Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Resolved: On balance, standardized testing does not significantly enhance K-12 education in the United States.

The argument for the necessity of standardized testing has been a contentious issue in educational circles. Critics contend that these tests do not provide any additional insights beyond what is already known through other assessment methods. According to Greg Jouriles (2014), standardized tests do not offer substantial new information. There are two main criticisms against using standardized tests to ensure a minimum level of academic proficiency among students. The first is radical: These tests are superfluous. The second, less radical but more commonly voiced, is that even if standardized testing could be an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the associated costs are excessively high.

Standardized tests are deemed unnecessary because they rarely reveal information that is not already evident. Any teacher can identify which students can read and write. This is typically conveyed through letter grades or evaluations that detail progress in various skills. Therefore, it is suggested that we place more trust in teachers. Publish grade distributions, locally publish compilations of evaluation reports, and issue state or national reports reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. Critics may argue: "That's absurd! Schools will manipulate results. Grades are meaningless because teachers apply varying standards with different values. Won't this proposal result in a new bureaucratic layer?" All these concerns are valid (except for the reliability of a single test). Given the high stakes involved and the accompanying pressure, people will exploit the system. And it is true that grades can vary significantly due to four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of the student body. However, people are already manipulating standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would offer as much information as we currently obtain from standardized tests.

In my high school, we have encountered the grading issue. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might equate to an A or even a C in another. This is a problem for us and, likely, for most schools. To summarize, we do not gain much from standardized accountability, and we have incurred significant losses by prioritizing it.

However, this issue has also presented an opportunity. Recognizing our grading discrepancies, we opted to create a shared understanding of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now closely align with the Common Core State Standards. Secondly, we developed common

While Common Core does set standards for students, many of these standards are not right. Common Core math is overcomplicated, using the method of grouping numbers for basic addition problems which is not the best approach for teaching second graders. There is no need to continue using a system of education that was never peer reviewed and is becoming increasingly unpopular. Common Core brings the American education system down. It is simply something that looks good on paper but not in practice.

But,I am on the side of those people who think that self-learning is the best way to make one a properly educated person because the curiosity for knowing anything drives a person to learn anything with eagerness. If a person doesn't will to learn anything from his own conscience then none can enforce him to learn even other person torchers him to do so. On the other hand the will power will ensure to make him educated by self learning. So, I am debating on the pro side of the topic-Self learning is the best method of being properly educated.

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...

When anyone takes the debate this is going to be in the format of Lincoln-Douglas. If you don't know format it is: 1) Aff, Cross-X, 2) Neg, Cross-X, 3)AFF rebuttal, 4) Neg rebuttal, and the 5th and final round Aff rebuttal. Everyone has pleanty of time to state their cases. Affirmative: HSEE I would like to thank the negative and respect his/her case in this debate. I stand of the affirmed side of the resolution. Resolved: Public High School students of the United States ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to graduate. I would like to state my definitions for this round: Definitions: Public High School :A learning center for grades 9-12 in which teachers teach to the standards the teachers and students are suppose to meet. United States : A union of 50 states that are all entitled to a free public school education. Self-Actualization - the achievement of one's full potential through creativity, independence, spontaneity, and a grasp of the real world. Self-Esteem - a realistic respect for or favorable impression of oneself; self-respect. Hierarchy - any system of persons or things ranked one above another. Just - guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs-4 steps in pyramid that reaches to that one common goal of self-actualization. This leads to the most essential things in life. A philosophy. My value for this round is: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs states that everyone should have the physical components such as oxygen, food, and water, next is safety needs such as, law enforcement or ambulance or even the safety of friends and family, next is love, such as, parental love and love from friends, next is self esteem knowing your worth, and finally self actualization, such as, doing what is your dream. This links to the test because if the esteem fails because you failed the test, your whole pyramid fails. My criterion for this round is: The test itself. The test itself links to my value because it shows on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs that if you fail this test you will lose each and every one of those slowly and painfully. Contention A: Selfp-esteem. Self-esteem is my contention because it goes with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and 2) it's a good reason why not to take this test. Sub point I: Failure. Failure on this exam will interrupt the philosophy of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This is true because if someone fails that person goes onto self-doubt and doesn't get to that self-actualization. That person will lose not only the respect for themselves but from their own peers. Sub point II: Self-actualization. This is the long term effects that will have on the person. They will never, in between ages 20-35, be able to reach that self-achievement of which they are granted, unless of which gets a burst of confidence. Contention B: Just. 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. Sub point I: Left vs. right brain. The Left brain used for the test. Those kids can probably ace the test easily, but what about the other people? Those kids are right brained or basically just use their imagination or creativity to be better at art or performing arts. Those kids have hard enough time in there Algebra classes and English. Why give them a test their brain is very weak to. Contention C: Motivation. Motivation goes back to Maslow's philosophy of those needs and as well as the test. Sub point I: Studying. The test covers everything that is done within the years. I don't think nor do many other people think that a person will have all their notes from 6th to 12th grade. If this test plays a big role it's to get prepared for a high stakes test that measures everything from 6th to 12th grade that that person doesn't have the key to yet. Because of these reasons I would like to stand firm on the AFF side of this debate round and state that my value is: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and my criterion is the test itself. I am now open for cross-examination and points of clarification. Thank you.

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.

