Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

Public High School Students in the United States should not be mandated to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

John Dewey once wisely stated, "Reaching one goal is the beginning of another." Hence, I stand firmly against the proposition today. The resolution reads, "Public high school students in the United States should not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate." For clarity, I will provide definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Ought: used to denote obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence. Standardized: to make something conform to a standard.

V: Societal Welfare
Societal Welfare refers to the well-being of a society in terms of health, safety, order, education, and economics. Societal Welfare must be the top priority because if the health of society is in peril, so is the health of its inhabitants.

VC: Educated Citizenry
Educated citizens are crucial to societal welfare because the more educated our society is, the more likely we are to make sound decisions and ensure that individuals have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Contention One: Standardized exit exams are not the best method to measure knowledge.
Lionel Brown, 2006, asserts that standardized testing is the most effective alternative for comparing student performance across different education systems because human judgment is prone to error. However, decades of evidence show that the quality of teachers' tests is inferior to more rigorously developed large-scale tests. When used for accountability purposes, standardized tests can provide more objective and less ambiguous evidence. In an international study that examined the effects of discontinuing and reintroducing standardized tests in 29 industrialized countries, academic standards declined, students studied less, curricula became incoherent, and selection and promotion became arbitrary after standardized tests were dropped.

Contention Two: Standardized exit exams do not improve education for future generations.
Jack O'Connell, 2007, argues that the exit exam has been responsible for significant improvements in schools, specifically targeting our neediest students. The California High School Exit Exam has helped our neediest students as much if not more than any public school reform in the last 30 years. Due to the exit exam, more individual attention and resources have been devoted to struggling students than ever before. And they are working. The California High School Exit Exam is not perfect, but it provides accountability and highlights students who need the most help. It has led to more assistance for those students than anything that has come before it.

Contention

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

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.

While I agree that the status of public education is appalling, your implication that poorly performing public schools need be closed is nonsensical. Schools perform poorly because of poor funding, and subsequently, less funding is given to poorly performing schools through taxes and grants. Does that seem like a plan for success? No! And let me paint a picture to show you why. It is a well-known fact that the vast majority of a school's income is derived from property taxes collected from the surrounding area. The issue here is that often times school boards purchase property in poor areas because the land is cheap and then erect massive schools that cannot possibly be supported by the poor households that surround them. Then the slippery slope begins. These under funded schools perform poorly on standardized tests because they cannot support their respective school population on their current income and good teachers are let go because their jobs are evaluated based on their student's performance on these tests. The government also uses these tests to decide what schools are afforded federal assistance, and funding is often yielded to schools that perform well. Then the bad schools are put on hiring freezes because they get no help from the Federal Government and as a result they limp along with 30-40 kids in each class. My home state of Florida tried to rectify this by passing an amendment to the state's constitution in 2002 limiting class sizes to 18 for classes from pre-K to 3rd grade, 22 from 4th to 8th, and 25 from 8th grade to graduation. Upon first glance, this seems like a great idea except for the fact that teachers now have to take pay cuts to supplement the additional hiring and because they are government employees they cannot strike because it's grounds for immediate termination. Unhappy teachers are unmotivated teachers and unmotivated teachers suck! So now, depending on which state you live in, you have the choice of being paid more and having standing room only in your room or getting paid less and having proper class sizes. Keep in mind that whether you go with the former or the latter, the pay doesn't come close to properly compensating you for the hours put in. It's a vicious cycle and I don't think that bulldozing the under-performing schools and allowing parents to choose where their kids go will make things any better. The parents will all choose the "good schools." These schools will then be hampered by overpopulation and the fact that their new students, who have suffered from a poor education since kindergarten, delay the learning process of kids who have been properly educated. Parents of the properly educated students are then put in the same position that those who wanted out of the bad schools were in. If your plan ever comes to fruition the only result will be the spread of bad education. A possible solution would be to privatize School Boards into Not-For-Profit Organizations. I agree with your deduction that private schools are far more efficient then their public counterparts. So why not give competent businessmen (and women) an opportunity to execute a proper business plan? Obviously the election of individuals is not working out. The majority of people never properly evaluate candidates of any position other than President or American Idol Winner and this willingness to fall into the wave of bias political advertisement makes citizens incapable of making a sound decision. And honestly, the proposed candidates usually aren't worthy of the position to begin with because the people with the money to run for office can usually afford to live in a good school district. I agree that there is a problem, but your solution is the answer!

