Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is advantageous to K-12 education in the United States

Support for the affirmative side of this resolution is abundant and defensible when the debate is properly framed. Initially, it's important to acknowledge the negative perception of standardized testing, which stems from various factors unrelated to its impact on education. These factors often create a bias that generalizes the undesirability of standardized testing. This is a logical fallacy, akin to concluding that because some aspects are undesirable, the whole concept must be flawed. Standardized testing is a tool, and like any tool, it can be designed for specific purposes. We will explore these purposes and their educational effects, referencing numerous studies that have measured the impact of testing on students over several decades.

To clarify the position, a definition of standardized tests is necessary. According to JCCHD (undated), a standardized test is administered in a consistent manner, with uniform questions, administration, and scoring procedures. This ensures that testing conditions are the same for all test takers, and the tests come in various forms, including intelligence tests. The primary benefit is that they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures, providing a standard score to interpret a child's performance relative to the average.

Standardized tests offer advantages to school administrators that in-class tests and teacher-designed assessments cannot. These advantages include objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Subjective grading can result in variability in teachers' evaluations of the same student's test results. Standardized tests reduce this subjectivity, often assessed by computers, ensuring objective standards and cost savings. Comparability allows school boards to evaluate sixth-grade students across different schools using a common standard, aiding in identifying schools or classes needing improvement. Objectivity and comparability facilitate accountability, enabling administrators to use tests as a feedback mechanism to adjust curriculum or resources for student achievement.

Acknowledging the downside is crucial to enhance the affirmative argument's credibility. Accountability is driven by governments seeking to maximize educational spending. Standardized tests are inexpensive and can pinpoint issues in schools, classrooms, or teachers, exerting pressure and potentially leading to misuse. Teachers may face professional scrutiny for students' performance, and narrowed curricula focusing solely on tests can emerge. Negative attitudes and perceptions of standardized tests result from these pressures.

However, teachers' belief systems play a significant role in the educational utility of standardized tests. Teachers who view assessment as a tool for improving teaching have higher interpretation scores on test reports (Brown & Hattie 20

You said that public schools already offer various different programs, so it unnecessary for parents to send their children to private schools, you fail to see the advantages for a private school pupils who attend a private school their graduates are more likely than their peers from public schools to have completed advanced-level courses in three academic subject areas (see table), this is because less intimation of students who don't want to be in school. Better education cannot always come from programs, parents shouldn't be dependent on these things, when you can get the "full package" from private schools.You also made another point: "Private schools also have no law that stops an untrained individual from being a teacher. You aren't guaranteed to have a qualified teacher in a classroom." This could be the case but private schools are better than public schools so public schools are more likely to have an untrained teacher because private schools have more graduates.

How is it causing more problems? This could bring more curiosity to the children's education on the parents, because parents don't want to pay a fine and even if they don't they will still be interested. A lot of children's parents don't know much from their child's grades and behaviour, even if they want to because they are not in school with them and anybody can tell lies. This fine could instantly change that, strengthtening the child-parent bond and that's a rare thing to do, especially for teenagers this century & this has so many benefits.

Exams should remain, they are a reliable source of information for the teacher. Exams prevent students from cheating. They are more formal meaning that the student will work harder

My final round will be in the order given by my opponent: On my overview: my assertion was that my case is essentially untouched because no effort was made by my opponent to actually refute my advocacy. At this point, since the attempt at a standards debate still hasn't been made, you will be weighing the round via mine. If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, then please affirm. Setting aside the fact that my opponent is introducing what constitutes a whopper of a new argument, and can then further that argument in RD 3 without my ability to counter, there are several reasons why you won't prefer his analysis to mine: 1. My opponent has clearly misconstrued my argumentation in RDs 1 & 2 with regards to my "intended" arguments. My intended arguments are clear: I am stating that exit exams are invalid because they test an inherently biased system and because they don't actually indicate mastery of high school curriculum or skill goals. My opponent essentially puts words in my mouth when he states that I want to eliminate the entire education system. My purpose in pointing out the inherent bias in the system was not to scrap the entire system, but to state that exit exams don't improve its state. Hence, if we are trying to legitimize education by maximizing equal access and reducing discrimination, exit exams aren't the way there. 2. It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely. Basically, as the quotation my opponent uses from my case states, every human institution contains some element of discrimination. Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system that doesn't contain bias. 3. The accusation my opponent makes regarding my use of justice in the round being reductio ad absurdum is warrantless. He doesn't actually tell you why my contention about exit exams entrenching bias into the school system is illogical or absurd, which is what "reductio ad absurdum" arguments are supposed to be. 4. I fail to see in what way I have violated the terms of Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Normally, I wouldn't even bother addressing this, but I have lots of characters left and a classroom full of kids taking state tests right now (I know, right? Irony!) Essentially, my opponent has misquoted this rule. Though I contend above that I have not made any illogical or unwarranted arguments, I would also contend that the NFA rules aren't suggesting that illogical arguments are actually against the rules of debate. The debater in question still needs to adequately refute all illogical arguments presented in a given round. That rule is referring to the burdens given to either side in a debate, and not the quality of arguments. Now, for a few voting issues: 1. Extend my entire affirmative case, as my opponent calls some of my arguments "reductio ad absurdum" in RD 2 but never actually tells you why. He attempts to warrant this by making a few arguments for me that were, by my RD 1 posting, clearly not intended. So, essentially, he's straw manning me. Specifically, note that, coming out of RD 2, my opponent has admitted to exit exams being invalid on all three levels I describe: they entrench discrimination, rather than allowing equal access to high school education, they are not an indicator of mastery of skills or curriculum, and they are not indicative of success in the workplace. 2. Extend all of the offensive arguments that I assigned to his advocacy in RD 2. Never does my opponent fulfill his burden of proving that exit exams are something that should be instituted in US public schools. He gave warrantless arguments in RD 1, which I addressed adequately. He then chose to abandon his entire advocacy in RD 2, which means that he has no offense coming into RD 3, no matter what new arguments he chooses to bring up after this is posted. Thank you for the debate. Vote affirmative.

