Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance Educational Quality?

Standardized testing is not necessarily beneficial to education.
I would first like to state that I believe the issues facing schools are rooted in societal problems that need to be addressed before they can be resolved in schools. These issues include classism, poverty, and racism, which are relevant to the effectiveness of standardized testing. Schools that house underprivileged and/or minority students are not provided with the same level of resources and funding as schools that house privileged or affluent students. True education should focus on nurturing a student's potential rather than instilling information. Standardized testing is not an accurate method of assessing a student's true grasp of the purpose, relevance, or potential of the information they have processed. With so much attention paid to teaching to the test, students often receive little to no knowledge of how to apply the information dealt with in the tests in a real-world setting.
Standardized tests do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field, and their use encourages a narrowed curriculum and outdated methods of instruction. Test scores are not reliable, and two people with very different scores on one exam administration might get similar scores on a retest, or vice versa. The goal of most tests is to sort and rank, and questions most people get right or wrong are removed because they don’t help with ranking. Biased cultural assumptions built into the test as a whole often are not removed by test-makers. Standardized tests do not reflect current knowledge about how students learn, and they are very poor yardsticks of student learning. Classroom surveys show most teachers do not find scores from standardized tests scores very useful.
High-stakes testing often results in a narrow focus on teaching just the tested material (test preparation). High-stakes testing also produces score inflation: scores go up, but students have not learned more. Attaching high stakes to test results increases cheating and other efforts to boost scores without improving educational quality. Good teacher observation, documentation of student work, and performance-based assessment provide useful material for teachers, parents, and the public.
Standardized tests have their origins in the Eugenics movement, where basic tenets assert that certain races are inferior to others biologically and intellectually. IQ scores were posited to be fixed and innate and were promptly used to rank and sort individuals by race and ethnic background. Businesses, government agencies, and educational institutions used IQ tests to justify placing certain people into certain jobs and excluding them from others. This, it is my assertion that standardized testing is not a good thing if the goal is to produce a well-rounded student with skills that

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

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...

You don't need to explain to me what schools are, I know they exist to 'enhance learning' and to 'help them get a better education' as you put it. And believe it or not, I know teachers are their to help the children understand something they may not of understood previously. But even with this insight, I don't believe this is being done well by any means. If schools are good for children, like you say, what about the 40% of them that don't achieve 5 GCSE's grade A to C? What has school done for them that couldn't of been done by something else? 40% is huge, its almost half for gods sake! If you had a factory that made 40% of its products faulty, it would be shut down! So yer, school might be good for those kids who typically would of done alright anyways (because of their socio-economic class), but what about all those who fail? School does not encourage learning. Those who are interested may continue to be interested but few, if any, are brought to this mentality purely by schooling. From my experience I have found very few people my own age (and I mean like 2 people) that are interested in anything but man made things. For example football, cars, tv shows, music, celebrities and other shallow things such as, for men at least, women (but purely from a sexual perspective). Things like science, nature, history, politics, the universe, our bodies and biology are 'nerdy' or too an older person simply 'boring'. Funny how these things are the things we are forced to learn against our will throughout our entire childhood. Rule number 1: if you want a child to hate something; make them do it all the time against their will. This is Rule number 1 for human behaviour: that we want what we carnt have, and we don't want to do what we have to do, and we spoil ourselves with what we have. Also the hole process of learning is outdated and frankly boring. I mean, look at David attenbourgh's nature documentaries: if I saw that in school I would be hooked. There are also many documentaries and video's online that just make science wonderful, despite all this however, we still insist children sit in a class room at 9 o'clock in the morning (a time which is proven to be bad for learning for children as they are not meant to be awake at this time) and be force fed information about a subject they have no interest in. To learn something, you must first WANT too. Schools do not do this for children, it expects them to learn things in fear of a result of a test. Also once a child fails a test he/she loses their confidence and can become disengaged further, lowering their self-esteem. Also school only recognizes what we call academic intelligence, anyone who is expert at something that doesn't fit under this category is deemed 'stupid'. I know all the political correctness and all that but at the end of the day, this is the effect it has on the child's perception of themselves. Indeed, the child may not even know they have these talents as the system that is designed to enhance them, fails to notice. Even more worrying, is that even if a child is gifted at something regarded as academic, they can be squandered. Good examples of this include Einstein. School regarded him as a failure and failed him, he went to university through contacts and they thought him usless too. Had it not been for a friend and a string of chance situation, Einstien would have remained a lowly clerk and we would not know his name now. Another example is the Beatles; one particular MUSIC teacher had half the Beetles in his class and recognized no musical talent. Another example includes particular dancer and founder of an extremely successful dance school, she was thought to be disruptive and could of been diagnosed as having ADHD, but because of a fluke incident and an intelligent psychologist, she was discovered to be a natural dancer. She went to a dance school instead of normal school and ended up becoming a millionaire and brought joy to millions. So how many other potential geniuses has school overlooked? what are we now missing because of the school system squandering talents. It is my view that we are all potential geniuses, that intelligence is unique to the individual and that we can all be geniuses in our own way and in our own area of knowledge. There is enough knowledge and work to be uncovered and done for everybody and every different kind of talent is needed. School is uniform, it makes all children jump through the same hoops and feel a failure if the don't adhere to the schools narrow view of intelligence. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its whole life it is a failure. So to wrap it up, 40% of people 'fail'. Forcing people to learn (if you actually want them to learn, which I believe the system doesn't) is clearly ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about human psychology. We judge intelligence in one way, and this is key to what is wrong with the system. Finally, our method of teaching (classroom, tests, early starts and long days) is frankly no good. I could write a book on this last point so I am trying to not get carried away. Also I would like to add that my personal experience of school was terrible, even though I am more 'academic' than anyone I have ever met !

