Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

Students in public high schools should not be mandated to pass standardized exit exams.

I argue that students should have equal opportunity, therefore, I support the proposition that public high school students in the United States should not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Before we proceed, I would like to clarify the following definitions: A standardized exit exam, as defined by the free online dictionary, is any empirically developed examination with established reliability and validity determined by repeated evaluation of the method and results. My value for this debate is equal opportunity, defined as policies and practices in employment and education that promote full participation and do not discriminate against persons based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This must be the value because it is the only way to ensure full participation within schools. My standard for this debate is fairness, as achieving equal opportunity necessitates fairness. I contend the following:

1. Standardized tests cause significant negative consequences. By imposing standards on students' minds, we deprive them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by applying a single standard set of knowledge. Standardized tests oversimplify knowledge and do not assess higher-order thinking skills. State standards are externally imposed on local teachers. These mandatory assessments cannot be effective unless teachers understand and accept the philosophical underpinnings of standards. One-size-fits-all standards either lower the quality of instruction to the lowest common denominator or condemn low-ability students to frequent failure.

2. Standardized tests lead to dishonesty in schools. Many school systems hold their schools accountable when test scores do not continually improve. They place an inordinate amount of pressure on teachers to raise students' test scores. Unfortunately, this can lead to dishonesty on the part of teachers and principals. They have no reason to include the scores of students with special needs and often try to find reasons why a student with special needs shouldn't even take the test. This does nothing but harm the students who need special help. We cannot determine what kind of help they need if we do not know what level they are currently performing at. Dishonesty in schools is never a good thing.

3. Standardized tests have a detrimental emotional effect on students and teachers. After doing poorly on a test, low-achieving students become disillusioned and less motivated, leading to less effort to learn, starting a downward spiral that is very hard to break out of. Once they perform poorly on a test, they have no motivation to work hard for the next one and do poorly on that one