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.

I affirm the resolution that Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate. I order to clarify the round I tender the following definitions as is in Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Standardize To bring into conformity with a standard Exam An exercise designed to test qualification of knowledge Graduate To pass from on level of experience, proficiency, or prestige into a higher one The value for the round is Societal Welfare through Justice as Fairness. Philosopher John Rawls say that Justice "is the first virtue of social institution, as truth is to systems of thought." This means that the first obligation of our decision-making here is Justice. In order to consider anything else throughout the round we must first create a fundamentally sound Society with Justice. The criterion for this round must therefore be minimizing unjust inequalities. Rawls had two principles which, when gratified, lead us to a Just society. By using my criterion we achieve the former. In accordance with Rawls's second principle of justice, inequalities can be justified through one of two principles: a.The inequality must be attached to a position accessible to every member of the community under some condition. b.The inequality must be to the advantage of the least advantaged members of the community. Observation one: The resolution asks us too really get down to the nitty gritty of one subject, which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States? Well, to answer this question we have to look to impacts. If we look at the impact of not having a sound community based on Justice then where will that lead us to? If we do not achieve justice at one of the simplest levels of our society, then how can we be expected to achieve it elsewhere within our Legal System? So, therefore Society must uphold fairness and equality in its education system in order for the society to be considered fair. Contention one: Standardized exit exams unfairly examine students of different intelligences. In the 1940's a huge discovery was made concerning the human brain. A surgeon, Brian Sperry was performing a relatively new procedure, the corpus callosotomy, where the corpus callosumin the patients brain is severed. He discovered that the left half of our brains and the right half of out brains work independently of each other and communicate through the corpus callosum. Sperry's patients acted like two separate people. One half of their body could easily recognize a pencil if it was handed to them and explain how it was used but could barely right with it. The other half could easily write with the pencil, but had trouble naming it or describing it. This is because our left brains work logically and analytically and learn facts and figures. Out right brains work creatively and spatially and learn actions and how to perform them. In "A Whole New Mind", a New Your Times Best-Seller on psychoanalysis, Daniel Pink claims that "the shift in power has been made from left-brain to right-brain thinkers. The 21st century will put far more value on the creative, spaial intelligence of right-brained thinkers than the logical, analytical left-brained thinkers." The left brain oriented person can answer questions and take tests. The righ brain oriented person can demonstrate how things are done. Left-brained thinkers will be far less impacted by the test, because it tests them on exactly what they're good at, answering questions. This causes a disparaging inequality between the two ï¿½€˜intelligences,' which certainly isn't accessible to every member of the community, one of Rawls's criteria for fairness. For the safety of my debate case I will reveal no more than this. I must compete in actual rounds this year!

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.

