatles; one particular MUSIC teacher had half the Beetles in his class and recognized no musical talent. Another example includes particular dancer and founder of an extremely successful dance school, she was thought to be disruptive and could of been diagnosed as having ADHD, but because of a fluke incident and an intelligent psychologist, she was discovered to be a natural dancer. She went to a dance school instead of normal school and ended up becoming a millionaire and brought joy to millions. So how many other potential geniuses has school overlooked? what are we now missing because of the school system squandering talents. It is my view that we are all potential geniuses, that intelligence is unique to the individual and that we can all be geniuses in our own way and in our own area of knowledge. There is enough knowledge and work to be uncovered and done for everybody and every different kind of talent is needed. School is uniform, it makes all children jump through the same hoops and feel a failure if the don't adhere to the schools narrow view of intelligence. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its whole life it is a failure. So to wrap it up, 40% of people 'fail'. Forcing people to learn (if you actually want them to learn, which I believe the system doesn't) is clearly ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about human psychology. We judge intelligence in one way, and this is key to what is wrong with the system. Finally, our method of teaching (classroom, tests, early starts and long days) is frankly no good. I could write a book on this last point so I am trying to not get carried away. Also I would like to add that my personal experience of school was terrible, even though I am more 'academic' than anyone I have ever met !

You have some good solid arguments and make a fabulous debater! 1. This may be true but it still shows the achievement most of the times 2. Your first part may be true but your second part was getting off topic with my statement. 3. That dosent make sense, because the teacher HAS to make sure that the students know what they need to know. 4. I am sorry to say this, but that's life, stress, we all have to deal with it to reach our goals. 5. You should have taken the second part from 1# and make it 5# 6. This statement dosent make any sense. Children have to be able to take a test and even though it may be stressful, it dosent matter in the long run. "Same sources as last time"

Standardized tests should be used from Grades 1-12. Round 1- first point/accept Round 2- debate " " "

Refutations The top countries in education such as South Korea, Norway, Japan, China and most of the eastern Asia countries have a culture of education and not a culture of extracurricular actives like the USA does [4]. Chinese students spent significantly more time than American students engaged in academic endeavors, such as attending school and after-school classes and studying. Japanese students did not spend significantly more time studying or attending after-school classes than American students, but they did spend more time attending school. American students, in turn, spent more time working and socializing with friends [5]. Most experts, is the level of support for education within the surrounding culture. Although cultural change is inevitably complex, it can be brought about in order to promote better educational outcomes [1]. We have a culture of sports and extracurricular activities. Most UIL extracurricular activities in Texas have and allow periods in the day just for those extracurricular activities like Band, Athletics, Number Sense, Debate, Theatre, and Academic Decathlon [3]. Principals can improve the academic climate of their schools by setting educational objectives and eliminating extracurricular programs hindering their realization. Recommendations include scheduling extracurricular activities outside the school day, minimizing non-instructional uses of class time, and restructuring administration to allow principals more time for instructional concerns [2]. Sources [1] http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com... [2]http://www.eric.ed.gov... [3] UILtexas.org [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

INTRODUCTION: 1) Con states that today's economy necessitates one to receive an education. He forgot to take into consideration athletes, musicians, actors, hair dressers, food workers, retail, designers, chefs, etc. whose typical grade school education has absolutely nothing to do with their careers. Further, we live in a capitalistic society meaning jobs and wages are determined by supply and demand - not grades. If an employer chooses to hire someone with the most education and best grades, then that is his right since he is after all the employer. However, technically the employer could just as easily hire someone with little to no education, or, that person could theoretically start a business of their own. My point is that while a formal education is beneficial, it's not necessary (except for the specific things mandated by law) - none of which include passing standardized tests in order to graduate HS. One can still receive amazing grades, graduate from Yale, and still succeed in the real world without ever having passed this standardized test. Con's argument that today's economy can afford non-education is therefore completely irrelevant to the resolution, as I haven't argued for no education, but rather not a mandated standardized test in order to graduate. 2) Con writes, "We must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools..." I never said that I was opposed to standardized tests to ensure that every school was up to par. I said that passing these tests shouldn't be mandatory for graduation. So, Con has failed to make a substantial argument here. 3) Con writes that my argument relating private to public schools is invalid, because this resolution specifically discusses private schools My point was that Con wishes these standards to be applied only to public schools; however, that is to suggest that private and parochial schools are incompetent and/or irresponsible. How do THOSE students get by or THOSE students stay afloat? The reality is that they have found other ways to be successful and public schools can as well. In this example, I'm making a comparison and explaining how these standardized tests aren't necessary, and thus this is a perfectly legitimate and relevant argument on my behalf. 3A) "She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THESE EXAMS discourage education." What I said in the last round was that if students aren't interested in the material, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education, and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. 3B) "The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life." Please explain specifically what material on this test is necessary to know in "real life." Also, note that we haven't agreed on any specific type of exam, so this will be harder for the Con then it seems. In fact, in the last round, I provided a cited source detailing why the exams now don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society. Con completely ignored this point. COUNTER-REBUTTAL: 1) Con says that if students choke/panic on the exam causing them to fail, it's a good thing because this happens to people in "real life." That's like saying, "Well, if a killer gets caught and goes to jail, on the bright side the killer's off the streets." Well, just because there's a 'bright side' (which there usually is in any situation) doesn't mean that it is the correct thing; it would still be bad for the killer to take someone's life in the first place. Now, I'm not comparing these exams to killers; however, my point is that if someone fails the exam, it's ultimately to their detriment and thus hardly beneficial. As such, Con has the burden of proving that these tests are still worth it, despite the damage they can do to one's future, interest or self-esteem. 2) Con next says that students have 8x to pass the exams. You'll note that there were never any specific tests cited in the opening of the debate, meaning for all I know, students might only have ONE chance to pass the exams on any particular test. 3) Just because one MIGHT have more than 1 chance to pass the test, my argument that the test is still unfair to certain people still stands. For instance, if the test was geared towards students who know mostly math, and I know mostly science, then the kid who knows mostly math has a better chance of passing. Meanwhile, I may take the test more than once (even 8 times) and still not be able to pass the test. Now apply various handicaps and learning disabilities in this regard; it strengthens my argument. 4) Next Con says, "In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exit exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur." Unless Con can prove that in the NEG world, fairness will always occur, then this is a moot point that fails to establish anything. All it says is that nothing will ever be fair, and in that case, then it doesn't matter whether or not we have exams at all. Our points cancel each other out on this one. 5) To continue about fairness, Con says that it doesn't matter whether or not the test is fair, because his value is education - not fairness. I've already explained how these exams discourage real education. Moreover, Con has the burden of proving that implementing an unfair test is the right thing to do. The reality is that failing these tests and not graduating would have negative impacts on one's life. As such, if a test is specifically designed that isn't fair to a certain group, then people will protest its legitimacy. 6) "Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters." There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. All types of intelligence are useful and beneficial to society. Without artistic knowledge, there'd be no art. Without musicians, no music. Without mathematicians, no math, etc. 7) "If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam." I never assumed that they would. 8) "She states that college require passing or taking several entrance exams like SAT. She never explains WHY SAT should be valued over Standardized exam, nor does she actually state why material on SAT is more beneficial to overall society." SATs measure one's knowledge (or rather test taking abilities) to some degree, i.e. in the fields of mathematics, comprehension, etc. That would mean that passing these exams wasn't necessary, but that students should opt to pass these exams if they saw fit (if it was necessary for their future endeavors). Thus in this regard I have not only explained how you could measure a student's knowledge/ability (via these exams), but also provided reasoning as to why this would be an appropriate alternative and still effective. 9) Con says that the cost of these tests doesn't matter, because the government is responsible for providing an education. I'll have to disagree on this one. I believe that the individuals (parents and older kids) are responsible for ensuring that kids get a decent education - not the government. CONCLUSION: I'm out of characters for now; however, note that I never agreed to debate this LD style, meaning I don't need a value or criterion. Thank you.

