Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

For Elite Institutions, Standardized Tests Should Carry Greater Weight in Admissions Decisions Than GPA

Resolved: Standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, and other relevant exams provide a more accurate reflection of a high school student's readiness for elite college and university education than their high school GPA. Therefore, these tests should play a more significant role in the admissions process. The discussion will focus on institutions in the United States that accept less than 15% of applicants, acknowledging that elite colleges with higher acceptance rates may exist but are not the focus of this argument.

Contention 1: High GPA is common among applicants to elite institutions. Last year, Brown University received applications from over 2,000 valedictorians and salutatorians of their high school classes, but could only enroll a fraction of them. This indicates that relying heavily on GPA is impractical due to the large number of applicants with high grades. Standardized tests, by design, limit the number of top scores, making them a better tool for differentiation. For example, Brown received only 108 perfect ACT scores compared to 1,507 valedictorians.

Contention 2: GPA is inconsistent across students and schools. A student's GPA can be inflated by taking easier courses, and the difficulty of AP Biology can vary widely from one school to another. Standardized tests, on the other hand, are designed to produce consistent results regardless of location or test administration.

Contention 3: High school classes may not be rigorous enough to challenge students capable of excelling at elite institutions. Elite colleges require a level of academic rigor that most high schools cannot match due to student demographics. Standardized tests offer a challenge that can identify students with exceptional potential.

Conclusion: While qualities such as work ethic and determination are crucial for success at elite colleges, standardized tests are the best tool for distinguishing highly capable students. Consider two students: one with a 3.7 GPA and a 2370 SAT score from school X, and another with a 4.0 GPA and a 2020 SAT score from school Y. The student with the higher SAT score, who is likely more academically gifted, should not be disadvantaged due to potentially more challenging classes or minor grade fluctuations. The SAT score difference is significant in a high school grading environment that is generally more lenient than college.

Sources: [same as original]

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

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

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

It seams as though you are the one who has failed to stay on the topic yet again. The burden of proof does not lie in my ability to prove that Sierra Leone's education has gotten worse rather it lies within your ability to create a counter argument to my initial claim. If you were unable to decipher the claim of my initial argument then perhaps you serve as evidence in its favor.

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

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

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.

Pardon my delayed response, my time has been rather limited lately. Ladies and gentlemen, homework has plagued many a student ever since it arrived on the scene eons ago. It has been the bane of students and an unwanted burden on those that have to endure it's prolonged existence. But as troublesome as it is, is there any benefit to it? I think that the few places where it does help are sadly over shadowed by the problems with it.It denies the child the opportunity to rest.Children, like adults, are prone to stress and collection of stress. But unlike adults who can clear their minds and take on much more pressure children cannot really vent this unneeded stress in any way. The only way that they have to release their inner turmoil is with rest, spending time with family, friends and just playing like children do. The six to eight hours children already spend in school should suffice. The hour that might be wasted on homework each night. The rest they are not getting by doing something they enjoy further add to the stress and further diminish their ability to efficiently work and lowers their test scores and lengthen the time already spent on homework and the cycle starts again. It has no scientific support.Despite it often being praised for locking in the lessons of the day or further assist them on getting a good test score most researchers disagree on the benefits of homework. Some seem to think it solves all the problems of the world while others while others say it in fact diminishes effort and test scores, at least before high school. The children don't need homework at this age and the added stress, fear and general resentment towards school results in lowered test scores. They aren't learning, they're reciting and memorizing because they are told to. The fact that they're experiencing all the downs of homework and still not reaping any benefits is troublesome to say the least. Too much for no reason.But why do we issue homework? Often we try to answer that question with the standardized “It helps kids learn; it enforces the lesson of the day; it gives them the chance to look back and get ahead and it is a necessary part of education.” The problem with these statements is that they are all false. We issue homework because we're raised to the idea that it is something that is important. We issue home work because the teacher said so. We issue homework without really having a need for it. If a child is late on his/her educational path and has been slacking off it may be required of him to use some of his time at home to learn and catch up. That's all right assuming that he actually does it. But most of the times we issue homework because at some point we simply go “Well, I don't actually have a valid reason to assign homework to these kids since they're all doing well, but they still should do something four to five times a week.” This is just the norm, and it isn't helping the children at all. It may lock in a lesson or two, but at the cost of test scores, co-operation in the class room and general spirit and behavioural patterns in the group. It's a bore.There, I said it, perhaps the least scientific and the most biased argument and still it serves the point. Children just do not enjoy homework. At no point will you hear a child sitting trough an hour of homework and say: “Gee, do I have to stop? I'm having so much fun!” Children are people too, and just like you don't like to do what bores you and just like you don't really pick the fruits of that activity children don't really gain anything from doing homework. They complain of stress, boredom, general resentment at their school for placing this unneeded burden on their backs and in turn don't really commit. They slack as much as they can because as unbelievable as it may be they don't need to solve the exact same equation for x 25 times. Homework is extremely repetitive. With the exception of the occasional essay or video assignment that they just might enjoy it almost always boils down to doing the same thing over and over again until they either finish the assignment or snap. If you still have that math folder you where assigned in the fifth or sixth grade you might notice the patterns in it. “Solve for x in the following equations:a) 2x = 5+xb) 5+2x = -xc) x/10 = 3(x*2 + 5)d) 2*x-4*x = x/(4+1) [add the rest of the alphabet with similar looking problems]” none of these problems are hard, not even for a beginner in basic algebra. And yet they take ages because 26 of them take time that the child is wasting on listening to his Ipod, doodling little penguins at the corner of his book or reading something that entertains him. In some subject repetition is good, but in most cases 5 problems do the job just as well to get the general idea. Any more and the child will feel pressured, stressed, bored, angry, depressed and starts to develop a resentment towards school. The common sentence “I hate school” isn't because they're rebelling against the system as a part of a phase; They're just not happy. They don't feel comfortable in school and need a rest from it now and again. But when school starts to follow them home they'll not feel comfortable anywhere and that against cuts into test scores. Ladies and gentlemen, School is a wonderful place. It helps our young grow and blossom and reach the heights of success. But they are spending an awful lot of time in there on a day to day basis, why should the have to invest even more time than they truly require? Why should we force them to deny themselves of rest when they cry out for it? Why should we put pressure on mere children when they state in agony how they cannot handle it? Why should we have homework when we do not need it? I say let school stay where it belongs in school and let home stay at home where it belongs. Homework is a thing of the past, and as all things old it will eventually have to make way for new, better solutions. http://www.alfiekohn.org...http://www.alternet.org...http://www.sundaypost.com...http://www.livescience.com...