Logical Fallacies will not be permitted The United States was formed on the basis of the philosophy of the likes of John Locke, William Blackstone, And Adam Smith. Namely, That the people and the Individual is far more intelligent and important than the greater whole of society and its contract. This is especially true in the case of the management of familial and community units. However, These ideas are falling by the wayside. Nowhere is this more felt than in our public school system. Every human being has a right to an education. The government has seen fit to interpret this as meaning that every human MUST be forced to get a government provided education. There have been few tragedies that fly as directly into the face of our principles as this abomination. First, The government is abusing a system meant to help those with fewer resources. The public school system was never meant to be the main source of education in America. It was meant to supply poor families with a more affordable option. The rest of the schools were built and operated privately, By those wishing to progress the human race. However, Over time, The government began to create and enforce more regulations upon the curriculum of these schools, And the schools that were accepting public funds (which should never have happened in the first place) became dependent on the funds provided by the government, Which then dictated what could or could not be taught by these schools. This has lead to a population of government worshippers who believe that every problem the United States has faced has been solved by government, From slavery and racism to the great depression. This could not be less true, And is leading us down a very dark path of big government movements like the Socialist state dreams of Ocasio-Cortez and other campus radicals who have been brainwashed into believing the trash spouted by the government about such matters as the role of our Founding Fathers, Of Racism, And of the New Deal. One wonders why the products of our government run school system are supporting the growth of our government. They have been turned into Alinsky"s useful idiots, Serving the system they were trained to blindly follow and strengthen. Secondly, This leads to the death of choice. Now, Every single American citizen is forced by law under penalty of fines and the Social Services to attend an educational course for "between 175 and 180 days of school and/or between 900 and 1, 000 hours of instructional time per year, Depending on the grade level (Center For Public Education). " This is one of the most obvious examples of subjugation that has ever been present in the United States. With these mandates, The government is implying that they, As the "ruling body, " know what is best for the population and that they should therefore be able to force their ideas upon us. It"s disgusting, And is an obvious violation of the underlying and fundamental principles of the United States of America. There should certainly be trust in the ability of parents to choose what is best for their children, But this idea is being ridiculed and destroyed by the government. Why? Because, As said by Brutus in the Anti-federalist number one, "it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, That every man, And every body of men, Invested with power, Are ever disposed to increase it, And to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. " This is also backed up by Abigail Adams in her assertion that "Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could, " in her Braintree letter to John Adams on March 31, 1776. The most well known statement of this type is "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " which was written by lord Acton. There is an obvious solution to this problem. The Common Core government program must be overturned and replaced by independent and privatised schools. We must have faith that there will always be Individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln, Who adhere to the principle of scholar empowered learning. Anyone who refuses to attend a school should have that choice, As those people exist now and are simply a drain on resources and serve as distractions to those scholars who are willing to learn. A choice based system would eliminate the need for internal the discipline issues of today"s school systems. This would also free Individuals from large taxes going toward indoctrination programs and drains such as those mentioned above. This system would force schools to compete for attendance like businesses, Ensuring that only the best would thrive, As the Free Market was meant to do. Of course, This will lead to more uneducated members of society who refused to take the initiative of education. Those people exist now, Though. They go through the Public School System refusing to retain knowledge and acting as a drain on resources, Tax dollars, And time. A choice system would only make these people easier to notice. One might also object that people would not be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, As is taught in Kindergarten and Elementary schools. However, With a choice system, Parents would still have the prerogative to teach right and wrong, Which would also be reinforced by church and normal social interactions. The parents who would not have that prerogative would be the same ones who don"t know either, Which would make no difference. In the end, The only downsides are negated by the fact that they are also the pitfalls facing us now, Whereas the merits of this proposed system are self evident: increased freedom, Better education, And a sense of independence from the government which is healthy in a Free Society. Works Cited Gatto, John. "How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, And Why. " The Natural Child Project. Https://www. Naturalchild. Org/articles/guest/john_gatto2. Html. Accessed 15 October 2018. "What is School Choice? " ed Choice. Https://www. Edchoice. Org/school-choice/what-is-school-choice/. Accessed 15 October 2018. Hull, Jim. "Time in school: How does the U. S. Compare? " Center for Public Education. Http://www. Centerforpubliceducation. Org/research/time-school-how-does-us-compare. Accessed 15 October 2018. Adams, Abigail. Letter to John Adams, Braintree March 31, 1776. Brutus. Anti-Federalist Brutus I, October 18, 1787. Lord Acton. Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887.