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.

Okay, then what about our Kazakh's schools they have large classes, the children are sitting by two, teacher gives an assignment for all students respond aloud to the class, then there is a system of training group and in the American school children sit by one, teachers give assignments individually, often in the form of tests, and for weaker students have easier one. Here believe that the main thing is not to hurt the child, do not expose him to ridicule, not to inflict psychological trauma. American scientist Harold Stevenson for more than 10 years leading the global educational research and found our system more efficient. In his study, he underlined the fact that the eastern system of education, established on the basis of the USSR

There is one slight argument i can offer. Here in New Zealand we have something called NCEA. this exists as NCEA level 1,2, and 3. level one you earn at age 15/16 , level to at 17 and level 3 in your final year of high school. this is how it works. each level requires a certain amount of credits to acheive and you gather points by completing assignments or tests from different subjects through out the year. there is still an end of year exam which can help you gather credits. However it's not the be all and end all of your success or failure. The great thing about this is that if you are really good at English and poor at maths you may ace all your English assignments and exams and get the bulk of your credits from this and only a few from maths etc. this allows students to gain their qualification using their own skills and strengths. and does not punish them for their weaknesses. this is far better then one big end of year exams with requires a holistic knowledge of most school subjects which the passing or failure will make or break you. Also this system is good because if you leave school early you may still leave with a level 2 or 3 qualification and also you can continue to earn more points in community colleges or courses to get your next level. the title of your debate was a bit vague and i am to be unsure if you mean any form of exams or exams in the sense that they most commonly exist today as one big end of year test. Either way i think the system we have here in New Zealand is a far more flexible system and therefore better system then just exams.

Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 Contention 2: PUNISHES TEACHERS FOR UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS Sub point 1: Academic achievement is very difficult to define which is what merit pay is determined by. a.David Riegel, a former classroom teacher, argued, "Teacher evaluation is more complicated than simply looking at test scores. It requires careful examination of specific teacher behaviors in the classroom, of how a teacher relates to students, and his or her command of the subject matter they are teaching. This cannot be judged simply by looking at test scores, which may be high in some cases in spite of uninspiring instruction: it requires an effective and highly skilled administrator who knows what she is looking for when she observes a teacher interacting with her students, and who is skilled at helping teachers improve. In short, pay for performance provides an easy way out when quality supervision of instruction is what should really be taking place." b. [Mary Gryphon of the Cato Institute says, "The system can't simply reward high scores. If it did, it would favor teachers in wealthy neighborhoods whose students came to school with excellent skills. Nor can the system reward only improvement. If it did, it would unfairly penalize teachers whose students were already scoring too well to post large gains." Sub point 2: Doesn't account for the different types of students. a.But success in terms of test scores depends on many factors, mostly too obvious to mention, outside the teachers' control. Not the least among these, and perhaps less obvious to outside observers, is the support of fellow practitioners. In many cases, a child's learning requires the support of others besides just the classroom teacher. – david reigel b.You can't pick your students upon whom your salary might depend. Those in favor of merit pay often use the private sector as a comparison point, saying essentially that most people are paid by how hard they work or how many cases they win or how much they sell. And all that's true. But a salesman isn't forced to spend his time on customers who clearly don't want to buy his products. Lawyers don't typically take cases they can't win. – David Reigel