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.

Every year, there are students who graduate high school who lack basic skills required to succeed in life. However, because high schools lack a universal standard to determine who can and cannot graduate, we get kids who graduate from high school who can't read or do basic math. Because testing makes a standard for education, I stand in firm negation of the resolution: According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, Graduate means to grant an academic degree or diploma to. Ought is used to express obligation, advisability. My value today is Educated Society. An Educated society is a society in which the majority of the inhabitants that have obtained basic knowledge taught in a high school. An Educated Society would be a society that has an opportunity at a stable career, a family, and a better workforce for this complex society. If there's less educative students and citizens, the society will ultimately decline. However, with an educated society, the overall welfare of the people will improve because when intelligent people are in a society, the society is generically successful. My standard is monitoring the education level in Public High schools. American Heritage Dictionary defines Monitoring as To check the quality or content by means of a receiver. This definition means that to check the quality or content of the American education, we NEED a method of monitoring and a standardized exit exam will successfully do that. By monitoring the education level in school, we are investing into U.S. future and stability. My value criterion is essential in achieving education, because without the close monitor of education, the education system will fall apart, thus not achieving my value. If the government just lets the education system go free without monitoring or guiding it, there will be chaos within education, and the society will fail. However we must monitor education levels in public high schools without violating personal rights of its students. The impact is that with monitoring, the government can avoid serious decreases in education level, and provide support to that branch that is failing. It promotes education. My value criterion allows everything in the school system to occur. 1. Exit testing can provide a system for accountability for both teachers and students. When there isn't a system for evaluating externally to the school, the education system is flawed. (1M. W. Kirst, Accountability: Implications for State and Local Policymakers, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., July) defines1990.Accountability in education refers to the practice of holding educational systems responsible for the quality of their products—students' knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes. Standardized exit exams is a source of feedback on how well a school is performing. It is a source of accountability because an outside force is evaluating the student's test scores and comparing it to a standard to determine if it is lacking or sufficient. From the data that they get, they can take initiatives and help the students. [Virgil; City Educational Advisor; KCET's Life & Times Transcript of Kitchen-table Conversation regarding "California's High School Exit Exam?;" 23 August 2006; http://www.cai-la.org...; retrieved 17 August 2009] explains Well, I favor the high school exit exam because I think it really is an easy way to spotlight schools that are working and schools that are not. America is drawn to action by crisis and what the exam does is that it's really demonstrated in a very clear way the failure of a whole K-12 system of education. I think it will mobilize people to really begin to take action and make the schools accountable. If we take away the exam, then how do we know the schools aren't working? 1.) schools can see what they are lacking in, and they can adapt and adjust to be more efficient and successful. A STANDARDIZED exam will be the only way to evaluate how well the students are doing, and we can solve problematic deficiencies in the student population. 2.) We can better identify failing schools and help them Impact 3. With standardized exit exams, and when school are accountable, quality increases- Education and standard goes up. Bishop describes that when demand for quality in school exists that, " This is in turn is likely to lead to more spending on schools, more rigorous hiring standards for secondary school teachers and a higher priority assigned to student learning in the allocation of school budgets," which all enhance a student's education and help them succeed. One reason is because when students have better education, they have a higher chance to meet the standards of the test. Bishop continues, "Hiring better teachers and improving the school's science laboratories now yields a visible payoff - more students passing the external exams." The schools step up their quality of the education to securitize their school's reputation. Schools do not want to be marked as a failing school, nor do they want their schools to have a bad rating, so they will compel to increase quality of education. A following impact that will occur is that since education is enhanced and taken as a priority with higher quality, standards will ultimately increase thus slowly improving the educated society. this all happens only if the state can monitor the education level with the standardized exit exam. For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

