query: Do standardized tests improve education?

positive: For Elite Colleges, Standardized Tests Should Be More Important in Admissions Decisions Then GPA Resolved: The SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests provided more insight into a high school student's preparedness for education at elite colleges and universities than high school GPA and therefore should play a greater role in admissions. For the sake of argument, any college or university that accepts less than 15% of applicants can be considered elite. That does not mean that there aren't elite colleges that accept higher percentages of applicants, but I do not want my opponent twisted the resolution by coming up with an example of a university with a very low acceptance rate that is not as academically rigorous. This applies only to US schools. For Oxford, Cambridge, and their lot this does not apply due to the very different educational systems of the US and the UK (or other countries). Contention 1: Applicants tend to have uniformly high GPA. Last year, Brown University had 2,199 applicants who were valedictorian or salutatorian of their high school class. It ended up enrolling 1,732 students. So, Brown received more applications with nearly flawless GPA then it could possibly enroll. This does not include the thousands of applicants that were third or fourth in their class or the extremely large number that came from schools that do not rank. Making GPA a major criteria is simply not possible because an overwhelming number of applicants have very high grades. The SAT, but contrast, is intentionally designed so that only a limited number of students will get the top scores. Out of the entire nation, less than 300 people receive a perfect score on the SAT per year and only about 10,000 score over 2300/2400. Thus, top scores on the SAT are less common and distinguish students better. To use the example of Brown, they received only 108 perfect ACT scores as compared to the 1,507 valedictorians. Contention 2: GPA is not consistent between different students. One student at the same school could get a higher GPA than another by taking an easier course load. This is even more of a problem across different schools. How difficult an AP Biology course is at school X might be very different then how difficult it is at school Y. Standardized tests are designed so that they produce consistent results across different places and different tests administrations. Contention 3: Most high school classes are not hard enough to show that a student is ready for an elite education. This is fairly simple if you think about it. Even a very selective private school cannot offer a math class taught up to the rigor of an MIT math class because no high school has enough students that would be able to handle it. In order to get this kind of student body, they would have to use the same admissions criteria as elite colleges do. Thus, students capable of doing the work at these colleges will always excel as compared to their peers in high school and will not be challenged to a level that would prove their ability. The SAT and ACT are challenging enough that a very small minority of students get very high scores, so a very high score proves a student's potential. Conclusion: It is of course true that many traits that cannot be measured on a test, such as work ethic and determination, are necessary for success at top colleges. These traits, however, are nearly universal for those who are serious about getting in. Only standardized tests can distinguish these students from one another and prove who has the ability. Consider a student with a 3.7 GPA and a 2370 SAT from school X and a student with a 4.0 GPA and 2020 SAT from school Y. Which of them would get in to Brown? The student with the 4.0 is one of thousands but the student with the 2370 is one of a few hundred. The student with the 2370, who is clearly more intelligent, should not be considered inferior because his classes may have been harder or he may have gotten few bad grades. Also remember that a .3 different is rather large in high school, which is graded much, much more generously then college. I will go into more arguments latter depending on what my opponent brings up. Sources: http://www.brown.edu... http://professionals.collegeboard.com...

positive: on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Hello! my name is Thomas brooks and I stand in affirmation of the resolved, On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K"12 education in the United States. We have three contentions to bring to you today. 1" standardized testing compares schools, 2" Standardised testing improves k"12 education, 3" On balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Point one) Without standardized testing, their would be no way to compare schools, and assure that they were meeting their constitutional standards. The fourteenth constitutional amendment requires fair and equal treatment to all, under protection of the law. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of education in 1954, Officially legislated that the 14th amendment applied to all education laws. Therefore, It is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. If there is no way to compare schools, there is no way for individuals to know whether a student is receiving a substandard education, vandalising our constitutional right. Without standardized testing there would be no form of comparison and equality would not be obtainable. This leads us into our second point. Standardized testing has made tangible the quality of education a school provides, and created accountability in not just teachers and schools, but in districts and states . This has benefited educational mandates in funding in two irreplaceable ways. 1) The implementation of NCLB has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide standard and adequate teaching facilities. Study conducted by David G. Sciarra, shows direct correlation to how the instatement of No Child Left Behind created accountability to state and government to provide a standard of school safety conditions. The study focuses on, but is not limited to a number of lawsuits in states New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California where severely underfunded schools that lacked resources, and dew to the passing of the NCLB had the legal grounds to obtaining equil funding and such from the state improving the education of their students. 2) The second way standardized tests have improved education is in actually reforming state legislature dictating funding. Since the 1970"s, when statewide standardized tests became more common, there was an increase of court cases discussing that different funding was required to support different schools. These arguments are called "adequacy" suits. The arguments are based in the belief that a school that supports a larger population of students, or educates students that live in poorer demographics need more state funding, and can not rely on property tax. Plaintiffs fundamentally rely upon low scores on standardized tests, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children. Standardized tests have created greater equality in school funding. Our Third contention is that on balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Test anxiety is real, and it is true that both high and low stakes standardized tests can create stress in K"12 students. However, post primary education is also depended on high stakes assessments, similar to those of standardized tests. Students who participate in standardized tests will be more prepared to face future educational, occupational, and professional goals. Such tests include those pertaining to college admission and success, occupational licensing for trades such as law and medicine. Standardised tests are the only way to insure that individuals have the capability to obtain and equal education, key in creating safe campuses, and fundamental in legislature allocating school funding. Furthermore, Standardized tests prepare students for the stress in taking high stakes tests later in their life. On balance, standardized tests are imperative to improving k"12 education, and benefit it in many ways.

positive: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S == Clarification ==The resolution states, "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States."Let me clarify each of the terms. "On balance" means taking everything into consideration. In such a debate, all harms and benefits are weighed against each other to decide who wins. "Standardized testing" is a form of testing implemented at K-12 education in the United States, where the tests at the K-12 level are the same for all public schools. "Beneficial" means posing a net benefit.The burdens are shared. There's no burden of proof in this debate, only a burden of persuasion, due to the usage of "on balance" and "beneficial," both of which make it a debate of opinions rather than a fact-claim.== Rebuttal ==Pro's case is contradictory. The position of Pro is intended to argue for the resolution. Instead, Pro argues that standardized testing is bad. He's arguing from the wrong side. Pro is arguing that different students require different forms of education, and standardized testing actually fails in doing that. Pro's own source notes that standardized testing is ineffective in doing so. Vote Con right there. Pro's argument is contradictory to itself, and fails to affirm the resolution. Regardless, I'll presume I'm taking the position of Pro and address my opponent's harms:Pro's first harm is that children learn in different ways. But Pro's source, and argument, only address primary school children, which is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution specifically regards K-12 education, and primary grade students don't link to the resolution. Furthermore, I agree that primary school children learn in different ways - but by K-12, they've all learned and prepared for this. The same set of educational portion would exist anyway, regardless of whether standardized testing exists. As such, the first harm doesn't apply.Pro says standardized testing has been linked to an "overemphasis" on vocational education. I have two responses: (1) overemphasis is subjective, and there's no objective reason to believe "critical thinking in mathematics" is more important than vocational education, and so forth and (2) I don't need to defend the status quo; as long as I can show some form of standardized testing is or would pose a net benefit, I affirm (therefore, you vote Con). This argument is also a bare assertion due to lack of sources. C1) Benefits to studentsPro concedes that testing -- in some form -- is beneficial. Testing allows parents and students to assess themselves. Such an assessment results in increase in total education for the student, and allows parents to stress on further improvement. Herbert J. Walberg (2011) says, “Students benefit directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress. Computers streamline this process by providing immediate feedback about correct and incorrect responses far more quickly and with much greater patience than teachers and tutors can provide.” [1]On balance, standardized testing is a helpful form of testing to the student. John Bishop of Cornell University found that standardized testing poses huge educational value to the student. He found that countries requiring students to take nationally standardized tests showed higher test scores on international tests than those who took school-based tests. In another study, he found that US students who anticipated having to pass a standardized test learned more science and math, and were more likely to complete homework and talk with their parents about school work. [2, 3] C2) Teachers see benefit in standardized testsIt's largely agreed that standardized testing benefits teachers as well. According to Laura S. Hamilton and Brian Stecher, “[S]tandardized tests can do many things: tell policymakers and families how well students are doing overall; play a role in state and district accountability systems; contribute to teacher evaluations; and inform decision-making about student course placement. Some tests are used in other ways that include teachers adapting day-to-day instruction to meet individual student needs based on each student's test results.” [4] Teachers generally see standardized tests and associated accountability systems as beneficial. Teachers, therefore, do understand and perceive benefits. For all the above reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.hoover.org...[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[3] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.usnews.com...