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

Sad to see a closing round =( I had a lot of fun with this =) "My opponent says homeschooled children are taught the same core curriculum. If you look at my source, then you will see that weeding a vegetable garden can be considered a science lesson and walking a dog can be a nature experiment. Seriously? You say to me this is core curriculum? To me it is almost laughable. "Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. " When I stated my source and told my opponent that weeding is a science lesson and walking a dog is a nature experiment his only argument was that "Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. " As I said before tests are self-selective and I do not believe he has tried to deny that it is a self-selected test and he also stated it is mandatory for them to take the SAT test. That is true, but only if you are planning on going to college =). "Yes true, but it is mandatory to take the SAT's, and those tests where considered in the studies above. Also most kids take ERB's or the EXPLORE tests. And they still get better scores. So the ones take it do better, and just because a parent choses doesnt deny the valididy of the studies. Just because you have an option doesnt mean that the studies are flawed. And also that should hurt your case, since there are less kids than it would be harder to get a good average, so these kids must be smarter. " Most take ERB's or EXPLORE tests? I didn't find anything that said homeschooled children take this test. Also, that test is for private schools, I think? We are talking about public vs homeschool, so a private school test is irrelevant to our debate =). But I'll go on what you say and think that homeschooled children do take these tests. I have pointed out and you also have point out, that the tests are self-selecting. You try to tell me that the parents choosing to opt out of these tests don't hurt the validity of the studies? And that this hurts my case since less homeschooled children would make it harder to get a good average? It is time for a Math lesson my young friend =) Let me show you how by using a baseball team's average pay (I choose baseball since it is popular in America XD). If a baseball team has 25 players, with the highest paid player making $30 million, the next highest player making $20 million, and the other 23 players each making $500,000, the average is $2,460,000. But since 23 of the players make only $500,000, that can be misleading. Now, you tell me how less homeschooled children's scores hurt me? The way I see it, if you have a smaller number of very intelligent children taking a test instead of all the kids, then you will produce a greater average =). So, again your whole argument is based on test scores that are self-selecting, which you even stated as true. So tests are flawed due to the total number of homeschoolers are unknown and being able to refuse to take the tests. " "Also, I would like to point out, like I mentioned above, that typically a homeschool student belongs to a family that have obtained bachelor degrees and masters; by law, the only qualification a parent or guardian needs is a high school diploma or GED at best. " Hey, wait a second, you are critizising the teachers in home schools. Yet it seems as though this doesnt matter much ecause the kids are doing better in life, socially (yu didneven refute that) and on standardised tests. So if the teachers in homeschools are so bad, why are their stidents doing better? Just ask thet to yourself. " Actually, I'm only showing you that the qualifications for homeschooling your child is very low and that if every parent decided to homeschool their kids then the end result would be bad. I would think kids from rich families would have a better social life, lol, their rich! "Do you need every single person? Many stidies that are accurite only have a smalle of the population, yet they are accurute. Also the self-selection still means nothing. Most of the homes and the public schoolers are average intelegence, you needn't be smart to do well on those tests, yet one must be. .. educated. So according to this on average a home schooler is smarter. Self-selection means nothing. You think only smart homeschoolers get forced to do it, but that is false, this argument to has some flaws. " I never said smart homeschoolers get "forced" to do anything. Don't be silly. I merely showed that parents with kids that do exceptionally well are more inclined to let their children take these tests =). Self-selecting means everything, but you are too young and inexperienced to see that. You say you hope to be a politician, correct? Look at polls that MSM has been doing on the republican candidate, Ron Paul. There you will see if you limit the polls to a certain few just like with these tests, then you will get the desired results =) "Well, heres the thing, they do save every one money, not just you, ebcaus of taxes. Many people get taxed, so saving 10 billion dollars a year means you save someone somwhere in america some money. So you save your money, and someone elses. Also you claim that some people t a free ride, which is true, but the majority of taxpaers in america pay these taxes. " Taxes will be paid whether it's for a child going to school or a man going to prison. And you did not argue that it is only cheaper to the parent that is homeschooling the child depending on the methods they choose to use to educate that child, so it could turn out MORE expensive =) "1. This is contradictory to your statement above, you are saying that most people that h their kids in homeschool are smart and educated, but up their you said they werent. So you contradicted yourself. Also if they are highly educted and wealthy than the kids are in good hands. 2. Jus because people are rich and smart means what their k does in the futere? I am in an upper class family, and my parentsnew other rich people when they where young, and some of them are poor, drugies, and murderers. So the class doesnt matteu do later in life, look at bill gates, started poor, and is now rich. The same can happen to rich people, started rich, ended poor. So this argument is flawed. " My point is that as a whole, homeschooling is NOT the right chose for the majority of children. If you are rich and have the available resources; then yes, it could be better, but let's face it, most Americans are poor these days and so public school is going to be able to provide a better education to the child. In your last statement, are you trying to say teachers do poor jobs? ? I have no idea what you wanted me to understand from that, so I will not comment. Final conclusion: A majority of my opponents argument was based around test scores, which I think I proven is very flawed and my example further in forces that it can be misleading and he has agreed that these tests are self-selecting for the homeschooled children. He said it is cheaper to homeschool a child. He did not deny that it is only cheaper depending on the methods one chooses to educate the child; and so, it could prove more expensive to homeschool. He said it gives taxpayers a break, but I have shown you get educational credits on your taxes at the end of the year and as I said, taxes will be paid out whether it is for a child in public school or a person in prison. When I told you that people with a GED probably dropped out of school due to the fact that they lacked the interest, drugs, alcohol, pregnancy to complete traditional schooling, it was to show you that since the qualifications to be a homeschool parent where low could subject the child to a poor education and I used the "weeding could be considered a science lesson and walking a dog could be a nature experiment" to show that. My argument was homeschooling is not for the majority, which I have proven.