Fine sir. Well our school system is completely messed up. A student can take 4 or 5 classes, in which the extra elective is the 5th. If the student gets 100 percent for every class for 4 classes, then the GPA, out of a 12 point scale, could be a (12.5). That is if two of the 4 classes are AP or Honors classes. For the 5 classes, two of them AP or honors, the points in the classes would be 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, which is a GPA of (12.4). The 4 classes would be give you 13, 13, 12, 12. WHICH in turn, the 4 classes would give you a .1 higher GPA. What I'm trying say here is that some students would do anything to have the higher GPA. To receive that higher GPA they would have to take the 4 classes instead. If they took the 4 class they would be learning less. Just because they want a better grade instead of learning. GRADES ARE MORE IMPORTANT, apparently.

Thanks for the clarification. What term should I use to define education from kindergarten all the way through college? Once again I'd like to reiterate that there is a snowball effect. Mental health issues within our schools at elementary level is not as prominent but it begins the perpetration of the high levels of stress placed on students . Then throughout the years more towards high school and college it is more evident. Yes, the strength of the disability services versus mental health services was going to be my next argument. I totally agree with you on the statement that the complexity of mental illnesses and the difficulty to diagnose. This is in part why I believe our education system is failing to help students be aware and give them the resources to help them better cope with the stresses of school that may be causing anxiety and/or depression. No, I am not arguing that the American education system creates these mental illnesses. In that sense, I would be on the opposing side. I am stating that the American education system (for clarification purposes, I mean the United States) negatively impacts the mental health of students. I phrased it in this particular way because I know that there are many other contributing factors to one's mental health not just education. With this in mind, I would not say that depression and anxiety come from just tests and homework. Another huge factor is a students home life. However, discussing that impact would be driving the argument off topic. I would also like to clarify once again that I do not believe that tests and homework are the exact cause of depression and anxiety. Instead I argue that they are causing a huge amount of stress on students. Which in turn, when students don't have the right resources or coping mechanisms (why I stated that the lack of resources and help with mental health is part of the issue), they tend to develop symptoms and traits of depression and anxiety. If you would like I can include my research and elaborate on the link between stress and depression and anxiety.

After revieweing the source you listed, turns out that they are the cerators of educational learning material and obviously they are going to make claims in the favor of their products. I could provide similar souces from a variety of websites like:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.mtholyoke.edu..."Its a proven fact that students don't learn as comprehensivly from text books in this day and age as they use to."You disagree? If you actually think that someone is going to learn much more efficiently with boring text in a book that only gives you a feel for what is expected for the test or assignments I can't say you know what you're saying. Technology has advanced far beyond what we expected it to and thaat has helped people in all different fields. If we could apply such drastic technologies over what problamatic procedures we have currently, productivity is guranteed to increase.A more visual interactive teaching process instead of solving questions based on text information, we should instead be shown everything we'll be learning with computer software and everyone can have visual and interactive learning opportunities which has been proven to be more beneficial for students willing to learn.I am currently in Gr.12 so I've experienced everything first hand and truth be told, my marks have been much better when its visual and interactive. Your given source is the supplier of our learning materials and we don't want them to be the ones who benefit from student education. Students should be the ones benefitting from student education. Teachers don't have to help you if you understand better and thats why with computer software, you would learn more easy.One more thing, you're link also states textbook weaknesses and ways to overcome them, instead overcoming the problem, you should find a mroe efficient way entirly. This is a way to cover up flaws and with a better system, we could remove those flaws entirly.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Standardized testing is not necessarily beneficial to education.

I appreciate my opponent's response, and I will address the counterarguments presented. The PARCC testing is only officially used by a small group of states (approximately 15) and D.C. [1] Standardized tests are often criticized as a superficial and inaccurate measure of assessment. As my opponent mentioned, "The questions on standardized testing are not meant to measure deep and creative thinking - they are to measure if you can understand a math problem or read a passage correctly and understand that." If these tests are supposed to prepare students for college and careers, how can they exclude the assessment of creative or complex thinking? While some may believe that deep or analytical thinking cannot be acquired at school, I argue that it depends on the school and the teacher. Focusing on standardized testing and how to work the computer that administers the test can interfere with such endeavors.

