An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

=========== PRO'S CASE | =========== PRO drops everything regarding "ideal = perfect". ========== My case | ========== PRO drops my whole case entirely and readjusts his argument around a statement he made in the conclusion section of the previous round. =================== PRO's New main argument | =================== RE: "One argument went massively under covered by my opponent and he loses because of it. " If my opponent is by chance referring to the one or two isolated statements he made in the conclusion (which had nothing to do with what he had claimed to be his contentions or rebuttal to my contentions) of his previous round, I hardly see any "massive under covering", giving that I addressed this with an isolated statement of my own. In addition, please note that my opponent chose not to expand on this isolated statement until this round. His protestations concerning me not being allowed to respond to his change in arguments are at best absurd and are hence not worthy of any serious consideration. RE: "NCLB ensures students can move schools if their school performs at a lower standard than other schools in the district. " As does the current system. The only difference is that NCLB would be more likely to encourage it. Given that I've already established that schools with "better performance/standards" are more likely to be schools which simply lower the level of education (note that PRO has completely has completely dropped my contentions), this really matters little. RE: However, not every American can pay to go to a private school. " Very true, but irrelevant as NCLB isn't a program which pays for students to get into private schools. Private school institutions are not covered by NCLB, given that it is a government employed program (not to mention that even if it did pay for students to get into private schools, it would no doubt cost a great deal of money--as we're talking 2000-5000 dollars per school year per student on average). RE: "The individual has no say in what school they go to. " As long as it is a public school, they have plenty of say. If any government funded school administration attempted to deny the students on most bases, the student could take the school in question to the courts and sue them to oblivion for not abiding by the constitutional provided rights. This is currently happening with colleges who are denying certain students on the basis of affirmative action. RE: "An ideal for of NCLB would have national standards that each school is tested on at the same time each year" Since PRO did not answer my question in my previous round, I must address this as a direct contradiction to one of rebuttals in the previous round. Previously, he insisted that national uniformity be abolished and that states be inclined to have their own standards. In the same round, he also insisted that the US uphold national standards. Therefore, this statement which I am responding to fails on the basis that it violates the law of non contradiction. Even if we are to ignore this contradiction, I must yet again point out that having national standards does not in any way solve the problem and that is teachers as well as school administration having ample motive to lower the level of education and make it easier for students to succeed (which again, is backed up by my empirical data cited in Round 1). No child being left behind is meaningless if the result is lower level education. RE: "Because I have proven that this one part of NCLB is a good thing, I win the debate round. Because I have proven that NCLB has at least one good thing, . . . " Not only has PRO not proven that any single good thing comes from NCLB (as students already have the ability to transfer schools on their own free will and pointing students to schools that are likely to have lowered the level of their education in order get better funding is by no means good giving that the result is poor education . . . a result which students who are currently "left behind" succumb to), but even if he did, this wouldn't grant him victory for two reasons: 1) Nowhere in any previous round did he insist that nearly needed to prove that NCLB had at least one good thing for it. This is something he decided to mention in the most recent round alone. 2) Refer back to a statement he made in R2: PRO: "The debate comes down to whether or not the fundamentals of NCLB are good. " Notice the term fundamentalS as well as the use of the verb "are. " This clearly implies that PRO is referring to more than a single good. In addition, he means to refer to NCLB in its entirety. This is not the implication that a single part of it is good. RE: ". . . this means an ideal form will have that part and only that part utilized. " PRO never bothers to explain why we would be lead to this conclusion. In addition, NCLB cannot exist without the use of standardized test (this is how schools are supposedly determined to have "low performance" in the first place)(and again, please refer back to the inherent problems I cite with heavy emphasis on standardized testing), thus his reasoning is clearly erroneous. RE:"All of the issues dealing with the standardized tests no longer exist because the ideal form of NCLB will be free of those problems. " Nah. The problems I've cited are inherently part of NCLB. You cannot get rid of them without getting rid of NCLB. Not to mention that I crushed this faulty reasoning with my mercury example (which PRO has yet to even ATTEMPT to respond to). RE: "The ideal form of NCLB will be a national test that rewards the well performing schools of the individual areas. . . . because the test is national there will be no lowering of standards in individual states. " Ignoring the fact that PRO decided not to argue this until this round (hence new argument): 1) In the words of the immortal NOK_Domination, "The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the national government is a reserved power given to the states. This would include setting the standard, especially education. This is unconstitutional and invites the government to take away other freedoms. 2) This ignores my other contention; this ignores the fact that teachers still have the incentive to teach "to the test", hence still lowering the scale of education. RE: "The standardized tests are the only way you can measure a school against another and are therefore necessary. " Necessary in terms of gathering statistical data? That is arguable. In terms of achieving the goals which NCLB desires? Not at all. Japan, Finland as well as the rest of the countries rated in the top 10 seem to do just fine without NCLB. By no means is NCLB and its absurd methods necessary. RE: "The ideal form of NCLB will only test the bare standards of what students need to learn and leave time for other subjects to be taught. " Ignoring the fact that this is a new argument: It doesn't matter. The argument against NCLB is that it lowers the level of education via poor teaching and manipulative schooling. The test dealing with less subjects (specifically, the "bare subjects") will simply make the process easier and more frequent. CONCLUSION: 1) Pay special attention to PRO's drops, switching the emphasis of his case as well as the two crucial contradictions which he makes. 2) NCLB provides the incentive to lower the level of education (both by states lowering standards and by teachers teaching to the test)(also, PRO's round 3 alternative to the 1st problem is unconstitutional). Essentially, no one gets left behind, but at the same time, no one really benefits from education. And that's about all I see of significant importance. :D