On the whole, standardized testing is advantageous for K-12 education, as it ensures comparability, accountability, and preparedness for future challenges.

Let me introduce myself, I am Thomas Brooks, and I support the notion that, on balance, standardized testing is beneficial for K-12 education in the United States. Today, I will present three main points: 1) standardized testing allows for school comparisons, 2) it improves K-12 education, and 3) it has a positive impact on student achievement both in school and in life.

Point one: Without standardized testing, there would be no means to compare schools and ensure they meet constitutional standards. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 affirmed that this applies to education laws. Therefore, it is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. Without a way to compare schools, we cannot ascertain if a student is getting a substandard education, which would violate our constitutional rights. Without standardized testing, achieving equality would be unattainable.

Point two: Standardized testing has made the quality of education quantifiable and created accountability not only for teachers and schools but also for districts and states. This has led to improvements in educational mandates and funding in two significant ways. Firstly, the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide adequate teaching facilities. A study by David G. Sciarra demonstrates how NCLB created accountability for states and the government to ensure school safety conditions. This has resulted in underfunded schools in states like New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California gaining legal grounds to obtain equal funding, thereby improving the education of their students. Secondly, standardized tests have influenced state legislation on funding since the 1970s. "Adequacy" suits, based on the belief that schools with larger student populations or in poorer demographics require more state funding, have been argued using low standardized test scores and high dropout rates as evidence of inadequate education. Standardized tests have thus promoted greater equality in school funding.

Point three: On balance, standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Although test anxiety is real and can cause stress for students, high-stakes assessments are also a part of post-primary education. Students who take standardized tests are better prepared for future educational, occupational,

The first point I'd like to make in this argument is that in the world of standardized tests, such as the SAT, ACT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and MCAT, there is no such thing as an "aptitude test." Each test is designed to focus on a specific skill set that can, to some extent, be learned. None of these tests are designed in such a way that they reflect innate ability. That being said, standardized tests are biased towards wealthy students. Since these students are wealthy, they can afford professional help in studying for these tests, and will therefore score higher than students who cannot afford, for example, a course designed to increase scores.