You stated that you felt homeschooling to be the least of all education because you feel as though homeschoolers do not have: (a) the ability to socialize, (b) lower quality education and (c) The ability to learn life needed skills. Let me correct you on one thing: all of these points are stereotypes against homeschooling and are not impossible to maintain. 1. The ability to socialize. There are home school groups all over the country that give homeschooled students the opportunity to socialize. These home school groups may offer classes, science fairs, proms, various dances and even a graduation ceremony. Besides the home school group, there are youth groups at churches and even team sports to join. So the ability and necessary requirement to socialize can be met if there is an effort put. 2. Education. This is where I disagree big time. According to a statistic taken by Home School World, homeschoolers averaged in the 86th percentile on all tests while kids in public school ranked in the 50th percentile1. In an average high school, there may be a one teacher to at least twenty kids, but in a home school environment, there are usually two or three kids to one teacher. Every child can get the required attention they need. Another plus is that the parents are usually very dedicated in the child’s education, so even after the “school day” is done, the parents are still involved in homework and other activities. 3. Life needed skills. So you’re saying that you learn life needed skills in a school setting? Like what exactly? Life needed skills to me, means something along the lines of, learning how to save money, or learning to drive, or learning to cook, or clean, or learning how to take care of one’s self. You don’t really learn that in a school setting, you learn that at home. In a particular study, homeschooled kids were usually more mature than kids in school which proves that homeschooled kids are more prepared for life1. Being homeschooled has great benefits, both emotionally and academically. 1. http://www.home-school.com...;

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

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

I am arguing that we do need standardized testing, so my opponent has to argue for the CON side.

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...

Racial Bias is actually exacerbated by standardized testing: "In the case against the Texas TAAS test (see related story), plaintiffs presented research showing that standard test-construction methods built in racial bias. The judge concluded he "cannot quarrel" with that finding. Groups concerned about civil rights should use this argument to oppose the use of tests to make high-stakes decisions, such as school graduation or grade promotion. According to a declaration by Prof. Martin Shapiro of Emory University, who is both a lawyer and a psychologist, Texas uses "point-biserial correlations" in deciding which items to use and which questions to discard as the test is assembled from field-tested questions. Items with high biserial correlations are those generally answered correctly by test-takers who score high on the test overall. Items which many low-scoring students get right have lower correlations. To obtain higher consistency (and hence technical reliability) on the test, Texas follows the typical practice of using items with the highest correlation values. This procedure means that on items covering the same materials, the ones with the greatest gaps between high and low scorers will be used. Because minority group students typically perform less well on the test as a whole, the effort to increase reliability also increases bias against minorities. According to other research, items which facilitate ranking and sorting are often items which, perhaps unintentionally, factor non-school learning and social background into the questions. Such items help create consistency in test results, but they often are based on the experiences of white middle-to-upper class children, who also typically have access to a stronger academic education. This test assembly approach was developed in large part to help obtain consistency on tests designed to rank and sort students, such as IQ tests, the SAT, or national, norm-referenced achievement tests (NRTs). While procedures which reinforce racial and other biases should not be used in any case, tests such as TAAS now rely on biserial correlations -- even though the TAAS supposedly is not intended to sort students but to determine whether they have met specified levels of achievement. By using this method of item selection, the TAAS, like many other state "criterion-referenced" or "standards-based" exams, is actually constructed to resemble an NRT. This common test development procedure exacerbates the existing inequities of schooling. When used in high-stakes testing, biserial correlation helps ensure that at least some students who know the material and ought to pass the tests do not. Those students are overwhelmingly low-income, of color, with English as a second language, or have special needs." (http://www.fairtest.org...) The pro has no benefits except the fact that standardized testing may alleviate racial bias however, as the information provided by fairtest.org states, racial bias is further accentuated by standardized tests. As stated before, standardized test do not promote education, performance, or passion. That hollowness creates staid thinking and in a world that is constantly moving forward leads to regression.