I look forward to an intellectually stimulating exercise, and one that is happily non-partisan in nature! Dear DDOians, we've all been there haven't we? Either in High school or University, the anxious moment of walking into class, and not having any idea what can be in front of you. .. I think we all know what the nature of the exam is like. Something I think we can all connect with very easily! C1: Exams Exasperate Mental Health Issues My first argument is straight forward. Exams ought to be abolished as they torment the very minds it seeks to evaluate in the first place. Every year from High Schoolers to University members, charities, the University medical services themselves become flooded with students. The students often already have depression or anxiety for instance, and have added difficulty in studying. Its completely unfair. Some students don't even have any mental health issues, will develop them. For instance, a student with family stresses, work stresses, and school stresses, doing an exam can be the final straw that breaks the camels back. The overall goal of academic institutions is to educate the populace, and because exams damage students instead of enhancing their critical analysis, I think this is grounds for removal. Source: . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... C2: Exams Do Not Actually Show Intelligence Exams are utilized to show pure information recall in a given point and time, that point and time being when the exam is, and what the professor, or teacher opts to place on the exam. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually show how intelligent the said student is, only how excellent their memory is. Worse yet, is that the questions are subject to what the Professor or Teacher deems important to the course to be on the exam. If a student finds something else about the course interesting, and remembers that information over what the head of the class deemed important, its actually worse for the student. It makes them look like they've learned nothing, when in actuality they have. This is a frequent issue, as sometimes students will complain and appeal exams on the basis of material not even being taken up in class. Combine this argument with C1, and clearly exams at best only test how the student keeps their cool. If one can even say that. Source: . http://www.ascd.org... C3: The Same Exam Could Have Different Marks In a lot of cases, the exams are not marked by professors. Which can lead to some serious issues. For instance, if a grader is in a bad mood, and is marking essay exams, they might not actually give as many marks as is deserved, or vice-verse. Personally, I've been though this in my economics course in University. I noticed my grader didn't add the total marks right, and brought it into the professor to adjust the mark, instead of getting an additional bonus mark, she remarked the whole thing and my exam netted 10 more marks. These are not small discrepancies, and this is not the only time this has happened, it happens to thousands of students every year, which highlights how ineffective exams are. How are professors and teachers suppose to agree on what a student knows, when they cannot even agree among themselves what is worthy of 1,2, or 3 marks? The answer is they cannot. Source: . http://harvardmagazine.com... C4: Essays Are Much Better Tools of Evaluation With an essay, organizational skills, critical thinking, time management, research, spelling, and grammar skills are utilized within the work. The Professor/Teacher can make a much better evaluation of a students' skills within that paper than on an exam. Because students can ask their teachers/professors for help during their completing of the assignment, it leaves much less room for error on behalf of the student, but the student can work on their skills while completing the job (the professor can show them how to do research if need be). This cannot happen in an exam. The nature of an exam would require giving away an answer which defiles its very purpose should one of these skills be lacking in the student. The exam does not always utilize critical thinking, and it is a poor judge of time management skills (especially if the professor made the exam time and size impossible to complete, which often happens). With students on an exam, cramming is a common study method with little avail. Source: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... C5: Cheating Lastly, exams can be cheated on. If someone plagiarizes an essay for instance, or falsifies a lab report, the methodology of the lab, and turnitin. com can detect if something is amiss. It is much easier to cheat on an exam and get away with it than it is an essay for instance, enhancing academic integrity. Upon asking students themselves, one paper points out that 59% of students cheated on an exam once, and 39% were repeaters cheating more than once. Compare this to essays, in which only 33% would cheat comparatively. Sure, cheating will always be an issue insofar that assignments will always be given, but if this simple solution enhances academic integrity just a little more, then its silly to continue with exams, and instead we should implement other assignments. Source: . https://charactercounts.org... Thank you! Over to my opponent.