I will refute your refute your refutations. :P "My opponent says homeschooled children are taught the same core curriculum. If you look at my source, then you will see that weeding a vegetable garden can be considered a science lesson and walking a dog can be a nature experiment. Seriously? You say to me this is core curriculum? To me it is almost laughable."Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. "My opponent also says home schooled students get better scores, but what he is failing to tell you is that the students that take these types of tests are self-selecting, in other words, it is up to the parent if their child is to take this test, so you can't argue that homeschool students overall are doing better than their public school counterparts."Yes true, but it is mandatory to take the SAT's, and those tests where considered in the studies above. Also most kids take ERB's or the EXPLORE tests. And they still get better scores. So the ones take it do better, and just because a parent choses doesnt deny the valididy of the studies. Just because you have an option doesnt mean that the studies are flawed. And also that should hurt your case, since there are less kids than it would be harder to get a good average, so these kids must be smarter."Also, I would like to point out, like I mentioned above, that typically a homeschool student belongs to a family that have obtained bachelor degrees and masters; by law, the only qualification a parent or guardian needs is a high school diploma or GED at best."Hey, wait a second, you are critizising the teachers in home schools. Yet it seems as though this doesnt matter much ecause the kids are doing better in life, socially (yu didneven refute that) and on standardised tests. So if the teachers in homeschools are so bad, why are their stidents doing better? Just ask thet to yourself. "To counter this argument I will refer back to my statements above. Children that come from homeschooling are typically High income, VERY well educated families that hold HIGH expectations for their children to excel socially and academically and do not take in to account the total number of homeschooled children since this number is unknown."2 things:1. This is contradictory to your statement above, you are saying that most people that h their kids in homeschool are smart and educated, but up their you said they werent. So you contradicted yourself. Also if they are highly educted and wealthy than the kids are in good hands. 2. Jus because people are rich and smart means what their k does in the futere? I am in an upper class family, and my parentsnew other rich people when they where young, and some of them are poor, drugies, and murderers. So the class doesnt matteu do later in life, look at bill gates, started poor, and is now rich. The same can happen to rich people, started rich, ended poor. So this argument is flawed. "Once again, his numbers are not showing the total number of student's homeschooled. "Do you need every single person? Many stidies that are accurite only have a smalle of the population, yet they are accurute. Also the self-selection still means nothing. Most of the homes and the public schoolers are average intelegence, you needn't be smart to do well on those tests, yet one must be...educated. So according to this on average a home schooler is smarter. Self-selection means nothing. You think only smart homeschoolers get forced to do it, but that is false, this argument to has some flaws. "First, public school is technically free, I mean the taxpayers do pay for it, but there is a reason you can claim educational credits on your taxes. You could argue that it really isn't cheaper considering that the parent has to buy or rent books depending where you live and free to the student attending public school. Cheaper to the tax payers, but you are paying taxes either way. Overall it is only cheaper depending on you choose to teach your child."Well, heres the thing, they do save every one money, not just you, ebcaus of taxes. Many people get taxed, so saving 10 billion dollars a year means you save someone somwhere in america some money. So you save your money, and someone elses. Also you claim that some people t a free ride, which is true, but the majority of taxpaers in america pay these taxes. Now I have proven that home schooling is now I will point out how the current schools in america are bad. (schools obviously). Rigid personnel rules and regulations. Those schools with little to no interference from outside supervisors or regulators on hiring and firing decisions tend to be the most effective schools as measured by student performance. Tenure is not the only barrier to successful school organization. School organizations that call for greater differentiation among teachers and pay some teachers more than others on the basis of performance or drawing power rather than seniority clash with government-mandated salary schedules. Positions and salary levels are decided by the state without any relationship to a particular school’s situation. To foster successful reorganization of schools and more effective and efficient use of teachers, school systems or even individual schools must be able to employ their teaching staff as they see fit and pay them accordingly. If a school has a hard time finding a good science teacher it should be able to set the salary for that position at a level which will attract qualified persons. Uniform salary schedules were originally enacted to address racial and social inequities among teachers, not as a “better way” of organizing the teaching force. These inequities have largely been addressed and can be prevented by other means. But like so many governmental policies, uniform salary schedules have outlived their usefulness. Reorganization might involve paying teachers of one subject more than teachers of another subject, or paying a good teacher with ten years’ experience more than a mediocre teacher with 15 years’ experience. A civil service system. A related set of problems for American public education stems from the early twentieth-century view that public services can and should be delivered by a regimented, compartmentalized civil service. All indications are that the teaching profession will best be organized in the future as firms providing specific services to schools, rather than as a unionized set of government employees with tenure and little performance-based accountability. They should, in other words, come to resemble law firms. In teaching firms, more senior partners would enjoy tremendous name recognition and respect, attracting clients for the firms while imparting their proven teaching strategies to junior partners and associates. Monopoly. It’s not an attack on teachers to suggest that they, like all other workers, respond to incentives. When a school enjoys monopoly control over its students, the incentive to produce successful students is lacking. When student performance doesn’t correlate with reward on the school level, individual teachers see no need to go the extra mile to help students when the teacher next door receives the same rewards for merely babysitting. And without the pressures of competition in education, parents are bothersome nuisances rather than clients who might potentially go elsewhere if not satisfied. Centralized decision-making. When decisions on such issues as the makeup of the history curriculum or the daily school schedule is mandated from above, school leaders lose initiative and school policies become disconnected with the students and teachers they supposedly exist to serve. [1] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...

