Public high school students in u.s. ought not be rquired to pass standardized exit exam to graduate.

Thanks, Con, for starting this debate. INTRODUCTION: Con's Value: Educated Society Con begins by stating that if we do not monitor the education level in public high schools, it will have damaging and greatly detrimental effects. He insists that there will be "chaos within education" and "society will fail." This is overly dramatic; consider the reality that these mandatory tests did not exist for men like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin - in fact, they didn't even receive formal schooling as we know it today - and yet they were very intelligent and led a productive society which has not failed yet, regardless of the mandatory exit exams. Throughout this debate, I will demonstrate how we can uphold Con's value of maintaining an educated society while not requiring mandatory exit exams from public HS. I will also show why these tests are unfair, unnecessary and of little to no use, thereby negating Con's position in this debate. I will also deconstruct Con's arguments as well as present my own. REBUTTAL: Con offered accountability and identifying failing schools as his only contentions; however, these arguments are insufficient in sustaining his burden. First, there are other ways to identify failing schools (i.e. monitoring graduation rate, grade point average, teacher evaluations, hands-on administration, State certification, entrance to college, etc.). Con's insistence that this is the ONLY way to achieve the goal of an educated society is highly biased and flat-out false. I maintain that teachers and students can still be held responsible through various other means, which I will provide in my arguments section. Moving on, you'll notice that Con wishes these standards to be applied only to public schools. However, is that to suggest that private and parochial schools are incompetent and/or irresponsible? How do THOSE students get by or THOSE students stay afloat? The reality is that they have found other ways to be successful and public schools can as well. By mandating a HS exit exam, we are forcing a test on our students in the name of knowledge; a test that actually discourages education (and instead focuses solely on passing the exam) and attempts to parent our children instead of teach our children. ARGUMENTS: 1) Test performance. a) Not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. Some people panic, get sick, choke, etc. These tests are very intimidating to students who sometimes obsess over the results. Therefore one's performance on the rest is really not a very accurate indicator of how each individual performs. b) A lot of students suffer from things like dyslexia or other learning disabilities which inhibit them from performing up to par on the exam. As such, these individuals may never have a fair chance at passing the exam. On the other hand, if they're given an advantage (such as longer time to complete the test), this might not be fair to the other students who are not given more time despite their own personal (sometimes undiagnosed) need. Either way, there's hardly a way to make these exams universally fair for everyone, which goes against your very own value and criterion. 2) Learning Inhibition. a) Preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. b) Because people are intelligent in different ways, this test is discriminatory because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 3) Alternatives. a) If one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. These can be discussed amongst administrators, school boards and teachers in each individual district and vary upon school, class or possibly even individual so long as they show sufficient skill in designated areas. b) One suggestion is that colleges could require the passing or taking of several entrance exams or SAT-like exams in order to gain admission to their institution. That would mean that passing these exams wasn't necessary, but that students should opt to pass these exams if they saw fit (if it was necessary for their future endeavors, i.e. college, trade school or a particular career). Thus in this regard I have not only explained how you could measure a student's knowledge/ability (via these exams), but also provided reasoning as to why this would be an appropriate alternative and still effective. It essentially gives students a CHOICE instead of forcing this test upon them. They can make the conscientious decision to take the test to ensure the well being of their futures by taking this responsible step. 4) Usefulness/Uselessness a) Some people need to graduate HS to accomplish goals such as entering the military or other specific fields of training. I posit that some of the knowledge required on the exams will have nothing to do with some individual's direction in life, but because they need to graduate HS in order to tend to their other options, the negation of this resolution stands in their way of success. This again seems to go against Con's value. b) Studies show that those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society [1]. c) While standardized tests may be useful in finding out what one knows and does not know (in terms of what they should or are expected to know), this should have nothing to do with whether or not they GRADUATE. Instead, they can be tools or guides used to determine which areas a pupil may need more help or focus in. The graduation aspect is also supported by the reality that different schools in different towns and states require different things to pass. Not all standardized tests are the same, and as such a student from a different school may also have an unfair advantage. This again does not seem to uphold Con's value. 5) Costs a) Creating the tests, preparing for the tests, giving the tests and grading the tests all cost money. Because Con has not proven that these tests are necessary OR beneficial (or even reliable or relevant), then this cost is unnecessary and therefore an unfair tax burden. 6) Fostering an Appreciation for Education If students aren't interested in the material, and instead focus solely on passing the exam, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. Source: [1] http://hsee.umn.edu...