Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

A] I pointed out that physicians, airline pilots, and others are required to pass standardized tests in order to ensure a minimum standard of competence, and that they are required to so despite all the hazards of text anxiety, potential unfairness if the person s right on the borderline of failing, and the dangers of teaching to the test. Con argued that doing so doesn't make it right. Rote denial doesn't overcome the logic behind the testing. The good of establishing a minimum standard of competence outweighs the relatively small imperfections inherent in testing. In the case of exit testing from high school, the good done is certifying the student has achieved a minimum standard of competence suitable for various types of employment, admission to a community college, or other pursuits. Con argues that the stress is too great for young people to fairly handle. Stress is required to motivate most people to do their best. I worry more about the people who have no test anxiety, because that is likely to mean that they don't care about the outcome than that they are supremely confident. Con is implicitly postulating that a person who is well-qualified to read at a 12th grade level will be so stressed out as to fail a tenth grade level test. If that ever happens, then they ought to take more practice exams and then retake the exit exam. Con repeats that it is one exam that determines the rest of the student's life. That's simply not so, the test can be repeated many times if necessary. Note that relatively few people pass the bar exams the first time, and yet we have not suffered a lawyer shortage as a consequence. Note that young people have to cope with stress from many sources. They prepare for athletic competitions, debate tournaments, and other such competitive events. They pursue the opposite sex, for most a more stressful activity than studying. If the objective were mainly to lower stress, all of those other stressful activities could be curtailed in favor of studying. I don't think that's a good idea. There is stress, but coping is worthwhile. Pro points out that many successful people dropped out of high school. That's true, but not because they were unable to pass an exit exam. For top performers, the reason was usually boredom, and while I'm sympathetic to that problem, that's a different debate. There are also economic reasons, particularly in times past, and mental disabilities, like Churchill's bouts with depression. Con gives no examples of standardized tests being an insurmountable obstacle. [B] Con argues that "What isn't tested doesn't exist." That contention is unsupported. Subjects other than language, mathematics, and science exist in every country that has adopted standardized exit exams. What changes under testing is that students who have not achieved basic competence in the core curriculum will be encouraged, or required, to learn how to meet those shortcomings in preference to other subjects. That is appropriate for advanced societies. If an educator is so foolish as to remove other subjects entirely, that's a fault in the curriculum that ought to be corrected, it's not inherent in testing core competence. It's easy to think of examples related to any test where the educator did a poor job. That's an argument against poor educators, not an argument for eliminating tests. Con dropped his contention that exit testing is expensive. It worked out to less than $12/year per student. [C] Con's article reveals the flaw in current testing, confirming my supposition. The authors say, "Exit exams are just challenging enough to reduce the graduation rate but not challenging enough to have measurable consequences for how much students learn or for how prepared they are for life after high school. Political pragmatism rather than academic benchmarks have led states to implement fundamentally flawed exit exam policies. Policy makers should either revamp exit exams to be sufficiently challenging to make a real difference for how much students learn or abandon them altogether." Graduation rates are only reduced by one or two percent. I agree that it is pointless to have a high school exit exam that is certifying eighth-grade level competence, which has been the product of social advancement policies. I previously offered evidence that the high school degree is viewed as meaningless by employers, and it remains meaningless if exit exams do not do their job. the only obstacle to making them meaningful is errant political thinking, which is what the article says. That should be remedied according to the resolution as I have proposed. [D] Con argues, "there is a over emphases on math, reading and science." Society can change what constitutes basic competence for a high school degree. However, that does not argue against the importance of having an exam to certify competence. Suppose society decides that computer skills are now so fundamental to living that every student ought to have a level of competence in that area. Then that ought to be added to the exit exam. [E] My rebuttal to the argument that exams encourage teaching to the test is similar to previous arguments. It's not the fault of testing core competence if educators do not properly shape the curriculum for those who have achieved core competence, and if the wrong subjects are on the test, then the test ought to be changed to reflect the consensus on what is important. [F] I agree that there are sometimes poor test questions having ambiguous answers. The girl in Minnesota who failed by one question and then sued would have otherwise been forced to retake the test. (She faces a larger obstacle in having lawyers as parents.) I don't think that result is so heart rending as to invalidate testing. If 1% of the questions are faulty, then the student ought to study hard enough to pass by more than 1%. That's reasonable. That speedometers have errors does not argue that we should abolish speed limits. The errors are small enough to accept as a part of the way the world works in practice. Con offered no evidence that the luck component is "strong." It's somewhere below the 1% level, affecting only the few students on the borderline. [G] Con's ref [6], which he claims supports his contention that Iceland et al have good schools without exit exams, in fact links to an unrelated article about school spending in the U.S. It's not my job to sort through Con's references or find them on the net to build his case. Anyway, I found the PISA site on the net. PISA assesses only science, not math or language competency. They say, "Analysis gives the most comprehensive international picture of science learning today, exploring not only how well students perform, but also their interests in science and their awareness of the opportunities that scientific competencies bring as well as the environment that schools offer for science learning." As Con promised, it doesn't just measure what students know, the way objective tests do. It includes, "interests" and "awareness of opportunities." In other words, baloney as a substitute for learning. So has that put Iceland et al in the forefront of the modern era? Not exactly, the countries that have standardized tests are also in the forefront of economic advancement these days, the Asian countries cited. We do not need more cheerleaders as PISA contends. I will agree that standardized testing is not the most important element of education. The most important element is parental involvement. However, the reason for testing is to provide a certificate of competence as a requirement for other things. That is worthwhile in it's own right. It also provides a worthwhile measure of the success of schools. Con decided to argue [1], [2], and [3] as part of [A-G]. I have responded accordingly. Con's objections are trivial. The resolution is affirmed.