There are two principles which stand in con's favor, the first is correlation and causation and the next is simple misinterpretation. Con shows that successful foreign schools in China, Japan and Korea have a bigger focus on school general, and that's true. But it's also true that students in these cultures have a bigger reason to want to succeed in school as their society places a bigger emphasis on academic success. However to assert that these schools do not participate in extracurricular activities is a fallacy in the worst form Japan's schools place a huge emphasis on extracurricular activities[10], and many schools in Japan even require their students to participate in extracurricular activities[11]. The same is true for China[12] and Norway[13] (given Norway's extracurricular activities aren't directly associated with the schools. [10] . http://spice.stanford.edu... [11] . http://www.mext.go.jp... [12] . http://www.chinaeducenter.com... [13] . http://www.afsusa.org... South Korean schools on the other hand face harsh criticism for their lack of (among other things) extracurricular activities[14]. [14] . http://newpol.org... As for the UIL requiring that time be set aside in the school day to practice, this is neither true nor a bad thing even if it were true. Many public texas schools do sponsor 'UIL classes' where students have the time to practice for their respective events, but it's more of an optional thing for the schools than a requirement. Texas schools require students to take so many elective hours in order to graduate, and it's better to take an elective class that prepares you to participate in science, social studies or literary criticism than a class that would have not impact on the student. The end-all point here, is that Pro provides no compelling argument as to why US schools should get rid of their extracurricular activities. Pro consistently drops arguments and instead presents irrelevant evidence claim that a problem exists that doesn't Extracurricular activities provide students with valuable life skills as well as academic ways to occupy their time.

Let's start by clarifying my value structure. I value Progressive Post-Industrialism, which is a movement in society towards human rights and justice. As much as we would like to believe that the U.S. has reached this point in society, it is false. In my case, I show the myriad benefits of a P P-I society, none of which have been rebutted. Pro never says that P P-I is a bad thing, he just attacks the link to my case. Because it is easy to see that P P-I is fundamentally good, we must use it as the value in this round. Furthermore, Pro never gives a bright line, or even attempts to. I give a specific pathway to P P-I and societal progress. Similarly, Pro ignores my link to the criterion of accountability. We are not using the United States' current weak multiple choice tests. Not only do these go against the values of a P P-I society, they are, as we both agree, ineffective. Instead, we are looking to the free response, high level tests that DO take place in P P-I societies. It's not only through economic progress that we achieve P P-I. By mandating higher level SEEs, society is showing its commitment to education and that it values equality. Educated and empowered students go on to strengthen society economically and socially. Their increased skill in communication reduces violence and disputes. Better understanding of the world reduces negative stereotyping and racism. While such changes may seem cheesy and overly optimistic, much research has shown that P P-I societies experience this positive growth largely because of their strong educational system and accountability structures. As you evaluate the attacks that Pro makes on my case, and the extensions he makes on his, there is one very important factor to keep in mind. All the problems that he keeps harping on are NOT with the SEEs that we should be putting in place. They are not problems with critical-thinking free-response tests that P P-I societies put it place. They are problems with today's multiple choice tests. The Neg completely does away with all these problems and harms with the proper tests. Let's look at my Contention 1 now. Pro completely skips over my analysis and evidence which shows that the new economy requires students to have skills which schools fail to impart! The Hart card is from 2007, when less than 50% of schools had SEEs. He continues to completely drop the Esping-Andersen card which states that P P-I societies in Europe have stronger economies BECAUSE of their rigorous, free response tests! This is a huge reason to vote Neg! Pro's attacks on my C2 are also misplaced. The Barry and Finley card clearly states that high-stakes tests are more reliable than low stakes tests, nothing more, nothing less. This point is completely dropped. Furthermore, if we take a high-stakes system and further enhance it by making it free-response and high-level, we circumvent the problems that Aff provides. Let's move on to the Aff side. The value for this round is Progressive Post-Industrialism. Aff never states that it is bad, and never shows why societal progress should be preferred. Because Aff never attacks the actual link I make between accountability and P P-I and instead strawmans my side, we need to prefer my criterion over his. Furthermore, he doesn't show exactly how the Aff reaches a valued diploma. How do I know when an Affirmative student has achieved competency? What means do we use? The Aff never provides the link or shows how this would be done. In fact, this goes the exact other way! I showed with the Hart card that the kind of system that exists on the Affirmative side leads only to failure. The definition for this round is also the Neg's. Aff's definition doesn't specify that the exams are state-based. He doesn't source it either. Furthermore, the reason we need to prefer my definition which puts the power in the federal government's hands is that a national level test is what will lead to success. As such, I am not defending state-level tests. The Affirmative C1 now completely falls. He doesn't attack my arguments at all. All Aff does is weakly restate his claims. He doesn't even extend his evidence! Remember that he's talking about multiple choice, low-level graduation exams that are being put into place across the U.S. I'm talking about free-response, critical thinking tests. His entire contention is attacking the wrong thing. He fails to attack my arguments on his second contention too. Exit exams, particularly in P P-I societies that value education, are reflections of the curriculum, not the other way around. Exit exams test the curriculum to make sure it is being taught. All that will happen as a result of SEEs is stronger curriculum alignment and an empowered workforce. Remember, these are the kinds of exams we're putting in to place: English Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... English Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... There's no worry about teachers 'teaching' to such exams. First, they cover such broad subject area that teachers are just going to end up teaching the whole curriculum. Second, they test critical thinking and analysis that are vital in the job markets. These are the kind of tests that lead to successful economies. Ultimately, this round should go Neg for two reasons. First, there are numerous benefits to P P-I societies. These include, "quality of health care for the disabled, poor and old...[reduced] aggression towards other racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups...[and] economic and social survival", as Gosta Esping-Andersen writes. The Neg is the only one who can achieve these benefits, because as Professor Esping-Andersen continues, it is "the standard of education in post-industrialist societies...[and] the rigorous testing taken by those exiting the secondary education system" which access these benefits. Second, Aff's entire case is a giant strawman [1]. He attacks a set of exams which I am not supporting. With that, I'll give it back to Aff for his final speech. [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

