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

[A] Physicians, airline pilots, and demolition experts have to take tests. So do drivers of cars and trucks, private pilots, building contractors, and hairdressers. Some of those applicants are just not good at taking tests. So is the fair solution to stop testing physicians, airline pilots, and the rest? No. That would result a much greater unfairness to the general public. People who have trouble taking tests have to study harder to make sure they know the material well enough to be able to perform under test conditions, and they need to practice taking tests. If the person is so emotionally unstable as to be unable to pull it together with any reasonable mount of preparation, then they are unqualified to receive the certificate. Knowledge that cannot be mustered under pressure is not going to be useful in ordinary situations of job stress. For most students, preparation for tests is a positive motivator to study and prepare. All states requiring exit exams allow the test to be retaken at regular intervals. If the student can never pass the test, they are not qualified. [B] The fee for the standardzed SAT test is $45. http://www.collegeboard.com... That's representative of what a standardized test costs. An exit exam from high school is required once in the 12 years of the student, so the average cost is $3.75 per student per year. Con's ref [5] says the average cost per pupil for K-12 education in the United States is about $9666. Therefore Con is arguing that the difference between $9666 and $9661.25 amounts to the funding for education in the arts. That is unsupported and unreasonable. If fact, if we allowed an average of each student taking the exit exam three times, an overestimate, it would be a trivial $11.25 per student per year. [C] Con claims that exit exams have not had an effect, but he provides only a link to a vacuous home page, his ref [3], on something to do with testing in Minnesota that provides no evidence or conclusions. Con quotes a conclusion he obtained from somewhere that states that students "fared no better" without certificates. If so, that testifies to the inadequacy of the testing. Is it really plausible that people who pass reasonable tests on math and reading are not more qualified than those that fail? If it ever happens, we should need to find out what was wrong with the tests. [D] Con restates that test costs, established in [B] as $3.75 per pupil per year, are devastating. Con claims that preparing for the tests detracts from other subjects. The tests proposed are on the basics of math, English, and science needed to achieve a minimum level of competence. So therefore Con is supposing that students who cannot read or perform basic math are better off studying something else. For most students that is not true. They need to know how to read as a priority above art or whatever. However, there is nothing that precludes a student from not learning how to read and instead pursuing some vocational training, if educators decide that is proper. Doing so means that the student will not get a certificate implying they know how to read and do basic math, which is perfectly fair. They might earn a certificate in a vocation. [E] Repeats Con's arguments in [D]. Reading, basic math, and basic science are in fact more important than other things. So yes, schools should work to get students up to the level of basic competence in those subjects in preference to other subjects. For many students, basic competence will be achieved early and without much difficulty, so they can move on to other things. [F] Con argues that there is strong luck component in passing exams. That is not true, if a student knows the material he will pass. If he doesn't know the material and must rely on guessing, only then is there a strong luck component, and the odds are so against the unprepared student he is very unlikely to pass. If a student was right on the borderline to the pass or fail, then the student should have prepared a little more so he would not have been on the borderline. [G] Con offers no evidence that schools in the Ireland and Iceland are providing an effective education or that their students are well-qualified by international standards, yet he supposes that they should be used as a model for American education. Moreover, if they are good, then Con would have to show that not having exit exams is a significant factor in their success. He has given no evidence of either. We know what school systems are at the top by international standards: Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea. India and China are well known for school systems that do well despite limited resources. Every one of these are testing fanatics. Japan even has a test for *entry* into high school! Con offers no evidence that not-testing is the wave of the future. Quite the opposite is true: "Educational testing is becoming a global concern; people around the world are seeking ways to ensure their children are proficient in a range of fields, as well as gain the skills and knowledge necessary for adulthood." Center for Research on Educational Testing http://www.cret.or.jp... 1. Con says he does not understand how having a diploma certify level of accomplishment relates to the debate. I cited a study that showed employers are not finding a high school diploma means anything beyond some school attendance. That means a standardized exit exam should be required so that diplomas mean something and can be used as a basis for judging employment skills. What part of the argument does Con not understand? 2. Con argues, "A standardized test merely means you are accomplished in selecting A, B, C, or D as the answer." Well, yes, and if you don't know the subject, you won't know which one to select, so you will fail. "If standardized tests verify accomplishment shouldn't we see a difference in job readiness?" Absolutely, and if the tests do not establish job readiness, then clearly the tests are faulty. There is no difficulty in assessing basic competence through standardized tests. Con asks, "So by making an easy test everyone can pass it! Wait, doesn't that diminish the accomplishment of passing the test? " No, meeting the requirement for basic competence will be easy for some students and difficult for others. I presented evidence that current high school diplomas do not guarantee even eighth grade reading levels. A diploma should guarantee a least a tenth grade reading level. Tests like ACT and SAT measure to similar standards without being identical. Standard techniques allow normalization. 3. It is correct that standard tests only assess how well schools perform with respect to English, math, and science. Cake decorating and playing the clarinet are not measured. The reason is that some things are genuinely more important than others. Con claimed that schools would have a hard time getting funding for other things if they couldn't teach the basics. Yes, that is appropriate. Con claims "Hmmm… considering that already ⅔ [?] of students are required already to take standardized test, this would seem to prove that standardized tests are not working." No, testing needs to be nearly universal and in place long enough for graduates to be a significant percentage of the labor force to make an impression. ========== Con's references are generally boilerplate that does not support his case. They reference things like the cost of education. Con needs to point specifically what it is in each reference that he claims to support his case. Con's basic case is that if tests are not absolutely perfect they ought not be used at all. That's a basic error.No measuring device i absolutely precise, but they ar nonetheless extremely useful. A high school diploma should mean that a student has basic competence.