positive: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Why we don"t need standardized testing Resolved: On Balance standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the Unites States. Standardized tests don"t provide any further information we don"t already know - Greg Jouriles 14 http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second"less radical and more familiar"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: "That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. "To sum up, we don"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence." But it has also been an opportunity. Recognizing our grading differences, we opted to create a common conception of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now align closely with the Common Core State Standards. Second, we created common performance tasks that measure these standards and formative assessments that scaffold to them. Third, we look together at student work. Fourth, we have begun to grade each other's students on these common tasks. We could publish the results of these performance tasks, and the public would have a good idea of what we're good at and what we're not. For example, our students effectively employ reading strategies to comprehend a text, but are often stymied by a lack of vocabulary or complex syntax. We've also learned most of our students can coherently develop a claim, citing the appropriate evidence to support it when choosing from a restricted universe of data. They aren't as good when the universe of data is broadened. They are mediocre at analysis, counter-arguments, rebuttals, and evaluation of sources, though they have recently gotten better at evaluating sources as we have improved our instruction and formative assessments. A small percentage of our students do not show even basic competency in reading and writing. That's better information than we've ever received from standardized testing. What's also started to happen is that teachers who use the same standards and rubrics, assign the same performance tasks, and grade each other's work are finding their letter grades starting to align. And, this approach has led to a lot of frank discussions. For example, why are grades different? Where we have looked, different conceptions of achievement and rigor seem most important. So we have to talk about it. The more we do, the more aligned we will become, and the more honest picture of achievement we can create. It has been fantastic professional development"done without external mandates. We have a long way to go, but we can understand the value of our efforts and see improvement in student work. I would not advocate publishing individual teachers' grades because it would cause the same problems as publishing individual teachers' standardized-test results, but grades by subject, grade level, and demographic categories could be fair game externally. Internally, those breakdowns should stimulate hard conversations and necessary professional development. Of course, this proposal would have to be negotiated and modified locally to avoid the punishment/reward cycle of other accountability measures that force people to conform and tempt them to cheat. The goal is to spur the collaboration and conversation necessary for improvement. Well, that's your district, some might say. It's got a unique collaborative culture and a better sense of achievement than most. You can't do that across the nation. Why not? With the common core, a definition of achievement exists. And teachers are more likely to respond to professional development and accountability more concretely connected to their daily work. They are more likely to improve. That leads to the second argument. Even if standardized testing were not only desirable to give the public a picture of basic competencies, but also an efficient way to do so, the costs have been too great. Many have previously made cogent arguments (unrealistic definitions of achievement, skewed instructional schemes, inequitable curricular offerings, inevitable corruption, perverted charter school missions, alienation, disempowerment, and embarrassment of educators, etc.) in this vein, but let's think about a supposed example of success on this front"a school with the high test scores. In general, such a school has a compliant or affluent population. Test scores are a point of pride. The school has a good reputation. But, when you go in and observe, the teaching and learning do not impress. Never once have I looked at the test scores of this kind of school and thought, "How could I be more like them?" That's because success represented just a score on a narrow test of a limited band of achievement (a test, by the way, with content that I was not even legally allowed to talk about), and I couldn't see how looking at that score could help me in my day-to-day teaching. Even worse, I don't think the teachers at such schools have learned much from their good scores. If anything, the scores have prevented them from becoming better. So, to sum up, we don't learn much from standardized testing, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence. The common core is at risk for failure, not because the standards are bad per se, but because with standardized accountability, as in so many partial reforms, we again won't get a real picture of achievement, people will be disappointed, and the standards and testing will run their course. Instead, why not just trust teachers and schools to report the progress of their students with the measures they have, and use internal and external local pressures to improve the measures and practices? It will avoid a plethora of social, emotional, and political costs. Any bureaucracy created can't be more of a drag on the government or economy than the legion of consultants and think tanks today feeding off the trough of education. This proposal is more in line with what we know about the success of sustainable local organizations and what we know about the inflated rise and inevitable fall of mass reform.

positive: Should grades be abolished Grades should be abolished because they demotivate children towards studies. An extra-ordinary student or someone intelligent student would it totally against the students of intelligent class. It is like giving some special treatment to a majority of students. If I had been HRD Minister, my first work would have been replacing this grading system.

positive: Standardized Tests My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.

positive: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or "standard" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of "standard score" which can help interpret how far a child"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. "They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular "cut-line" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to "assessment is powerful for improving teaching" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.

positive: Resolved on balance I apologized for not making my style of debating clear from the beginning. I first present evidence to support the agrument I'm making, then I later make analytical arguments at the end. I see how this may have been confusing. BUT this doesn't mean my argument is false, that would be a "fallacy fallacy" (). And saying you don't need to present any further arguments just shows how week your argument is the first place. Now my plan for Round three is to present two pieces of evidence (I only put in the parts I thought nessary in order to save time reading) and then move on to analytical arguments to directly address your arguments. Argument 1. Why we don"t need standardized testing http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second"less radical and more familiar"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: "That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. "To sum up, we don"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence." Arguement 2. Standardized Testing Undermines Teaching http://www.npr.org... No Child Left Behind has turned into a timetable for the destruction of American public education," she tellsFresh Air's Terry Gross. "I had never imagined that the test would someday be turned into a blunt instrument to close schools " or to say whether teachers are good teachers or not " because I always knew children's test scores are far more complicated than the way they're being received today." No Child Left Behind required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests. Student progress on those tests was measured to see if the schools met their Adequate Yearly Progress goals. or AYP. Schools missing those goals for several years in a row could be restructured, replaced or shut down. "The whole purpose of federal law and state law should be to help schools improve, not to come in and close them down and say, 'We're going to start with a clean slate,' because there's no guarantee that the clean slate's going to be better than the old slate," says Ravitch. "Most of the schools that will be closed are in poor or minority communities where large numbers of children are very poor and large numbers of children don't speak English. Schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like "second-class citizens.It's simply a way of avoiding the public responsibility to provide good education." Analytical arguments: 1. C1. by taking tests the students don't see how much they know just how much they can memorize right before taking a test; the information doesn't stick they can cram information the night before and then forget it all in a week. The purpose of education is to learn information and then use it later in the world and tests undermine that. -also standardized test don't tell the student anything they don't already know. Most students are already well aware if whether they know something or not; even if they didn't they have grades which provide more information than any test as it consists of more studies. 2. C2. we can make the term standardized tests broad enough so it covers all forms of tests. But most of the issues lie in the tests which do occur once a year as they hold the biggest impact on the students future. 3. C3. Just because a student does well on a test doesn't mean he or she know the information. Most student's don't consistently study, rather they cram all the information the night before, students who do study are much more likely to experience a block than students who cram info. (http://www.galamind.com...) -also there are, as we know today, three types of learners, tactile, audio and visual. and test only favor visual. Conclusion: Due to the lack of the pros arguments I uphold my belief to that standardized testing is NOT beneficial to k-12 education in the United States, and I urge the affirmation of the resolution.

positive: The school system is outdated Public schools or schools in general are out dated institutions.That has many negative causes instead of helpful. The way they teach the classrooms are overcrowded, the teachers are underpaid and overworked, and kids often have different needs and different strengths and one way teaching is not going to help out. I'm Not saying that school is completely horrible but as the way it's going it needs some major adjustments.

positive: standardized testing should be eliminated I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims, and then I will move on and create my own arguments supporting the elimination of standardized testing. ======== REBUTTALS ======== "1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it." All schools have curricula that is already predetermined by the nature of the course which they are teaching. Standardized testing is not needed to give these teachers a direction. If anything, standardized testing negatively impacts education in this way, since it results in what as known as "teaching to the test" where teachers do not care about truly educating the students, rather, they want to see positive results when it comes to test day. For a dramatic example of teaching to the test, we have to look no further than a teacher in Texas whose school, in some classrooms, stopped teaching social studies and the sciences completely since these were not on the state test [1]. Is this the education that these children deserve? "2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally." Standardized tests are extremely inaccurate at gauging the capabilities of students, and thus cannot be used in this way. This is because it is impossible to create a test that is fair to all students, and thus it creates an inaccurate representation of both those that benefit and are hurt by this inherent bias. These standardized tests also cannot account for other factors critical to learning such as motivation that are key to success. "3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups." Much standardized testing, unfortunately, leads to cheating due to a pressure to obtain high standardized test scores by the students or teachers [2]. Also, to attempt to alleviate this cheating, many standardized tests have created multiple forms so that it becomes much more difficult for teachers to cheat and nigh on impossible for students. However, these again have the inaccuracies that inherently result from differences in the tests. "4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years." The performance of students on any given day should obviously not be used to establish whether or not they have made progress throughout the entire year. "5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material." While it may motivate students to memorize answers that will likely show up on the test, if anything, it discourages students from learning a wider range of material as sourced above, since the rest of their knowledge will not determine their results on the standardized tests. "6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question." Is this an assumption that standardized tests only consist of multiple-choice questions? Many, like the SAT and PSSA do not, but under the assumption that they do, this only further encourages students to memorize concepts without learning the material. This is why many very important tests like AP Exams include free-response portions, because they are one of the most effective ways in analyzing the true knowledge of a student, as far as tests are concerned, which vastly outweighs the cost issues (which have not been shown by my opponent to be vast). =========== CONSTRUCTIVE =========== I propose that standardized tests be abolished in favor of what is known as the portfolio method. This method essentially consists of creating a file for each student and placing assignments and works of students frequently in this file. There are many benefits of this system [3]. 1) It is cheap. The amount of money that it costs to purchase some filing cabinets and folders for portfolios is minimal, and it can even be put online to further save money. 2) It is much more accurate. Instead of measuring student performance on a single day, and expecting this to account for the student's progress throughout the entire year, performance is measured constantly, which reduces stress and is inherently more accurate. 3) It encourages teaching a wider curriculum. With results based on a variety of tests and assignments given throughout the course, teachers focus on teaching the material on a chapter-by-chapter basis, instead of spending the entire course looking ahead to the standardized tests. This ensures that everything that needs to be taught for a complete understanding of the subject is taught. Since the portfolio method is much more beneficial than standardized testing, I therefore affirm that standardized testing should be eliminated. Sources: [1] http://www.www2.districtadministration.com... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this will be an enjoyable debate.