My opponent states that my impact of not having an educated society is "overly dramatic", and she warrants that claim stating previous characters from the revolutionary era did not receive formal schooling. I agree that they were very intellectual in that they led the society into a productive form. i will present two arguments against that argument. 1. Today's economy is not a society in which students can just not be educated, and "lead a productive society". In order to lead a productive society, students MUST receive education that is in STANDARD to the era we are in. Thus, every societal action citizens take in today's society, is evaluated on their background or the extent of their education. We grade everything on how well the person is educated. 2. She warrants it with ancient characters that comes from a different era. This different era was when many of its inhabitants were either, illiterate, or non educated. Carrying my 1st argument above, today's economy is not a society in which we can afford non-education. Counter-Rebuttals 1. She states that there are other ways of identifying failing schools, and she gives examples such as "monitoring graduation rate, grade point average, teacher evaulation, hands on administration, etc.". The point that I am making is that YOU CAN NOT identify failing schools on a OVERALL level. What she is stating is that we can identify failing schools WITHIN schools, and that claim is nonsensical. As i stated in my intial case, we must have a national or state standard of identifying failing schools. I'll give an example. She states that we can identify failing school by looking at grade point average. That is ridiculous because a failing school, can give EVERY STUDENT, smart or not, a perfect grade point average to show the school in a good light. Thus, we need to uphold my standard of "monitoring education level in public high schools", because we NEED a standard to uphold education by. 2. Her 2nd rebuttal of private schools is completely not related to the topic, because the resolution that i am debating is "public high schools students in U.S. ought not be required to pass standardized exit exam to graduate." it specifically states "public high schools". So, as long as you have that down, this argument should be void. 3. My opponent states that we are forcing a test on students in the name of knowledge. She further claims that this discourages education and instead focuses solely on passing the exam. She never STATES A WARRANT in WHY DO THIS discourage education. I'll TURN that argument, arguing that standardized exam actually INCREASE education. The material required to pass the standardized exit exam is needed to real life, and the steps in trying to pass the Standardized exit exam, WILL educate the students. REBUTTALs 1. a.) My opponent states that not everyone performs this test well because they "choke, or panic". Well, although my opponent does not state this, but she is implying that this "panic, or choke" is bad. Well, I will present 2 arguments against it. 1. I will turn this argument stating that "choke, or panic" is GOOD. This is preparing the students for the real life, in which panic and choking will occur frequently. 2. I consider this argument non-unique, and non important. Students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS the Standardized exit exams!!! So, in a case where a student "choke, or panic", they can always retake it, to pass it. Thus, her argument is mitigated. b.) My opponent states that some individuals are given a "more fair chance" at passing the Standardized exit exam. She further claims that this goes against my value and my criterion. I will present 3 arguments against this. 1. Exend my counter argument saying that this is non-important. As I stated, students have EIGHT TIMES TO PASS THIS EXAM. And the primary purpose is to simply PASS the exam, which is not too hard. The purpose is not the perform the VERY POSSIBLE best possible. Therefore, her argument is mitigated again. 2. This argument is terribly NON UNIQE. This means that her argument of having an "unfair advantage" happens in BOTH AFFIRMATIVE WORLD AND NEGATIVE WORLD. In the AFF world, whether or not we have standardized exi exams, non-fairness will ALWAYS occur. 3. She states this goes against my value and criterion. This claim is completely untrue. She never states any WARRANTS ON WHY it goes against my value and critrion. My value isn't fairness. It's educated society. And in no way, is non-fairness going against the value of educated society. And my criterion is monitoring education level. Once again, non-fairness is not in accordance with my criterion. 2. She states this this will discourage teachers from focusing on other aspects. I will present one arguments She also states that people are intelligent in different ways. Once again, she never states why those with "other intelligence" is important, and she fails to explain why that matters. So far in this round, i have explained what the standardized exit exam is beneficial to overall society, in that it will promote a "overall education." I defined my value of educated society as "MOST of inhabitants". Thus, if as the Negative says, we take away the standardized exam, we are not giving education to the MAJORITY and "giving education to those that has intelligence that is beyond what is examined on exam" 3. She states that as long as grade or class performance shows considerable knowledge, they should be given an alternative to graduate. I will present 2 arguments 1. If they do show a considerable knowledge, there's no reason to ASSUME that these students will fail the exam. If they DO SHOW a considerable knowledge, then they should def. pass the exam, because the exam is completely reasonable, in which it tests the students ON BASIC KNOWLEDGE. 2. 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. 3. Then she states that this gives a choice to students. This debate is not argued over choice of the students. An exam MUST be emplaced to correctly give A DIPLOMA and right to graduate, evaulating them on an external form of evaluation, which is the standardized exit exam. 4. My opponent states that the exam is not useful. 1. She once again, mishandles my value. Whether or not "military training students" will go in another direction does not impact my value. 2. The studies are misinterpreted, because it doesnt correctly display ALL states, nor does it state HOW it was conducted. 3. As i stated, THE STANDARDIZED EXAM IS NECCERAY TO EVALUATE STUDENTS ON WHETHER THEY DESERVE THE EXAM OR NOT. WE NEED THIS EXAM TO EVALUATE THE STUDENTS. It's a mean of a "evaluation" She misinterpreted this, because she wasn't looking at my case enough. So, as long as you have this down, all her arguments on whether or not "material" is important is non-topical. 5 She states that this will give unncessary money. I present ONE IMPORTANT argument. 1. This doesn't matter, becaue the government has an obligation to provide education to the students. Education outweighs Cost benefits. Education is the most important. 6. She states that if students aren't interested, they shouldnt have to focus on learning this material. I give two argument 1. Once again, refer back to my other rebuttals in which that material on standardized exit exam is important and it is needed to real life. 2. This exam is a method of evaluation on whether or not students are READY for the real life. Thus, you should definitely negate because my opponent argument doesn't meet my value or criterion, and she doesn't even HAVE a value or a value criterion, so all her impacts impact to nothing. She has no grounds to state arguments.