The PARCC tests are already receiving criticism from parents, teachers, students, and administrators. During a public testimony session, parents and teachers complained about the new tests, which will be administered to all students in grades 3-11 in March and again in May. Some held "No PARCCING" signs, and others pulled their children out of class to have them testify. Marie Corfield, a teacher in Flemington, said the combination of the new Common Core standards and the implementation of PARCC tests has teachers "overwhelmed, stressed to the breaking point." "I feel like I'm living in a bad dream and can't wake up," Corfield said. [2]

Some schools have downsized or closed their libraries to make room for more computers that can be used for testing, said Arlen Kimmelman, president of the New Jersey Association of School Libraries. While the addition of more technology may seem beneficial, students don't know how to use it if the libraries aren't open for them to meet with librarians, Kimmelman said. "The testing shouldn't be squeezing out school library sources that are needed for students to be college and career ready," Kimmelman said. [2]

A sixth-grader isn't planning to take the exams. PARCC takes time away from classes that teach students to be creative, original, intelligent, and brave, she said. "Unfortunately, testifying in front of the State School Board isn't all fun and games, because I will now have to write up a report about my experience here today and present it to my social studies class." "There are

I'll cover some faulty logic in PRO's case, then summarize. ====== Topicality ====== 1. "when he outlined his plan, he merely stated: 'The should government continue to maintain it's monopoly on public schools, and allow students to attend whichever public school they choose, provided their grades warrant it.' This has nothing to do with exit exams" We can't compare grades to see if they 'warrant it' without a single standard by which to score, ergo, standardized exit exams. Even if I didn't make that clear in that sentence, it's pretty obvious reading the 7,900 other characters accompanying it what the value of the exams is. I've stated it, and I've reiterated it (multiple times.) ============== Rich/ Poor Dichotomy ============== A. My opponent says that the students who don't switch schools will now be worse off. He has given no reason to believe this claim. At minimum, they are receiving the same education they would have gotten otherwise. However, I posit that my plan actually HELPS those students. Read the multiple arguments I've made (which he seemingly forgot about in his last speech) that say allowing students to switch schools creates competition. This means the bad schools have to work hard to get better, as opposed to the current system where their low education level remains stagnant. This benefits the students in those schools, because now those schools will have to improve or be shut down, which means you can take my opponent's point and vote for me on it. B. i. This is a flat out lie. His 'stossel card' doesn't say anything about schools not being shut down. Read it for yourself. ii. I know of a school in my area that was disaccredited[1] last year by the school board. It's not too uncommon. iii. Under my counterplan, they will have to shut down underperforming schools because of the low attendance. ====== My Case ====== ========= Inherently Bad ========= My opponent just re-posts a bunch of quotes from some professors (I think they're professors, at least,) who are apparently infallible. My arguments on this area of the debate were: a. If the government is inherently bad, it doesn't make sense that every single country that outperforms us has a government monopoly on education also. b. The ability of parents to send their children to different schools if the current school is failing gives the politicians, now, an incentive to actually care. c. His sources all criticize the status quo. I'm not advocating the status quo. d. Even if there were a problem. We could easily fix it. Just tell the politicians to fix it or vote news ones to office. Rather than give any substantive argument to any of these, he just states that these people he is citing have allegedly claimed that the government is inherently bad and can't be fixed. He can't explain why that this is so, except that some dude says it is. He doesn't address any of the arguments I make, except that "they're wrong because Harrison has to be right!" He has no logical reason why the government is inherently bad, so you can drop this argument right here. ============= Blatant Contradiction ============= In Round 3, my opponent says: "I'm not advocating we privatize education." "I don't have to advocate we privatize anything." "I don't have to advocate an alternative." In Round 4, he says: "I'm not saying that I don't have to offer an advocacy; I do" PRO made it pretty clear that he wasn't advocating anything in particular last round. I'd say it's more than a little unfair for him to now turn around in the last round and say "Oh, I've been advocating this all along; he just misunderstood." === Fiat === Fiat is Latin for 'let it be done.' [2] He seems to be arguing that "Well, even if he's got the better plan, the politicians won't go through with it." 1. If you buy that, what are we debating about? Which our plans is more likely to make it through congress? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the resolution asks what we 'ought' to do, not what we are more likely to do. 2. Raising the difficulty of an exit exam isn't a particularly controversial issue. There's no reason why Congress would oppose it, rather, evidence has proven the opposite. The number of exit exams has been steadily increasing over the last few decades. [3] 3. He conveniently doesn't mention what he's been advocating here. If raising the standard is too big of a request to get through Congress, what hope does his plan of abolishing the government school system have of being passed? Absolutely none! Going by his own logic, you'd vote for me here anyway, because his evidence shows that the status quo stinks, and my solution is the only one that Congress would pass. ============ Abusive Argument ============ "I offered a very specific standard; measure a student by their grades over four years of coursework." 1. He didn't so much as mention this in Round 1 or 2. This was an entirely new argument hidden in 1 sentence in the middle of a paragraph in Round 3. 2. That does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. My original argument here was that we need a way to compare schools based on education, not advertisement. His idea of coursework doesn't do this. Every school, every class, has different coursework. There is no way to compare one student's 'coursework' grade to another. ====== Summary ====== 1. You vote on him not having a standard. At one point PRO said he was getting rid of government monopoly. When I defeated that argument, he turned around and said "I don't have to advocate a standard." In this last speech, he first says that he has been advocating a standard all along, then changes the standard to requiring students to complete coursework. His position has changed at least 4 times, and he's losing on every position anyway. He is PRO and instigator. He hasn't even advocated anything, so there's no way he can win this debate! 2. The only disadvantage he gives to these tests comes from his faulty logic. Two people said the government works poorly. Schools are run by the government. These school exams will work poorly. He hasn't been able to justify 'why' the government works poorly at all, or why those problems will continue to happen, or why they can't be fixed by my counterplan, just that "Harrison says so." Absent that, he has no case. 3. He never tries to argue that his system doesn't make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That's a clear vote CON. 4. His only solution for comparing the educational standards of different schools is given halfway through the debate, in no more than a short paragraph. It doesn't even work, though, because this 'coursework' varies by teacher! 5. Yet another argument he has missed in his last speech is that my counterplan, which allows students to choose their own school, fosters competition and forces public schools to keep high standards. 6. He has taken this debate so far off track, that he seems to forget what his standard was, which is preventing government monopoly. I've certainly won the argument that government monopoly is good (in his last 2 speeches, he even says that he doesn't advocate privatization) so the fact that exams strengthen government monopoly wins me the vote by his standards! This debate has a clear-cut victor: CON ===== Sources ===== [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... This has been quite a good debate, even if this topic is already through. I actually have 260 characters left, 250 more than usual.