positive: Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g I will use my opponent's structure from RD 4: -------------------- Aff Case: Value Debate 1. I'm not achieving equality. I'm achieving equal access to educational standards. The two are not the same. 2. Utilitarianism is unjust and discriminatory. My opponent has yet to address this. Extend it. 3. Extend my previous comments about NCLB and how much it fails as a legislative measure, especially if my opponent is linking NCLB with the discriminatory practice of utilitarianism. Criterion Debate 1. Extend all previous responses on the criterion debate. Space compels me not to repeat them a third time, but they go unaddressed, which means that my opponent has no criterion. Contention 1, Sub A Point 1 (I believe he is referring to my numbered responses in RD 3) -The unconstitutionality comes from denying large amounts of students equal access to education, as is proved in my entire case. -The funding of the test is not at issue. It never has been. The funding of individual districts in order to provide equal access to materials and quality staffing is. Extend my analysis on this point. Point 2 -Clarification: I stated that my opponent has no warrants to back up his claim that the intentions of exit exams match their actual outcomes. We can create something with the best intentions in mind, but its application could still lead to utter failure (as is the case with exit exams). -Of course exit exams match state standards (national standards don't exist as education is a state's right). That doesn't prove that the exit exam ensures equal access to education, though, as those state standards are currently not being taught equally. Hence, underserved students can't pass the exit exam due to systemic discrimination. Cross-apply those impacts I noted from RD 3. Point 3 -I never stated that exit exams don't prepare students for the workforce. Our evaluation of them can't even make it that far because of unequal access to education. What I stated was that my opponent didn't provide a warrant to prove that exit exams did all the good things that he said they did. One can't just assert something like that without a warrant. Contention 1, Sub B Tagline Response: At the point where I prove that exit exams are invalid due to inherent, systemic flaws, the "weaknesses" my opponent refers to cannot be trusted, anyway. Point 1 -This brighter world/better workforce is inaccessible by my opponent; I've warranted this claim multiple times. Point 2 -The warrant for non-graduates being individually unsuccessful as well as a social liability is, in fact, directly in my case. Look to my second and third cards. Evidence provided. Point 3 -Private scores & "teachers help" do not solve the impacts that I extend in RD 3. This is also another unwarranted assertion with no clear link to my response. -------------------- Neg Case Value Debate -Exit exam grading policy has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued in this debate. The system is biased (the distribution of education itself), which is why the test fails. Again, I never claim that exit exams themselves are biased in form or in grading. Blip on Equal Rights (between value debate and criterion debate) -My opponent has yet to link the exit exam to equal access to education in any way, warrant or not. I have. Criterion Debate -Extend the arguments made in the initial rounds. It is abusive to use exit exams as a criterion. Neg Contentions: One more time, I'll ask that you extend my responses to my opponent's case, which have been posted since RD 1. Silence only has the potential to be consent if one is actually silent. 1) "Cross-apply the entire Aff case. Neg is actively marginalizing an entire segment of US citizens, which is patently unjust. Since not only 90% of the population is due a legitimate, equal education, you can vote Aff on that alone."- This is entirely dropped, which takes out his entire case. 2) "Neg has no warrant for his only offensive argument. In fact, 1/2 the states show 70-80% passing."- My opponent states that his 90% passing stat is true, but never says anything about the source that I provide in RD 1. Hence, you will prefer my stat. However, the first, dropped argument is your reason to vote Aff. I will only provide voting issues, and no new arguments, in my last round. I encourage my opponent to do the same.

positive: Public High School Students In The United States Ought Not Be Required To Pass SEE's To Graduate John Dewey once said "Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another." Thus, I stand in firm negation in today's debate. Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate." I offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary for clarity. Ought: used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence. Standardized: to bring into conformity with a standard. V: Societal Welfare Societal Welfare is defined as the wellbeing of a society in matters of health, safety, order, education, and economics. Societal Welfare must be held as the highest value because if the wellbeing of a society is in jeopardy, so is the wellbeing of the people living in it. VC: Educated Citizenry Educated citizens are vital to societal welfare in the fact that the more educated our society is, the likelier we are to make good decisions and ensure that individuals have the opportunity to maximize themselves to their full potential. Contention One: Standardized exit exams are the best way to measure knowledge. Lionel Brown, 2006. Standardized testing is the best alternative for comparing student performance across different education systems because human judgment is error-prone. Decades of evidence show that the quality of teachers' tests pales compared with more rigorously developed large-scale tests. When used for purposes of accountability, standardized tests can provide more objective and less ambiguous evidence. In one international study that looked at the effects of dropping and reintroducing standardized tests in 29 industrialized countries, academic standards declined, students studied less, curricula became incoherent and selection and promotion became arbitrary after standardized tests were dropped. Contention Two: Standardized exit exams improve education for future generations. Jack O'Connell, 2007. The exit exam has been responsible for significant improvements in our schools, targeted specifically at our neediest students. The California High School Exit Exam has helped our neediest students as much if not more than any public school reform in the last 30 years. Because of the exit exam, more individual attention and more resources have been devoted to struggling students than ever before. And they are working. The California High School Exit Exam is not perfect. But it gives us accountability, and shines a powerful light on our students who need the most help. It has led to more help for those students than anything that has come before it. Contention Three: The majority of students pass the exams. Jack O'Connell, 2007. Results show that an estimated 90.8 percent of graduating seniors have passed both the English-language arts and the mathematics portions of the exam, including an additional 1,759 students who passed the May administration of the exam. "While I will not be satisfied until all California students are successful in gaining the skills measured by the exit exam, I am pleased that the achievement gap is narrowing," O'Connell said. "It is clear that all students are working hard to gain the critical skills necessary for a diploma and for survival in today's global economy. I credit the exit exam for focusing both students and schools on meeting this challenge. We need to sustain this effort until the achievement gap is erased completely." The test is an important benchmark in ensuring that students will be successful in meeting the challenges they will face either in college or the workplace. If they are not able to meet the standards of the exam, how can we, as parents and educators, expect them to be successful in college or the workplace? We need to make sure that they are adequately prepared for the world beyond high school. For all these reasons and more, I respectfully urge a negative ballot in today's debate & will now move to my opponene't case. Go to my opponent's value of Societal Welfare. We agree societal welfare is a good thing, so this debate will be determined upon who upholds it better. The reason my opponet cannot possibly uphold societal welfare is because there are no standards in the Affirmative world. There needs to be a basic level of education before we can ever hope to go on to higher education. If there are cracks in the basic education level, one's higher education levels will fall through as well. In the Negative world, I am ensuring students get that basic level of education, while the Affirmative only hopes they will, thus I subsume my opponent's value. Next, let's move to my opponent's value criterion of Maximizing Positive Social Mobility. Now, my opponent says students will not have opporotunities, but what we have to see is they will have more opporotunities because of the fact that each individual will have the same, basic, equal level of education, thus we can ensure everybody has the opporotunity to prosper within society, and not just some people. Now, go to my Opponent's Contention One, Sub Point A. Firstly, I would like to point out that it is not the test's fault that these students are socioeconomically disadvantaged. That is a problem out of anyone's control, thus not a fault in the test itself. Secondly, these tests will just prove advantageous for these groups because it will ensure that everybody, including the socioeconomically disadvantaged get a basic level of education, and will not just be pushed out of high school. Let's move to my opponent's Contention One, Sub Point B. Through this, my opponent implies that females will fail the test. But would this mean that females should never take Standardized Tests due to the imperics my opponent has provided? This would be an inequity within schools, which the standardized exit exam solves for. Now let's look at my opponent's Contention One, Sub Point C. My opponent claims that the exit exams are strongly correlated with increased drop outs, but provides no justification. Just because drop out rates go up, doesn't nessecarily mean it's due to the exit exams. Also, it isn't the end of the world if you fail this test. You have the opporotunity to take it multiple times, so through this we see fairness because the students are not required to pass the first time. If they fail the first time, they can look over what they missed and improve it for next time. Next, let's go to my opponent's Contention Two. Now, my opponent tells you all these horrible things are going to happen if we implement these exit exams, but what we have to see is that there is no justification behind these claims. These people will not lose their social mobility, because as I have previously stated, just because you don't pass the first time does not mean you are denied a diploma. As my C-3 states, most students pass these exams with an additional 1, 759 students passing the second time around. And even if you do fail it to the point where you are held back, this doesn't ensure you will drop out. So, for all these reasons and more, I strongly urge a negative vote in today's debate.

positive: No Child Left Behind Act Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning

positive: Lincoln Douglas debate, topic will be standardized exit exams (September/October topic) AFF "Standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning." Bill Ayers. It is because I agree with Bill Ayers that I affirm the resolution; Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observations: All claims by the negative about standardized tests being adjusted to compensate for the qualifications I have listed to constitute a successful education must be taken in stride, While standardized tests can be altered to include more areas of testing they are unable to be changed to the point that the test a student on all the qualifications it takes to be a contributing member to society. This is because the some of the skills needed for success can not be tested. VP: Individuality Individuality is defined as the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others. If we take away the fact that we all have different ideas, means of doing things, and ways of living life, we are equivalently taking away the human factor out of human beings. This resolution is clearly portraying the struggle between testing every student as if they all learned the same to using more specific and accurate means of determining whether or not a student has successfully has gathered enough knowledge to become a functioning citizen in society. Due to the fact that Individuality, is unique for everyone of us the means to test individuals for personal success are different, this leads me to my Value Criterion. VC: Promoting more specific means of determining whether or not a student ought to graduate. No matter any attempt from the Negative to claim that exit exams are capable of testing to a wider variety of areas than they historically have and pragmatically will, no standardized test will ever be able to cater to the certain aspects that make us all who we are. We have to realize for education to be considered successful it must enlighten a student in a wide variety of areas, and with more specific means of determing whether or not a student ought to graduate we are able to recognize which students have successfully learned and those that haven't. And more specific means of determine whether or not a student ought to graduate, can constitute a wide variety of things be it individual assessments, project based grading, culmative reviews, or portfolios. Dan Rudhyar speaks about how a person gains intelligence through individuality and therefore how we might test it, Intelligence is released as natural powers are used in a human way by the individualized human being in his effort to achieve victory over his life-environment. When, at a later stage of his growth, man has faced the tests of mutuality and responsibility, the integrative power of thought gives birth to a new phase of intelligence.". This meaning once an individual shows motivation and an interest in learning they have grown and are ready for success, and using individual assessments etc we are and deciding who is ready to face the world. Definitions: Standardized: 1. To evaluate by comparing with a standard. Exam: 1. The act or process of testing pupils, candidates, etc. as by questions. Pass: 1. To undergo or complete successfully. Graduate: 1. To advance to a new level of skill/ acheivment C1) Affirmative stance allows individualized education which doesn't teach to the test. SUB A) Teachers need to teach in order for students to learn.Louis Volante says, "The job of any teacher is first and foremost to promote learning in their students. Student learning should emphasize applied learning and thinking skills, not just declarative knowledge and basic skills (Jones, 2004). Ideally, students are able to develop the skills necessary to take what they have learned and apply this knowledge in a novel situation. In sum this is my value criterion, we need teachers to teach students what they need to know for future success and in order to do that we need to highlight individuality. When the student is given the ability to apply knowledge, and use their thinking skills they are being individuals. Rather than being dictated what they need to know they are taking the curricula and taking away the things they need now and storing things they possibly will need later, which shows that students are assessing, learning, maturing, and growing to be successful in the future. SUB B) However standardized tests detract from a teacher's ability to promote individuality and allow students to succeed. Louis Volante later goes on to write, "Emphasizing standardized testing also skews educators and the public's attention from what we want children to learn rather than what we can easily measure. For example, most experts agree that a balanced literacy curriculum should include components related to reading, writing, as well as speaking and listening Unfortunately, only reading and writing are typically measured by standardized school tests. Does this mean that speaking and listening are not valuable or worthy of attention within the curriculum? Obviously students need to utilize their speaking and listening skills to be successful in schools and higher education settings.." SUB C) Actually standardized tests have a negative effect on students rather then simply preventing proper learning to occur they can almost completely ruin a child's schooling, Louis Volante comments, "Teaching to the test also has a "dumbing" effect on teaching and learning as worksheets, drills, practice tests and similar rote practices consume greater amounts of classroom time (Sacks, 2000). Insofar as standardized tests assess only part of the curriculum, time spent on test taking often overemphasizes basic-skill subjects and neglects high-order thinking skills. Research suggests that while students' scores will rise when teachers teach closely to a test, learning often does not change for standardized tests, provide their students with a solid foundation for future success." This shows that not only does a standardized test detract from the child's learning it is also detrimental. We are harming children giving them these tests, voting in favor of the affirmative allows for proper education and successful learning, something the negative fails to achieve. C2) Graduation shouldn't be measured by one point in time rather by a collection of grades and experiences. It is extremely inaccurate for one day in a student's life to determine his course in history, whether it be graduation or a repeat of that grade. A student's testing experience can be impacted by events out of his or her control such as the recent passing of a family member, sickness, bad luck, etc. But using the sum of the student's grades and teacher's reviews, which aren't affected by these events to the extent that standardized exit exams are, proves to be more accurate. As a matter of fact, Standardized tests are bias, no matter the amount the negative can try to persuade you your race, social status, or economic background do matter. Roy O. Freedle a psychologist for the Educational Testing Service talks about the bias of standardized tests "often [Standardized Tests] have many more semantic senses than rare words," so there's more of a chance that people's cultural and socio-economic backgrounds will affect their interpretations of those words. Thus words that are frequently used in the middle-class neighborhoods of the test makers may have a different meaning in underprivileged minority neighborhoods. thus I stand in Affirmation over the NFL's septembe