C1: Human Capital?The idea behind subsidizing education is that since education improves human capital (makes people more productive), subsidies will pay for themselves. We’ve all heard the statistic that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than non-graduates. But is that income differential caused by the education? It’s hard to believe the knowledge learned at college directly translates into higher productivity—very little learned in school has anything to do with real world work. Some things learned in school obviously translate into higher productivity—basic literacy, numeracy, and computer skills, for example. But it’s hard to believe that anyone uses the skills they learned in a Sociology class in their job. College isn’t completely useless of course, but the majority of classes have no application in the real world.Ah, but educators usually don’t claim that the stuff they teach will ever be used in the “real world.” They’re supposedly teaching you how to think—by learning math and literature, you’ll be better at learning other, work-related things, and therefore be more productive. It turns out educational psychologists have tried to test and measure this theory—the literature on the subject is called ‘transfer of learning theory.’ And they found that your teachers were wrong, and that learning is highly specific. There is specific transfer of learning—learning algebra will help you learn calculus. But there is no empirical evidence of general transfer of learning—learning calculus won’t help you be more productive at a job that has nothing to do with math. [1] Studies on this subject date back to E.L. Thorndike’s 1901 study, where "Subjects estimated the area of rectangles between 10 and 100 sq cm...After sufficient practice to produce improvement (1,000 to 2,000 trials) on the original series, subjects got two test series. The first test series consisted of rectangles between 20 and 90 sq cm not included in the original training series. The second test series consisted of shapes other than rectangles, like triangles and circles. On the second test series, errors after training were about 90% as large as errors before training. Thorndike and Woodworth concluded that there was practically no improvement on the general skill level of judging the area of figures." [1] In addition, “Since the classic Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) experiment, there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments reaffirming the same point.” [1] A review of these studies from Thorndike to the present found that while there was evidence of ‘near’ transfer (specific transfer, like algebra helping with calculus), "there has been no positive evidence of general transfer besides a few highly questionable studies." [2] C2: SignallingBut then why do college graduates earn more than non-graduates? Part of the reason is that college graduates were already more productive than non-graduates before they went to college. People that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t—so they would probably earn more even if there was no such thing as college.But that can’t be the whole answer. If it was, smart kids could skip college and expect to earn just as much as if they went. That might be the case for a few exceptional people—Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, but for most people, it likely isn’t true. The other part of the answer is that a degree is a signal. It signals traits that employers value—intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity. Someone without a degree could have those traits, and someone with a degree could lack them, but on average, people with degrees are smart, conscientious, conformists—people who will be good workers. If employers require a college degree for a job, they will get applicants who are, on average, better workers, and will be less likely to have wasted money hiring someone who turns out to be a bad worker. If this is true, then the case for subsidizing education falls apart. Improvements in human capital have social benefits, but signaling doesn’t. Signaling benefits the person with the signal at the expense of everyone else competing for that job—it doesn’t benefit society overall. The billions spent subsidizing education are thus wasted—in addition to the opportunity costs of the students going to college when they could have been doing productive work instead.C3: Useful EducationWhile I think most of school is socially useless signaling, obviously some education is actually useful. Medical schools teach the skills necessary to be a doctor, for example. But that doesn’t mean these things should be subsidized. If something is actually useful, then it doesn’t need to be subsidized—the monetary return on getting that degree is enough. People that can’t afford medical school can take out loans and pay them back with the higher income medical school will help them get. People that can’t afford to get Sociology degrees probably won’t get loans without the government being involved, since private lenders would be unwilling to lend to someone who couldn’t pay them back.[1] Detterman, D.K. (1993) 'The case for the prosecution: transfer as an epiphenomenon', in D.K. Detterman and R.J. Sternberg (eds) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction, Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.http://cms.educ.ttu.edu...[2] Singley, M.K., & Anderson, J.R. (1989). The Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The SATs and ACTs are important because the success for students on these tests has a direct correlation to better success in college and earning better careers. I strongly disagree with your point advocating the negation with the "computerized and stuff" America. Regardless of how "computerized" America is, mathematics and language will always exist. When using technology, one must have a strong grasp of verbal communication and mathematics.