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

Though I will readily admit that this is possibly one of my least favorite LD topics of all time, I want to run my cases for blocking purposes. Plus, I feel as though I have been long absent from DDO. :) I ask that my opponent use LD format, but I'm not going to be a huge stickler about it. In other words, the purpose of running this is two-fold: I want a good debate, but I also want to be able to run it in such a way that helps my kids block out my arguments and a decent neg case. This requires LD format. I also ask the the rounds mimic competition slightly in that RD 3 is reserved for voting issues only (i.e. please no new arguments). --------------------------------------------------------- I affirm, resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observation 1: Definitions Standardized Exit Exam: any state-wide assessment that must be passed prior to receiving one's public high school diploma. The affirmative acknowledges that some states choose not to assess a student's potential to successfully exit high school using the stereotypical multiple-choice test. Observation 2: Standards. V: Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students. C: A legitimate system of education. In order to have a meaningful debate on education reform, we cannot neglect the system that the test is directly linked to. The affirmative contends that exit exams not only fail to indicate mastery within the educational system, but entrench the inequality of education distribution to the detriment of student success. 1.My first contention is that exit exams test a deeply biased system of education, which makes the exam invalid. A. US school systems are socio-economically stratified by resources, materials, & personnel. It is widely acknowledged in countless educational studies over the years that the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities. Unfortunately, as it is in most cases, the poor bear the brunt of the burden, receiving less qualified educational instructors and less overall resources than districts with more available funds. This inequality oftentimes manifests itself in the form of standardized exam results, as detailed by Viadero: "The detrimental effects of the new policy were harder on girls than on boys. Girls experienced a 19-percentage point drop in graduation rates after the Californian High School Exit Exam… was implemented, while the graduation rate for boys with similar academic profiles decreased by 12 percentage points over the same period. Likewise, graduation rates among black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students declined by 15 to 19 percentage points following the enactment of the exit exam policy. The comparable graduation-rate drop for white students in the same achievement quartile was 1 percentage point." (2009) Since a standardized test assesses one's competency within a set of standards, if all of those standards are disparately taught, the test cannot be valid. B. Results of this invalid exam withhold diplomas unjustly, and even prevent student mastery and success. Exams, in their inability to solve for inequalities in education, simply entrench already disadvantaged students further by labeling them falsely as failures. Since the educational standards of a given state cannot be equally represented in every classroom in that state due to these deep-seeded disparities, the students who are most underserved are more likely to fail those exams. The psychological effect of being branded a failure is described as Viadero continues: "Even though students have plenty of opportunities to retake the exam—and most do—poor, inner-city students who just missed the passing cutoff in 10th grade are less likely to graduate on time than demographically similar students who just barely passed, even though both groups scored at roughly the same levels on the 10th grade exam. Failing or passing the tests seems to have no statistically significant effect, though, on the probability of graduation for wealthier, suburban students." (2009) The stigma of failure, even though that failure is generally one of the institution, and not the student, is enough to significantly reduce the chances of a poorer student graduating. Students who are mistreated by the system, and who do not graduate as a result, are much less likely to succeed, and will even become a social liability. Carnoy explains: "High school is where economically disadvantaged young people—many of them African Americans and Latinos—make it or break it educationally. High school determines how these students will be incorporated into work and social structures. High school is also where educational reformers' efforts to improve how much students learn face the acid test. If students do not finish high school with their cohort, they are likely to be marginalized from the mainstream and to become a social liability. Reforms aiming to improve educational quality must ultimately be evaluated in terms of improving high school completion rates." (2005) 2. My second contention is that standardized exit exams offer no academic benefits to those who pass them. Even if the system itself weren't inherently damaged, the test itself, in both material and form, do not correlate to a student's mastery of important skills or future success. Considering that high school is a preparatory institution for college and the workforce, as well as the final stop in a 12-year quest for what society deems as crucial cognitive skills, if the exit exam cannot prove mastery or indicate a readiness for graduation from this institution, it must be abolished. Warren & Grodsky published a comprehensive study of exit exams in 2009 which spans the last 30 years of educational data regarding the exams. Over that 30 years, they discovered the following: First of all: "We found no evidence for any effect of exit exams…on reading or math achievement at the mean or at any of several cut-points of the achievement distribution. These results hold for 13-year-olds and for 17-year-olds and don't vary across racial/ethnic or social class backgrounds, undermining claims of disparate impact." Second of all: "Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." In other words, Warren & Grodsky found that exit exams not only do not test a student's competency accurately in reading or math, but that they also have no bearing whatsoever on a student's employability in the US workforce. As exit exams have proven themselves as illegitimate measures of academic achievement, they cannot be used to provide legitimacy to the education system. Have at me :)

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

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

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

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

I'll post sources and generally clean up my argument in the next round, so try to bear with me for a bit here. This will be short. I'll just put it all into one paragraph, I'm in a bit of a rush. My opponent makes most of his case for quality based on test scores, and while there is some truth to the results of these, one must consider the fact that the majority of the population isn't home schooled. The percentages extracted from the public school system are taken from a much larger population, and a much lower-achieving one as well. Going back to his first argument about safety. My opponent believes that sex is the worst aspect of public school, and that it is a horrible thing for children to learn about it until "they get older." However, ignorance is not the best solution, and honestly it's not outrageous to assume that children who spend all day at home will run across their parents making new siblings for them, destroying their innocence anyways. Drugs will be purchased by anyone who want them, school is just a convenient place to do the trade. People, and students, still purchase a large quantity of illegal drugs outside of school. Parental irresponsibility is half the issue my opponent brings up, but there's little reason to believe, other than my opponents experience, that parents who home school their children are inherently more responsible. Public education gives to its students only as much as they put into it. The raw statistics are skewed by an underachieving majority, but the fact remains is that highly educated, articulate, intelligent individuals are produced by the public education system. Furthermore, being in an environment where one is continually offered drugs makes one necessarily immune to peer pressure. Also, social interaction is more limited by a home school environment, as one stays home for the majority of their weekdays. I know it's a bit choppy, but I would have had to forfeit the round otherwise. Anticipate a much better 3rd round.

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

"Yes in the USA" Argument: 1. SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years. 2. SAT's are not expensive at all, and only cost 7$ per student. 3. SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material. 4. SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer etc. 5. SAT's show what level a student is at. 6. SAT's strengthen test taking skills for young ones. I am looking forward to your rebuttals. Resources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org... http://teaching.about.com... http://www.brighthubeducation.com...

