Reform of the Common Core

This is a policy debate (reform of the Common Core). Therefore, the rules are as follows:Seeing that Pro is taking an affirmative plan (to significantly reform CCSSI), he has the burden toa) prove that there are significant harms in the status quo,b) bring forward a plan that solves these harms, andc) show that Pro's plan has advantages.If I can show that at least one of these is false, I will have met my burden of rebuttal. These are the four stock issues that Pro must prove:1) Topicality (stay on topic)2) Significance (significant harms in status quo)3) Inherency (harms will not go away unless plan is implemented)4) Solvency (Pro's plan will acctualy solve the harms and give advantages)With that out of the way, I'll rebut Pro's contentions.Observation 1: DefintionsI agree to all defintions set out by Pro. I'd ask that in the next round for Pro to specify what needs to be reformed and how it needs to be reformed (give a plan). Observation 2: Harms:1) CCSSI standardized tests cannot test knowledge, talent, and creativity.Pro makes the claim that the standardized tests are faulty for the reason that they don't test the extra-curriculars (art, music, etc.). These extra-curriculars are not the focus of the test because they are not the focus of CCSSI. If you'd recall, Pro concedes that the purpose for CCSSI is to "set nation-wide standards for reading and mathematics levels (Round 2, Pro, empasis added)." CCSSI's purpose is not to test how good a certain school's music program is, or what great artists they have. Thus, this contention is, quite frankly, not topical to the discussion on the status quo Common Core system.To Pro's contention that standardized tests cannot test knowledge, I'd ask Pro if he belives the SAT, ACT, or any other college board test can be used by colleges to examine whether or not they want to admit a certain student. 2) Tests are designed poorly and are subject to mechanical problems.Pro claims that the design of the CCSSI tests (fill in the bubble for your answer) are poorly designed. However, this "fill in the bubble" approach allows for rapid, quick, and effective evaluations of tests by computers with human input (1). Also, the failure of the mechanical system is not by any means significant, as it only affected a couple students. And it didn't affect thier scores, either, only the date when the test was to be administered. "In Miami, parents at the New World School of the Arts received a text message Monday saying the ninth-grade writing test had been postponed until March 5. The reason: 'computer technical difficulties (2).'" This site also references weather as a significant problem with standardized testing. "Another problem for PARCC: the weather. Some schools were forced to close because of snow and ice, and they consequently had to reschedule testing (2)." Pro, please explain why rescheduling a test shows that CCSSI needs significant reform. 3) CCSSI tests incorporate useless questions into them. Have you read your article? It seems to affirm that Common Core is a good thing! "Though Common Core standards remain hotly debated, it seems, at least with these questions, the issue isn't with Common Core, but with the teachers implementing it (3)." It is not Common Core that is at fault, it is the teachers that issue faulty tests to evaluate thier students. The second article linked shows a test of a first grader, where, for lack of better wording, completely failed the test. However, the reason for this failure is not because of "terrible testing" or "insanely stupid questions," as Pro would have you belive. No, the reason for this failed test is because the student answered many of the questions incorrectly. For example, the student answers:6-5=3 (problem 1),4+8=6 (problem 7), and7-2=65 (problem 11).The reason for the student's failure is because he answered the questions incorrectly (4). 4) CCSSI forces teachers to teach how to take the tests rather than meaningful content.Quite the opposite. CCSSI gives teachers an endgoal, not a curriculum. The way that the teachers get the students to the standards presented by CCSSI is completely up to them. "Mili says a lot of teachers have fun, creative activities stuffed into their closets or desk drawers because they haven’t had the time to use them in the era of NCLB tests and curriculum. He thinks the Common Core will allow those activities to again see the light of day. That’s because the Common Core State Standards are just that — standards and not a prescribed curriculum. They may tell educators what students should be able to do by the end of a grade or course, but it’s up to the educators to figure out how to deliver the instruction (4)." Thus, CCSSI is not restrictive. It's like this:Let's say that we are in a race. There is a starting line and a finish line. At the finish line, you are expected to have crossed 200 meters upon your own power, i.e. no cutting corners or piggy-backing off someone else. However, the way you get there is completely up to you. You can bike, run, skate, etc..It is the same with Common Core. You have a starting line and a finish line. At the finish line, you are expected to know such and such in math and English arts upon your own power, i.e. no cheating on tests, copying answers. However, the way you learn what you're expected to know is completely up to you. You can take 2 classes at school and 5 at a college, all at school, take as many electives you want, etc..Does this make sense?Obseravation 3: Plan/advantagesNone provided by Pro. Remember, you can't just say that CCSSI needs reform. You need to show specificaly what and how CCSSI needs to be reformed. Pro?Sources: (1) http://www.npr.org...(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com...(3) http://www.techinsider.io...(4) https://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com...(5) http://neatoday.org...