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

Often times you will here politicians complain about the startling lack of access to education and how it is having a detrimental effect on the competitive nature of the United States. This however is not true, jobs over the last couple of decades have not been lost due to education but rather a difference between wages of workers in the United States and the rest of the world. Additionally as increases in the number of applicants that have a piece of paper claiming they are educated occur the actual value of that piece of paper falls. Hence it is not the education that matters but how that education allows someone to differentiate themselves from every other applicant. As ever growing numbers of people graduate with a bachelors degrees the value of that degree becomes ever smaller in an economic scale as increased competition of necessity creates a devaluation. The effects of Supply and Demand will therefore come into play showing that it is not the education that creates a job but the ability to fill a demand for that education without saturation of demand for said position. What does this mean? It means contrary to popular opinion education is not a job creator and that through the institution of programs to 'educate' the population you only ensure that to be a cut above the rest you must obtain more education. Rather than education being the great equalizer claimed it simply creates a self fulfilling cycle of competition where employers seek the most educated for the lowest price. Ergo the premium paid for education is further discounted. This can easily be seen in the number of college graduates who now have difficulty in finding a job and the vast number of people who graduated in the past who simply have a bachelors degree coming into fierce competition with a larger than ever population that has obtained degrees since they had left school believing that they had adequately differentiated themselves from their generation. This equates to education not Creating Jobs but rather differentiating people into separate pools of 'sort-ability' for businesses. A Business will not even hire a 'sales manager' if the sales manager today does not have a degree, whereas the ability to perform the tasks has little to do with the degree and more an HR sorting mechanism. It is my postulation that if EVERYONE had a bachelors degree then the value of this degree would be meaningless as everyone had one and would no longer be used as a metric in distinguishing individuals. Thereby elevating a Graduates Degree to the same level a Bachelors Degree is currently. This thereby exemplifies that education is not used as a basis of 'Job Creation' and more of an example of job classification and mechanical sorting. This does not mean Education is not vital to any number of factors and that the betterment of the self is not constantly needed, only that there is a belief that a better education leads to Job Creation. Job Creation on the other hand DOES need adequately taught applicants for it. The point here is that it is not cause and effect that better education equates to MORE jobs. Additionally an education typically only gains ENTRY to a field or a position, thereby rendering the question of how important is the classical education system in comparison to trade school or on the job training? Just fun points that may be interesting to consider in this debate.

I believe that advanced and exhilarated school programs should be kept and expanded. We should strengthen our enrichment programs for highly capable children. If we open the programs to anyone, then it could be a non-exclusive class. I understand that by being able to enter the program be by a high test score, people feel that it is an unfair chance. However, the work that is in a highly capable class may be harder for some students who were not able to pass the test.