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


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

Resolved: Standardized testing should be a requirement for public high school students in the United States to ensure educational quality.

Is prioritizing social advancement, avoiding stress on students, and lacking objective standards truly beneficial for students or the nation? Is it more important for students to be competent in core subjects rather than others? Should employers be able to trust that a high school diploma signifies a certain level of knowledge? These are the central questions in this discussion. I contend that high school exit exams, conducted to rigorous standards, are a fundamental step in restoring the value of education. Con's arguments against the flaws of standardized testing apply to all tests, by any entity, for any subject, and for any purpose. All tests can cause anxiety, have imperfect questions, and can be made overly simplistic. Con's reference stated that current exit exams are too easy to ensure competence, with a failure rate of only 1%-2%, even in states with more challenging tests. Employers agree that these tests do not certify anything substantial. In this debate, I have advocated for raising the test standard from eighth-grade competence to at least tenth-grade competence, if not higher. I've pointed out that everyone from airline pilots to hairdressers must pass standardized tests, despite the real-world limitations of testing. Con never suggested that such testing should be abandoned, only that high school students are too young to handle the stress. Stress is a part of life and a necessary component of learning, applicable not only to math and science but also to sports, games, debate tournaments, and even dating. No one, not even Con, argues that reducing stress in other areas is essential. Con argues that test anxiety negatively impacts learning. Anyone who claims they will study just as hard without a test as they would with a challenging one is being unrealistic. It's not credible. Con erroneously claimed that testing is expensive, but after it was shown to cost less than $12 per year, he dropped the point. Con argued that it's unfair for a person's entire future to depend on one test, but it's common to allow failing students to retake the test multiple times. Con stated that untested subjects are neglected, providing evidence that teachers ignore them. I countered that if teachers foolishly spend time teaching eighth-grade subjects to a student already proficient at that level, the issue lies with the teaching, not the testing. The solution is better curriculum guidance. Beyond that, states determine which subjects are included in the exit exam. If there's too much emphasis on language, math, and

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

Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses.

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

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

First I'd like to address what some things you said; as I was reading your "arguments" you only brought up things such as "What ifs" and you told people about the scale that things are graded on, not "School is no longer about learning but about getting good grades." Yes school is about grades but its also about learning. About 68% of students avidly attend school; in which about 56% go because they are looking to learn the other 12% are there because something of a parent wants them to (or another reason). The 32% are people who just pain don't come or have/are going to be drop outs. This is about a 44-56, with over half attending to learn. (http://www.statistics.com...) Next I'd like to address your 12 point system, I am not sure where you are but where I am at it works as the fallowing: We have 6 classes 3 of which are year round (Math, Science, English -some times history) The rest are things such as electives or other (Math/Science classes) that you may or may-not wont. Next our GPA is based of a 4 point system: A= 4.0 B=3.0 C=2.0 D=1.0 F=0 S=0 U=?: At the end of each semester we calculate our GPA which is add the 6 classes grades up than divide by the number of classes for Ex: 4+3+2+4+4+4=21 (4A's 1B 1C) 21/6= 3.5 so He/She'd have a 3.5 GPA.

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

ok education is first ok bush and his no child behind law makes us clear of this any child that has a c or below should not be allowed to play sports i play basketball and im in early college and to meet these standards you have to have a high eye cue you take a punch at college classes in the tenth grade

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

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

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


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Educational Process?

Resolved: Standardized testing should be required for all public high school students in the United States to ensure a minimum level of competence.

