Resolved: An ideal from of NCLB would be beneficial to welfare in the U.S.A

===CON:=== >>There are multiple reasons students in a specific school may not be scoring well. It may not be for the sole reason that schools aren't "Pushing for the betterment of their students". They could be located in a "run down" neighborhood. Their students may not have a back round of education. If the school starts out with these disadvantages, they need funds to improve. By cutting their budget, NCLB is dooming the school to under-performance. << ===REBUTTAL:=== If a school is doing well, why should the government continue to increase it's funding whilst other schools with a great amount of potential have their funds cut. The government should increase funds for schools doing well for their expansion. They can take on more students and subsequently increase the level of education. There are schools out there with top scores and a vast potential to expand that aren't given the chance to do so. Letting schools that perform badly, for any reason, and increasing funding to schools that are doing well, is only logical. CON may argue that many of the best schools are fee-paying schools, not free schools. Well, subsidizing school fee's or increasing the funding until it does not need to be fee-paying is logical, and makes more sense than funding failing schools. ===CON:=== >>It doesn't matter what test you take, the entire premise they use to allocate funds is skewed. Even with the ideal (perfect) test, you are not necessarily gauging the success of the school, but rather, the intellect of the students. The problem with this is that too many variable besides the school contribute to the intellect of a student. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The premise of a school is to teach students, i. e. increase their intellect. If a schools fails in this, they are obviously failing and therefore do not deserve funds. As aforementioned, this funding should go to schools that are able to perform. My opponent states there are too many variables besides the school to gauge intelligence. I am assuming he is referring to financial background primarily. This actually works towards my argument. Students of a better financial background tend to do well because of their schooling in better schools. If schools in run-down areas are removed, students are given the chance to go to better schools. Thus, the system works in increasing intelligence. ===CON:=== >>Standardized tests mean that the questions are all the same, no matter how well a student is doing. If a student is doing fine in math, but failing science, he may not get the extra help he needs because that may not be what the test covers. If tests only cover certain subjects, some students needs are bound to be ignored. As I said before, teachers may not know if they are failing the student, or if an outside factor is contributing to a student's test score. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I find the logic of my opponents comment to be skewed. If a student is failing Science, he can obviously get help because he is being tested on the areas that are tested. If the Physics course covered Energy, but not Magnetism, then obviously the teacher wouldn't test Magnetism, nor would they address it as a serious problem because he won't be test doing it. As I have said before, even if an outside factor is contributing to a students failure, moving to a school with better grades can only be beneficial. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and thank the readers and judges for reading. Thank you.