Keep in mind I cannot respond to any of Con's dropped contentions.Point 1My opponent seemingly defeats his own argument. In the last round he said exactly this: "Here is a remind of my counter plan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short).This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is)."And yet when explaining why my sources are allegedly irrelevant, he says:"She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs. now is different in quantity... All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it’s harder." In the first statement he says that he is arguing QUANTITY is what matters in assessing homework. And then in the second statement he says DIFFICULTY is what's relevant and quantity isn't relevant at all. I'm sure I am not the only one confused by Con's statements, and once again, I will not have the opportunity to respond.To repeat my position, students have had roughly the same amount of HW quantity over the last 30 years. Con does not deny this - nor has Con proven that a DIFFERENCE in education standards over the last 30 years means a difference one way or the other (easier or harder) let alone a difference in the quality of HW assignments. Moreover, I argued that Con had not proven that his studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pro-HW studies he cites (noting that quantity of homework is most important -- which I've argued against) are any more valid. He dropped this contention and has not proven that his studies represent a larger sample size.I pointed out that my study examined data of more than 18,000 students to uncover explanations for academic performance. Con suggests we have to use the entire world population of children as a measure which is absurd. Out of 1.9 billion children, 1 billion of them live in destitute poverty [1]. These children, especially in the third world, can't even eat or drink and millions die from starvation daily -- yet Con suggests we should factor them into the population of students who benefit from homework, when they have never seen a school in their life. That is an abusive standard no judge would take seriously. Quite obviously we are discussing homework in the West (especially the U.S.) where public education and the subsequent standards is the norm. Thus 18K is a good sample size for research. Con has not even tried to present us with an estimate of the number of students his cited studies cover, let alone present research that accounts for a larger size. Some studies in his favor have "hundreds" yet I invite Con to prove his studies are more relevant in size, date and scope [2, 3]. One study in his favor had a sample size of around 1,300 students -- or about 1/18th of the population my sources covered. In short, Con has dug himself a hole in trying to attack the credibility of my sources and studies; he has not proven his are any more valid. In the last round I decided to move on from this and noted it would appear SOME cases show that homework could be beneficial (accounting for a lot of different variables). Of course, that is completely irrelevant to the rest of my argument. I've pointed out that not everything that is beneficial ought to be required as well as suggested the potential negatives of HW outweigh the potential positives. Indeed that is the crux of my position in this debate. 1A. I pointed out that even if HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will be beneficial. He responded with accusations of straw mans when in fact he fails to see the absurdity of this objection. If Con is not saying that only BENEFICIAL homework be required, then he is advocating that even NON-beneficial homework be required. Why would Con advocate non-beneficial homework?! That would be punishment with no substance or positive effect. Therefore it is only logical to assume Con is only advocating BENEFICIAL homework. If he would like to challenge this, I guess he can...1B. It would appear Con does want to challenge this lol. He writes, "Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counter plan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory." So here we can see that Con even supports HW that is not beneficial, meaning he has no good reason (positive benefits) to support HW at all. And furthermore, Con skirts 1B as if it is a meaningless statement when in fact it is the entire basis of my argument. Please extend all of my 1B points -- I pointed out why not all things that are beneficial should be required. Ergo, even if homework were beneficial, it need not be mandatory. Con thinks HW (despite being so problematic) should just be imposed whether it has benefits or not, which is an even more ridiculous position than I think anyone expected him to take. Point 2Con accuses me of not refuting the counter plan which is false. His counter plan is simply "less homework" which I have argued, especially in Point 2. "Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework..." which proves I did address his counter plan of less HW time. My opponent says that it's okay for students to spend different amounts of time on HW, which fails to address my point on an undue burden for slow learners or those who take longer to do assignments. This means additional stress and imposition for those students on recreational and rest time, which Con glosses over as being addressed by special classes/assignments but this cannot be proven or enforced. Even students in special classes learn at a different pace from each other. Con asked for sources proving that parents do their kid's homework. I presented the studies; Con dropped this point and said "Well kids should be doing it themselves." Sure, but extend my argument that they are often NOT doing it themselves based on my statistics. Con must concede this point; instead he suggests this simply doesn't matter. Obviously when parents do their kid's assignments, it places burden on the parents and provides no utility to the child while still creating work for teachers. Once again - whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to HW monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments.In response, Con says "since there will be a lower homework quantity, this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework" which clearly doesn't address my points at all regarding lack of resources, not just time. Con also says that the states account for financial factors in HW assignments and cited this source from the UK -- yet not a single line from that source said anything about poverty affecting assigned work or HW. I invite my opponent to copy and paste the line from that source which proves his point here [4]. I have no reason to accept it thus far. And besides, people within the same school can still come from vastly different financial backgrounds. Con states, "If [students] do not understand [HW] and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them." However teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework - a factor cited in Con's previous source from the CPE [5]. Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. Con also dropped that his citations don't account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information.Point 3Con says "She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything." That is not fallacious but a logical fact. If you spend time on X (homework) you cannot spend time on Y (anything else) that requires significant attention. That's called the law of non-contradiction. Just because school provides some activities doesn't mean it provides the same activities or amount of time/attention on those activities as parents or kids would like. Con notes that school, work, etc. cut into people's time and yet I am not advocating those be abolished. I explained how homework provides a "second shift" of work that kids should not have to face. Please extend my arguments on parents not being subjected to this burden and having options here; Con dropped it and I will not be able to respond.Point 4Con says that HW "counts for nothing" yet HW is often graded. Con says I have provided "no evidence" of cheating. See explanations regarding points 12-15 in the last round. He only contested 1 of those sources. One is a forum - the rest are academic - and he ignores that parents doing HW is cheating which he admits happens. He dropped every one of my arguments on copying and using the internet to cheat as well. Con also dropped the negative effects of HW's "drill and kill" methodolgy and its impact on learning. PLEASE EXTEND MY LAST ROUND'S CONCLUSION.Thanks!SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...

In addition there are many reasons why private schools are better than public ones. Firsly improved education system because besides school subjects teachers can give additional materials to improve critical thinking, range of vision and so on. Almost all classes are equipped with the latest technology(personal computer for each schoolchild, internet)which helps to learn materials much deeper and faster.

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.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Resolved: Standardized testing, on balance, provides a net positive impact on K-12 education in the United States.
== Clarification == The resolution asserts that, "On balance, standardized testing provides a net positive impact on K-12 education in the United States." Let's clarify the terms. "On balance" means that all the negative and positive effects are weighed against each other to determine the overall impact. "Standardized testing" refers to a testing method used in K-12 education in the United States, where all public school students take the same tests. "Net positive impact" means that the benefits outweigh the harms.
The burden of proof is shared. This debate is not about proving a fact but rather about persuading that the benefits outweigh the harms. Therefore, both sides have the burden of persuasion.
== Rebuttal == Con's case is contradictory. Con argues that standardized testing is harmful to education, but this is not in line with the resolution. Con argues that different students require different forms of education, and standardized testing fails to account for this. However, this argument is not supported by the source provided. Regardless, I will address Con's harms:
Con's first harm is that children learn in different ways. However, this argument only applies to primary school children, which is not relevant to the resolution. The resolution specifically refers to K-12 education, and by this level, students have learned and prepared for standardized testing. The same educational content would exist regardless of whether standardized testing exists. Therefore, this harm does not apply.
Con argues that standardized testing has been linked to an overemphasis on vocational education. However, this argument is subjective and there is no objective reason to believe that vocational education is less important than critical thinking in mathematics. Moreover, I do not need to defend the status quo. I only need to show that some form of standardized testing poses a net positive impact, which I will do.
C1) Benefits to students Pro concedes that testing, in some form, is beneficial. Standardized testing allows parents and students to assess themselves. This assessment results in an increase in total education for the student and allows parents to stress further improvement. Herbert J. Walberg (2011) states, "Students benefit directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress.