I negate: "Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate" I accept my opponent's definitions, but point out that if he addresses definition-based semantics in his next speech, he will not only be kicking his AC arguments, but bringing up a new constructive argument, which you would have to ignore. My opponent proposes a value of social welfare, then turns and says we ought to value justice. Since my opponent only explained and supported justice, I will address this. Do not let him get up and make a moving target argument in the next speech. I ask, why is justice relevant to the round? To "create a fundamentally sound Society"? This is the only link that my opponent makes in the round. You ignore this because he has no link, making it impossible to impact to. I, as the negative, would not be able to, whereas he could just provide a cop-out argument stating how his Value and Criterion are basically the same thing, thus linking them, which you must disregard. I propose the alternative criterion of Social Welfare, being relevant to the topic. This means that whatever is best for high schoolers, and in turn, society, ought to win the round. I don't think you can get any more fair and clear than that. Also, his criterion is as delinked and blippy as his value. In the first observation, he hints at my proposed criterion of social welfare through high schools: "which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States?" in which I completely agree. But then he goes on to ramble about how we must acheive a just society, and how we must link to justice, but NEVER TELLS YOU WHY. To simplify the standards, here's what we should do: Use justice as the value, since we want what is most just and fair (aspects of Social Welfare) and everything for society. Use my criterion as such, since it links to justice, and is easily attainable by my opponent. I want the standards to be fair and non-semantic, so I propose the aforementioned. This is not difficult for my opponent to link to. Moving on to the argument. His solitary contention argues that SEE (Standardized exit exams) are unfair, because the tests only evaluate the left side of the brain. 1) He provides no link between the idea of "split brain" science and the left side being exceptional at tests. 2) Even if he did, it doesn't matter. He would be cold conceeding to the concept that tests accurately measure the left side of the brain correctly, which (TURN) means that this is a reason to Negate. Since the left side of the brain is correctly measured, SEE's accurately measure student's activity. 3) The negative impact he provides is irrelevant even to his standards. Instead of showing an inequality on a societal level, the worst he proves is that one side of your brain is tested more than the other in school. 4) His claim and his warrant have nothing to do with each other, disregard his tagline. Now, I present a TURN that impacts to his repeated Rawl-based standards. "Exit Exams ARE egalitarian" Brookings 2001: "A change in standards thus leads to gains for two of the three groups--those at the top, who graduate, and those at the bottom, who would not have graduated anyway. The losers are those in the middle, who would have graduated under a less stringent standard, but who now fail. Those individuals suffer from being pooled with a group that includes those less skilled than themselves (those without the diploma) instead of with those more skilled than themselves. No efficiency loss has occurred in this pure sorting model, only a distributional effect stemming from the individuals' relabeling. Do these losses constitute a compelling case against higher standards? The answer is no, for two reasons. First, in terms of the narrow choice between high and low cutoffs, a high cutoff does not necessarily lead to less egalitarian outcomes. The redistribution is from the losers in the middle to the winners at both the top and the bottom. Those with the most egalitarian preferences (so-called Rawlsians, after the philosopher John Rawls) place the highest priority on raising incomes at the bottom, so they should favor a rise in standards. The equity implications of higher standards are not limited to those who are at increased risk of failing but include those who would fail in any case, and whose stigma stands to be reduced." [1] What this card explains is that removing a SEE hurts the majority of students, since the only winners in a low-value diploma are the utter failures who couldn't pass the exam, and the ones who would never have had an issue passing it. Furthermore, he explains how it is a contradiction to the Rawl theory of equity that my opponent endorces. This alone is reason to Negate. As for case safety, I can imagine that smart LD debaters will be reading my every word. This is why I won't present an NC, and won't perform with the entirety of my skill. I promise this to all plagerizers: If you want to steal my words, my cards, my case, you will never survive, and I will destroy you in-round. Good luck and thanks to my opponent. [1] Incentives and Equity under Standards-Based Reform. Julian R. Betts and Robert M. Costrell. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001 (2001) 9-74

u may be right however a test is a true way to see how the student has mastered the subject without any possibility of hindrance. in essence a test gives you a raw score. while i do agree with you that college acceptance should not be based on just 2-3 tests(i believe that there should be several tests taken over a period of several years) the notion of taken tests out sounds crazy to me.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Resolved on balance, standardized tests do not improve education.

I apologize for any confusion regarding my debate style. Initially, I provide evidence to support my argument, then I present analytical arguments later. This method might have been unclear, but it does not invalidate my argument. Accusing me of a "fallacy fallacy" would be incorrect. Claiming that no further arguments are needed only highlights the weakness of your position. For the third round, I will present two pieces of evidence (I've included only the essential parts to save time) and proceed to analytical arguments addressing your points.

Argument 1: Why we don't need standardized testing (source: edweek.org)

Two primary arguments oppose using standardized tests to ensure students achieve a basic level of academic proficiency. The first, radical argument is that these tests are unnecessary. The second, less radical argument, is that even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the associated costs are too high.

Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely reveal information we don't already know. Teachers can identify students who can read and write through letter grades and evaluations. Trust the teachers, publish grade distributions, and release a state or national report reviewed by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. Critics argue that schools will manipulate results, grades are subjective, and this proposal could create a new bureaucracy. However, people already game the standardized testing system, sometimes criminally. At a basic competency level, grades or evaluative reports would provide as much information as standardized tests.

Argument 2: Standardized Testing Undermines Teaching (source: npr.org)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has become a destructive force for American public education, according to an expert. NCLB required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests, with student progress measured to determine if schools met their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. Schools failing to meet AYP for several years could face restructuring, replacement, or closure. The purpose of federal and state laws should be to help schools improve, not to close them down and start anew without any guarantee of improvement. Schools in poor or minority communities, where many children are impoverished or non-English speakers, are most likely to be closed. Charter schools exacerbate the problem by making public school students feel like "second-class citizens" and avoiding the public responsibility to provide quality education.

Analytical arguments:

1. Standardized tests encourage memorization rather than true learning, as students can cram information before tests and forget it later. The purpose of education is to

Conclusion SATs damage a student's potential and future. They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future. The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores. SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system. (Thank you, by the way, Pro). I, too, have the same sources as last time.

For the rest of this argument when referring to American education that will include kindergarten through college. Looking back at the original claim, one states that "American education system is negatively impacting the mental health" and then one states, "3 primary premises, the amount of homework given, the lack of support/education pertaining to mental illnesses and, the pressures of standardized tests." Throughout the arguments, it is repeated that the homework and tests, that schools provide, create stress for students and is one saying that this stress is a factor, among others, that develops the anxiety and depression? If so, then one could see the argument that schools are negatively impacting the mental health of students because the schools are the cause of the anxiety and depression. However, one just recently stated, "No, I am not arguing that the American education system creates these mental illnesses." I believe I am lost on how schools are negatively impacting students mental health. Would one say that schools play no part in creating these mental illnesses and what does "creating" mean to you? One mentions that tests and homework are not the exact cause, so would that be saying that homework and tests might not be the only cause, however they are part of the reason students suffer from mental illnesses? I would greatly appreciate your research and an elaborate on the link. I agree that not all students have the right resources or coping mechanisms, however the majority of schools provide counselors and should all of the responsibility of teaching children coping mechanisms fall onto the schools? Or should parents assist with educating children about mental illnesses? Schools do not negatively impact a students mental health. If schools are not the exact cause of depression and anxiety, and it's mostly the home life. Then it is not the American education system at fault, but the home life of students. Therefore, would the American education system be responsible for providing coping methods and if it isn't only the tests and homework that is causing these issues, then the school is not pushing these students to have these mental illnesses.