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

State-mandated standardized assessments

None of this directly relates to the debate at hand. Unless you're arguing that standardized tests are futile because absolute knowledge is unattainable. However, that argument is somewhat naive. The objectives of education and science are to construct models that mirror what appears to be reality, not to perfectly comprehend reality itself. Absolute knowledge is not a prerequisite. Rockets, computers, and heart surgery function effectively without it. However, to qualify as an astronaut, computer scientist, or heart surgeon, one must exhibit the requisite knowledge and the potential to acquire more. Moreover, since not everyone can become an astronaut, computer scientist, or heart surgeon, there needs to be a method to evaluate and compare individuals to ensure that the most competent are recognized for their accomplishments. That's the rationale behind the necessity of standardized tests.

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

Local control" is the most sacred principle in American education—a tradition so deeply ingrained in history and practice that its shortcomings are almost never articulated. Yet a look at the history of local control as the organizing principle of schooling suggests that an approach that made perfect sense in the 1700s is crippling American education today. Whatever its successes in the past, local control today assures four major problems: Inconsistent Standards and Inadequate Data: Union Dominance: Establish National Standards: Going back to my first reason Inconsistent Standards and Inadequate Data: Local control assures that we have no overall way to know how children are doing. By leaving the definition of standards and proficiency requirements to the states, No Child Left Behind—like earlier efforts in the educational standards movement—makes it impossible for us to know where kids stand. Instead it has produced a well-documented "race to the bottom" in which many states lower the achievement bar to foster the illusion of progress. Secondly, Union Dominance: Local control, particularly in big cities, often leaves schools in the hands of political school boards who are themselves under the thumb of powerful teachers' unions that dominate their elections and block sensible reforms. As a result of these and related failings, most schools, far from relishing the supposed freedom granted by local control, feel trapped in red tape; principals say they spend their days on unproductive paperwork to comply with endless mandates, when they're not busy navigating Byzantine district bureaucracies to keep the heat on and the supply room stocked. The only way to demand more from schools while freeing educators and parents to find diverse ways for schools to perform better is to take a cue from other advanced countries and nationalize the system a little, especially when it comes to the standards we expect students to meet and the resources we allocate to help them do so. Specifically, we should: NATIONALIZE EDUCATION: The usual explanation for why national standards won't fly politically in the United States is that the right hates "national" and the left hates "standards." But that's changing. Leading figures in both parties now say that in today's "flat" world we can't have the rigor of a child's education, and thus chances for success, depend on the accident of where they happen to be born. Polls show a majority of Americans agree. Most proponents suggest we establish national standards and tests in grades three through 12 in core subjects—reading, math, and science, for starters—perhaps leaving more controversial subjects, such as history, until we get our feet wet with a new regime. In the effort to reform our education system, it is vital that one seeming paradox is understood: It is only by transcending traditional local control, and by getting serious about a new national role in standards and finance, that we can at last create genuine autonomy for local schools.