My opponent appears to concede. “ It is completely true that small amounts of stress can be good for a person. While it doesn’t have the “many benefits” my opponent states, the one he brings up is valid. “ My first point stands that grades create a small amount of necessary stress. Which is actually beneficial and provides motivation thus furthering education. Furthermore my opponent is never able to fully rebut the following contentions. 2.Efficiency Not only are grades beneficial for students but also teachers greatly benefit from qualitatively quantifying the performance of students. For example letter grading systems provides teachers with concrete and effeicent ways of evaluating mastery of course content by students. Furthermore if a high school student applies to college, one major factor that the admissions office consider are grades. When college students apply to graduate school, the admissions office again considers grades. When students apply for a job, the employer considers the students grades. Without grades, post-secondary schools and employers will have no way to know whether the student learned the material well or badly. Employers would obviously prefer to hire computer programmers and lawyers who achieved top grades rather than those that received the worst grades because top grades are a proxy for learning. The students with the best grades learned the material better than the other students and are therefore likely to make better workers. UC Santa Cruz, for example, used to have a holistic rating system, where each student merely received an "essay" as feedback from each professor. The campus switched to grades so that graduate schools would have some legitimate way to measure students' performance (against each other and against other students from other schools). 3.Grades provide feedback to the student Students might *feel* that they understand the material or that they are learning. However, that subjective feeling must be tested by some objective, external measurement. A student that *thinks* has learned the material may have a rude awakening when he takes a quiz and scores 20/100. Without this external feedback, the student would never know whether he truly understood. Psychological studies have found that all people have a natural bias to believe that they are above average. For students, this translates to most students believing that they have above average knowledge of the subject matter. Without external feedback to dissipate this bias, students that don't really understand the material would not realize that they need to study more or harder. 4. The educational system would crumble without grades. My opponent would have to offer a rival educational system without grades. It is incoherent to talk about whether a student has learned a certain subject matter, without somehow grading their knowledge. Without some tangible form of knowledge, any attempt of a student or teacher to figure out how much a student had learned would be nothing more than a subjective guess based on cognitive bias (such as a teacher saying that students who he or she liked "knew" the material better). Without grades, students that did not talk much during class would likely be marginalized because the teacher would assume they had not learned anything. Thus, I negate the resolution and argue that grades are on the whole necessary and beneficial and the educational system is better with them. The outcome of this debate should be clear. To help students learn, to stop motivation from being crushed, to increase beneficial levels of stress, to increase knowledge retention, to teach kids to accept important feedback, to increase motivation, andhave a coherent educational system , I urge a con ballot.

With the rigorous standards imposed by federal and state lawmakers concerning education a casual observer might believe that education is held in high regulars. One might look at the numerous tests a student must take in order to receive their diploma and think that they will exit high school ready to face the problems and challenges of the real world. This same observe would surly be please by the even more rigorous standards and tests imposed on collage students with there abundant work loads, dense text books, and knowledgeable professors and all. Why education seams glorious in America these days from this perspective, but is it? I mean what do all these tests and standards mean? Is a person who attains a diploma truly smart or were they able to just slip on by. Its obvious that not everyone who graduates deserves to but to what degree is education actually relevant to one selected vocation? Diplomas have suffered inflation just like the U.S. dollar and like the dollars inflation no one want to admit it. Jobs that once required an associates degree now require a bachelor's, one that required a bachelor's degree now require a masters and so on. Educational digress are susceptible to the same supply and demand law as any other valuable commodities, specifically the more people obtain degrees the less valuable they become. Since the 1970's the amount of people attending community collages and four-year collages has increased significantly. This increase in the amount of people obtaining diplomas has led to the increase of standards imposed by employers. And what's with the curriculum? The amount of remediation is discussing, obviously something is not working if students must be subjected to the same material and go the same courses over and over again. Why must a student study the same math problems over and over again in high school and collage? Why would they study them in collage if they have no particular relevance to their future vocation? I submit that irrelevant classes only hinder and hurt a student's academic performance by forcing them to split their time between classes more pertinent to their future vocation and classes that are simply irrelevant. Perhaps if course curriculum were more relevant to student's lives and future vocations such levels of remediation would not be necessary.

While your argument is valid there is also increasing evidence to show that the idea of year round schooling is not going to increase student achievements nor will it be an easy adjustment for students, parents and teachers. According to an article in the New York Times, schools that recently instituted a year round school plan did not improve achievement scores or ratings as compared to other schools in the state.

Challenge accepted. Pray, what is 'more education'? Also, with all due respect, if private schools are 'better'....than why is your grammar as well as your spelling not up to par? Surely, if you are arguing for your point, the very fact that your opening statement is a poor effort proves otherwise?

To clarify, this is the LD debate topic for September and October of 2009. Both debaters shall be debating "resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. " This debate shall follow a slightly altered LD format. R1 is for introductions and no arguments. In R2-4, both sides will present cases, starting with Neg. The structure should follow: R1: Introductions R2: NC; AC/AR R3: NR; 2AR R4: 2NR; 3AR Both sides should present LD cases and argue in the spirit of LD (no plans/counterplans etc. ). This means that Aff and Neg must both present and argue for value structures in addition to their main body of arguments.

Furthermore, I will attempt to illustrate the importance of schooling as it relates to education. Due to Pro's lack of clarification regarding the Round rules, I will refrain from posting my argument in order to give Pro a fair opportunity to state their full argument. However, I will state for the record that I do agree with Pro's notion that education and school are different concepts. They are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, and certainly not distant relatives, as I believe Pro was attempting to convey.

School, in this time, is bad. It squanders kids attitude towards themselves, it disengages them from learning and causes them to be disinterested, it weeds out the goody-two-shoes and overlooks real intelligence and talent, it causes students to become uniform and judge themselves by one measure (a bad one at that) and thus makes people feel inadequate. Also it encourages bullying, opposes individuality, and squanders the talents of children whom may, or may not, even know they have. 'if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its a failure its whole life'