Thanks, Con, for starting this debate. INTRODUCTION: Con's Value: Educated Society Con begins by stating that if we do not monitor the education level in public high schools, it will have damaging and greatly detrimental effects. He insists that there will be "chaos within education" and "society will fail." This is overly dramatic; consider the reality that these mandatory tests did not exist for men like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin - in fact, they didn't even receive formal schooling as we know it today - and yet they were very intelligent and led a productive society which has not failed yet, regardless of the mandatory exit exams. Throughout this debate, I will demonstrate how we can uphold Con's value of maintaining an educated society while not requiring mandatory exit exams from public HS. I will also show why these tests are unfair, unnecessary and of little to no use, thereby negating Con's position in this debate. I will also deconstruct Con's arguments as well as present my own. REBUTTAL: Con offered accountability and identifying failing schools as his only contentions; however, these arguments are insufficient in sustaining his burden. First, there are other ways to identify failing schools (i.e. monitoring graduation rate, grade point average, teacher evaluations, hands-on administration, State certification, entrance to college, etc.). Con's insistence that this is the ONLY way to achieve the goal of an educated society is highly biased and flat-out false. I maintain that teachers and students can still be held responsible through various other means, which I will provide in my arguments section. Moving on, you'll notice that Con wishes these standards to be applied only to public schools. However, is that 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. By mandating a HS exit exam, we are forcing a test on our students in the name of knowledge; a test that actually discourages education (and instead focuses solely on passing the exam) and attempts to parent our children instead of teach our children. ARGUMENTS: 1) Test performance. a) Not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. Some people panic, get sick, choke, etc. These tests are very intimidating to students who sometimes obsess over the results. Therefore one's performance on the rest is really not a very accurate indicator of how each individual performs. b) A lot of students suffer from things like dyslexia or other learning disabilities which inhibit them from performing up to par on the exam. As such, these individuals may never have a fair chance at passing the exam. On the other hand, if they're given an advantage (such as longer time to complete the test), this might not be fair to the other students who are not given more time despite their own personal (sometimes undiagnosed) need. Either way, there's hardly a way to make these exams universally fair for everyone, which goes against your very own value and criterion. 2) Learning Inhibition. a) Preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, linguistic 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. b) Because people are intelligent in different ways, this test is discriminatory because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 3) Alternatives. a) If one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. These can be discussed amongst administrators, school boards and teachers in each individual district and vary upon school, class or possibly even individual so long as they show sufficient skill in designated areas. b) One suggestion is that colleges could require the passing or taking of several entrance exams or SAT-like exams in order to gain admission to their institution. 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, i.e. college, trade school or a particular career). 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. It essentially gives students a CHOICE instead of forcing this test upon them. They can make the conscientious decision to take the test to ensure the well being of their futures by taking this responsible step. 4) Usefulness/Uselessness a) Some people need to graduate HS to accomplish goals such as entering the military or other specific fields of training. I posit that some of the knowledge required on the exams will have nothing to do with some individual's direction in life, but because they need to graduate HS in order to tend to their other options, the negation of this resolution stands in their way of success. This again seems to go against Con's value. b) Studies show that those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society [1]. c) While standardized tests may be useful in finding out what one knows and does not know (in terms of what they should or are expected to know), this should have nothing to do with whether or not they GRADUATE. Instead, they can be tools or guides used to determine which areas a pupil may need more help or focus in. The graduation aspect is also supported by the reality that different schools in different towns and states require different things to pass. Not all standardized tests are the same, and as such a student from a different school may also have an unfair advantage. This again does not seem to uphold Con's value. 5) Costs a) Creating the tests, preparing for the tests, giving the tests and grading the tests all cost money. Because Con has not proven that these tests are necessary OR beneficial (or even reliable or relevant), then this cost is unnecessary and therefore an unfair tax burden. 6) Fostering an Appreciation for Education If students aren't interested in the material, and instead focus solely on passing the exam, 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. Source: [1] http://hsee.umn.edu...

Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) < > Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on. < > That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws. <<1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. >> Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose thier jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department. COUNTER-ARGUMENT: 1A: Realistic The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve. 1B: Resources School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class. 1C: The Future In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Should the grading system be eliminated? The grading system should be eliminated as it can discourage children from studying. Giving grades can be unfair to students who are not in the top-performing class, as it feels like special treatment for a select group of students. If I were the Minister of Human Resource Development, one of my first actions would be to replace this grading system.

Do standardized tests enhance education? The use of standardized tests in education is controversial. Some argue that these tests can improve educational outcomes by providing a uniform measure of student performance. However, others believe that standardized tests can have negative effects on education, such as narrowing the curriculum and promoting teaching to the test. The debate over the role of standardized tests in education is ongoing and complex.

Should teachers have tenure? The concept of tenure for teachers is a contentious issue. Tenure provides job security for teachers and can help to protect them from arbitrary dismissal. However, some argue that tenure can lead to complacency and make it difficult to remove underperforming teachers. The debate over the role of tenure in education is ongoing and complex.

Should the grading system be replaced? The current grading system in education has been criticized for a variety of reasons. Some argue that grades can be demotivating for students and can lead to a narrow focus on test scores rather than a broader understanding of the subject matter. Others believe that grades can be unfair to students who are not in the top-performing class. The debate over the role of grades in education is ongoing and complex.

Is the seniority-based layoff system fair to teachers? The seniority-based layoff system for teachers has been criticized for being unfair to newer teachers and for potentially leading to the loss of talented educators. Some argue that layoffs should be based on performance rather than seniority. The debate over the fairness of the seniority-based layoff system for teachers is ongoing and complex.

i will accept your challenge. i believe that tests are more effective then assessments because tests are individual and you get to see how the student is doing by himself. projects on the other hand are group work and as such they are usually dominated by one person.