A] I highlighted that professionals such as doctors and pilots are required to pass standardized tests to establish a baseline of proficiency, despite concerns about test anxiety and potential unfairness. Con countered that this doesn't make it right, but ignoring the benefits of testing doesn't address the logical reasons for it. The importance of establishing a minimum standard of competence outweighs the minor imperfections associated with testing. For high school exit exams, this ensures students have achieved a basic level of proficiency suitable for employment, community college, or other pursuits. Con argued that the stress is too much for young people, but stress motivates most people to perform at their best. I'm more concerned about students with no test anxiety, as it might indicate they don't care about the outcome. Con suggested that a well-qualified student might fail a lower-level test due to stress, but if that happens, they should retake the exam after more practice. Con repeated the claim that one test determines a student's future, but that's not true; exams can be retaken if necessary. Note that many people don't pass the bar exam on their first attempt, yet we haven't faced a lawyer shortage. Young people face stress from various sources, and coping with it is valuable. Pro mentioned successful people who dropped out of high school, but not because they couldn't pass an exit exam. The reasons were usually boredom or economic constraints, which are separate issues. Con provided no examples of standardized tests being an insurmountable obstacle.

B] Con argued that "what isn't tested doesn't exist," but this claim is unsupported. Subjects beyond language, math, and science exist in countries with standardized exit exams. Testing changes the focus on students who lack basic competence in core subjects, encouraging them to address these gaps. This is appropriate for advanced societies. If educators remove other subjects entirely, that's a curriculum issue, not a testing problem. Con dropped the argument about the cost of exit testing, which is less than $12 per student per year.

C] Con's article confirms the current testing flaws, as it states, "Exit exams are just challenging enough to reduce the graduation rate but not challenging enough to have measurable consequences for how much students learn or for how prepared they are for life after high school." Graduation rates are only slightly reduced, and I agree that exit exams should certify higher-level competence. The high school diploma is viewed as

I apologize to the audience on behalf of my opponent for the forfeit, as it will make things quite difficult to proceed. I request that the traditional "last round" be extended for arguments instead of just conclusions so my opponent has a chance to set his case forward. That being the case, I will try to uphold my position as Con by commenting on what I can: Please refer to my opponent's two arguments: 1) "Some students who couldn't afford Kaplan classes still received points over 400, however, they were not accepted" 2) "Besides education, SHSAT's are producing many other wedge's in the society. SHSAT's should no longer proceed." My opponent's first contention is that the test is somehow unfair because individuals who did not take the Kaplan test prep were not selected despite scoring over "400". I need to point out two things: First of all, a score of 400 does not necessarily mean that they did well compared to the other students. The cutoff for each school is determined by how well the students do against each other year after year. Chances are that "400" just wasn't high enough for people to get accepted because a lot of people scored higher than that. According to this casual forum post: http://answers.yahoo.com... The supposed cutoff score last year was 470 for the least reputable of the specialized high schools. The students simply were not prepared enough. Second: To say that this has anything to do with a particular type of test prep service is absurd. Kaplan is just one out of many test prep programs, and they aren't even the best. Those scoring the test and those in charge of the admissions process have no way to tell which student took what test prep, they can only see the scores. In addition, the admissions process is complicated in that some of the schools require you to list them as a first choice in order for them to consider your score, so if you ranked the top schools as your first choices and you only got enough to get into the lower schools, you won't be accepted by any of them. This is to prevent students who don't *specifically* want to be in a particular school from being there just for the name of being a specialized high school student. As for my opponent's notion that the SHSAT is driving a "wedge" in society, I respectfully disagree. There are students who, instead of spending their time playing video games, playing in the park, or hanging out, will spend their time working hard and studying to get into these good schools and reap the benefits of attending schools with children of the same nature. Asian Americans (more specifically children of Asian immigrants) who have statistically been disenfranchised from affirmative action and other minority benefits given to Blacks and Latinos, *depend* on these exams to rise above mediocrity and reach success, despite having little money. Please read this article: http://www.nytimes.com... It tells the story of Asian families and their American children, huddled together in small living quarters, working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week, barely scraping by. Acceptance to schools like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech are seen as surefire ways to a future of success, a ticket to Ivy League schools, and they often are. Yes, there are ways that the test can be modified, yes, there is controversy, but no test will ever be perfect. The test is modeled after the SATs and aims to be academically fair. It tests Math and Reading Comprehension, just like the SAT, and these are skills that are required for students to have. Those clamoring for the test to be repealed on behalf of Blacks and Latinos simply because the numbers of those racial demographics are extremely low are claiming a cultural bias. But to be perfectly honest, why would there be a cultural bias with a test that is 50% mathematics? And wouldn't the Reading Comprehension section be an even bigger hurdle for Asian Americans who do not have the advantage of being minorities with as long-standing a cultural presence as Blacks and Latinos? The fact is that there is no legitimate controversy. The test is fair and tests things that fairly determine what it needs to. These students need a mechanism by which they can be grouped together with similar students, so that they can continue to achieve the way they need to achieve for their own future success. This test MUST exist. I invite my opponent to argue otherwise. Thank you.