I would like to apologize to my opponent for upsetting the balance and agree not to post in the last round. Lets continue. I will first rebut my opponents case and then move on to rebuild mine. I will group my attacks on his value and criterion. His Value of progressive post-industrialism or PPI as put is defined as "the evolution of industrialist societies into more technologically advanced and culturally progressed civilizations dedicated to humanist principles of justice and human dignity". What my opponent wants to achieve here basically is society progressing through technology and education which he is trying to achieve through accountability through educational systems. My opponent who wants students to take S.E.E. (standardize exit exams) thinks this will make society evolve and become more civilized but this is unpragmatic. If we were to look at my contentions we could see that S.E.E.'s don't actually help society progress at all because of how many kids are needing remedial classes as I stated in my CON 1. Also the schools are not being held accountable if we were to have S.E.E in place because as I stated in my case they have the ability to fluctuate the bar to there liking so that the test are extremely easy so that students can pass and the school gets rewarded for having high test scores but the students are the ones who get harmed. CON 1: "The American economy is faltering on the global scale because of inadequacies in the educational system" "Domestic and international economies have shifted, and a new base of skills are required for the workforce. In the last 10 years over 3 million manufacturing jobs were lost while 15 million service sector jobs were created. These new jobs required basic math and English levels that were found to be lacking in many American high school graduates." As I stated in my case this is due to S.E.E. because they still pass people who don't know what the need to go on into the work force and be a productive member of society. So this evidence shows a direct cause of what S.E.E. do if we would to force them upon students. I don't see what European nations have to do with this topic this clearly states the United States. Con 2:"Only high-stakes exams can achieve any form of accountability." Apply my attack on his V and C to his Con 2 On to my case V: As he said we both value societal benefit but only one of us is achieving it. He is not achieving a progress at all, he is in fact hindering it by making students take S.E.E. as I proved throughout my case. The Aff states that without E.E we could actually have productive members of society by teaching them a curriculum that is not limited and by making them analyze situations and think critically. C: We can still achieve a valued diploma because if the person who is graduating actually has knowledge and going into society as a productive citizen then it is valued unlike one that is give after taking S.E.E. Regarding the definition; all states have their own standardize exam so the def. meets state. Con 1:S.E.E. harm them (CON 1 and 2) I don't understand how my opponent is getting rid of these harms. Con 2: As I stated the teachers have to teach a curriculum that is related to the test therefore limiting them to what they can teach. Thank you

Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 Contention 2: PUNISHES TEACHERS FOR UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS Sub point 1: Academic achievement is very difficult to define which is what merit pay is determined by. a.David Riegel, a former classroom teacher, argued, "Teacher evaluation is more complicated than simply looking at test scores. It requires careful examination of specific teacher behaviors in the classroom, of how a teacher relates to students, and his or her command of the subject matter they are teaching. This cannot be judged simply by looking at test scores, which may be high in some cases in spite of uninspiring instruction: it requires an effective and highly skilled administrator who knows what she is looking for when she observes a teacher interacting with her students, and who is skilled at helping teachers improve. In short, pay for performance provides an easy way out when quality supervision of instruction is what should really be taking place." b. [Mary Gryphon of the Cato Institute says, "The system can't simply reward high scores. If it did, it would favor teachers in wealthy neighborhoods whose students came to school with excellent skills. Nor can the system reward only improvement. If it did, it would unfairly penalize teachers whose students were already scoring too well to post large gains." Sub point 2: Doesn't account for the different types of students. a.But success in terms of test scores depends on many factors, mostly too obvious to mention, outside the teachers' control. Not the least among these, and perhaps less obvious to outside observers, is the support of fellow practitioners. In many cases, a child's learning requires the support of others besides just the classroom teacher. – david reigel b.You can't pick your students upon whom your salary might depend. Those in favor of merit pay often use the private sector as a comparison point, saying essentially that most people are paid by how hard they work or how many cases they win or how much they sell. And all that's true. But a salesman isn't forced to spend his time on customers who clearly don't want to buy his products. Lawyers don't typically take cases they can't win. – David Reigel


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

The significance of grades is often overemphasized. Society places undue importance on grades, compelling students to study subjects that do not align with their interests or are unlikely to be relevant in their future careers. As a result, these students may receive poor grades, leading others to unfairly label them as unintelligent. This highlights the potential drawbacks of prioritizing grades in the educational system.

I look forward to an intellectually stimulating exercise, and one that is happily non-partisan in nature! Dear DDOians, we've all been there haven't we? Either in High school or University, the anxious moment of walking into class, and not having any idea what can be in front of you. .. I think we all know what the nature of the exam is like. Something I think we can all connect with very easily! C1: Exams Exasperate Mental Health Issues My first argument is straight forward. Exams ought to be abolished as they torment the very minds it seeks to evaluate in the first place. Every year from High Schoolers to University members, charities, the University medical services themselves become flooded with students. The students often already have depression or anxiety for instance, and have added difficulty in studying. Its completely unfair. Some students don't even have any mental health issues, will develop them. For instance, a student with family stresses, work stresses, and school stresses, doing an exam can be the final straw that breaks the camels back. The overall goal of academic institutions is to educate the populace, and because exams damage students instead of enhancing their critical analysis, I think this is grounds for removal. Source: . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... C2: Exams Do Not Actually Show Intelligence Exams are utilized to show pure information recall in a given point and time, that point and time being when the exam is, and what the professor, or teacher opts to place on the exam. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually show how intelligent the said student is, only how excellent their memory is. Worse yet, is that the questions are subject to what the Professor or Teacher deems important to the course to be on the exam. If a student finds something else about the course interesting, and remembers that information over what the head of the class deemed important, its actually worse for the student. It makes them look like they've learned nothing, when in actuality they have. This is a frequent issue, as sometimes students will complain and appeal exams on the basis of material not even being taken up in class. Combine this argument with C1, and clearly exams at best only test how the student keeps their cool. If one can even say that. Source: . http://www.ascd.org... C3: The Same Exam Could Have Different Marks In a lot of cases, the exams are not marked by professors. Which can lead to some serious issues. For instance, if a grader is in a bad mood, and is marking essay exams, they might not actually give as many marks as is deserved, or vice-verse. Personally, I've been though this in my economics course in University. I noticed my grader didn't add the total marks right, and brought it into the professor to adjust the mark, instead of getting an additional bonus mark, she remarked the whole thing and my exam netted 10 more marks. These are not small discrepancies, and this is not the only time this has happened, it happens to thousands of students every year, which highlights how ineffective exams are. How are professors and teachers suppose to agree on what a student knows, when they cannot even agree among themselves what is worthy of 1,2, or 3 marks? The answer is they cannot. Source: . http://harvardmagazine.com... C4: Essays Are Much Better Tools of Evaluation With an essay, organizational skills, critical thinking, time management, research, spelling, and grammar skills are utilized within the work. The Professor/Teacher can make a much better evaluation of a students' skills within that paper than on an exam. Because students can ask their teachers/professors for help during their completing of the assignment, it leaves much less room for error on behalf of the student, but the student can work on their skills while completing the job (the professor can show them how to do research if need be). This cannot happen in an exam. The nature of an exam would require giving away an answer which defiles its very purpose should one of these skills be lacking in the student. The exam does not always utilize critical thinking, and it is a poor judge of time management skills (especially if the professor made the exam time and size impossible to complete, which often happens). With students on an exam, cramming is a common study method with little avail. Source: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... C5: Cheating Lastly, exams can be cheated on. If someone plagiarizes an essay for instance, or falsifies a lab report, the methodology of the lab, and turnitin. com can detect if something is amiss. It is much easier to cheat on an exam and get away with it than it is an essay for instance, enhancing academic integrity. Upon asking students themselves, one paper points out that 59% of students cheated on an exam once, and 39% were repeaters cheating more than once. Compare this to essays, in which only 33% would cheat comparatively. Sure, cheating will always be an issue insofar that assignments will always be given, but if this simple solution enhances academic integrity just a little more, then its silly to continue with exams, and instead we should implement other assignments. Source: . https://charactercounts.org... Thank you! Over to my opponent.

