Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA

I will firstly give my points on why NCLB will have have no effect to welfare. ==CON ARGUMENT #1: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS NEGATIVE== I understand the nature of NCLB is that standardized testing is used. I myself come from a country where standardized testing is also used. Obviously, for standardized testing to work, all students must study the same subjects on the same level. This is negative in two ways: 1) Because the level is the same for everyone, the exam is to cater for the average student. This simply does not push students of a higher intelligence to their best potential in testing. Vica versa with more unintelligent students. They are given a test they are likely to perform poorly in. 2) The nature of it is that students study the same subjects, Maths and English skills specifically in NCLB. However, this narrows the curriculum for students. If the school is pushed to get students to pass the test to keep them above water financially, then they will not focus on subjects such as History, Geography, Art, Etc. , which can be as educational to a student as Maths or English. Standardized testing creates a feeding trough effect. Students must do well in Maths, English and Science (in later years) and the school tries to aim for high marks in that. This abandons students in other areas, therefore giving them little or no option to study subjects they are more adept to. Education must feed to the needs of the individual student, not every student. This negates my opponents point on Happiness. ==CON ARGUMENT #2: IT OVERPOPULATES AND UNDER POPULATES SCHOOLS== Part of NCLB is to allow students to move from school to school easier, for the sole purpose of allowing brighter students up the chain of education. However, whereas parents are more than happy to allow their children to be educated to their best, it also means parents do not want their son moved down to the "dumb" school. This influx of students up to schools and stubbornness to move down makes the schools with the best scores to be overwhelmed, and the schools with the worst scores to be abandoned. Now to negate my opponents argument: ==PRO:== >>This system would certainly increase the welfare of the USA. First, since education is a fulfilling end in itself, people would be happier with themselves. Second, since the higher-tier students would be taught at a more aggressive rate, more people would be able to be doctors and able to successfully find cures and develop new drugs, increasing health. And certainly this would increase fortune as well, since students would be quite fortunate to be able to switch to the school that best suits their educational needs. << ==REBUTTAL:== His first point on increasing happiness has already been negated. I find a flaw with his second point. He says students will be taught more aggressively. However: 1) Standardized testing is to cater on average, therefore not catering to those who are very intelligent. 2) A narrowed curriculum means education is lost elsewhere. The loss of subjects in the fields of History, Business and Woodwork (amongst others) balances any increase in Health. Whereas health is one field, multiple fields are excluded in this system. An increase in Doctors and Scientists can be good, however, if the market were saturated with Doctors and Scientists, it becomes an undesirable job. It becomes under-paid, less appealable, and therefore lowering health. As to the point on fortune, I addressed it with the overcrowding of schools. I would like to thank my opponent again for the debate, as well as the Judges and readers. I reserve the right for further arguments.