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

I will start by rebuffing my contentions then move to continue my rebuttal of my opponents. [A] So because other people take tests that makes it right? What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. We are talking about children here not adults. Is it really fair to put so much aexitity on them at such a young age? I'm not arguing for having NO test whatsoever; just not 1 high stake test that could change the entire outcome of someone's life. "A 2006 U.S. Department of Education-funded study conducted by the Institute of HeartMath and Claremont Graduate University with 980 10th-grade students found that 61% of all students reported being affected by test anxiety. Also, 26% experienced high levels of test anxiety often or most of the time. The study used a quasi-experimental, longitudinal field design, involving pre- and post-intervention panels of measurement within a multimethods framework. The study found a strong negative relationship between test anxiety and test performance: Students with high levels of test anxiety scored, on average, 15 points lower on standardized tests in both mathematics and English-language arts than students with low test anxiety." High stakes testing increases high stress anxiety. "If the student can never pass the test, they are not qualified." Simply not true. How does my opponent respond to the fact that there have been MANY successful people that have dropped out of high school and went on to succeed in life? Andrew Jackson, considered to be one of greatest presidents dropped out of high school. J.R Simplot is a self-made agriculture billionaire and dropped out as well. Carl Linder? Marcus Loew? All dropouts that couldn't "handle" tests. [B] I was arguing that is funnels money from other subjects. What isn't tested doesn't exist. Pro need to reread my contention. [C] The data is here. http://findarticles.com... "We use data from the 1980 through 2000 U.S. Censuses and from the 1984 through 2002 Current Population Surveys to evaluate the labor market returns to exit exams (Warren, Grodsky, and Lee 2008). Both data sources include large, nationally representative samples of American young people. We limited our focus to 20- to 23-year-olds with no college education (and along the way we found that exit exams have no bearing on 20- to 23-year-olds' chances of having attended college).Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exit exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." "If 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." The test themselves are the wrong part. [D] Pro argues that students need to be able to read. I agree. And they do. My point is that there is a over emphases on math, reading and science. In high school people need to start exploring their passions, so they'll be ready for those employers you keep mentioning. (What is not tested does not count, and 85 percent of teachers believe that their school gives less attention to subjects that are not on the state test. One teacher had this to say about how the timing of state tests drives teaching: "At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are told not to teach social studies and science until March." As "real learning" takes a backseat to "test learning,") [2] Once again I'm not arguing against Math, Reading, and Science, but far too often it's as though other subjects don't exist and considering 6% of our employment comes from the arts it's far too important to ignore. [E] Teaching to the test is test is not repeating my point [D] which talking about the cost of testing. This point goes dropped my Pro. [F] "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." When questions are poorly written kids have to guess. In fact one girl from Minnesota failed by 1 question. After reviewing the test (after a lawsuit) they found mistakes in 6 of the questions. There was no right answer on some of them and she was forced to guess. