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

And nice job on our last debate by the way. First I think we're going to need a few more definitions: 1. NCLB - A program aimed at improving student performance in schools. 2. Beneficial - Better than the status quo. A step up. Let's look at my opponents contentions. ========================= 1. My opponent basically points out that NCLB right now appears to be doing a really great job. I'd argue this analysis may have some flaws in it but I'll do that in just a little bit. 2. Secondly my opponent argues that NCLB has good intentions. In fact he cites the 100% graduation rate example. Thus the ideal form, the form in it's perfection, would indeed achieve a 100% graduation rate. Unfortunately this is a little bit problematic. a. The problem with NCLB, even in it's perfection, is that it simply targets the wrong things. NCLB has a goal of 100% graduation rate. It has a goal of improving student test scores. .. .. Unfortunately NCLB never focuses on the nations youth, rather simply students. Thus the first problem with this system is that many youth simply get excluded from the system. In fact schools, in order to meet test scores, will expel the low performing students. The low performing students are often the ones that also disobey many of the rules, thus expelling them is but a simple task. And the best part? At the point where they aren't students anymore NCLB doesn't have to make them graduate or do anything about them. Thus under an ideal form of NCLB we would only see more expulsions from school in order to meet the 100% criteria. I would argue that this is far less beneficial than the status quo because it would mean that less people are educated in our society. This functions as an effectual turn on my opponents first and second contentions. And here is a source that discusses this problem: . http://www.helium.com... I'll find a few more for my next speech also. b. Additionally though there exists yet another problem. This problem would be that NCLB defines it's success based on the test scores which it initiates. However the standards for students can and are being changed all the time. This poses the exact same problem as in my a point. Schools will literally make their criteria easier in order to meet the goals set out in NCLB and will make their criteria easier in order to spend more time teaching towards the tests in order to meet the goals. While NCLB in it's ideal may very well meet it's goals in it's perfection there is still a loophole in which institutions can literally change their strategies in order to meet those goals. Sadly these strategy changes in many cases actually hamper the education of our students and once again would simply make the current problem worse under an ideal. Thus we once again see a move away from the beneficial. I think as far as offense goes this is probably enough for the time being. However I would like to go into a little more detail on what exactly NCLB is. No Child Left Behind is a federal program. Keep the federal part of that in mind. Under NCLB the federal government will cut funding to states and schools that do not meet the standards. Thus an ideal form of NCLB would perfect the approach from the federal government side of things. However NCLB is not a state program thus NCLB doesn't actually mandate state's do anything. Nor does it mandate schools do anything. In fact we can look at Utah as the best example of this. Utah simply rejected the NCLB program and now doesn't receive as much federal funding. Thus under the ideal program it would still be very possible for states to reject the ideal form of NCLB. In fact I'd argue that the ideal from would just make things harder on states and would actually lead to more states rejecting NCLB. Sadly this leads to less money for education. With that I'll close for now. I wish my opponent luck. Hopefully I gave a bunch of other random debaters good ideas also.