It seems my opponent has forfeited his final speech. Regardless, I will proceed with some crystallization. In this round, we are valuing Progressive Post-Industrialism through Accountability. The debater who best achieves this has won. Remember that Progressive Post-Industrialism is "the evolution of industrialist societies into more technologically advanced and culturally progressed civilizations dedicated to humanist principles of justice and human dignity". The Negative achieves this quite simply. The high level nature of exit exams ensure that a graduating population is fully educated and enlightened. We see this quite clearly in strong European nations with accountable systems. Apart from ensuring economic survival, an exit exam leads to numerous social benefits, including increased healthcare and decreased racism and discrimination. My first contention clearly shows that the problems with todays schools are a result of rubber-stamping diplomas and low standards of accountability. People enter the workforce unable to function on the required level which undermines the economy and the individual, who cannot hold a steady job. The solution here is a high stakes, critical thinking exit exam. You can look the example of the Irish 10th grade test as the basic framework that the Negative upholds. It is only these high stakes tests that can achieve any form of accountability because students have no incentive to perform on low-stakes tests. The problems on the affirmative case all quickly dissolve in a progressive post-industrial negative world. Higher value and standards in education ensures that students are ready for life. A focus on actual education prevents teaching to the test (which is more rightly 'teaching to the curriculum; exams reflect the curriculum, the skills students need to learn). Finally, the affirmative case is all geared towards multiple choice exams. Never do I ever say that multiple choice exams are a proposition on the negative side. His entire case is a giant strawman (see: http://www.clker.com...) and he never once makes an attack that can be applied to my case. Because I am the only one left in this round with any offense at all and achieve a stronger, more empowered society, I urge a Negative vote.

In other words Kazakhstan's education we can call USSR's. When USSR existed, people said that USSR's education is the best. But it is a controversial topic. I claim that education of the USA is the best. Because in the USA, people learn only that subjects which will help them in their future occupation. I studied in Kazakhstani school with USSR's type of education. For example in my school, teachers of physics or chemistry teached us, like we are future workers of nuclear stations. So, I will never use this knowledge in my life and after 10 years I will forget it. It was useless time. It is better to learn subjects which you will use in your future job deeply, than learn subjects which you will never use in your life.

Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, "If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :)

I enjoyed this debate too. :)Your arument is all about saying that my soucrecs studies are false, due to the selection. Well you imply that only the smart kids go do the tests, which is a logical fallacy. You say since a parent selects if their kid does the tests, than only smart kids do it, which is not the case. Most of the kids are average intellegence, as are the public school ones, yet the homeschoolers get better scores. Also my studies are correct because 16,000 home schoolers are used, and the same amout as the public recorded, so it is valid. You say that since it is not th ewhole than its not accurite, but ALL studies do not use every single per the U.S. yet they are consdered valid. ANd being used in those tests is OPTIONAL. So the otional argument is false, it is fairly accurite (not exact) but is close. So your lomeans that all studies are false, which is not the case. "Most take ERB's or EXPLORE tests? I didn't find anything that said homeschooled children take this test."Those are private school tests, but home schoolers have the option of taking the ones in the study, or these. the ones above are harder) "If a baseball team has 25 players, with the highest paid player making $30 million, the next highest player making $20 million, and the other 23 players each making $500,000, the average is $2,460,000. But since 23 of the players make only $500,000, that can be misleading."I answered this above, that is a bad example as well. the rich (or in the case of home schooling smart) would be counted, but since there are more average intelegence kids in a home school enviroment (in this case 500,000) then many of them will have choosen to be in that survey. So the studies are not exact, but they are close. And once again, your logic is all against the se;on, but in ALL STUDIES YOU DECIDE, so for the la time, your logic means that all studies are false, which is not the case. "Actually, I'm only showing you that the qualifications for homeschooling your child is very low and that if every parent decided to homeschool their kids then the end result would be bad. I would think kids from rich families would have a better social life, lol, their rich!"1. You have no sources proving that the rich teach the homesholling, and being risnt help a social life. Also many rich kids do terrible socially and when they are adults. So even if only rich people were homeschooled, which is false, then your argument would still be null and void. 2. Tutors are usally ined with home schooling (they have good credentials)3. If my studies are correct (which they probably not to far off) then even though they have low credentials, they make up for it by teaching their kids better, allowing them to have better standerdised test scoures. "I never said smart homeschoolers get "forced" to do anything. Don't be silly. I merely showed that parents with kids that do exceptionally well are more inclined to let their children take these tests "You say only enthusiastic people take the tests, but you have no proof to verify these claims. Also the kid may hate taking tests, but the parent is enthusiastic. So a b kid could be forced by his parents to take the tests. So this argument is flawed too. (not to be mean, but this is gonna be a DDO tip, if you want to make an outrageous/hard to belive claim, have a link that goes along with it to make it ightly more credible)"Taxes will be paid whether it's for a child going to school or a man going to prison. And you did not argue that it is only cheaper to the parent that is homeschooling the child depending on the methods they choose to use to educate that child, so it could turn out MORE expensive " I feel like Richard Nixon in his debate for congress, "you are now traped!". Here's the key d you said "could cost more" well yes it could, a honda could cost more than ferrari (unlikely just like your claim), on average homeschooling is cheaper, by about 1000 dollars the fact you pay for it in taxes, aka not free. So yes, anything could inherintly cost more, but usally one is less than the other. I will explain this a second time, widifferent source than before:Home schooling is much cheaper than public school education. If government is looking for ways to reduce costs, active encouragement of home schooling as a serious option ought to be promoted and encouraged. If most children were home-schooled, then many schools could become public parks or libraries, and all the fossil fuels used to drive children to school, to heat, light, and air condition schools, and other activities that are anathema to environmentalists could be avoided. Public schools could always be the option for parents who, for whatever reason, cannot home-school their children or send their children to private schools, but the public policy of promoting private instruction of students could solve many problems that government currently and clumsily tries to solve through the expenditure of vast government resources and the hyper-regulation of education in many states. [1]Now I will add on to my points:This is a new one:Your rich statements are al false because many minorities opt to homeschool:Minority children home-schooled also do better than their counterparts in public schools. [1]So minorites that opt to homeschool do better, and to be racist, but minorities are less wealthon average. Also your claims are flase because common logic disproves that, rural comunities have lless access to public schooling, so many of them homeschool. And people in thounities are usally lower classes. So common logic also helps diminish that argument of yoursThe tests:The stigma of home schooling is gradually diminishing. Home-schooled children outperform students in public schools on standardized tests. [1]Still more of the sameDr. Brian Ray, was recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Academic Leadership. Among other things, the study revealed above-average academic achievement by home-educated students and no relationship between the degree of state control of home-based education and homeschool students’ test scores. [2]So a perr review stuas you all is more viable than others, so this study is viable, are the others that I posted. Cost:Look at my last rebutal under the bold. ^Also student to teacher ratioKids learn better in smaller groups or in private les usally, that is pretty much non disputable, so homesching is better in that case too. The “student pupil ratio,” held in such grand esteem by those who disdain home schooling, is much lower for children taught by their parents than by harried teachers in public schools. Skipping homework, also, is much more difficult for home-schooled students than for students in public schools. [1]Conclusion:So in homeschooling you get tought better (the MAIN REASON FOR SCHOOL, and the most impertant part of this debate), it costs less on average, and is infact better than public schoolingr many other reasons not stated in this conclusion, btated in the previous rounds. Vote CON! :)And thank you too for the debatehttp://thenewamerican.com... [1]http://www.nheri.org... [2]