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.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

The No Child Left Behind Act has been criticized for its reliance on standardized tests, which are argued to inadequately assess genuine student learning and educational progress. The overemphasis on these tests has led to a narrow focus on test preparation, potentially neglecting other important aspects of education.

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'

Thank you for accepting, SnaxAttack. I too was homeschooled, and it will be interesting to see your perspective on the issue. The main problem with homeschooling is that there aren't enough checks to ensure that the student is receiving a quality education. Requirements for homeschooling vary in each state, some states requiring the parents to send test scores or have their curriculum evaluated, and some states requiring no prior notice from the parents to start homeschooling (https://www.hslda.org...). These varying laws means that there is no way to ensure the kids are getting a good education. While one of the main benefits of homeschooling is the ability for the parents to make their own curriculum, parents can make a curriculum that is too easy or too full of "fluff" subjects. Some parents do a good job at homeschooling their child and that is great, however, because there is no minimum standards, the negligence or incompetence of the parents may affect their child for the rest of their lives. I acknowledge that there are cases where parents have done a good job homeschooling their child; however, I think this is the exception, rather than the norm. Because of this looseness, homeschooling can break down in 3 main ways. First, homeschooling doesn't always provide enough social experience. Being schooled at home with no significant interaction with kids (or adults) outside of their family doesn't provide the necessary social experience that is required to do well in the real world. While, to be fair, some homeschool families involve their kids in social activities, many don't do enough, or even stifle their child's social activity (http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org...). Second, homeschooling can be a weak academic environment. One way this can break down is in grades, and the other is in actual instruction. As there is no outside check on how grades are assigned, homeschool grades can be accurate or they can completely misrepresent a child's academic ability. Parents can give out a perfect GPA even if the student does poorly, making the student eligible for many college scholarships and possibly cutting other, more deserving students that don't have a perfect GPA out. The other way homeschooling can be a weak academic environment is in actual instruction. Parents are not necessarily qualified to teach their children school subjects. Their parent's academic weaknesses can be transferred to their children. Third, homeschooling can be used as a way to shelter or brainwash kids. As a National Center for Education Statistics study found in 2007, 2 of the main reasons parents chose to homeschool were desires to provide moral or religious instruction. While these goals are good, there are few external checks on the curriculum, which could lead to parents brainwashing the child without presenting all sides of the issue, not preparing them for real life where their ideas will be challenged. This problem can be compounded if the child only has limited social interaction; being brainwashed by parents and not having their ideas challenged by other kids with different opinions can make the child live in a bubble, unaware of how the real world works. These three things combined make me doubt that homeschooling should be allowed to continue in its present form.

My argument stands from before. I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out that education would fall under esteem; certainly not love/belonging, safety and physiological and so is not the most important thing. This is through an existential sense, an individual's perspective on importance. Pro has not given any further arguments, I am guessing this is because of the incredibly short time he set for the arguments, which I did not notice until I accepted the challenge. All judges should take this into consideration, we had only 15 minutes to post our arguments, hence my rushed responses and possibly explaining why Pro forfeited; though he was the one who set the time to be so short in the first place.

In my experience, the best teachers are also entertainers. I will be arguing that society demands education reform, and a key part of that major change is co-existing with entertainment. Such as but not limited to teaching teachers how to make a subject more interesting via outlook, tone, and more realworld application.

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

Studies have found that kids do better on standardized tests, when they attend private school. They typically go on to do better in life and attend better universities. http://nces.ed.gov... quoting Cape.org "In a June 2002 report, NCES found that private schools had students who scored higher on standardized tests, had more demanding graduation requirements, and sent more graduates to college than public schools. The report said that students who had completed at least the eighth grade in a private school were twice as likely as other students to graduate from college as a young adult. NCES statistics also showed that students in private schools are much more likely than others to take advanced-level high school courses." http://www.capenet.org... studies have determined that students do better in a safe and supportive environment. http://nces.ed.gov... , and private schools have been determined to provide a safer environment than public schools. http://nces.ed.gov... You just can't deny the evidence. Kids in private schools do better on standardized tests. They are more likely to get a Bachelors degree and also ar more likely to attend advanced placement classes. http://www.capenet.org... This is a pretty simple case. I am just arguing a truism at this point.