positive:
students of public high-schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams Because I believe that students should have equal opportunity, I stand to affirm the resolution that Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Before we begin I would like to offer the following definitions: Standardized exit exam- (by the free online dictionary) is any empirically developed examination with established reliability and validity as determined by repeated evaluation of the method and results. My value for this round will be that of equal opportunity. This is defined as Policies and practices in employment and education that promote full participation and do not discriminate against persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, veteran status or sexual orientation. So this must be the value because it is the only way to promote full participation within schools. My Standard for this round will be that of fairness. In order to achieve equal opportunity, one must look to be fair. This should be the standard for a few reasons. First standardized tests do more harm than good. Next, they lead to more biased decisions by schools. And, finally, they do not show a students true intellectual capability. I contend that: a standard based assessment leads to major negative consequences By imposing standards on students' minds we are, in effect, depriving them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by applying one standard set of knowledge. Standardized tests oversimplify knowledge and do not test higher-order thinking skills. State standards are externally imposed on local teachers.
These mandatory assessments cannot work unless teachers understand and accept the philosophical underpinnings of standards. One-size-fits-all standards either dumb down instruction to the lowest common denominator or condemn low-ability students to frequent failure So being that these extremes exist hand in hand with standardized testing, we must assume that they occur. And since these extremes occur, they can negatively affect teachers teaching abilities and over all students' ability to learn from said teachers. Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology. Developing Learners. (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. A lot of school systems hold their schools accountable when test scores do not continually improve. They place an inordinate amount of pressure on teachers to raise students' test scores. They are not only pressured to raise student test scores, but to also raise the school average. Unfortunately, this can lead to dishonesty on the part of teachers and principals. They have no reason to include the scores of students with special needs and often try to find reasons why a student with special needs shouln't even take the test. This does nothing but harm the students who need special help. We cannot determine what kind of help they need if we do not know what level they are currently performing at. Dishonesty in schools is NEVER a good thing. We must conclude that if schools are to be dishonest and lie about test scores, then they might be compelled to lie about other things. Also, standardized test averages need to include everyone. Leaving out any kind of special needs kids is a bias that is again linked to dishonesty. If there were to be standardized testing, everyone must be included. So to prevent any kind of dishonesty abandoning the standardized exit exam is the best choice. One of the most devastating effects of high-stakes standardized testing is the emotional effect on students and teachers. Haladyna, T. M. (2002). Essentials of Standardized Achievement Testing. Validity and Accountability. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. After doing poorly on a test, low-achieving students become disillusioned and less motivated which leads to less effort to learn, starting a downward spiral that is very hard to break out of. Once they perform poorly on a test, they have no motivation to work hard for the next one and do poorly on that one once again, which in turn evokes more negative emotion towards learning. Teachers have even admitted that they begin to develop negative attitudes towards students that do not perform at an acceptable level. Not only do the students get depressed after poor results on a standardized test, but teacher morale is lowered. If we expect quality education to continue, we cannot keep an atmosphere that drives out more teachers than we can afford to lose. Lastly I contend that: standardized tests become a major problem when they are biased against students taking it. One of the biggest faults of standardized tests is that they often do not take diversity into account. Too many of today's tests are written so that only white, middle-class, English-speaking Americans can succeed. Other aspects of diversity that tests often times don't take into account include: Disabilities-These include physical disabilities, language delays, ADHD, visual impairments, and mental retardation. Test Anxiety-It is not an uncommon thing for students to get debilitating test anxiety. Debilitating test anxiety does not refer to the butterflies in the stomach or that moment of panic when the test is passed out. Instead it refers to the students who may freeze and cannot perform at all when faced with a test. Often times, this phenomenon is made worse when students think they will be punished in some way for a low score. High-stakes testing exacerbates test anxiety. (Haladyna, 160) Cultural Bias-It is only common sense to assume that a test item including information specific to the American culture (as some items do on some standardized tests) will be harder to answer for a student not familiar with that part of American culture. Language Differences-Often students, who are not native English speakers, have trouble on timed exams because they need more time to interpret the English language. Most standardized tests are timed and do not give students who have difficulty with the English language the extra time they need. Gender-There is probably not so much an inherent bias within the test, but the expectations held for each sex is vastly different. In addition, students who perform well in a non gender-appropriate subject are likely to be treated differently than a member of the opposite sex and conversely, a student who performs poorly in a subject they are expected to do well in will also be treated differently then a student of the same sex who performs poorly in a non gender-appropriate subject. So, among all the examples of bias that could happen, a standardized test can produce major problem within a testing environment. So it makes sense that to avoid any chance of bias abandoning standardized exams seems to be a logical conclusion.

positive: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize Is social advancement, lack of objective standards, and avoiding stress on students really best for students or the country? Is core competence in some subjects more important than competence in other subjects? Should employers expect a high school diploma to mean something? Those are the questions considered in this debate. I claim that exit testing from high school, done to non-trivial standards, is a basic step in restoring meaningful education. Con's arguments against the imperfections of testing apply to all tests by anyone on any subject for any purpose. All tests induce anxiety in the test taker, have imperfect questions, and can be made too simple to guarantee anything. Con's reference said that insofar as exit exams have been implemented, they are all too easy to guarantee competence. The overall failure rate is only 1%-2%, including the states with more difficult tests. Employers agree the the tests certify nothing. In this debate, I have consistently advocated raising the test standard from eighth grade competence to at least tenth grade competence. If anything, it ought to be higher than that. I raised the point that everyone from airline pilots to hairdressers must pass standardized tests, despite all the real-world limitations of testing. Con never suggested that such testing ought to abandoned, and his only counter was that high school students were too young to be stressed. Stress in part of life, and a very necessary part of learning. That applies not only to math and science, but to sports, games, debate tournaments, and even dating. No one, not even Con, suggests it is important to reduce stress in those other areas. Con argues that test anxiety is detrimental to learning. Anyone who says that they will study just as hard if there is no test as they do if there is a stiff test is a born storyteller. It is not remotely credible. Con erroneously claimed that testing costs a lot. He abandoned the point after it was shown to be less than $12 per year. Con claimed that it was unfair to a person's whole future depend on one test, but it is universally allowed to let failing students retake the test many times. Con claimed that subjects not tested are ignored, and provided some evidence that teachers ignore them. I argued that if teachers are foolishly spending time teaching eighth grade subjects to a student who is already competent at that level, then the problem lies with the teaching, not the testing. The remedy is better curriculum guidance. Beyond that, states are left to determine what subjects are tested in the exit exam and which are not. If there is too much language, math, and science and not enough of something else, educators can change the balance. Con did not respond to either argument. The organization that Con cited for international rankings, PISA, says on their web site that they only test science and that they include measures of enthusiasm for the subject, not just what students know. No matter what they test, , the European systems Con believes we should emulate are mediocre. He says we ought not use the best school systems, the ones in Asia, for comparison because "it's ingrained in their culture that they are hard workers." I think that means that we need to ingrain hard work into American schools, not that we ought to strive for mediocrity. We are competing in world markets, so we need to bring our standards up to that level. Even if we somehow convince ourselves that mediocrity is good enough, it should be an honest mediocrity measured by objective testing, not by awarding fraudulent diplomas. Meaningful testing would raise standards and reward those who do work hard with meaningful diplomas. The benefits of exit exams are to provide employers and others with an objective certification of competence. Con's objections are largely trivial; the best school systems rely on standardized testing and get the best results as a consequence. Objective standardized tests also indicate how well schools are doing their jobs, and we need to know that to know which need improvement. The resolution is affirmed.

positive: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize A] I pointed out that physicians, airline pilots, and others are required to pass standardized tests in order to ensure a minimum standard of competence, and that they are required to so despite all the hazards of text anxiety, potential unfairness if the person s right on the borderline of failing, and the dangers of teaching to the test. Con argued that doing so doesn't make it right. Rote denial doesn't overcome the logic behind the testing. The good of establishing a minimum standard of competence outweighs the relatively small imperfections inherent in testing. In the case of exit testing from high school, the good done is certifying the student has achieved a minimum standard of competence suitable for various types of employment, admission to a community college, or other pursuits. Con argues that the stress is too great for young people to fairly handle. Stress is required to motivate most people to do their best. I worry more about the people who have no test anxiety, because that is likely to mean that they don't care about the outcome than that they are supremely confident. Con is implicitly postulating that a person who is well-qualified to read at a 12th grade level will be so stressed out as to fail a tenth grade level test. If that ever happens, then they ought to take more practice exams and then retake the exit exam. Con repeats that it is one exam that determines the rest of the student's life. That's simply not so, the test can be repeated many times if necessary. Note that relatively few people pass the bar exams the first time, and yet we have not suffered a lawyer shortage as a consequence. Note that young people have to cope with stress from many sources. They prepare for athletic competitions, debate tournaments, and other such competitive events. They pursue the opposite sex, for most a more stressful activity than studying. If the objective were mainly to lower stress, all of those other stressful activities could be curtailed in favor of studying. I don't think that's a good idea. There is stress, but coping is worthwhile. Pro points out that many successful people dropped out of high school. That's true, but not because they were unable to pass an exit exam. For top performers, the reason was usually boredom, and while I'm sympathetic to that problem, that's a different debate. There are also economic reasons, particularly in times past, and mental disabilities, like Churchill's bouts with depression. Con gives no examples of standardized tests being an insurmountable obstacle. [B] Con argues that "What isn't tested doesn't exist." That contention is unsupported. Subjects other than language, mathematics, and science exist in every country that has adopted standardized exit exams. What changes under testing is that students who have not achieved basic competence in the core curriculum will be encouraged, or required, to learn how to meet those shortcomings in preference to other subjects. That is appropriate for advanced societies. If an educator is so foolish as to remove other subjects entirely, that's a fault in the curriculum that ought to be corrected, it's not inherent in testing core competence. It's easy to think of examples related to any test where the educator did a poor job. That's an argument against poor educators, not an argument for eliminating tests. Con dropped his contention that exit testing is expensive. It worked out to less than $12/year per student. [C] Con's article reveals the flaw in current testing, confirming my supposition. The authors say, "Exit exams are just challenging enough to reduce the graduation rate but not challenging enough to have measurable consequences for how much students learn or for how prepared they are for life after high school. Political pragmatism rather than academic benchmarks have led states to implement fundamentally flawed exit exam policies. Policy makers should either revamp exit exams to be sufficiently challenging to make a real difference for how much students learn or abandon them altogether." Graduation rates are only reduced by one or two percent. I agree that it is pointless to have a high school exit exam that is certifying eighth-grade level competence, which has been the product of social advancement policies. I previously offered evidence that the high school degree is viewed as meaningless by employers, and it remains meaningless if exit exams do not do their job. the only obstacle to making them meaningful is errant political thinking, which is what the article says. That should be remedied according to the resolution as I have proposed. [D] Con argues, "there is a over emphases on math, reading and science." Society can change what constitutes basic competence for a high school degree. However, that does not argue against the importance of having an exam to certify competence. Suppose society decides that computer skills are now so fundamental to living that every student ought to have a level of competence in that area. Then that ought to be added to the exit exam. [E] My rebuttal to the argument that exams encourage teaching to the test is similar to previous arguments. It's not the fault of testing core competence if educators do not properly shape the curriculum for those who have achieved core competence, and if the wrong subjects are on the test, then the test ought to be changed to reflect the consensus on what is important. [F] I agree that there are sometimes poor test questions having ambiguous answers. The girl in Minnesota who failed by one question and then sued would have otherwise been forced to retake the test. (She faces a larger obstacle in having lawyers as parents.) I don't think that result is so heart rending as to invalidate testing. If 1% of the questions are faulty, then the student ought to study hard enough to pass by more than 1%. That's reasonable. That speedometers have errors does not argue that we should abolish speed limits. The errors are small enough to accept as a part of the way the world works in practice. Con offered no evidence that the luck component is "strong." It's somewhere below the 1% level, affecting only the few students on the borderline. [G] Con's ref [6], which he claims supports his contention that Iceland et al have good schools without exit exams, in fact links to an unrelated article about school spending in the U.S. It's not my job to sort through Con's references or find them on the net to build his case. Anyway, I found the PISA site on the net. PISA assesses only science, not math or language competency. They say, "Analysis gives the most comprehensive international picture of science learning today, exploring not only how well students perform, but also their interests in science and their awareness of the opportunities that scientific competencies bring as well as the environment that schools offer for science learning." As Con promised, it doesn't just measure what students know, the way objective tests do. It includes, "interests" and "awareness of opportunities." In other words, baloney as a substitute for learning. So has that put Iceland et al in the forefront of the modern era? Not exactly, the countries that have standardized tests are also in the forefront of economic advancement these days, the Asian countries cited. We do not need more cheerleaders as PISA contends. I will agree that standardized testing is not the most important element of education. The most important element is parental involvement. However, the reason for testing is to provide a certificate of competence as a requirement for other things. That is worthwhile in it's own right. It also provides a worthwhile measure of the success of schools. Con decided to argue [1], [2], and [3] as part of [A-G]. I have responded accordingly. Con's objections are trivial. The resolution is affirmed.

positive: No Child Left Behind Act NCLB standardized tests are a poor measure of school performance

positive: Standardized testing is a good thing I appreciate my opponent's response.I will address your counterarguments:PARCC tesing: The PARCC is only being used officially by a small group of states (approx. 15) as well as D.C..[1] As stated, standardized tests are a false, superficial measure of assesment. As you alluded to by stating, " The questions on standardized testing are not meant to measure deep and creative thinking - they are to measure if you can understand a math problem or read a passage correctly and understand that." If these tests are supposedly meant to prepare students for mcollege and careers, how can they omit assessment of creative or complex thinking. While you may think deep or analytical thinking cannot be aquired at any school, I assert that it depends on the school and the teacher. Focusingh on standardized testing and how to work the computer that administers the test does interfere with such endeavors. Although fairly new, the tests are already being criticized by parents, teachers, students and administrators.Here are some responses:Parents and teachers flooded Wednesday’s open public testimony session to complain about the new tests, which will be administered to all students in grades 3-11 in March and again in May. Some held “No PARCCING” signs. Others pulled their children out of class to have them testify.Marie Corfield, a teacher in Flemington, said the combination of the new Common Core standards and the implementation of PARCC tests has teachers “overwhelmed, stressed to the breaking point.” “I feel like I’m living in a bad dream and can’t wake up,” Corfield said.[2] Some schools have downsized or closed their libraries to make room for more computers that can be used for testing, said Arlen Kimmelman, president of the New Jersey Assocation of School Libraries. While the addition of more technology may seem beneficial, students don’t know how to use it if the libraries aren’t open for them to meet with librarians, Kimmelman said. “The testing shouldn’t be squeezing out school library sources that are needed for students to be college and career ready,” Kimmelman said.[2] a sixth-grader...isn’t planning to take the exams. PARCC takes time away from classes that teach students to be creative, original, intelligent and brave, she said. “Unfortunately testifying in front of the State School Board isn’t all fun and games, because I will now have go write up a report about my experience here today and present it to my social studies class,”...“There are no standardized answers for this kind of education. "[2] Jacob Hartmann...said he doesn’t feel teachers are truthful about the importance of the tests, which are planned to eventually become a graduation requirement. Some teachers have said PARCC tests aren’t important, but others have told students their performance will impact their future. “I’m more than positive that if I do decide to attend Princeton, they will not be asking about my PARCC scores,” Hartmann said.[2] Screens freezing was only one of several common complaints about the PARCC field tests at schools across the state. ..88.4 percent of school administrators in the state expressed “anxiety” about the forthcoming PARCC tests, citing as major issues computers that either didn’t work or logged students out without warning, and confusing instructions. Shutz blames the freezing screens on inadequate computers and poorly designed software. “Half the problems were with the test, and half were with our technology,” she says.[3] Standardized test objectivity: The PARCC test are no more objective than previous standardized tests. While the grading is computerized, the questions are created by humans and thus prone to bias. Standardized test reliability: These tests are always more focused on memorization and regurgitation of information than grasping the concepts involved. Differences (amongst scores): The scoring methods are not reliable, inasmuch as differences in score do not necessarily illustrate differences in ability or comprehension between test takers. Bias: The bias that is being referred to is bias inherent in the test itself. This is often referred to as cultural bias. Here are some related issues: Schools at times suspend, expel, “counsel out” or otherwise remove students with low scores in order to boost school results and escape test-based sanctions mandated by the federal government’s “No Child Left Behind” law, at great cost to the youth and ultimately society. “although in recent years test makers have attempted to address concerns about test bias by establishing review committees to ‘scour’ the tests for bias, and by using statistical procedures, significant problems remain in the content of the questions, the cultural assumptions inherent in the ‘wanted’ answers, etc.” Discriminatory item selection:Jay Rosner, executive director of the Princeton Review Foundation, which provides test preparation programs for the college-entrance Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), reported in 2003 that potential SAT questions which are answered correctly more often by black students than white students are rejected by the test makers. This was apparently done to assure that test results (showing African-Americans scoring lower than whites) would be “consistent” from year to year. Outright racism:A series of questions on the 2006 global history New York State Regents exam asked students to describe how Africa “benefitted” from imperialism. Using this 150-year-old quote: “We are endeavoring … to teach the native races to conduct their own affairs with justice and humanity, and to educate them alike in letters and in industry,” students were asked to name “two ways the British improved the lives of Africans.” Socio-economic bias masquerading as cultural diversity:The 2006 New York State Regents third grade reading practice test used the example of African-American tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams to ask children questions about tennis “doubles” and country clubs. Lack of cultural awareness:A Latina “bias reviewer” caught this item while reviewing questions prepared for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. “I remember one question that showed a picture of a couch on a porch and asked, ‘What doesn’t fit?’ ” she says. “I started laughing…the way I grew up, everyone had a couch outside.”[4] Standardized tests :knowledge' accuracy: My opponent states, "The test covers the whole cirriculum that the student needs to know and understand." Perhaps, but from who's perpsective. Standardized test assume that everyone learns in the same manner. This is not always the case. Standardized test (achievement): I cited my source. It mentions how Finland uses thes techniques rather than large scale standardized testing. "...Standardized achievement test scores should be regarded as rough approximations of a student's status with respect to the content domain represented by the test. For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education. The overarching reason that students' scores on these tests do not provide an accurate index of educational effectiveness is that any inference about educational quality made on the basis of students' standardized achievement test performances is apt to be invalid. Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon. Tablespoons have a different measurement mission than indicating how hot or cold something is. Standardized achievement tests have a different measurement mission than indicating how good or bad a school is. Standardized achievement tests should be used to make the comparative interpretations that they were intended to provide. They should not be used to judge educational quality."[6] Basically standardized test measure how well inequality, classism and segregation in schools has worked. Standardized Test (Teacher support): It depends on the teacher. Many teachers do not support the tests or the testing. Standardized Test (Stakes): There should be no punishment for teachers until school are standardizedf and offered the same amount of support. Why should a teacher responsible for 30+ students be expected to perform at the same level as a teacher responsible for 15-20 (on average)? Standardized Test (high stakes): Threatening to fire teachers or take away school funding is high stakes. Students that are suspected to perform poorly on these tests are suspended. Standardized Test (Ability): Finland uses these test at the secondary level, yet, do not solely depend on them for assessment. Here are some suggested reasons why Finland excels in education: - The Finnish school system uses the same curriculum for all students. - Students have light homework loads. - Finnish schools do not have classes for gifted students. - Finland uses very little standardized testing. - Finland has a comprehensive preschool program that emphasizes “self-reflection” and socializing, not academics. - Grades are not given until high school, and even then, class rankings are not compiled. - School funding is higher for the middle school years, the years when children are most in danger of dropping out. - College is free in Finland.[5] Standardized Test (Racism): As stated, the racism is in the development of the tests, not the scoring. Standardized tests assume that all sttudents learn the same and have had the same quality education. This is a flawed assumption. I await my opponent's response. http://www.parcconline.org... [1]http://www.nj.com... [2]http://njmonthly.com... [3]http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.ascd.org... [6]

positive: Grades don't matter Society makes too much of a deal about grades. Kids have to study topics they aren't interested in, or probably won't be doing later in life, for no good reason. Those kids get bad grades and everyone labels them as stupid.

positive: Standardized testing is a good thing I would first like to state that I feel the issues that plague schools stem from viruses that pollute society in general. In my opinion, these issues cannot be tackled in schools until they are honestly confronted and addressed in society. However, for the purpose of this debate I will attempt to couch an international dynamic within a scholastic paradigm. The issues I allude to include classism, poverty, racism and many other concerns and controversies that are relevant to the effectiveness of standardized testing. I will refer to these topics as they relate to standardized testing during the debate. As I stated in the comments section, standardized testing would be more accurate if schools were standardized. As it stands, schools are basically still separate and unequal. Meaning, many underprivileged schools are expected to achieve the same results as fully funded, avant-garde schools. Can this be done? Yes, on occassion. Should this be expected? No. "As of 2011 48 percent of all public school students were poor* and this year, students of color will account for the majority of public school students for the first time in US history. .. What is surprising about these shifts is that they are not leading to more diverse schools. In fact, the Civil Rights Project has shown that black students are just as segregated today as they were in the late 1960s, when serious enforcement of desegregation plans first began following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. " [1] While it is clear that diversity provides a more enriching scholastic experience, I would like to make it clear that segregation is not the major problem. The main problem is that schools that house underprivileged and/or melaninated children are not provided with the same level of finances, support or resources as schools that house privileged or affluent students. True education should employ more of a nurturing what's within than an instilling from without concept. When I see or hear debates regarding what's best for students the one variable that is usually missing is input from the student's themselves. 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. What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? Are standardized tests fair and helpful evaluation tools? Not really. On standardized exams, all test takers answer the same questions under the same conditions, usually in multiple-choice format. Such tests reward quick answers to superficial questions. They do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field. Their use encourages a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as grade retention and tracking. Are standardized tests objective? The only objective part of most standardized tests is scoring, when done by an accurately programmed machine. Deciding what items to include on the test, how questions are worded, which answers are scored as "correct,” how the test is administered, and the uses of exam results are all made by subjective human beings. Are test scores "reliable"? A test is completely reliable if you would get exactly the same results the second time you administered it. All tests have "measurement error. " This means an individual's score may vary significantly from day to day due to testing conditions or the test-taker's mental or emotional state. Scores of young children and scores on sub-sections of tests are particularly unreliable. Do test scores reflect significant differences among people? Not necessarily. The goal of most tests is to sort and rank. To do that, test makers make small differences appear large. Questions most people get right or wrong are removed because they don’t help with ranking. Because of measurement error, two people with very different scores on one exam administration might get similar scores on a retest, or vice versa. On the SAT, for example, two students' scores must differ by at least 144 points (out of 1,600) before the test’s sponsors are willing to say the students' measured abilities really differ. Don't test-makers remove bias from tests? Most test-makers review items for obvious biases, such as offensive words. But many forms of bias are not superficial. Test-makers also use statistical bias-reduction techniques. However, these cannot detect underlying bias in the test's form or content. As a result, biased cultural assumptions built into the test as a whole often are not removed by test-makers. Do tests reflect current knowledge about how students learn? Not at all. While our understanding of the brain and how people learn and think has progressed enormously, standardized tests have remained the same. Test makers still assume that knowledge can be broken into separate bits and that people learn by absorbing these individual parts. Today, cognitive and developmental psychologists understand that knowledge is not separable bits and that people (including children) learn by connecting what they already know with what they are trying to learn. If they cannot actively make meaning out of what they are doing, they do not learn or remember. Do multiple-choice or short-answer tests measure important student achievement? These kinds of tests are very poor yardsticks of student learning. They are weak measures of the ability to comprehend complex material, write, apply math, understand scientific methods or reasoning, or grasp social science concepts. Nor do they adequately measure thinking skills or assess what people can do on real-world tasks. Are test scores helpful to teachers? Classroom surveys show most teachers do not find scores from standardized tests scores very useful. The tests do not help a teacher understand what to do next in working with a student because they do not indicate how the student learns or thinks. Nor do they measure much of what students should learn. Good evaluation provides useful information to teachers. How has “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) affected the use of standardized tests in the U. S. ?NCLB has led to a huge increase in testing. It requires state testing of every student in grades 3-8 and once in high school, more than twice previous federal mandates. NCLB also led to an explosion of other standardized exams, including “benchmark” tests often administered 3-10 times per year. U. S. students are now the most tested on Earth. What is high-stakes testing? High-stakes tests are used to make important decisions such as student promotion or graduation, granting teacher tenure, or sanctioning schools for poor performance. Twenty-six states now have graduation tests; some states and districts have tests for grade promotion. NCLB attaches sanctions to test results. Even though NCLB has failed to improve schools, policy makers continue to expand high-stakes test uses such as “value-added” teacher evaluation. What happens when tests become high stakes? High-stakes testing often results in a narrow focus on teaching just the tested material (test preparation). Other content in that subject as well as untested subjects such as social studies, art and music are cut back or eliminated. High-stakes testing also produces score inflation: scores go up, but students have not learned more. Their scores are lower even on a different standardized test. This undermines the meaning of test results as well as education. What are other consequences of high-stakes testing? Attaching high stakes to test results increases cheating and other efforts to boost scores without improving educational quality. This can be done by arranging for low-scoring students to be absent on test day or pushing them out of school, often into the prison pipeline. Are there better ways to evaluate student achievement or ability? Yes. Good teacher observation, documentation of student work, and performance-based assessment, all of which involve the direct evaluation of real learning tasks, provide useful material for teachers, parents, and the public. Many nations that do the best in international comparisons, like Finland, use these techniques instead of large-scale standardized testing. [2] Racial bias in standardized testingWhat many people do not know is that the use of standardized tests has its origins in the Eugenics movement, where basic tenets assert that certain races are inferior to others biologically and intellectually. From our 21st century perspective, we can look back in horror, but we have to be clear about the original purpose of standardized tests. The original IQ tests were designed by French psychologist Alfred Binet for benign and limited uses: a) on young children who were not developing “normally”; b) as “general” tools to make “general” decisions, not a precise measurement for precise decisions; and c) to signal when a child needed more help in their intellectual development. Unfortunately in the United States, 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…. [3]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 will make them productive, industrious and independent in a post academic setting. I await a response from my opponent. . http://www.urban.org... [1]. http://www.fairtest.org... [2]. http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [3]

positive: State Standardized Tests None of that has to to with the debate topic. Unless you're saying that standardized tests are useless because absolute knowledge is unobtainable. That's kinda silly though. The goal of education and science are to create models of what seems to be reality, not to understand reality exactly. Absolute knowledge is unnecessary. Rockets and computers and heart surgery work just fine without absolute knowledge. But in order to become an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, a person needs to demonstrate that he possesses the required knowledge and is capable of obtaining more. Furthermore, because not everyone can be an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, there needs to be a means by which to compare people so that the most capable people are rewarded for their achievement. That's why standardized tests are necessary.

positive: Standardized testing is a good thing Yeah - no parents want to see their kids upset. But they do want their kid to succeed more than anything else - and this helps. The test is to measure where in the ciriculum the kids need help - that is t he only way to find out. The teachers cannot help them for a reason - to have an accurate measure on what the child does or does not understand.

negative: Grammar schools allow disadvantaged children access to excellent education. Grammar schools create the opportunity for talented but financially unprivileged children to access academically excellent schools. The majority of parents are unable to afford private education and it is unfair to condemn children to a second rate education because of their parent's earning power.

negative: Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America This debate follows the standard rules of parliamentary debating. http://www.apdaweb.org... for rules 1st round acceptance only. 2-4 are debate.

negative: Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America Parliamentary debating is done in real-time and requires a team of debaters so I honestly do not see how on Earth we can stick to it. Nevertheless, I accept and am looking forward to this debate.

negative: Selection for tertiary education should be entirely standardized and merit based. Extend all of my arguments Because my opponent has failed to meet his burden, which is proving the resolution categorically true, he has, basically, forfeited Also, the resolution specified that there should be no exception, and I have proved not only one but two exceptions

negative: Home Schooling Should Be Banned Homeschooling Increases Quality of Education

negative: Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America In the working world you have to interact with the opposite gender frequently. Thus, it would be detrimental to raise a child in an envrionment where the only 'work' they do is with those of thier own gender.

negative: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S I'm fairly disappointed that my opponent forfeited, and hope they turn up for the next round. I'll pass this round for fairness, but if Pro forfeits the next, I'll crystallize my points.

negative: should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers In order to give us each equal opportunity (giving each of us four rounds of debating), I will let my opponent make the first statements.