I believe that Schools focus too heavily on what your grade is rather than what you are learning. Currently, schools are pressuring student on keeping their grades up. Sure having good grades is good, but in some cases they don't measure your knowledge. You can really understand a subject and know exactly what the material is, but none of that matters because you didn't turn in one homework assignment and that brought your grade down 1%. According to schools, that's the end of the world. Now you'll never be able to get into an Ivy League school all because you didn't turn in a homework assignment. Also going by that mindset, its okay if you don't understand the material because there is always time for you to relearn an entire lesson while everyone rockets ahead. There is no way to win in the American School systems. The stress that teachers put on the students for turning in assignments than they do about how well you understand it. Any student can get answers for their homework off of the Internet but a true intellect would be able to do the work, but occasionally forget to turn it in. I don't think grades should be determined by any sort of participation or homework grades, but instead on the more important things such as quizzes and tests. I believe schools emphasize the importance of Grades more than intelligence. Source: http://www.education.com...

Hello everyone it's been awhile hasn't it....don't think any of you remember me. Any way I think my opponent for making this an LD debate and wish him luck in further rounds. Lets get started I affirm the resolution Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not to be required to pass Standardize Exams to graduate. Before we start this debate I would like to define the following: Required: By necessity or law Public High School: A secondary school in the United States supported by public funds and providing free education for children of a community or district. Standardize Exit Exams a test a student may be required to take in high school in order to show proficiency in a class or to exhibit basic proficiency in math, English, Science and other core subjects to gain a high school diploma. Graduate: To be granted an academic degree or diploma Moving on to my value for this round, I will be using that of Societal Progress. By having a Standardize test that is supposed to measure the quality of education be flawed, which I will further elaborate in my case, and do more harm than good does not help education the slightest bit and adds no value to high school diplomas that students have to take standardize test to achieve. Students are walking away with diplomas in hands but with limited knowledge. This is because the tests are extremely easy and can be lowered to the states liking which awards the school and not the students. If we were to get rid of Exit exams we would have students actually walking away with valued diplomas that can actually contribute to society bettering it as a whole than those who have none. For my criterion I will be using that of Pragmatism. In an ideal world we would have just one national Standardize Test so that the states wouldn't have control over them so the couldn't fluctuate the bar to make it unchallenging and extremely easy. But unfortunately we don't and unfortunately they do. There are studies showing that Exit Exams harm students and teach them nothing. So if we were to be pragmatic about this we would see that these are not working and not helping society progress and need to be rid off. Con 1: Exit Exams are flawed and do more harm than good to students. Even though students are passing Exit exams, according to the National Center for Education Statistics 40% of college students are taking remedial education. Texas colleges reported in-state high school graduates needed more, not less, remedial classes after high-stakes testing was introduced. Also the success of the schools is dependent on the performance of the students. The federal funds are given only to those schools that perform well, which adds an incredible amount of pressure on public schools to constantly evaluate their performance or fluctuate the bar that has to be passed. What this leads to is an increase in school dropouts. Harvard University found that students in the bottom 10% of achievement were 33% more likely to drop out of school in states with graduation test. The National Research Council found that low-performing high school students who are held back do less well academically, are much worse off socially, and are far likelier to drop out than equally weak students who are promoted. What is happening here is that students who are passing exit exams are going on to college but needing remedial courses, which defeats the purpose of them in the first place. What they are supposed to do is filter out students who know what is required to from those who don't but it still passes those who don't know because the states have the bar so lowered that the students don't learn anything and need remedial classes. All it's really doing is raising the dropout rates and hurting their education. Being pragmatic about this and getting rid of them would set a realistic bar for students to pass and not have as much pressure on them therefore having more students walking away with diplomas to help contribute and progress society. Con 2: Do to Exit Exams, curriculum flexibility is limited. The state requires teachers to teach a curriculum that is related to the test. This leaves a very narrow opportunity to teach non-related test material. Because the test are so basic and are only multiple choice they don't make the students analyze situations, think critically nor do they make them conduct research which are important attributes, according to the National Research Council, that students need in college. Also Susan Brooks-Young reports that every teacher expresses frustration about no having time to allow students to explore and create their own meaning through project base learned activities. As a result the joy of learning and teaching has been significantly diminished what the exit exams are doing is getting rid of the most important skills that a student needs in college. They lower the bar so low that anyone, without the knowledge thy need, can be able to pass it. If we were to remove exit exams teachers can teach the skills that are required for college and help society progress. I will now end Round 1 and pass it over to my opponent

My argument against home-schooling is mainly with the quality of the education. There is no real set of checks and balances in place (outside of taking the SAT's) to ensure the quality of what is being taught. I had a friend that was home-schooled, not because his family was religious (the most common reason) but because they knew that was the only way he would get a high school diploma. As a nation the US has fallen far behind other developed nations in the area of education. This is a time when we should be raising the bar for education, not letting people teach their kids that the world is 6000 years old and we rode around on dinosaurs at on time. Home-schooling also limits the colleges that a student may apply and attend. Most private colleges will not accept a HS diploma that was earned at home, and for very good reason. My argument remains that until one can guarantee the quality of the education received home-schooling shouldn't be allowed.

There are more than enough high-end privately funded schools where the rich can send their 'privileged' children (and pay for a high class tutor to take them through test paper techniques). The focus of expansion should instead be on the less able students (the mentally disabled). The current standard of them means that they are often merely in a special section of a mainstream school very isolated and not amongst others like them. They often have no friends because they are trying to make friends with people far above their intellectual capacity. These are the students we should cater for by putting them in schools specially tailored for their needs, and if we expanded them the increased competitiveness would lower the prices of the schools (because the supply of the facilities would increase)(because 'special schools' are currently extremely expensive).

So many students have coasted throughout middle school and since teachers aren't able to fail their students, students could literally do nothing in elementary school and still pass. Having standardized tests would not only make students have to do well but also teachers. Teachers in elementary school are absolutely ridiculous. There's no pressure on them to actually teach students anything. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better.