I assert that the problems that face our school system can be corrected, with the most effeciency, through the voucher system. Throughout history, the free market has proven itself to be an effective instrument in economics due to its self-regulating nature and power of the free market forcesn it creates. Con's suggested solution is surely a step in the right direction, however, it does not completely encompass the entire situation.

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.

How is it causing more problems? This could bring more curiosity to the children's education on the parents, because parents don't want to pay a fine and even if they don't they will still be interested. A lot of children's parents don't know much from their child's grades and behaviour, even if they want to because they are not in school with them and anybody can tell lies. This fine could instantly change that, strengthtening the child-parent bond and that's a rare thing to do, especially for teenagers this century & this has so many benefits.

Full text of resolution: "This house would ban written examinations in educational establishments". Round 1- Acceptance only. No need to ask for permission. Rounds 2-4: Main arguments and rebuttal. Round 5: Rebuttal and summary only- no new arguments. Sources should be placed in the comments section. Voters should ignore any arguments made in Round 1 or the comments section, or any new points made in round 5. "Select winner" voting system. Open to the first member to accept as con; no need to ask my permission. Good luck, and enjoy the debate!

Pro forfeited. I don't believe he has given enough time for anyone to argue. Anyway, Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that physiological needs that I mentioned in my last argument such as food, shelter, safety, homoeostasis and water are at the foundation of a human's well being. [1] If we are using Maslow's hierarchy as a reference, education would fall under esteem needs. There are physiological needs that ought to be fulfilled; as mentioned earlier as well as safety needs and love/belonging needs before esteem needs make a difference to a person's well being. [2] Sources [1] http://psychclassics.yorku.ca... [2] http://www.simplypsychology.org...

You haven't sited your arguments either. My opponent has obviously failed the spelling standard.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs asserts that at the apex of humans innate curiosity (fulfillment) is self-actualization, which posits: The achievement of one's full potential through creativity, independence, spontaneity, and a grasp of the real world. My point will be to prove that passing this test will give those students Pro's proposed value - self-esteem and respect - and that passing without deserving to do so (if they can't prove to know basic exit level knowledge by passing a standardized exam) would actually decrease their sense of accomplishment. Further, I fail to see how NOT taking the test would add to a student's sense of creativity, independence or grasp of the real world, as Pro's definition of self-actualization implies. Pro is responsible for explaining how/why this is the case. For now, onto the debate! Rebuttal: 1. Pro submits that failing of the test will lead a student to doubt themselves, and thus not achieve the highest level of the pyramid. I negate. Students can and do fail these types of tests for a plethora of reasons, including lack of sleep, nerves, scan tron mistakes, distractions, sickness, etc. In other words, just because on fails this test does not mean that they will necessarily doubt themselves or their abilities. Further, just because one may have failed doesn't mean that they don't think they can pass; perhaps merely that they didn't perform well as they could have or could have. 2. Pro's second point regarding the long term effects of self-actualization is incomprehensible. I'd like for Pro to expand on this or clarify what he meant. 3. Pro says, "This links back to self-esteem in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, if a person's unjust to that person than the self-esteem goes down." Just because one fails a test does not mean that any type of injustice has occurred. Pro would have to prove or explain how this is the case. 4. Next Pro claims that the test is unfair because it applies to people who are more inclined to be left brained than right brained. I fail to see how this is relevant. First of all, Pro has no idea what kind of standardized test would be implemented; perhaps one that favors right-brained people (or both people equally) would be implemented. Second, this same discrepancy is applied to all aspects of school and life in general. Some people are better at certain things than others, and that's unfortunate. However, people have to work around their strengths and abilities and find ways to succeed. 5. Pro then mentions "motivation," but says nothing comprehensible about it. What about motivation, Pro? 6. Next Pro says that students cannot realistically study for the test, and therefore it's unfair. I negate. First of all, there are always test taking abilities that one can learn (such as time management, process of elimination, etc.). Second, education isn't supposed to be about memorization and regurgitation. Instead, it's supposed to be a building process of knowledge. If one cannot remember the basic skills that they are supposed to learn in 6th grade (and these tests tend to only cover the basics), then perhaps they don't deserve to graduate. Arguments: Perhaps the biggest reason that the education system in the United States is failing is because students are passing when they should not be. Teachers and school administrators are more concerned about the school's reputation, their own careers and available funding rather then ensuring that students are receiving a proper and adequate education. As a result, students are graduating HS who are literally at a 2nd grade reading and comprehension level [1]. This is doing the students a huge injustice, and failing to meet the criteria for education in this country as established by the U.S. government. Further, when students graduate and go on to college, but fail to retain adequate basic knowledge necessary to succeed at a university, they are forced to take remedial classes which is a giant waste of their time and money. Additionally, it's a huge waste of tax payer money for those students who receive public aid from the government for their reputation. Moreover, these type of embarrassing scores on said tests make the U.S. look bad in comparison to other education systems in the world. By implementing these tests, students will be encouraged to pay more attention in school over the years and value actually grasping knowledge, instead of just getting by from passing test to test. If students and teachers know that they're going to be held accountable at the end instead of just receiving another free pass, they will work to perform better, thus giving them a more gratifying sense of appreciation and success. This will surely be the best motivator and reward, thus being the best option for everyone: Accountability, Knowledge and being as Fair as possible. Sources: [1] http://teachers.net...

Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that "Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world." This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to "survive" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches "Poor People Suck" or "Rich People are Awful 101". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

The educational system requires modernization. Public schools, and educational institutions in general, are outdated frameworks that contribute more to negative outcomes than positive ones. The teaching methods are antiquated, classrooms are excessively crowded, educators are inadequately compensated and overburdened, and students have diverse needs and strengths that cannot be adequately addressed by a one-size-fits-all teaching approach. I'm not suggesting that schools are entirely without merit, but given the current trajectory, significant reforms are necessary.

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.

Please state your ideas in the actual argument, not as a source. If you do so again, I will not be reading the sources and only the words inside the round. Cell phones can be used for educational purposes. I agree with that. But there is no way a teacher knows how the student with the phone is cheating or is doing non-educational things on the phone for it is facing away from them as they teach the students from the front of the class. I am in school now, and I have seen many of these problems as students sneak texts to others when the teacher says they can use their phones. Cell phones will not help the school education as a whole.

I support end of grade testing for a couple reasons. Firstly, it helps students to retain the information they learned throughout the year. Students often begin to slow down and forget about things when it's so close to summer, and by the beginning of the next school year, they've completely forgotten half the material from early in their last semester. Studying for this assignment helps to keep this valuable information in their heads. Second, it is a very helpful way to raise your grade. Nearing the end of the year students are often very stressed out about how their grade is. Although daunting, it may also be reassuring when students realize their grade can improve from a single test. There's no harm in putting in a little extra studying. I'm a student as well and I understand the frustration these tests can cause. However, it's important to recognize that these tests are largely for our benefit.

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.

I'll begin with some refutations Public school is an unsafe environment for children. Guns Concerning guns, my opponent makes a very unsound argument. My opponent means to imply that "hundreds" of incidents of school shootings occur on an annual basis. This is simply nonfactual. One would have to actually go back quite a bit before the more recently sensationalized stories of violence at school to even find a ten year period where more than a hundred homicides occurred in school. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu... Scattered, isolated incidents don't show a trend which is capable of justifying such a grand statement as "This is only one of hundreds of stories..." Drugs It is certainly undeniable that drugs are sold on campus. However, my opponent provides no reasoning as to why we should view this as a bad thing in any way except for the fact that most of them aren't 18 yet. There is no mention of anything that proves that the public school environment is what causes minors to do drugs. Here lies the difference between correlation and causality. My opponent is confusing the presence of drugs in public school as the reason these kids are doing drugs. Drug addiction and other such things frequently begin and continue to occur outside of school. Furthermore, most of the heavier drug abusers are truants who waste most of their free education. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Sex There is no real substance to this argument. Much of it is based off the notion that sex is wrong. There is no reason to believe that having sex is wrong, yet my opponent says it is the worst thing about public education. It is as if my opponent wants promiscuity to be a punishable offense. Abstinence until marriage is a personal choice, and has little correlation to the safety of the school environment or the moral standard in said environment. While there are statistics to show that much of what my opponent says is true in regards to STD's, I disagree largely with my opponents certainty that it is an issue of major importance. My opponent is attempting to use alarming sounding numbers to disguise the insignificance of sex to the issues of public education. My opponent is implying throughout his point that sex is killing off our children, which it is not. A quick look at the sampling methods and introduction of the following report shows this to be truth. http://www.cdc.gov... Sex related deaths barely even register next to the grim reaper known as the automobile. Quality of education I have a very simple refutation to this point, and I derive it directly from some basic thoughts on the nature of statistics. It is obvious that there will be more outliers and under-achievers in a school population if you sample more of them. My opponent seeks to show, primarily by means of standardized test results, that homeschool results in superior quality education. However, there simply aren't as many people being home schooled, and so there aren't quite as many under-achieving dregs holding down the averages. Most individuals of that description are in the public education system. Attempting to use statistics which will clearly be skewed beyond all recognition to establish superiority is ridiculous. My argument is simple. I maintain that they are basically the same. My opponent came in seeking to establish that one is superior to the other. As the Con, however, I can simply maintain a neutral position. Neither is better than the other. I believe I have sufficiently shown already that most of the arguments presented by my opponent are either dramatizations of fringe statistics or simply unreliable. Home school and public school students typically learn the exact same things. If the students do what they're supposed to do, which in the higher achieving minorities in public education they do, then the learning is equal in quality. The instructors in public school are trained educators, which can fully compensate for the lack of a personal touch provided by a parent. However, these things both vary tremendously. Unsupportive or inattentive parents may be just as unhelpful as an extremely poor teacher. New social, scientific, and religious ideas This is more of a secondary point, but worth mentioning all the same. My opponent doesn't wish for his children to have to learn about horrifying things like homosexuality. However, once again, what is wrong with this? Nothing. Homosexuality isn't so horrifying that children can't know about it. Much the same with many other things. Some parents may take advantage of the opportunity to neglect teaching their children anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as evolution. These are things which one must learn in public school, and generally they all serve to enrich each child's understanding of the world.