negative: No-Child-Left-Behind detracts from the education of the gifted. When the focus of the educational system and teachers is on the standardized average, this detracts from the education of those at the low and high end of educational achievement. The gifted will not be taught to their full potential as a result. This has consequences not simply for these students, but for society as a whole, which depends disproportionately on the cultivation of the best and brightest into tomorrow's leaders.

negative: No Child Left Behind Act No Child Left Behind fosters accountability in public schools

negative: No Child Left Behind Act NCLB has succeeded in improving test scores

negative: Homeschooling is better than public schooling To be in a public school allows students to be up to speed with our exact level of intelligence. We get plenty of social time, and we get to be in a comfortable environment. There aren't any distractions, because distractions aren't allowed. We have consequences if we don't get our work done, like detention. Which means we don't get to go home when all of our friends do. Nobody likes that. We get taught everything we need to know, and much more.. My sources.. are my experience.

negative: No Child Left Behind Act NCLB raises standards and testing without improving education

negative: No Child Left Behind Act NCLB testing wrongly assumes all children are the same.

negative: No Child Left Behind offers valuable measure of student progress No Child Left Behind allows teachers to judge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of their methods in their classes and with individual students. English Teacher Stephanie Butler said, for instance, "Assessment drives instruction. If I don't know the weaknesses of my students, how can I know how to best help them? [...] I think the statistics need to drive remedies."[1]

negative: school should abolish co-eduation why should school abolish they should not,because co-education might help student to compete each other studying.

negative: Philosophy and the humanities are underrated in education. I look forward to what I hope will be a very thought provoking and insightful discussion :) For all intents and purposes, I believe the resolution is pretty straight-forward. By underrated, I will be arguing that increasing the focus in humanities and/or philosophy in education, particularly higher education, would be beneficial to society. I will contend that there is an increasing problematic trend in delegitimizing the pursuit of knowledge in these areas, while there is instead a particular emphasis on specializing in particular fields of expertise. Often, the value of these genres is underrated in comparison to other subject matter such as those that are technological in nature. I again thank my opponent for accepting this challenge. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution, and I am much looking forward to posting my opening arguments in Round 2. Best of luck! Regards,Danielle

negative: State Standardized Tests Yes, your right, gravity is factual. It does exist. However, it may be true that triangles have three sides, but what is a four-sided triangle? I bet you can't answer that because you think it doesn't exist. In reality, a four-sided triangle is a quadrilateral. You just don't know it in that form. It's just like the other day when I was in school in math class. Someone said that a pentagon was a 5-agon and that undefined was actually spelled undefigned (un-de-fig-ned). Yes, your right, in reality these things don't exist because you don't know them in that way. But, what if they did? What I'm getting at is why did at some point in human history did we call an apple an apple and not a pear? I guess my initial question is "why did we give certain names to certain objects?" And FYI: You don't have to pull out the points and rename your points with rebuttals. That is just awkward and annoying. Again just my opinion.

negative: Standardized testing should NOT be banned alright so... you gave all the information supporting my side, that isint fair to you

negative: Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools. I will give you the fact that those that are home-schooled, and take the standardized test, do fair better. Now let us take a look at those numbers. In 2011 it was estimated that there were 1.7 million home-schooled students. The largest study tested 40,000 home-schooled children (or just over 2%). That's an incredibly small number, and they were all volunteers. That's 2% of home-schooled students against 100% of public school children. Furthermore, estimates put SAT aged home-schooled students at 200,000 but only 5287 home-schooled students sat for the SAT's in 2011. Again, around 2%. I'm more concerned with the other 98% and how their numbers stack up. When you take 2% of a populace ( all volunteers ready and willing mind you) and compare it to 100% of another the numbers will always be skewed. To be clear, I'm not against home-schooling, I'm against it in its current form. I suggest better oversight to ensure quality across board, not just the 2% that they like to tout.

negative: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. First of all if you mean inconsistent in terms of a huge difference in results you are entirely wrong. Again, it will make no sense in the world for you to have major differentials between tests of the same subject. 1. Bruce Whitehead, author of "Using standardized test results as an instructional guide", states in his academic journal "One school was able to use standardized test scores to improve its curriculum as well as its educational policies." Extremely beneficial for schools and teachers are these tests. They provide a understanding of where a student stands. To my opponent, Tests are constantly worked upon to achieve perfection. Students themselves learn their weaknesses from examinations and use exams as a way to improve their academic standards. 2. My opponent does not seem to understand where im going with the educated guess respone. What I am saying is that students who do guess on tests do not do it for every single question and pass. Behind every guess is some strategy and something from a lesson must seem familiar to the student to choose his or her answer. Having to go to summer school as my opponent says, is not a curse. If you have to go to summer school is because you do not fully understand the material and your friend who made his guess and got it right most likely had some understanding of the question. Your friend had to have some background knowgledge of the material for him to even get close to passing the examination. 3. Teachers throughout the course of the year give students information as to what would be on standardized examinations and what to look out for. To those students who still feel pressure at the time of the test, I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. I am happy you agree that it's silly. 4. Scores could with no doubt be used to improve teaching in the class rooms. The overall results of the class determine where they stand in general. Individually, students can be placed in classes with students who are also having a defiency in some aspect of the curriculum. Standardized testing proves to be efficient, not perfect of course, but a way to help students improve their academic value. Thanks to my opponent for this interesting debate. Vote for PRO!!! Good Luck 4.

negative: Public High schools Negative Constructive Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observation 1: Moral Obligation In the resolution the word "Ought" is used to hold the resolution to a moral obligation. Meaning he is arguing that we are morally obligated to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. Now, in order for my opponent to uphold the resolution, he must do the following: 1) Prove his system of morality that obligates us to remove the necessity to pass exit exams in order to graduate. 2) Prove that removing the necessity to pass exit exams will be beneficial. Burden: Since I am going to prove in my case how the public school system does not teach the students, even the most basic knowledge, the AFF must give an alternative to standardized tests. He must do this because we can not leave our current public school system this way. Valued Premise: Quality Education, Quality education is a key component for a nation's youth if a bright future is ahead. Research has shown that since 1983 10 million 12th graders were unable to read at a basic level, and 20 million could not do basic math, also 25 million did not know the essentials of US history. In 1995 nearly 30% of first time college freshman enrolled in at least 1 remedial course to compensate for a sub-par high school education. Because the public school systems do not teach properly we have to insert standardized tests into the system to make sure 12th graders are ready to graduate at the end of their senior year. Valued Criterion: Encourage Public schools, If we administrate standardized tests we can measure how good, or poorly a public school is doing. If there are failures the school will lose its funding, because we know that the school has not properly taught their student. With my VC we can adequately measure the school's performance. We are giving incentives to public schools to teach their students well, because with standardized test we can truly measure how a school is teaching, and if there are still failures the school will lose the funding it was getting. Contention 1: Tests measure schools Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. Nothing can be improved without a measurement that determines whether it is getting better or worse. Standardized tests are needed to provide an objective measurement. Standardized tests are imperfect, but they can be reliably used to measure the most basic skills, such as how well a student can read do simple math, reading, and writing. Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught. They are reliable in the essence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. Davenport community schools states on its website states the importance of standardized tests. 1) To report individual progress to students and their parents; Furthermore, standardized tests – and the results for schools and districts – have become more important in recent years with new requirements in both state and federal laws. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, outlines the degree of improvement that schools should make in student achievement on standardized tests each year. This federal law also stipulates the consequences for schools and districts that do not reach annual improvement goals. Sub point A Standardized exit exams are able to level the playing field of competing school systems. Although there will always be some sort of unfairness in these exams, they still provide the opportunity for different institutions to prepare students for the exam and the future as well.

negative: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standard e Resolved: public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass standardized high school exit exams to graduate. I value Quality Education. I define Quality as having a degree of excellence. I present reasons to prefer this value. 1) The resolution inherently values quality education as it is a question of how the public school systems should be run. 2) The resolution is a question of public policy and the goal of policy regarding the education system is to provide quality education. 3) The affirmative is already inherently valuing quality education since we are debating about how exit exams effect the system. The value criterion that best fits my value is the criterion of Accountability or an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility. By remaining accountable for Students educations we can lead to quality educations because we are able to help them into their path to adult hood and help them become positive contributors to out society. This links to my value in the respect that Teachers must remain accountable if their students are to properly learn. For example if your teacher tells you to read a novel for class but fails to follow through with assignments or tests you aren't properly motivated to read it correctly, whereas if said teacher made a big test on it then you would be sure to read it. This is an example of how accountability will lead to quality education. The first contention is that high school exit exams ensure that US public high school students meet basic educational standards. Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. Nothing can be improved without a measurement that determines whether it is getting better or worse. Standardized tests are needed to provide an objective measurement. Standardized tests are imperfect, but they can be reliably used to measure the most basic skills, such as how well a student can read, do simple math, and writing skills. Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught. They are reliable in the sence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. Jacob Chandler explains "If we are to remove exit exams from the school systems there is no way to ensure that students are being taught the basic knowledge that will allow them to progress in life. Furthermore, standardized tests and the net results for schools and districts have become more important in recent years as Richard P. Phelps explains. "Finally, it is possible to align instruction with the curriculum guide, content standards, and so forth (depending on the terminology used to describe the valuable student outcomes in a particular locale). And, it is obviously desirable that any high-stakes test be closely aligned with the curriculum or content standards it purports to assess. Thus, it would neither be a coincidence" nor inappropriate" if the well-aligned instruction and testing bore a strong resemblance to each other. This is sometimes mistakenly referred to as teaching to the test where the more accurate (and supportable) practice should probably be distinguished by use of a different descriptor, such as teaching to the standards or similar. " Thus we can see that exit exams are ensuring that teachers are instructing students on the necessities they need need to learn. Secondly Governments are able to help schools based off of these high school exit exams. By staying with the administration of exit exams we ensure that teachers are teaching students basic skills that will help them throughout their life. Through exit exams we can monitor a schools educational system because if their score drops low enough the government can reform the system an example of this is, child left behind and many other programs. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, outlines the degree of improvement that schools should make in student achievement on standardized tests each year. This federal law also stipulates the consequences for schools and districts that do not reach annual improvement goals. Thus you negate. Moving On to my opponents case. Their Value is justice however their definition is conforming to the standard of right behavior however wether or not there are exit exams do not necessarily condone right behavior. Furthermore I already applied 3 warrants as to why my value precedes theirs. Thus you must look towards my value. My opponent does not provide a criterion thus we can never deduce when we are justice or how through what mechanism we can achieve it through thus my case precedes his. I address and negate his contention by saying they do not measure intelligence but basic educational standards thus his argument does not stand. furthermore if a student cannot pass a measure of basic educational standards they would not have received the grades of high achievement and even if they fail they can retake the test any number of times. Contention 2 provides no solvency no exit exams will not eliminate dropouts and as I stated before these are only basic skill tests if they cannot pass basic 8th grade English and 9th grade math they will obviously not pass the 12th grade. contention 3 as i stated with my card by Phelps it is preferable to align standards with this test and furthermore we need the fundamental skills the exit exam test you cannot take chem without knowing basic algebraic expressions. As i state all of his points are void and i win this debate because 1. he cannot necissarily uphold justice by using exit exams and all of his contentions are void based off of the arguments i gave him i urge an affirmative ballot.