While your statement about your own P.E class may be true, how exactly are teachers supposed to accurately measure how much energy you are exerting? How much is a lot? How do they know that you are not faking exertion? My point is, grading children on how much energy the teachers THINK the students are exerting is not accurate and it is not fair to the student. With class sizes of 30 people, a teacher may take one glance at a child that may be quickly resting and mark him as being lazy and not exerting himself because he/she has to grade the others as well. The whole concept is flawed. Furthermore, there is nothing other than Fitness-Gram's recommendation (which does not have to be followed) that says that Fitness-gram cannot be used for grading. Since they are required by the state, what's to stop teachers from putting the scores into the grade book? Teachers often think that since they are doing the tests anyway, they may as well make them assessments. Can you image failing P.E because you cannot run 20 sprints? This may not be the case at your school, but it is at many others, some of which I have experienced. Same thing with the team captain system. Your P.E teacher may not do this, but others may. As for the clothes, I am sure that even you will agree that the experience of changing in a locker room or practicing basic hygiene with many other people in a musty, oftentimes small locker room is not pleasant. Also, the P.E. uniforms are oftentimes not what people want to wear while exercising. You are basically being forced to pay 20 dollars for a branded shorts and a shirt. As for your argument about teacher not liking athletic kids who have a bad attitude, I completely agree. But what about the ones that have a good attitude. All other factors being equal, a P.E. teacher will most likely prefer an athletic kid over one who is not, because that kid will appear to be doing better. Once again, the issue comes down to measuring exertion. Because there is no practical way to do this, many teachers resort to grading performance. Even if they do not intend to, it may happen subconsciously. The fundamental problem here is that the flaws of P.E. are very numerous, even if some vary from school to school, and the benefits are nonexistent. As I said before, P.E. on its own does not provide enough exercise, and it fails and sometimes even backfires in encouraging kids to exercise outside of school. It also sucks an enormous amount of money. Equipment, gym space, repair, and uniforms are just some of the special things P.E. needs. Not to mention the staff cost. This money could be used in a whole variety of uses in school. More technology, better activities, giving teachers a raise, etc. It could even be invested back into high school sports. Extracurricular sports like baseball provide much more enjoyment, fair competition, and most importantly, physical activity. These programs do provide enough exercise to make a difference, unlike P.E. In conclusion, P.E simply has no purpose in schools. It does not provide nor encourage significant physical activity, and has a host of adverse effects. It is just not worth it.

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.

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

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.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

The debate on standardized exit exams, as seen in the Lincoln Douglas debate for September/October, raises significant concerns about their effectiveness in measuring true educational success. The AFF argues that "Standardized tests cannot evaluate critical attributes such as initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, ethical reflection, or other valuable dispositions. What they measure are isolated skills, specific facts, and content knowledge, which are the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning." Bill Ayers, whose perspective is echoed here, leads the AFF to affirm the resolution that "Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate."

Observations: The Negative's claims that standardized tests can be adjusted to compensate for the lack of assessment of essential educational qualities must be met with skepticism. While tests can be broadened to include more areas, they cannot be changed to test all the qualifications needed for societal contribution, as some skills are inherently untestable.

VP: Individuality - Individuality, defined as the unique character or aggregate of qualities that distinguish one person from others, is crucial. This resolution highlights the struggle between testing students uniformly and using more specific, accurate methods to determine graduation eligibility. The unique nature of individuality means that testing methods for personal success must vary, leading to the Value Criterion.

VC: Promoting more specific means of determining graduation eligibility. No standardized test can cater to the unique aspects that define each individual. Education must enlighten students in various areas, and more specific methods, such as individual assessments, project-based grading, cumulative reviews, or portfolios, can recognize students' success or failure.

Dan Rudhyar discusses intelligence gained through individuality, suggesting that once an individual demonstrates motivation and learning interest, they are ready for success. Using individual assessments allows for the identification of students ready to face the world.