Dear Rose212, I am not talking only about America. I am talking about what is happening globally. And in my opinion, low test scores have nothing to do with how governments influence schools with their beliefs. Students still know things, even with the low test scores and the low literacy rates. And if you still believe that schools and government have no relationship between them, then why some researchers show that people with low literacy rate tend to believe easier what is said to them? so, they will believe what they are told without any second thoughts or doubts about what they have heard. About the wars section. Yes, indeed we have wars but each country tries to make its citizens believe that they werent responsible about it. And like i have previously said, Cypriots learn the cypriot side and Turskish people the turkish side without being sure if what they have just learned is true or not. They just believe it because its their country telling something and they learn it from primary education until highschool or until college! So, in order to keep the government up dont they do it from schools?

On the subject of grading this debate: There is a difference between a competition and education, and between score and grade. A grade pertains to ones performance in an academic endeavor, but a score pertains to the rating of someone in a competition, like a debate. Saying that people voting on a debate is giving us a grade, is like saying that a soccer game is graded. One indication of this is that anyone who votes can give certain categories to one person and other categories in favor of another, and is not giving an objective rating to each person individually. Rebuttal to point #1: Instant gratification isn’t a good thing. People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road [1. ] This goal can be to learn enough to pursue a career they are interested in, or to learn something interesting about the world. Grades detract from ones ability to think this way because they force people to do less difficult activities. This whole argument plays right into a lot of the contentions that I brought up because all of your ideas focus on the idea that any motivation is as good as any other motivation and that as long as a student is motivated, you are doing something right. The whole point of my fourth contention is to show that extrinsic motivation is detrimental to important intrinsic motivation, as well as bringing a host of other problems with it. In the case you mention with the student Bobby, there are a few things that you don’t account for. Firstly it doesn’t account for the fact that Bobby, instead of being motivated to get the grade, is motivated to get the PS3. This makes things even worse, now getting the A doesn’t give Billy a sense of accomplishment, getting a PS3 does. So now the motivation to succeed in any intellectual way is completely gone. Secondly, this means that Bobby is more likely to forget what he learned, as my earlier study shows. And thirdly Bobby doesn’t do the more difficult problems and doesn’t take intellectual risks because he is only interested in getting the grade. This also means that Bobby doesn’t do more work than is necessary for things that he is interested in because it could harm his A. You state that “Even if this motivates students to learn indirectly they are learning. ” But they aren’t retaining what they are learning, and aren’t learning in a meaningful way, aren’t striving to know more. Grades (along with rote memorization and standardized curriculums and testing) are what Carl Sagan meant when he said “Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. ” Kids file knowledge away as ‘learned’ instead of ‘interesting and useful’ and ask questions like ‘will we need to know this for the test’ instead of, can we learn more about that. Rebuttal to point #2: I see two problems in this contention. Firstly, this contention is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not education is benefited, not whether educators are helped to make decisions. Even if you accept that as a valid argument, once again we as a society are putting ease and comfort above education. The other main problem I see with this argument is that the whole idea of needing an objective way of determining between students results in the detraction from the overall quality of the students. It is like a college cutting off a child’s hand and then using how well they can withstand pain. The students who are best at handling get to go to college, but all the students are worse for it because they don’t have a hand. If in setting up a standard on which to choose people, you make everybody worse, it isn’t a good standard. Colleges can look at narratives and work more on the basis of interviews. As fare as your one campus switched argument, the fact that one campus switched doesn’t mean that they were right, or that all non-grading campuses should follow. Hampshire College does not employ grades, and MIT doesn’t grade for freshman year to reduce stress, and foster student’s interest in the subject matter. Rebuttal to point #3: Once again, grades reduce to the least common denominator. You may be able to show students that they aren’t learning well slightly more effectively, but it comes at the cost that on average, all your students will score worse on the quiz, and forget more of the material. Additionally students can tell from their professor’s comments whether or not they understand material, but in this case are motivated to fix what they did wrong because they are interested in the subject, and not merely trying to get a grade. Rebuttal to point #4: Firstly, I don’t see how grades remove a bias. Teachers that are more likely to say that a student they like is better than a student they dislike are also more likely to give a better grade on an essay to a student they like than to one they dislike. Additionally, students who are learning for a grade are less likely to talk because they feel they are constantly being matched up to their classmates and to some arbitrary objective standard, and are therefore more afraid of making mistakes. If class participation is being graded, then students worry about their comments level of complexity, when adding what they have to say to a conversation is the first step to getting their ideas tested and coming up with more complex ones. I personally talk with friends about things that I am not quite sure about, and may seem somewhat absurd, to use them as a sounding board. I have a more interesting, developed, objective standard because I have taken the time to voice my opinions in setting where I don’t feel threatened. As a result of this, I am more confident about stating my ideas in class; I am not worried about a grade, but about having an interesting conversation. In this way, taking away grades gives students spontaneity, creativity and collaboration, all of which are essential. Narratives are just as biased as grades, but they tell more. In conclusion, I would like to state two things. Firstly my opponent’s second third and fourth arguments all rest on the idea that students, teachers colleges and/or parents need a way of discerning whether or not a student is learning, and that the only way to do this is to grade them. Not only have I already stated that there are other alternatives that allow for this, but I have also showed a myriad of ways in which the practice of grading is detriment to students. Unless my opponent can show that these other forms of judgment pose the same detriments to Education, he looses these three points. This follows from the fact that, when comparing my alternative, which doesn’t have any detriments to its name (and is in fact more indicative than just assigning a student a number or letter) and my opponent’s, which does; it is a fairly clear choice in favor of my alternative. Secondly, my opponents first argument is erroneous in that it rests on ideas that I have already disproven, namely that all motivation is equal, and that none is detrimental. If my opponent can not directly show that his form of motivation (grades) do not cause the harms that I have laid out he looses this contention as well. This covers all of my opponent’s contentions. To ensure that students are, on average, more creative, intrigued and intrinsically motivated, and to increase their retention of knowledge, their ambition and their inquisitiveness, I urge a pro ballot, thank you. [1] . https://www.apa.org...