Thank you for expressing your opinion and thought about self-learning and your argument was a splendid one, no doubt.Now I would like to state my argument about self-learning and I will also try to make you understand that, your opinion was a little wrong. Firstly, I want to show your mistake, you said that without academic education one, may get an undisciplined and wrong education. Yes, I agree with your information but I didn't say that, a person who is trying to make himself educated can't go to an academic institution, I meant by my argument that, one can be properly educated by possessing the method of self-learning while going to an academic educational institute like normal students. You may have a misunderstanding about my argument or unclear conception about my thought. I am saying that, one should possess the method my 'so called' self learning besides going to an institution. Because, in this modern era, academic education is a must for all people, rich or poor. And academic learning is helpful and is quite like an assistant to 'self learning'. So, I am trying to explain that I am not avoiding academic education at all. I'll mention some advances of self-learning.

Explanation: As the Pro, My burden will be to show that it is more likely that grades are detrimental to a child's education in more cases than they help them either theoretically or in practice. The con Burden is to show that grades are an integral part of education, and that they are helpful to more students than they detriment. Style: This is meant to be a mainly philosophical debate, and, though direct evidence is completely fine, it is not necessary. Either side may use a philosopher, political thinker etc. as a source to back up part of a claim or contention, but not as the crux of an argument, or validation of a claim. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance (and if you feel it necessary other/counter definitions) Round 2: Introduce All arguments (no con rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals, Turns, extensions etc. Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Closing arguments. (No new arguments) Definitions: For the purpose of this round, grades refer to Numerical or other scaled evaluation of a students performance. Grades do not include narratives, or other text based evaluations. Side note: if My opponent wishes to argue that there are certain students to whom this benefit is more important, or that education is utilitarian (and therefore some students are more important than others) they may.