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.

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

Sad to see a closing round =( I had a lot of fun with this =) "My opponent says homeschooled children are taught the same core curriculum. If you look at my source, then you will see that weeding a vegetable garden can be considered a science lesson and walking a dog can be a nature experiment. Seriously? You say to me this is core curriculum? To me it is almost laughable. "Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. " When I stated my source and told my opponent that weeding is a science lesson and walking a dog is a nature experiment his only argument was that "Well since they are doing better on national standerdize tests on all subjects, then then be learning more. " As I said before tests are self-selective and I do not believe he has tried to deny that it is a self-selected test and he also stated it is mandatory for them to take the SAT test. That is true, but only if you are planning on going to college =). "Yes true, but it is mandatory to take the SAT's, and those tests where considered in the studies above. Also most kids take ERB's or the EXPLORE tests. And they still get better scores. So the ones take it do better, and just because a parent choses doesnt deny the valididy of the studies. Just because you have an option doesnt mean that the studies are flawed. And also that should hurt your case, since there are less kids than it would be harder to get a good average, so these kids must be smarter. " Most take ERB's or EXPLORE tests? I didn't find anything that said homeschooled children take this test. Also, that test is for private schools, I think? We are talking about public vs homeschool, so a private school test is irrelevant to our debate =). But I'll go on what you say and think that homeschooled children do take these tests. I have pointed out and you also have point out, that the tests are self-selecting. You try to tell me that the parents choosing to opt out of these tests don't hurt the validity of the studies? And that this hurts my case since less homeschooled children would make it harder to get a good average? It is time for a Math lesson my young friend =) Let me show you how by using a baseball team's average pay (I choose baseball since it is popular in America XD). If a baseball team has 25 players, with the highest paid player making $30 million, the next highest player making $20 million, and the other 23 players each making $500,000, the average is $2,460,000. But since 23 of the players make only $500,000, that can be misleading. Now, you tell me how less homeschooled children's scores hurt me? The way I see it, if you have a smaller number of very intelligent children taking a test instead of all the kids, then you will produce a greater average =). So, again your whole argument is based on test scores that are self-selecting, which you even stated as true. So tests are flawed due to the total number of homeschoolers are unknown and being able to refuse to take the tests. " "Also, I would like to point out, like I mentioned above, that typically a homeschool student belongs to a family that have obtained bachelor degrees and masters; by law, the only qualification a parent or guardian needs is a high school diploma or GED at best. " Hey, wait a second, you are critizising the teachers in home schools. Yet it seems as though this doesnt matter much ecause the kids are doing better in life, socially (yu didneven refute that) and on standardised tests. So if the teachers in homeschools are so bad, why are their stidents doing better? Just ask thet to yourself. " Actually, I'm only showing you that the qualifications for homeschooling your child is very low and that if every parent decided to homeschool their kids then the end result would be bad. I would think kids from rich families would have a better social life, lol, their rich! "Do you need every single person? Many stidies that are accurite only have a smalle of the population, yet they are accurute. Also the self-selection still means nothing. Most of the homes and the public schoolers are average intelegence, you needn't be smart to do well on those tests, yet one must be. .. educated. So according to this on average a home schooler is smarter. Self-selection means nothing. You think only smart homeschoolers get forced to do it, but that is false, this argument to has some flaws. " I never said smart homeschoolers get "forced" to do anything. Don't be silly. I merely showed that parents with kids that do exceptionally well are more inclined to let their children take these tests =). Self-selecting means everything, but you are too young and inexperienced to see that. You say you hope to be a politician, correct? Look at polls that MSM has been doing on the republican candidate, Ron Paul. There you will see if you limit the polls to a certain few just like with these tests, then you will get the desired results =) "Well, heres the thing, they do save every one money, not just you, ebcaus of taxes. Many people get taxed, so saving 10 billion dollars a year means you save someone somwhere in america some money. So you save your money, and someone elses. Also you claim that some people t a free ride, which is true, but the majority of taxpaers in america pay these taxes. " Taxes will be paid whether it's for a child going to school or a man going to prison. And you did not argue that it is only cheaper to the parent that is homeschooling the child depending on the methods they choose to use to educate that child, so it could turn out MORE expensive =) "1. This is contradictory to your statement above, you are saying that most people that h their kids in homeschool are smart and educated, but up their you said they werent. So you contradicted yourself. Also if they are highly educted and wealthy than the kids are in good hands. 2. Jus because people are rich and smart means what their k does in the futere? I am in an upper class family, and my parentsnew other rich people when they where young, and some of them are poor, drugies, and murderers. So the class doesnt matteu do later in life, look at bill gates, started poor, and is now rich. The same can happen to rich people, started rich, ended poor. So this argument is flawed. " My point is that as a whole, homeschooling is NOT the right chose for the majority of children. If you are rich and have the available resources; then yes, it could be better, but let's face it, most Americans are poor these days and so public school is going to be able to provide a better education to the child. In your last statement, are you trying to say teachers do poor jobs? ? I have no idea what you wanted me to understand from that, so I will not comment. Final conclusion: A majority of my opponents argument was based around test scores, which I think I proven is very flawed and my example further in forces that it can be misleading and he has agreed that these tests are self-selecting for the homeschooled children. He said it is cheaper to homeschool a child. He did not deny that it is only cheaper depending on the methods one chooses to educate the child; and so, it could prove more expensive to homeschool. He said it gives taxpayers a break, but I have shown you get educational credits on your taxes at the end of the year and as I said, taxes will be paid out whether it is for a child in public school or a person in prison. When I told you that people with a GED probably dropped out of school due to the fact that they lacked the interest, drugs, alcohol, pregnancy to complete traditional schooling, it was to show you that since the qualifications to be a homeschool parent where low could subject the child to a poor education and I used the "weeding could be considered a science lesson and walking a dog could be a nature experiment" to show that. My argument was homeschooling is not for the majority, which I have proven.