Definitions: Standardized: To evaluate by comparing with a standard. Exam: The process of testing pupils. Pass: To complete successfully. Graduate: To advance to a new level of skill/achievement.

C1) The affirmative stance supports individualized education that doesn't teach to the test. Teachers need to promote learning, emphasizing applied learning and thinking skills over declarative knowledge and basic skills. Students should be able to develop skills to apply knowledge in novel situations. However, standardized tests hinder a teacher's ability to promote individuality and student success, emphasizing only what is easily measurable, such as reading and writing, at the expense of speaking and listening skills.

C2)

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...

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

Rebuttals 1.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.

For those in the audience who are not aware, the SHSAT or "Specialized High School Admissions Test" is an academic examination taken by middle-schoolers in New York City to get into the prestigious High Schools known as "Specialized High Schools". . http://en.wikipedia.org... As I am aware, there have been numerous schools added to this list over the years, but the benefit is the same: Those who score well on the test gain entry into these elite High Schools and in doing so, an incredible advantage in gaining entry into top Ivy league universities. College Admissions officials nationwide are quite familiar with these schools as they represent the best and brightest that New York has to offer. Numerous Nobel Prize winners trace their schooling back to the top three schools on this list; Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent is of the opinion that because there seem to be some discrepancies in terms of scoring and acceptance, that the test is flawed to the point that it must be discontinued. However, I find that to be a poor argument. Removing the test would create a severe backlash as these schools would continue to exist. What would my opponent have the schools do? Accept students based on proximity, which is what the usual case is in New York City? The reputation of these schools would be tarnished forever due to the influx of unqualified students zoned based on location. The schools have always existed to help the best and the brightest achieve their full potential, and they have done an amazing job at it year after year. It is not the responsibility of these schools to take under-achievers and make them into passable students. There are plenty of other schools for that. I will spend the rest of the debate arguing why the SHSATs should go on, why they MUST go on, even if they do have to be tweaked a little, but I have not seen an argument from my opponent yet as to why the SHSATs should no longer proceed.

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...

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.

Reverend McDonald please stay on topic. You have not proved that Sierra Leone's education has gotten worse. Those are your brothers! YOUR BROTHERS! They are sons of god! Your selfishness has led you to blindly focus on and analyze the apparent "faults" of American education when millions of illiterate children around the world go without even the security of a home let alone a school system to call their own. Get with it. United States children are lucky to even have a public school system, even if it does have those nasty microwaved school lunches.

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

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

PRO said: Homeschooling dosen work if you donï¿½t have brilliant parents. and because your prents dodnt get certificates of proper teaching, it's not really effective. Rebuttal: No one must be brilliant in order to teach. The only real requirements are knowing the subject matter, which they should do so if they have completed High School, and a willingness to research good curriculum. There are thousands of places to order curriculum from for homeschooling parents. The important thing is to research which one you actually order. There is no reason any person with a grasp of what is being taught, with good curriculum to back them up, in a class size of only 1-4 should have any trouble teaching. PRO said: School can help you socialize with people. Rebuttal: Homeschooled students have formed clubs and social groups. Some have gotten together to form sports teams, utilize field trips, etc. Socialization still occurs. Pro said: how will you do your PAT? Rebuttal: I'm assuming here this is a standardized test similar to our Achievement tests? or would this be more similar to a SAT test? Either way, the students are still required to take the Achievement tests there are several agencies which provide the materials for parents to use. As for the SATs, pretty much those are paid for and taken by the student at a testing site, which may or may not be the child's local school anyway. I took my SATs in a library. My sister took her's in a school. Homeschooled students do better on the SATs than their public school counterparts. http://www.ontariohomeschool.org... Many of the answers to what you are questioning can be found here http://www.holtgws.com...? Now to extend my arguments: The primary argument my opponent has yet to refute is that institutionalized learning has not been proven to be a method that is most successful in any study. In fact solid research suggests that hands on, experimentation, and exploration is the most effective in encouraging students to retain what they learn. http://newali.apple.com... http://www.ncrel.org...