To properly conclude, the speaker has brought many valuable points to the discussion. However, these methods are not always sound. To begin, the speaker compares to Long Beach, California, even though it has a higher per capita murder rate of 7.4% to 5.1% of NYC (baruch.cuny.edu). Clearly, this should not be possible with lbschools.net, boasting a 90% decrease. Frankly, it seems like inflated numbers, using a small sample space to predict the population, instead of using larger ones. Regarding disciple, "Depression and PTSD are some of the long-term effects when discipline becomes abuse" (CNN.com). To have much of it, regardless of corporal or not, is not useful. Nevertheless, this was a wonderful debate that yielded many valid solutions.

INTRODUCTION: 1) Con states that today's economy necessitates one to receive an education. He forgot to take into consideration athletes, musicians, actors, hair dressers, food workers, retail, designers, chefs, etc. whose typical grade school education has absolutely nothing to do with their careers. Further, we live in a capitalistic society meaning jobs and wages are determined by supply and demand - not grades. If an employer chooses to hire someone with the most education and best grades, then that is his right since he is after all the employer. However, technically the employer could just as easily hire someone with little to no education, or, that person could theoretically start a business of their own. My point is that while a formal education is beneficial, it's not necessary (except for the specific things mandated by law) - none of which include passing standardized tests in order to graduate HS. One can still receive amazing grades, graduate from Yale, and still succeed in the real world without ever having passed this standardized test. Con's argument that today's economy can afford non-education is therefore completely irrelevant to the resolution, as I haven't argued for no education, but rather not a mandated standardized test in order to graduate. 2) Con writes, "We must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools..." I never said that I was opposed to standardized tests to ensure that every school was up to par. I said that passing these tests shouldn't be mandatory for graduation. So, Con has failed to make a substantial argument here. 3) Con writes that my argument relating private to public schools is invalid, because this resolution specifically discusses private schools My point was that Con wishes these standards to be applied only to public schools; however, that is to suggest that private and parochial schools are incompetent and/or irresponsible. How do THOSE students get by or THOSE students stay afloat? The reality is that they have found other ways to be successful and public schools can as well. In this example, I'm making a comparison and explaining how these standardized tests aren't necessary, and thus this is a perfectly legitimate and relevant argument on my behalf. 3A) "She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THESE EXAMS discourage education." What I said in the last round was that if students aren't interested in the material, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education, and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. 3B) "The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life." Please explain specifically what material on this test is necessary to know in "real life." Also, note that we haven't agreed on any specific type of exam, so this will be harder for the Con then it seems. In fact, in the last round, I provided a cited source detailing why the exams now don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society. Con completely ignored this point. COUNTER-REBUTTAL: 1) Con says that if students choke/panic on the exam causing them to fail, it's a good thing because this happens to people in "real life." That's like saying, "Well, if a killer gets caught and goes to jail, on the bright side the killer's off the streets." Well, just because there's a 'bright side' (which there usually is in any situation) doesn't mean that it is the correct thing; it would still be bad for the killer to take someone's life in the first place. Now, I'm not comparing these exams to killers; however, my point is that if someone fails the exam, it's ultimately to their detriment and thus hardly beneficial. As such, Con has the burden of proving that these tests are still worth it, despite the damage they can do to one's future, interest or self-esteem. 2) Con next says that students have 8x to pass the exams. You'll note that there were never any specific tests cited in the opening of the debate, meaning for all I know, students might only have ONE chance to pass the exams on any particular test. 3) Just because one MIGHT have more than 1 chance to pass the test, my argument that the test is still unfair to certain people still stands. For instance, if the test was geared towards students who know mostly math, and I know mostly science, then the kid who knows mostly math has a better chance of passing. Meanwhile, I may take the test more than once (even 8 times) and still not be able to pass the test. Now apply various handicaps and learning disabilities in this regard; it strengthens my argument. 4) Next Con says, "In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exit exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur." Unless Con can prove that in the NEG world, fairness will always occur, then this is a moot point that fails to establish anything. All it says is that nothing will ever be fair, and in that case, then it doesn't matter whether or not we have exams at all. Our points cancel each other out on this one. 5) To continue about fairness, Con says that it doesn't matter whether or not the test is fair, because his value is education - not fairness. I've already explained how these exams discourage real education. Moreover, Con has the burden of proving that implementing an unfair test is the right thing to do. The reality is that failing these tests and not graduating would have negative impacts on one's life. As such, if a test is specifically designed that isn't fair to a certain group, then people will protest its legitimacy. 6) "Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters." There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. All types of intelligence are useful and beneficial to society. Without artistic knowledge, there'd be no art. Without musicians, no music. Without mathematicians, no math, etc. 7) "If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam." I never assumed that they would. 8) "She states that college require passing or taking several entrance exams like SAT. She never explains WHY SAT should be valued over Standardized exam, nor does she actually state why material on SAT is more beneficial to overall society." SATs measure one's knowledge (or rather test taking abilities) to some degree, i.e. in the fields of mathematics, comprehension, etc. That would mean that passing these exams wasn't necessary, but that students should opt to pass these exams if they saw fit (if it was necessary for their future endeavors). Thus in this regard I have not only explained how you could measure a student's knowledge/ability (via these exams), but also provided reasoning as to why this would be an appropriate alternative and still effective. 9) Con says that the cost of these tests doesn't matter, because the government is responsible for providing an education. I'll have to disagree on this one. I believe that the individuals (parents and older kids) are responsible for ensuring that kids get a decent education - not the government. CONCLUSION: I'm out of characters for now; however, note that I never agreed to debate this LD style, meaning I don't need a value or criterion. Thank you.