Because I believe that education should not be subjected to government control, I affirm today's resolution: "Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized test exams to graduate." The value for the round is education, because it is implicitly stated within the context of the resolution. The criterion is prevention of government monopoly, which means to restrict total government control of schools as much as possible. Contention One: The current government monopoly in the public school system is ruining education. The United States government's control of the public school system is extraordinarily strong. The state governments run public schools; after all, they are the ones who collect the tax dollars to fund such schools. John Stossel, former co-host of 20/20, 1 elaborates, "This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the U.S. is a government monopoly. Families send their kids to schools the government chooses. If you don't like your public school? Tough. If the school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it is good or bad." This puts students and parents in a troubling dilemma. No matter what problems the school they are sending their kids to may have, they must send their student to that school; the government orders them to do so. Not attending the school gives the child the label of "truant." This enforced education is bad, but it's not anywhere as bad as the problems with the schools themselves. Sub-Point One: Government schools fail to give the students a good education. Often times, student laziness and teacher incompetence are cited as the cause of low test scores and graduation rates. However, it's pretty hard to believe that all across the nation every teacher and student is being lazy. The problem with public schools is not the teachers or administrators: it's the government. John Stossel 2 reports, "I agree. It's the schools. At the age of ten, students from twenty-five countries take the same test and American kids place eighth, well above the international average. But by age fifteen, when students from forty countries are tested, the Americans place twenty-fifth, well below the international average (see chart, page 109). In other words, the longer American kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from much poorer, less-developed countries, like Korea and Poland, which spend much less on education than the United States." For a country so advanced, the U.S.'s numbers shouldn't be so low. The U.S. shouldn't have to deal with an illiterate population of 27 million , but it does. However, this is because of the government's strict control over the schools. The government decides exactly how education runs, and this monopoly is making the students pay for it. Mark Harrison of the CATO Institute writes, "The U.S. public school monopoly is guilty of seven deadly sins: It wastes resources, discourages good teaching, inhibits parental involvement, suppresses information, stifles innovation, creates conflict and harms the poor. Just as the seven deadly sins correspond to weaknesses in human nature, the sins of public education are inherent in the nature of the existing system -- that it is controlled, operated and funded by government. The politicians and bureaucrats who control government-owned schools do not have the strong incentives or the information necessary to satisfy consumers, control costs, innovate or encourage good teaching." Sub-Point Two: The government will not change the way it operates public schools currently. Because the U.S. government is a monopoly, it will not so easily change the way it runs its schools. The government thus leaves its students in a place where they cannot remedy the situation. John Stossel 3 furthers, "Monopolies don't innovate. Why does the school year run from September to June? Because the public schools still use the farm calendar as a model of when kids should be in school. In 1830, kids needed the summer off to plant and weed the crops. Andrew Coulson, author of Market Education, points out, "Of course, we're no longer an agrarian society and so demands for schooling have changed, but public schools are not an organization that is responsive to consumer demand." No kidding. Some parents would prefer year-round schools. Today less than two percent of families get their incomes from farming. Has the education system responded? No." Not only is the problem that the U.S. government's monopolistic control is blind to innovation, but the officials in the government who run the schools are not held truly accountable. John Stossel 4 writes, "Accountability? The head of a government monopoly has the nerve to talk about accountability? Accountability is why private schools perform better. Every day they are held accountable by parents, and if they fail the kids, the school administrators lose their jobs. Government schools are accountable only to politicians. It's why almost no school is ever closed, no matter how bad it is. No one loses his job when the kids fail. It's not news that government monopolies perform poorly. The fall of the Soviet Union is not a secret. Why would we think a monopoly would work for schools?" Contention Two: Exit exams strengthen government control on schools and thus only more problems will be caused for these schools. The exit exams that are used in the United States are government mandated and created. These tests are not the mastermind of a group of educators; these exams are merely another stringent requirement the state creates for its students. Thus, requiring students to take an exit exam to graduate only strengthens the government's control of public schools; as evidenced my previous contention, more government control is the last thing that these schools need. Exit exams are only a small part of a bigger system. However, if that bigger system is bad and is causing students not to learn, then it is very obvious that using these exit exams upon students actually harms education. These exams are not a step forward for students; they are in fact another step back into monopolistic control of government schools. These standardized test exams, much like the governmental system they are under, are also largely ineffective. John Robert Warren and Eric Grodsky of the University of Minnesota report: "This same basic pattern of exit exam policy evolution has played out in a number of states. States begin by setting moderate to high standards and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars designing exit exams that purport to hold students to these standards. In short order, however, high failure rates and much-publicized legal challenges built on inequities in states' education systems test the political will of policymakers to hold students to these standards. In the end, politics wins out over principle and the exit exam, the passing threshold, or both are altered to increase the share of students that passes the exam. In the end, most states set the bar for passing exit exams at a point that is too low to make any real difference for academic achievement or workplace preparedness but just high enough to prevent a modest number of would-be graduates from obtaining diplomas."

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.

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

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

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

Likewise, I have enjoyed our discussion as well. I believe there have been some very good points called to my attention. I appreciate the clarification of the word "creating", without the proper defining of words it is easy for debates to become confusing and misunderstood. To answer your questions, I am willing to consider that schools have an impact on the mental health if a very clean study was done that eliminated as many variables as possible and recorded the amount of stress hormones released. If there was another round then I'd ask for a further explanation on what one means about the group project example. When you refer to home life in this example, does one mean that the home life was negatively impacting the student. If so then one couldn't necessarily say the student, that worked on it, would receive an "A". I believe that our argument now lies upon what we were originally arguing. I apologize for not starting off the argument by stating what exactly I meant, whether the American education system was the only thing negatively impacting students or if it simply played a part. For future arguments, I will keep this in mind, to first define the argument. Thank you for taking the time to debate this with me. I have learned a great deal from this debate and will use it to better my skills.

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.