No, merit pay is not good, as stated in my first contention. Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 I have shown reasonable evidence that proves that merit pay does not work, and has not worked in the past.

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]

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.....

I see what you are saying, however the disabled have equal or more classes than the highly capable. These classes are also isolated and not everyone can be in them. You see, opponent, that we can expand both. There are kids in every community that cannot afford to go to private school but are highly intelligent. Many kids will drop out of school because they are getting bored in the normal classes and don't feel challenged. The rate at which kids drop out of school is increasing because of this. {1} High School Dropout Statistics (US) Total number of high school dropouts annually3,030,000 Number of high school students who drop out each day8,300 Percent of Americans with a high school diploma85.3 % Percent of all drop outs that happen in the ninth-grade36 % Percent of students who repeat the ninth-grade that go on to graduate15 % Percent of students in the largest 50 U.S. cities that graduate High School59 % Percent of US crimes that committed by a high school dropout75 % Amount of money a high school graduate will earn more than a drop out$260,000 Percent of black drop outs that have spent time in prison60 % Percentage of Hispanic dropouts that were due to a pregnancy41 % Percent of US jobs a high school dropout is not eligible for90 % {2}"Many teens say they were bored and frustrated with classes that didn't seem relevant to their life." Teens will get bored in class because it is too easy for them and they need more of a challenge, however the students who need to be going at a slower rate are holding them back. {1}http://www.statisticbrain.com... {2} http://www.eduguide.org...

(Extended Arguments) and just for the viewers information when I said America learning discipline I meant how America is behind in education already.

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.

Well I am a thirteen years old and in the eighth grade (please don't let my age persuade you that I am not capable of crushing someone older then myself in a debate.) Well I attend school that is mostly reliant on technology. For example my algebra teacher told me that she envisioned her class going completely digital. I found that very odd considering that (most) kids my age do not retain information from a computer as quickly as she wanted us too. Well our class has now transformed into her dream class, we do , tests, practice work, homework and anything in between on computers. Now that transformation has happened, most of her class is failing or barley grasping the information. Ohh did I fail to mention that the way we write notes, is basically copying down the things she writes on the Promethean board to a student version PPT (PowerPoint)? Well yup! That's her amazing way of teaching a group of kids.. Hilarious right? Well if my way of thinking is in complete disarray, then I hope my challenger will (or at least attempt) to convince me otherwise.

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

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?

"After revieweing the source you listed, turns out that they are the cerators of educational learning material and obviously they are going to make claims in the favor of their products."These are all independent studies that arent in any way linked to those who cerate school textbooks, try again. Also it doesnt help to criticize my sources when the only sources you ever give are just people speaking their own opinion...."If you actually think that someone is going to learn much more efficiently with boring text in a book.... I can't say you know what you're saying."So just because I disagree with you, that must mean that I dont know what im talking about? Spectacular conduct pro..."we should instead be shown everything we'll be learning with computer software and everyone can have visual and interactive learning opportunities....."So your alternative to reading boring text in cheap textbooks is to have students read the same kind of boring text on computers and expensive gadgets? Schools are already under a massive budget crunch and can barely afford to give students textbooks made 9 years ago, how the hell are they supposed to afford giving every student their own computer to do the exact same thing a textbook would give them?"I am currently in Gr.12 so I've experienced everything first hand and truth be told, my marks have been much better when its visual and interactive"Opinions =/= Definite facts pro...."Your given source is the supplier of our learning materials and we don't want them to be the ones who benefit from student education"Saying the same false statement over and over also doesnt make it true pro...."you're link also states textbook weaknesses and ways to overcome them, instead overcoming the problem, you should find a mroe efficient way entirly"And how exactly is it 'efficient' to spend money that schools dont have to avoid having a problem that can be easily fixed?http://www.ehow.com...;