negative: Test This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.

negative: Should OLNA testing be abolished Yeah you're right; life isn't fair; you have pretty good points there. Okay so why don't they do this in other countries? Why just in Western Australia? If I had the chance to go study and finish my education in another school, I would. And plus students who are doing OLNA are getting crushed under pressure and I'm one of them. And when they graduate and still haven't met the requirement they're gonna be even under more stress and pressure. The reason why they put this stupid OLNA was due the lack of education in many students; but did it make it any better? This standardized test hasn't even improved student achievement and and unreliable measure of students' performances. Yes life may not be fair but they don't even have this implemented in other countries. Its not just that, standardized tests are costly, to the point where it's placing a burden on state education budgets.

negative: Public highschool students inthe US oughtnot be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate My first LD debate, and I have no idea how to do it : ) so bear with me here... I assume this round is to only establish my case, so: My case (lite). Because dumb people shouldn't be parasites, I affirm: Standardized test definition: http://www.nde.state.ne.us... 1. a test with specified tasks and procedures so that comparable measurements may be made by testers working in different geographical areas. 2. a test for which norms on a reference group, ordinarily drawn from many schools or communities, are provided. Just so we have a shared definition of justice in this debate, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: JUSTICE 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness 1. Standardized testing will help set a mandatory skill level for our society, so employers and higher education don't have to waste resources and money in order to educate their employees/students. This mandatory skill level will benefit society in so that every high school graduate will have enough education in order to contribute to society properly. 2. These tests help weed out the bad schools and bad teachers. If a school is consistently having failed students, actions can be taken to help improve the school and teaching staff instead of having said students continue to preform at lower levels than the rest of society - therefore, in layman terms, keeping the dumb, dumb. 3. Standardized test can be used by teachers in order to see what they should be teaching in order to prepare their students for the real world and/or further higher education. It will set a standard for teachers to reach for their classes. 4. It help weed out "fluff" schools that just give out pointless diplomas and help maintain an informed society. 5. Standardized testing will help the government and parents see how that area is doing education wise. Government can then in tern act on lower scores and parents can see if they wish to enroll their children at that school or not. 6. They will help with comparisons across the board - to help not only with comparison from city to city, or state to state, but country to country as well, letting the USA see if they are competing academically with the rest of the world or if they are lagging behind. 7. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. Therefore, race, sex, religion, etc, will be/and are playing a very minute role in testing. 8. Standardized tests can be made to encompass not just "right brain" tasks, but "left brain" tasks as well. The definition of a standardized test does not exclude anything that could be put into a test. A standardized test, therefore, will be an exam which can test an aspect of education that is needed in order for a student to function properly in society, higher education, and the job market. 9. Standardized tests will help set a standard for basic knowledge a citizen should possess in order to run a better informed, better functioning society. 10. Students being passed without the proper knowledge required - schools not performing at appropriate levels - is doing the students and community a huge injustice. Standardized tests will help re-structure eduction and schools. 11. Standardized testing will help the USA compete with other countries. If we can figure out the flaws in our education system and see how we are behind the rest of the world, we can reform and compete better. 12. Standardized test will help the government not waste money on scholarships, grants, etc. to get students into colleges that aren't prepared to do well in college - failing, and thus indebting the government. Good luck to my opponent - and also, I ask: can my opponent please clarify what the people he is quoting's qualifications are? Just a first and last name will not suffice. I look forward to the actual debate in R3!

negative: It is impossible, in large countries, to have a national curriculum that teaches all the relevant information and sets a fair common standard POINT The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standa The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agreement is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Should creationism be taught in science or religious education? Maribeth Wilkerson, a graduate student of education, argues 'public schools are serving a particular community, so for that community to not have a say in what's taught and how doesn't seem right'1. Also, and partly as a result, good standards are difficult to come up with. Standards are either too vague so that the test-makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are swamped by the large number of subjects that must be covered. For instance, in the United States, standards are expected to improve with time, leading to fears that even if schools and students improve, they will not do so quick enough to meet national expectations2. Some even fear that 'by 2014, virtually every school across our country will have failed the unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind'2, the program that enforces national testing. 1 Curtis, D. (2011, July 11). Local educators want to take back schools: Will march on Washington July 30. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Fosters: 2 RDF. (2011, July 10). 'No Child' has schools left behind. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Redlands Daily Facts improve this

negative: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Standardized Testing is Good Issitt 15 Standardized Testing: An Overview. By: Issitt, Micah L., McMahon, Maureen, Points of View: Standardized Testing, 2015, Points of View Reference Center, 11/20/15 http://web.b.ebscohost.com... A standardized test is one that is given to evaluate the performance of students relative to all other students with the same characteristics, for example, all fourth-grade students or all students taking AP English in high school. In the United States, standardized testing is one of the primary methods used to measure the performance of educational institutions (and often teachers) and to make decisions about the distribution of funding. Standardized tests have been used in American schools since the 1930s to help identify students with special needs Since that time, a series of legislative measures, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has placed increasing importance on the results of standardized tests. In response to those measures, public schools currently administer standardized tests as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. Proponents argue that standardized testing is the most efficient method of assessing the performance of students and institutions and of maintaining the quality of education. Some critics argue that standardized tests are culturally and socially biased and that educators do not understand the variables that contribute to test scores. In addition, it has been suggested that standardized testing is an ineffective use of federal funding. Though many agree that the testing system is flawed, some believe that the current model can be reformed, while others believe that it is impossible to create a test to accurately measure aptitude across a diverse student population Standardized Test: A type of test given and graded in a uniform manner in an effort to create a universal standard against which the performance of individual students may be measured. Standardized Testing Today NCLB has been criticized by educational organizations who believe that the program represents a misallocation of federal funding. Critics argue that federal funding could be better used to improve pay rates and benefits for teachers, especially since tenure and reappointment are often based on test scores. In addition, some have criticized NCLB for making standardized testing a legal requirement without engaging in a suitable public debate. Under the Obama Administration, NCLB waivers were issued to districts that felt the program was not working for their schools. These waivers exempt school districts from some or all of the federal requirements under NCLB, including standardized testing. Proponents of testing argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that educational funding is given to schools with the greatest need, and that the government must rely on some testing procedure to ensure that federal funding is being effectively used. In addition, some proponents argue that without standardized testing educators would be unable to identify students with special needs. Several independent research studies have indicated that the process of studying for tests helps students to develop long-term recall, even concerning material that is not included in the actual test. However, recent studies indicate that short-answer and essay tests are more effective than the current, largely multiple-choice testing models in helping students to recall information. In addition, some critics believe that standardized testing teaches students to learn in a way conducive to multiple-choice exams (that there is always one right answer) while encouraging teachers to "teach to the test" rather than supporting students' critical-thinking skills. High-stakes federal achievement requirements have also led to several large-scale cheating scandals, including a 2011 revelation that hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers altered standardized tests in order to falsely report student performance improvements. Finally, while standardized tests offer information about a population, they do not provide data that addresses the achievement of specific individuals (Cangliosi, 1990, p. 26).

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

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

negative: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio The main theoretical argument against merit pay is that it will undermine cohesions in the school, pitting teachers against teachers. Evidence. There is evidence from a recent student of a Texas merit program that indicates that merit pay does not improve educational outcomes. It's not fairly measurable. Merit determinations are generally measured on based on overall improvements in standardized test scores. Standardized testing is a heavily criticized method of measuring educational success. It's not fair. Teachers who teach the developmentally challenged and socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a more difficult time at getting students to achieve according to determined standards

negative: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Though standardized test may help Identify racial inequity, it can by no means combat inequity: "Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for "scientific" data to prove their theories of biological determinism." (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) Furthermore as stated previously, policy makers place to much emphasis on the test and not on the real world: "Proponents of standardized tests often wrap themselves in the language of high standards. But that's not the issue. No one advocates low standards. The issue is what we mean by higher standards, and how we can reach those standards.By and large, calls for more standardized tests come from politicians eager to prove they are serious about school reform and creating a "high skills," internationally competitive workforce. But they offer little if any evidence that links increased testing to improved teaching and learning. Similarly, test-pushers pay scant attention to key issues such as smaller classes, improved teacher education, more time for teacher planning and collaboration, and ensuring that all schools receive adequate and equitable resources needed to boost achievement. Rather than grappling with these issues, too many politicians have seized on a simplistic formula for reform: more standardized tests, especially "high stakes" tests. Nationwide, states and school districts are forcing a growing number of children to take "high stakes" standardized tests and, on the basis of test scores, children may be retained, denied access to a preferred high school, or, in some cases, even refused a high school diploma. That's not public accountability, it's discrimination. Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for "scientific" data to prove their theories of biological determinism. To acknowledge the sinister origins of standardized tests is not, however, to dismiss parent and community concerns about school accountability. We understand and agree with these concerns. Too many schools fail too many children, especially low-income students, students of color, and students who do not speak English as a first language. The broader community has the right and the responsibility to oversee how well schools perform. Good assessments can be one valid method of insuring accountability." (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) The test itself has come to bind our educational system, not by wishing to bring a better tomorrow, but rather to bring a process to categorize you by tomorrow. If our education stays along this path, then the future of our world will be as stoic and lifeless as these test are. It is for that reason that we must reform our testing system or annihilate it all together.