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

============================================================================ PRO'S CASE ============================================================================ RE: "His later arguments concede my argument that we should look at the perfect implementation of NCLB, this would mean that the citizens of the country are no longer resistant to NCLB." False. People looking at NCLB in a negative light is not part of the process to undergo NCLB just as people looking at taxation in a negative light is not part of the process to undergo taxation. NCLB is simply a system which uses standardized testing to bring about everyone getting a good education. Basically, PRO's logic is comparable to saying that a critic's distaste for a film in particular is a flaw in the film itself. RE: "The word ideal in the resolution means that we have to imagine that NCLB was implemented perfectly and we have to look to the effects of NCLB on America in a world post implementation." Agreed. And even implemented perfectly, it still does not bring about the results it attempts to bring about much like mercury treatment would not bring about a cure for syphilis (which, my opponent incidentally provides no response to). The moral of the story is that perfect means do not guarantee perfect results. You can ideally hit punch yourself in the face in attempt to make your brain tougher and smarter, but that doesn't mean you will get your results. ============================================================================ MY CASE ============================================================================ REBUTTALS FOR CONTENTION #1: "RE: 1- We can assume this will not happen because the conditions for its implementation are perfect, thus this will not happen." We can assume no such thing. Just see my other examples concerning "ideal methods" for proof. RE:"2- Even if an individual state has a lower standard than another individual state it doesnt change the fact that the well performing schools of the state will be rewarded when the bad performing schools will not. Creating the competition within states motivates teachers to teach the standards better. - These standards are key to ensuring each and every student learns what is essential for success later on." Um . . . so basically, well performing schools who only perform well due to manipulating standards(i.e. lowering them) shall be rewarded? PRO does nothing more than prove my point. Well performing schools shall be rewarded for lowering their standards whereas schools who keep their standards raised shall not be rewarded and shall hence have to enter this "competition" which motivates teachers to lower their standards. This in turn shall cause the students to suffer in terms of education and the US will become even more of a laughing stock in terms of education. REBUTTALS FOR CONTENTION #2: RE:"1. The only reason teaching to the test doesnt work is because the kids are resistant to it. By using the standards as a guideline, what kids need to learn will be learned. The only way to ensure the whole nations kids are learning the same things is by making national standards that all kids have to learn." No, as established by my factual evidence, teaching to the test doesn't work because kids are less likely to truly comprehend the material. Teaching to the test encourages kids to make use of their memorization skills. As far as using the "standards" as a guideline goes, teachers are already given standards and are well aware of them. However, the fact of the matter is that with NCLB, they are also well aware of the tests (and have to be in order to NCLB to be implemented) and also well aware of the fact that their careers rely on their teaching performance. National standards or not, this problem is STILL going to remain an issue. RE: "2. The only alternative is the let teachers have free reign. This means that nationally we will have no uniformity and what the kids on the west coast learn can be completely different than that of the east coast. As a nation we need to know certain things, and standards make this happen." NCLB already allows free reign (in terms of all states defining the standards for the test). I won't accuse my opponent of anything just yet,but above, he insisted that the US should have national standards. Now, he is insisting that there should be no uniformity and that each state should be able to adhere to its own guidelines. How do these assertions not contradict each other? In any case, as suggested above, uniformity doesn't change anything. The inherent variable of NCLB (having to rely on standardized tests, hence having to teach by them) is the problem and there is nothing in PRO's case which undermines this. ============================================================================ CONCLUSION ============================================================================ RE: It's clear that NCLB would be beneficial in a perfect world." Whether or not it would be beneficial in a perfect world, we have no reason to believe that this debate concerns a perfect world (I see nothing in the resolution that states "In an IDEAL world . . ."). In fact, we have plenty of reason to believe otherwise. RE:"If kids werent allowed to move schools if their school sucked they would be stuck in the bad school." People already have the freedom to choose what kinds of schools they wish to go to. RE: "Standards are also key to national uniformity on what our youth knows, directed learning can happen in college." 1) Not everyone goes to college (for various reasons that don't just concern knowledge/education). 2) My opponent has one round to clarify on this in his next round (as I suspect this as being a contradiction) before I respond further. And that'll do it for now. PS: I was gonna provide another argument, but it looks like I'm outta time. Fortunately, it wasn't necessary.