My main three points which I will expand on are as follows: 1) Written exams are have an adverse effect on the teaching of a subject, and are inefficient at testing one's ability in a given subject. 2) Exams test skills which are no longer as important as they used to be- such as memorising information. 3) Exam weeks often have a severe effect on a student's physical and mental health. As a supporter to this motion, I have a duty to propose an alternative system to written examinations which serves the same role, and will do this either in round 3 or at the end of this round if I have space. Please note that despite my efforts to propose a specific alternative system, I need not convince the voters that said system is better in order for the motion to be carried; if the voters can themselves think of a more workable system than the one I propose, but I have still convinced them that it would be better were written examinations banned, then the motion would, of course, still be carried. Now, to develop my main points further: There's no denying that students are currently taught, for instance, how to pass a French exam, rather than simply being taught French itself, because of the focus on the final exam at the end. This has a detrimental effect on the students' learning in this area, as the ability to speak French can be extremely useful in day to day life, but the ability to pass a French exam is not. Languages may be the most obvious example of this- with thousands of students gaining a qualification in French every year despite having no idea how to speak French in everyday life- but it happens in all subject areas: chemistry students are spending time learning that the colour of the flame produced by burning potassium is "lilac" rather than "purple" because that's what the exams want them to say, rather than actually learning more chemistry. When written exams were first implemented centuries ago, internet access was not something that anyone had. Therefore, one of the most important skills to test was memory- the ability to recall information on demand, rather than having to search through libraries for hours, was extremely useful in one's professional life. Nowadays, however, almost anyone who's sitting a written exam has internet access 24/7. Therefore, the ability to recall that Margaret Thatcher was born on October 13th 1925, is no longer useful because it takes seconds to find that information online as I just did. Lastly, I come to the point of the health effects exams have on students- the pressure of having sometimes as many as 15 exams over a few weeks all of which have a considerable impact on one's future employment prospects is extremely stressful, and is therefore associated with an increased risk of mental health conditions. The sheer amount of time spent studying indoors in darkened rooms, sometimes at the cost of a good night's sleep, has severe effects for both a student's physical and mental health. I have enough space, so I will begin proposing a better system: A better way to assess a student's ability in a subject would be to have their teachers write a detailed statement, kind of like a school report, about a student's skills in that area. Something like: "Daisy is extremely good at the theoretical side of physics and shows a natural talent for the various mathematical processes we use throughout the course. She seems disinterested in experimental physics, and hence under-performs in that area. Quantum physics is an area she seems to have an intuitive understanding of..." ...and so on in that manner. This is clearly more useful to any potential employers than: "Physics BSc. 2-1" and removes all of the problems associated with exams as outlined above. It is for that reason that I urge the voters to side with the motion that we should ban written exams, and hence replace them with this or a similar system.

Education and School are two different things. School and hard work would be siblings but school would be a distant relative. Education is the key but why do we have to go to school to get it. Any more becoming educated is becoming the encyclopedia of dry facts that are only used for the test and all of these facts are stuff you could google at any time. So why do we need to go to school to achieve being educated.

The majority of the populous has known that common-core is a horrible and ineffective learning method, school can basically be summed up as "Here da facts, memorize da facts, write as many facts as you know, A+=Intelligent / F-=Retarded/Learning disability" and this pretty much stays constant until college or university were they actually make an effort to teach people things like Engineering, Government, Business. My point is common-core is a pathetic excuse for a method of learning that isn't going to go away any time soon because that would require people to get off their asses and develop a new system and somehow convince minimum wage salary teachers to enforce it in classrooms. School being terrible isn't a stereotype, and i refuse to deny people the truth.