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.

The ever increasing pressure to cram more instructional time into the school day in an attempt to boost test scores has put the squeeze on recess and naptime in districts around the country.In Gadsden City, Alabama, schools reportedly scratched naps for kindergartners to find time for test preparation. Wynell Williams, elementary education director for the Gadsden system, placed blame for the loss on accountability measures. “If the state is holding us accountable, this is the way we have to do it. Kindergarten is not like it used to be.”In Kenosha, Wisconsin, parents were shocked when the principal of the Bain School of Arts and Language announced that recess would be eliminated because the school’s test scores threatened to place it on the state’s watch list of schools not meeting NCLB test score standards. “If teachers want to bring their students outside, it will be only for educational purposes and will include studying,” said Bain Principal Margaret Carpenter.Clark County School District elementary schools in Nevada ended recess to provide more time for “core academic areas,” to the dismay of many parents. Agustin Orci, deputy superintendent of instruction, explained the thinking behind the change. “If you have a 15-minute recess scheduled, you spend five minutes getting (students) to the playground, another five getting back and then five more minutes getting them calmed down and ready to learn back in the classroom. You end up blowing 30 minutes of potential instructional time to gain the limited benefits of having recess. It’s become a luxury we can’t afford.”In April, the Washington Post reported that Deale Elementary School in Anne Arundel County had shortened recess and reduced time for cultural activities like chorus, band and orchestra. Recess has also been scaled back in Olathe, Missouri, to allow more uninterrupted time for language arts.Marching in unison to the tune of “more is better,” many school systems seem eager to do whatever it takes to find more time to cram math and English test preparation into students’ heads. In some cases, resistance to this trend comes from parents, who worry that that their childrens’ overall well being will suffer from the loss of time for play, exercise and socializing.Matthew Young, a PTA president and parent at a Nevada elementary school that cut back on recess, objected. “I think at a young age they need to burn off the energy and get outside, Young said. “That’s too long to be cooped up in school.”But educators also question the wisdom of squeezing out time for recess and naps. When Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews solicited views from readers on the impact of the federal No Child Left Behind law, he received many letters from educators who bemoaned the limits on recess and other chances to blow off steamMartha Young, associate dean of the College of Education at the University of Nevada, challenges the quantity-over-quality approach to instructional time. “We’ve unfortunately bought into the idea that more is better, and that isn’t always going to be the case, particularly when you’re talking about elementary school students. In some cases you can have a 12-hour school day and not make any more progress than you would in six hours.”Young blames NCLB and related policies that ignore documented benefits to students of breaks in the school day. “Research suggests recess should be an essential component of the school day,” Young said. “Unfortunately with the push of No Child Left Behind I don’t think we’re going to see it re-integrated

That is true, the banking system is like educators depositing money, and without teachers reciting the information we will never know it, however are we truly learning or our we just memorizing what we are taught. The banking system does work but, its just feeding us information, how can teachers recite this information if they don't know if we can or will outside of the classroom?. Reciting information to us, as they banking system describe is students sitting and starring blankly. Teaching in this method can be oppressive and boring. How can the teacher be sure we are comprehending well?