Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA

===PRO:=== >>First, "The level is the same for everyone. " It's really not. For example, in eleventh grade, there were three levels of English that I could have taken - normal, honors, and "Advanced Placement. " That's three levels, not one. Further, is it even a problem to have exams the same for the same class? Let's look back at earlier grades, where state exams are much more common - let's say, 6th grade math. If the same text were given to all students in the sixth grade, then one could accurately determine their relative ability in math - but if the test were different for students who already seem to be smart, then the test scores could not accurately determine someone's relative ability to the other students. But even if one standard level of testing is indeed a flaw, it is a simple one to amend - multiple levels of testing would be created. They would still be standardized across each level, but they would not be standardized with each other. Even so, at least in earlier grades, it is useful to have one test for everyone, since this can help determine course placement. << ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) There are 3 levels of testing: Ordinary, Honours and Advanced. However, with the millions of students in America, it is still only 3 levels. It is very hard 2 find 2 identical students. Therefore, even to test them on 3 levels, it gives some choice, but considering no 2 students are the same, it doesn't give much. 2) A single standardized test does not cater for a students need, even if they are only 10 years of age. There is still a gap between them and their fellow students. If it is not addressed early on, they can slip behind on a subject because it is beyond their level. Likewise with a smart student, they can find the course to easy until they are streamlined. But students can still find streamlined education easy. ===PRO:=== >>My opponent claims that "students study the same subjects, specifically math and english" and that schools "will not focus on subjects such as History, Geography, Art, Etc. , which can be as educational to a student as Maths or English. " This is not true. While it may be true that current NCLB legislation is aimed toward the two subjects, it affects classes of other disciplines as well, Science being notable as one. But even if the focus is too specific, that is not a problem for an _ideal form_ of NCLB. Broadening the focus to include other disciplines would not be a large enough change for it not to be considered a form of NCLB, so an ideal form of NCLB might very well focus on all disciplines (assuming that applying to all disciplines rather than a few is in fact good). << ===REBUTTAL:=== The ideal form of NCLB must be different from the current flawed form and still retain characteristics. One of NCLB's major characteristics is the emphasis on Maths, English and to an extent Science. There are problems with broadening the course to other subjects: 1) Because they have to be standardized, it could take well over a decade before an "ideal" form of them is found 2) It is very difficult to standardize subjects such as Woodwork and Art as they focus on practicality rather than theory. 3) The new NCLB's traits would be severely different from the current format of NCLB. It would come to a point where it could no longer be referred to as a version of NCLB. ===PRO:=== >>My opponent claims that NCLB is bad because it underpoulates and overpopulates schools. Ha. .. ! Underpopulated schools, which would likely be schools which are not educating the students very well, deserve to fail - and this competition would make that happen. The overpopulation of good schools means that more good schools would have to be created to ease the burden. Luckily, there happen to be a bunch of failing schools whose carcasses can be improved upon greatly. This would of course require more good teachers and administrators, and a pay raise may be needed for these groups to accomplish this - a good end in itself. Accepting failing schools as they are and letting them remain as they are is not the preferred action. Rather, improving of bad schools through competition and additional funding is superior, and that is something an ideal form of NCLB successfully does. << ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) Schools with lower test scores should have their funding increased. Often, schools that are failing do not have the resources to increase their test scores. Scores with higher scores tend to be more middle-upper class, due to the added resources that the parents can provide. A school in a poor area cannot improve it's scores without the right resources. NCLB prefers to penalise schools that do not have resources and prefers to penalise those which have plenty of resources. 2) Schools that don't have the test scores obviously don't have the resources. If their resources are removed, then schools could close down. The cost of re-opening schools or building new ones costs more than simply funding the existing ones. Having to re-open schools and build new ones therefore reduces money, therefore reduces welfare negatively. ===PRO:=== >>. My opponent contends that standardized testing inherently caters to the average rather than to those who are intelligent. This is not true, even in the current system. Studnets who are more intelligent should be placed in more advanced classes, which would have more advanced tests as a result. For instance, I myself took Algebra I in seventh grade and Geometry in 8th - even though that's two years ahead of most. I was not then given the same 7th/8th grade math exam as everyone else - I was given an Algebra I/Geometry exam instead. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I understand putting students in advanced classes, however, in your example where you were two years ahead in Maths, what happens when you reach your final two years of schooling? You can no longer study Maths any further because you have completed the course earlier. This is obviously not catering towards the intelligent student. ===PRO:=== >>My opponent contends that overcrowded schools creates problems, though I have already addressed that. If good schools are overcrowded, then more good schools will be created to deal with the problem - and they will be created from the schools that are failing. Further, overcrowded schools will be given more money (since funding is likely proportional to the amount of students taught), and if they also meet NCLB requirements, they will receive additional funding - combined, this will allow such successful schools to expand if necessary. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The creation of new schools and expanding current schools is easily more expensive than updating current ones. This is an obvious decrease in welfare. ===CON ARGUMENT #1: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS NEGATIVE==== To expand on this point, I will bring attention to the point standardized testing can be racist [Source:. http://www.raceandhistory.com...]. I quote my source in that: "But as ETS concedes, questions chosen for future use must produce (in the pre-test phase) similar gaps between test-takers as existed in the overall test taken at that time. In other words, questions are rarely if ever selected for future use if students who received lower scores overall answer that particular question correctly as often or more often than those who scored higher overall. The racial implications of such a policy should be clear. Because blacks, Latinos, and American Indian students tend to score lower on these exams than whites and Asians, any question in the pre-test phase that black students answer correctly as often as (or more often than) whites would be virtually guaranteed never to appear on an actual standardized exam! " I await my opponents response, and thank the judges and readers fro reading.