Rebuttals 1.Grades create stress Great. Recent research that suggests stress has many benefits. Moderate stress can lead to cell growth in the brain’s learning centers In this 2013 study out of University of California, Berkeley, adult rats were immobilized in a small space for three hours or left unchanged. Two days and then two weeks later, the rats were given a fear-conditioning test, which evaluates the rats freezing or avoidance behavior when in a context that last lead to a negative consequence such as a shock. The measure is known as ‘fear extinction memory.’ The immobilized rats showed an increased level of the stress hormone corticosterone (the rat equivalent of cortisol in humans) as well as an increased growth of neural stem cells in their hippocampus, an important learning center of the brain. As compared to the control group, these rats had similar results on the fear extinction memory test given two days after the initial stressor, but showed significant improvement on the test after two weeks. The authors put fourth that these newly proliferated cells, after taking multiple days to integrate to fullest capacity, helped in learning at this improved level. Overall, it suggests that moderate levels of stress enhanced neural function and learning. Source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. Feed back. As I stated in my opening case. 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. 7. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is mainly a case against standardized tests however a creative piece of writing may also be graded according to a rubric which may make student work harder to accomplish everything in the rubric and get a high grade. Tests may foster rote memorization but not grades. 8. Again grades provide the student something to work towards perhaps the student doesn’t want to learn but the fear of failing encourages him and makes him finish the 5 problems which in turn may make him interested in the subject. 9. Students working for a grade view knowledge as something that must be internalized in order to achieve a high mark, instead of something that can be intriguing when discussed and grappled with. Again this has to do with issues in TESTS and not grades. Tests perhaps should be given in different formats to encourage more critical thinking or have a class discussion which is also graded. For example I have had class discussions that have been graded. 4. However they are still learning and without grades they would not WANT to learn at all without that extrinsic motivator they may not do any work or learn anything at all but with grades they are still learning even if indirectly Furthermore education is ultimately utilitarian. 1.Grades give immediate gratification for hard work & and something tangible to work towards… Grades provide gratification for hard work. As pro pointed out ” People do better in life if they can work towards a more concrete, important goal further down the road” For many people GRADES provide that goal to work towards. 2.2.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). As pro pointed out. Grades allow educators to make clear and informed decisions. This benefits EDUCATION. “educators are helped to make decisions” 4. 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. Since an essay will be graded according to a rubric if a student met those goals within the rubric the teacher has no choice but to assign the grade deserved.

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.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Standardized Testing
My adversary is concerned that students may only excel in standardized tests, which won’t enhance education. The issue with tests is their inconsistency. Tests can vary greatly from one school to another and even between different teachers. This inconsistency can result in some students being at a disadvantage, as they may not have been taught certain material, while others are already proficient. In fact, a recent study indicates that 79% of students believe standardized tests are equitable. My adversary also fears that standardized tests stifle creative thinking. However, tests are designed to assess knowledge. The purpose of grades 1-12 is to impart foundational knowledge across various subjects. Standardized tests ensure that students comprehend what they are learning. They already incorporate questions that encourage creative thinking. Teaching to the test is beneficial as it eliminates time-consuming activities that do not contribute to learning. It focuses on essential content, ensuring that all students receive the same education. Contrary to popular belief, standardized tests do not restrict the curriculum; instead, they guide it. The multiple-choice format of standardized tests is advantageous for improving the education system as it provides accurate data. Furthermore, standardized test grading is fair and objective. Teacher grading can be biased, as personal feelings towards a student may influence the evaluation. China’s success in academics serves as a testament to the effectiveness of standardized tests, as they have a standardized testing system in place.

SAT's and ACT's shouldnt make such impact becuase students take these tests that test them on math literature and english which kno a days is not somthing needed so much as it used to be... everything now is computerized and stuff like that.....

Thank you for joining my debate. Common core is bad for schools because it values tests over learning. The way the whole system is set up makes it so that intelligence is measured by standardized test upon standardized test each year, causing stress, anxiety, and depression. If you think that standardized tests measure intelligence, you need to rethink your views, end of story.

Solo, this is where i make my final argument first off, i would like to quote that of which kenicks said down in the comments: "Solo, while you debate well, I have a very hard time believe you could complete a well-thought out, full-fledged 18 page report in one night. The focus on this report is to write a miniature version of Homer's "The Odyssey", following all the specific characteristics of an epic throughout five books (chapters). Furthermore, if you could indeed such fine material in just one night, why in fact are you spending your sitting on the computer debating with 8th graders, when you could be writing illustrious novels for a living?" i agree with his statement fully. i highly doubt that when you were in eighth grade you could write what we are writing in one night. He has another point where he said you should be writing books now. If you were able to write an 18 page paper of such A quality in one night, then why ARE you on this website when you should be writing best-selling novel? another point he made is its not like i am no where near finished, I'm almost done. I am just saying this is unfair on the behalf of me classmates who are not as quick as i am. Still, your whole point about the education in other countries still doesn't have much to do with my topic. I am not talking about other countries and their education, for other countries have completely different lifestyles than we do. going back to your statement about you being able of writing an A quality 18 page paper in one night, if this is true, then you must be an absolute genius, and if you are a genius; STOP DEBATING ON THIS WEBSITE 24/7 AND GO MAKE SOMETHING OF YOUR LIFE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

The Common Core system is a set of academic standards in mathematics and the English language arts (S1). Common Core gives public schooling the initiative to properly educate students, and prepare students for college. A lecturer at Boston University says that “One of the broad goals is that the increased rigor of the Common Core will help everyone become college and/or career ready,” (S2).My opponent discredits the Common Core standards by saying that "it values tests over learning," and concludes his argument with a snarky "end of story." Firstly, yes, the Common Core does provide standardized testing. However, the Common Core uses these tests to measure the skills of different public schools, and motivates students to improve in contextual learning and critical thinking (S3). Also, it prepares students for other standardized tests such as the PSAT and SAT.Personally, I have found that, over the years, the Common Core and Common Core Standardized Testing has helped me tremendously. It has pushed me to study more vocabulary, improve on document analysis and critical thinking, and prepare better for the PSAT and SAT.Sources:S1) http://www.corestandards.org...S2) http://neatoday.org...S3) http://time.com...