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.

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!

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

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


Question: Do Standardized Assessments Enhance the Quality of Education?

Standardized testing serves a valuable purpose. Indeed, no parent wishes to see their child distressed. However, they prioritize their child's success above all else, and standardized tests contribute to this goal. The purpose of these tests is to identify areas in the curriculum where students may need additional support, which is the only way to truly determine where help is needed. Without such tests, teachers might not be able to accurately assess what a child understands or doesn't understand, thus hindering their ability to provide targeted assistance.

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

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

Hey the education is because of choice is wrong. As you can see, that this education is the one that has made your choice. Then will choice appear by it self? Well no. EDUCATION IS THE ONE THAT IS TAKING EVERYBODYS THINKING!!!!! Well that is what I am talking about.

How can one relate what one has learned in the classroom if one is not permitted to explore and question what is being taught? You previously said, "The goal of education is"the development of life." People are alive, are they not? To effectively develop one"s life, would one not have to first focus on the development of one"s self? It is vital to put emphasis on the individual before the attention can be placed on society as a whole. As Freire states, "the solution is not to "integrate' them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves."" The society you are referring to is full of clones; no one is able to break free from the standard knowledge that is being fed to them in the classroom. How would you define the quality of a society where no one is able to think for themselves and express themselves as an individual? Would this not be considered a form of dictatorship? I do not believe oppressive education to be a method of teaching; it is a form of brainwashing. Nothing, not a person or society, can develop from this practice.

