Public High School Students and Exit Exams

Let's start by clarifying my value structure. I value Progressive Post-Industrialism, which is a movement in society towards human rights and justice. As much as we would like to believe that the U.S. has reached this point in society, it is false. In my case, I show the myriad benefits of a P P-I society, none of which have been rebutted. Pro never says that P P-I is a bad thing, he just attacks the link to my case. Because it is easy to see that P P-I is fundamentally good, we must use it as the value in this round. Furthermore, Pro never gives a bright line, or even attempts to. I give a specific pathway to P P-I and societal progress. Similarly, Pro ignores my link to the criterion of accountability. We are not using the United States' current weak multiple choice tests. Not only do these go against the values of a P P-I society, they are, as we both agree, ineffective. Instead, we are looking to the free response, high level tests that DO take place in P P-I societies. It's not only through economic progress that we achieve P P-I. By mandating higher level SEEs, society is showing its commitment to education and that it values equality. Educated and empowered students go on to strengthen society economically and socially. Their increased skill in communication reduces violence and disputes. Better understanding of the world reduces negative stereotyping and racism. While such changes may seem cheesy and overly optimistic, much research has shown that P P-I societies experience this positive growth largely because of their strong educational system and accountability structures. As you evaluate the attacks that Pro makes on my case, and the extensions he makes on his, there is one very important factor to keep in mind. All the problems that he keeps harping on are NOT with the SEEs that we should be putting in place. They are not problems with critical-thinking free-response tests that P P-I societies put it place. They are problems with today's multiple choice tests. The Neg completely does away with all these problems and harms with the proper tests. Let's look at my Contention 1 now. Pro completely skips over my analysis and evidence which shows that the new economy requires students to have skills which schools fail to impart! The Hart card is from 2007, when less than 50% of schools had SEEs. He continues to completely drop the Esping-Andersen card which states that P P-I societies in Europe have stronger economies BECAUSE of their rigorous, free response tests! This is a huge reason to vote Neg! Pro's attacks on my C2 are also misplaced. The Barry and Finley card clearly states that high-stakes tests are more reliable than low stakes tests, nothing more, nothing less. This point is completely dropped. Furthermore, if we take a high-stakes system and further enhance it by making it free-response and high-level, we circumvent the problems that Aff provides. Let's move on to the Aff side. The value for this round is Progressive Post-Industrialism. Aff never states that it is bad, and never shows why societal progress should be preferred. Because Aff never attacks the actual link I make between accountability and P P-I and instead strawmans my side, we need to prefer my criterion over his. Furthermore, he doesn't show exactly how the Aff reaches a valued diploma. How do I know when an Affirmative student has achieved competency? What means do we use? The Aff never provides the link or shows how this would be done. In fact, this goes the exact other way! I showed with the Hart card that the kind of system that exists on the Affirmative side leads only to failure. The definition for this round is also the Neg's. Aff's definition doesn't specify that the exams are state-based. He doesn't source it either. Furthermore, the reason we need to prefer my definition which puts the power in the federal government's hands is that a national level test is what will lead to success. As such, I am not defending state-level tests. The Affirmative C1 now completely falls. He doesn't attack my arguments at all. All Aff does is weakly restate his claims. He doesn't even extend his evidence! Remember that he's talking about multiple choice, low-level graduation exams that are being put into place across the U.S. I'm talking about free-response, critical thinking tests. His entire contention is attacking the wrong thing. He fails to attack my arguments on his second contention too. Exit exams, particularly in P P-I societies that value education, are reflections of the curriculum, not the other way around. Exit exams test the curriculum to make sure it is being taught. All that will happen as a result of SEEs is stronger curriculum alignment and an empowered workforce. Remember, these are the kinds of exams we're putting in to place: English Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... English Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper I: http://www.examinations.ie... Math Paper II: http://www.examinations.ie... There's no worry about teachers 'teaching' to such exams. First, they cover such broad subject area that teachers are just going to end up teaching the whole curriculum. Second, they test critical thinking and analysis that are vital in the job markets. These are the kind of tests that lead to successful economies. Ultimately, this round should go Neg for two reasons. First, there are numerous benefits to P P-I societies. These include, "quality of health care for the disabled, poor and old...[reduced] aggression towards other racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups...[and] economic and social survival", as Gosta Esping-Andersen writes. The Neg is the only one who can achieve these benefits, because as Professor Esping-Andersen continues, it is "the standard of education in post-industrialist societies...[and] the rigorous testing taken by those exiting the secondary education system" which access these benefits. Second, Aff's entire case is a giant strawman [1]. He attacks a set of exams which I am not supporting. With that, I'll give it back to Aff for his final speech. [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com...