Before I begin talking about my views on this issue, I would like to say that this topic you brought up is an issue debated throughout decades until today. I am lucky enough to take this humble opportunity to show my understanding and opinions regarding this topic, as well as to give viewers and the general audience more in-depth insights. According to the Oxford dictionary, there are 5 main definitions of Education : The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. The theory and practice of teaching. A body of knowledge acquired while being educated. Information about or training on a particular subject. An enlightening experience. (Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...)In general and in context of this topic, the education we are talking about in school (assuming you are talking about any type of school in general) is about how teachers impart their knowledge through the school platform to the students so as to enlighten them. This can be achieved through an array of approaches and systems, such as having group discussions, teamwork, projects, experiments. However, in your opinion, schools should teach according to the races, genders and IQs of students by separating them into groups. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why your explanation might differ from mine. Firstly, perhaps you didn't explain why the intellectual and physical difference between races is an issue in education. I read an article recently entitled "Students of all races and ethnicities benefit from ethnically diverse middle schools" issued on 20th June this year. Jaana Juvonen, a professor of psychology at the UCLA, conducted a research. It gives information about ethnic diversity in schools and surprisingly, it shows a wide range of personal and social benefits for students of all races and ethnicities from attending ethnically diverse schools, such as students feeling less vulnerable, reported better attitudes across ethnic groups and believed teachers treated all students more fairly and equally in more diverse schools. Also, when multiple ethnic groups are of relatively equal size, there may be more of a balance of power, with one or more large ethnic groups less likely to exert their influence over one or more small ethnic groups. This shows a more harmonious and colourful environment for studying. (Reference: https://phys.org...)Secondly, in regards to your opinion on the setbacks of gender diversity in schools such as the "romantic drama" between male and female students. I would argue that although what you said about romance in school is something considered as a problem in some way that is happening currently, and although dating in adolescence is still common, the "problem" is actually fading gradually every year. According to statistics provided by the childtrends.com, students in the eighth, tenth, and twelfth grades in 2013 were less likely to date than they were in 1991. The change in the behaviour of twelfth-graders was more surprising, where the proportion of youth who did not date was more than doubled, from 14% in 1991 to 38% in 2013. Meanwhile, the proportion of tenth-graders who never date rose from 28% to 44%, and the proportion of eighth-graders increased from 48% to 60%. Overall, we are seeing a downturn in the number of people in schools dating. If your concern is about the disadvantages brought about by students dating from a rather young age such as distractions while studying, perhaps that will be uncommon in the foreseeable future. Besides, having gender balance in schools help students prepare for their future, social and people skills, as they will work in companies where gender diversity is common in the workplace. One of the many uses of schools is to simulate such a situation. (Reference : https://www.childtrends.org...)Lastly, separating students by IQ might undermine the quality of education in classrooms as a whole. Firstly I would like to say that it is rather difficult to quantify IQ. Sure you can give students tests and check their scores, but there is a phenomenon where some student may be naturally intelligent, but they do not perform well in tests, and vice versa. However, I will still explain my point. Allow me to first talk about what will happen if schools were to separate students according to their IQs. Obviously, students of higher scores will be assigned to one class and those that have rather low scores will be assigned to low-level groups. You may argue that teachers can teach students better this way, as teachers can teach specifically and teaching materials can be tailor-made according to students' abilities. However, a problem emerges, where the smarter students will get even smarter, but the weaker students getting weaker. You may ask why is that? As Chinese sayings have stood the test of time, allow me to explain what I mean by using a simple Chinese saying. It goes, "People live on mountain when they are near the mountain; and live on water when near water.". The message conveyed is that since humans have to take resources from nature for survival, thus different environments influence people's way of life. In this context, as the smarter students have their successful way of studying and also they are placed in a more academic environment, by putting them together, it is easier for them to achieve more in such a setting. On the other hand, unfortunately, since weaker students might not have a consistent way or system of studying, by putting them together in the same group, the environment might not be as academic as that of the smarter students, hence they might fail to achieve more together. Instead, students with different abilities should come together as a group in the same environment. You might ask what is the good of it? Taking Hong Kong, where I currently live in, as an example. in Hong Kong's Diploma of Education (HKDSE) system, the lowest grade a student can ever get is level U, the highest is level 5** (which is equivalent to 7). When the reporters interviewed the students who got 5** in the public exam, one of the students actually thought that they learnt from weaker students. Before the examination, when the students were still studying in school, the weaker students always ask 5** students questions. Not only can weaker students imitate those smarter students and learn from them, but also allowing the 5** students to benefit from teaching weaker students as it reminds them of specific concepts taught in class. This shows that having the students with different IQs and abilities sharing the same environment can be such an ideal situation! (Reference: https://books.google.com.hk...)To be honest, I have thought of an education system where schools are segregating students into different groups, as it is easier for teachers to teach according to the needs of each student. However, it is evident that the advantages of keeping different students of different races, genders and abilities together simply outweighs its disadvantages. Thank you for taking time to read my opinions. Please correct me if I made any mistakes or misunderstanding.

Rebuttals 1. "SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years." Standardized tests are taken on one day out of a year. This day may not be a good judgement of the skills the student has. I, for example, took the Pre-ACT (which is required in my state) after getting a concussion. It is well documented that SATs are not a good judge of a student's skills. A single test score at a young age that shows below average skills may cause a student to be placed in a Special Education program, which are programs that cause a habit cycle that children rarely escape from. This, of course, harms their future. Furthermore, selection based on these programs is racially influenced, as well as influenced by district, breeding disparity. The test scores also can cause a child to be held back a year, which often does not lead to better preformance than the first year in year two. [1]2. "SATs are not expensive at all, and only cost $7 per student". While it may be true that the required tests taken by students are not particularly expensive, the cost of them is often not even worth what the tests will give to the student. There is no evidence that testing actually improves students scores [2] - in fact, in countries like Finland, where standardized tests have been eradicated have had higher test scores [3] than other countries. 3. "SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material."Unfortunately, the idea that a teacher will be judged based off test scores leads to a way of teaching that is detrimental towards the student. Often the teacher teaches to what the child will be tested on, not in the best interest of the student. Of course, this breeds a variety of teaching in the U.S.A. I like to call "taught to know, not to learn". [4]4. "SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer, etc.."While that is true, to get into a program like becoming a pilot, lawyer, doctor, whatever else, you will have graduated from college, which almost always makes it necessary to have taken the SAT (not just a general Standardized Test, to be clear, the one that is taken by juniors out of 2200 points) and/or the ACT, which is good practice. Furthermore, optional Standardized tests would mean that students where practice in Standardized tets would be beneficial could take the tests, but where it wouldn't be (ex., I have a friend who has epilepsy and violently seizes upon taking any SATs from stress - I too am an epileptic, and tend to have seizures, though much less minor, during tests of that kind) they wouldn't have to take it. 5. "SATs show what level a student is at."In essence this is just a restatement of #1. 6. "SATs strengthen test taking skills for young ones."This too is basically a restatement, but I will still point out that it teaches bad skills, such as completing tests in the time limit, sitting in stressful rooms worrying, being taught that these tests are absolutely imperative to your life (which freaks children out), and being given bad mediums for preparing. Sources [1] http://beck.library.emory.edu... [2] http://standardizedtests.procon.org...[3] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...;[4] http://worklife.columbia.edu...