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...

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

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

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.

Furthermore, I will attempt to illustrate the importance of schooling as it relates to education. Due to Pro's lack of clarification regarding the Round rules, I will refrain from posting my argument in order to give Pro a fair opportunity to state their full argument. However, I will state for the record that I do agree with Pro's notion that education and school are different concepts. They are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, and certainly not distant relatives, as I believe Pro was attempting to convey.

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.


Question: Should Stricter Firearm Regulations Be Implemented?

Recent and past shootings are not primarily a gun control issue but a reflection of societal and individual problems.
The argument that recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a societal and individual issue remains valid. The debate centers on the contention that the root causes of these random shootings are social and individual factors, not gun control. While it is true that gun control cannot prevent all crimes, it is the primary contributing factor to the frequency of mass shootings. The United States has experienced 15 out of 25 of the worst shooting incidents, due to its lax gun control laws. The high number of gun-related deaths in the US, about 10,000 homicides each year, highlights the need for stricter gun control measures.
Attack 1: Mental Health
The opponent's argument that mental health issues are the cause of mass shootings is flawed. Mental health problems exist in every country, yet mass shootings are more prevalent in the US. The focus on mental health as the sole cause of mass shootings is a distraction from the real issue of gun control. The availability of guns enables individuals to commit mass shootings, and stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of mass shootings.
Attack 2: Access to Guns
The opponent's argument that gun ownership is a constitutional right and that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws is flawed. The availability of guns, both legal and illegal, is a major contributing factor to mass shootings. The US has the highest number of guns per capita, and this has led to a high number of gun-related deaths. Stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for individuals to obtain guns.
Attack 3: Self-Defense
The opponent's argument that gun ownership is necessary for self-defense is flawed. The use of guns for self-defense is rare, and the risks associated with gun ownership outweigh any potential benefits. The presence of guns in homes increases the risk of accidental shootings, suicide, and domestic violence. Stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for individuals to obtain guns for illegal purposes.
Attack 4: Crime Rates
The opponent's argument that crime rates are not affected by gun control laws is flawed. Countries with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun-related deaths and mass shootings. The US has the highest rate of gun-related deaths among developed countries, and this is due to its lax gun control laws. Stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of guns in circulation and make it more

The present large amount of guns within the US society and the even larger black market of guns provides the proof that inevitably post any banning of guns they will still be present in society. Their existence will be confined to an illegal paradigm where law abiding citizens will not have access. That will put them at the risk of loosing their lives by being without means of self-protection.

The handgun ban prevents law abiding citizens from self defense

A ban on assault weapons is not a slippery slope to an all gun ban

Knives are more deadly than assault weapons

I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.

The use of guns and violence is not a necessity, but a symptom of inequality and a culture of resolving conflict through violence. Arms and violence are a disturbing symptom of socio-political power used by a segment of the population (some white male citizens) to subordinate Native Americans and African-Americans, or to sustain class and gender divisions.

"Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of University of California, Irvine, believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose." In the case of Washington, DC, the legitimate purpose at hand has been the extraordinarily high crime rate of the city, at the time when the ban was implemented in 1976 through today. By 1991, DC was considered the murder capital of the country, with 479 deaths that year, 81 deaths per 100,000. As such, it constituted and continues to constitute an exceptional case in the country, warranting exceptional measures, such as a handgun ban.

If the intentions of the framers had been to protect an individual right to bear arms, they would have clearly expressed this. Yet, the Second Amendment is not at all clear about an individual right to bear arms. The natural reading of the clause would indicate that the right relates only to the first, qualifying clause that states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It is a stretch to read into the language an individual right. If this were the case, why wouldn't they simply have explicitly stated that an "individual right to bear arms should not be infringed".

There are fewer assault weapons at crime scenes since the ban.

That would certainly be an argument for regulating the circumstances in which people can smoke, like, for example, the law in Ireland that bans smoking in enclosed workplaces. But so long as smokers don't "smoke in someone's face" then they should not be prevented for enjoying a cigarette if they so choose.