I thank my new friend for granting this welcome opportunity to measure my mettle and hope he benefits, at least, equally. However, my greatest hope is for the welfare of his children. Currently, my friend adheres to an ideology that threatens children everywhere. Friends, my opponent believes that one should throw out, with the bath water, the baby! I'd like to begin by asking my opponent, in regard to (1), if the education system is biased, from where do we recruit those lonely, objective individuals who are able to untangle themselves from their biases and give their help in developing a just education system and how do we lowly biased brutes recognize objectivity when we see it? My opponent also leaves me confused in his assertion (2) that said testing offers no benefits to passers. Would he please explain the apparent contradiction in his argument that follows? The concern is the establishment of just education, apparently, for the under-served: those who failed. What relevance is there between that and the level of achievement gained by passers? Resolved: A standardized exit exam should be required for all U.S. high school students to graduate. C: The goal of education is to prepare citizens to meet their civil duties. V: Standardized testing is the only reliable method of measuring the effectiveness of educators and the requisite knowledge level for citizens moving into self-governance. 1)My first contention is that humanity has always proved that when the opportunity for self-fulfillment at the cost of acceptable consequences presents itself, many will exploit the opportunity without regard to the impact on others. This is common knowledge without citing the Holocaust, Jim Crow or slavery. Because educators are members of humanity, we must be cautious of their tendency to fulfill themselves at the expense of students ( YouTube.com/watch?v=gj--P1sYarY ). A form of fullfillment may be teaching lessons that are inconsistent with the objective of public education. By requiring students to pass exit exams, we pressure teachers to use their limited resources ( theapple.monster.com/benefits/articles/7665-9-reasons-to-quit-teaching-and-10-reasons-to-stay ) to teach what the electorate decides is most relevant to becoming a good citizen. I do know... this coarse implication grates on the refined ears of our enlightened countrymen. I do know... those practitioners of gentile academic pursuits such as rooting out theoretical injustice in every gopher hole in every golf course find the task of being the boss repulsive. And, I do know... that applying a purely academic standard to real life has a purely real life consequence that the academic has no need to worry about. This leads me to my next contention. It is the duty of the citizenry to insure that the government is carrying out its duties. In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson tells us that when a government drifts toward despotism, the citizens are burdened with,'a duty to throw it off.' Does this not suggest that we also have the duty to prevent despotism? And, if so, are we not responsible to the sovereigns of tomorrow, the children, to prevent them from becoming despots? "We hold these truths to be self evident." " Fourscore and seven years ago." "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Are we not failing posterity if we accept that these sacred moments in our history can be interpreted as anything else but an assertion that our country's founding is rooted in natural law, that blood is one of the currencies in which freedom is purchased, and that justice can prevail against tyranny and we're the descendants of those who proved such? Only a standardized test is practical enough to insure we meet this obviously necessary responsibility. Some will say,'Studies this, studies that, studies, studies, studies!' I say to you,"Study well and you'll accomplish more than that study... which is biased." Lastly, to my good friends who require sources for the above, I ask that you consider such a need support for my argument.

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.

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

The teaching method of oppressive education you refer to as, "brainwashing," is in fact wrong for the standards you mentioned. However, in terms of creating a successful society, the interests of a person"s "development" are minimal compared to the society itself. Although teachers may be oppressive, it is the most effective form of schooling for the benefit of the group. Individuality is what breaks a society; unity is what brings it together. Education is nothing more than a form of creating a universal environment where people have common background knowledge to interact and succeed for the benefit of all beings. As Hirsch said, "If strangers share very little knowledge, their communications must be long and relatively rudimentary." When you previously said, "To effectively develop one"s life"focus on the development of one"s self," you misconstrued my statement by assuming that I was referring to the "life" of an individual, when I was actually referring to the life of society. Oppressive education is wrong in the development of an individual, but for the purposes of a culture it is a more than an ideal technique that allows society to operate successfully. This is why this system of "teaching" is continuously utilized; it is for the greater good.

no they should not my brother could not read until grade three for example because he had dyslexia and he would have failed grades 1 and 2 if this was true

so sice you have no arguments...yet I will just accept the challenge. Lets not digress into homeschooling because that would not be considered private school. I will provide definitions: public school: (in the U.S.) a school that is maintained at public expense for the education of the children of a community or district and that constitutes a part of a system of free public education commonly including primary and secondary schools. [1] Private school: All Girls Boarding School Dedicated to providing the treatment your daughter deserves. www.sunrisertc.com Liberty University Online Online Christian University Degrees Get Free Info - It's Fast & Easy! www.libertyonlinedegrees.com Christian Ministry degree Complete a BA in Christian Ministry online through Leavell College www.nobts.edu/LeavellCollege Ads private school   noun a school founded, conducted, and maintained by a private group rather than by the government, usually charging tuition and often following a particular philosophy, viewpoint, etc. [1] I have gone to school in a private school my whole life (never public) and an American public school is worse that a private school. Begin your case. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]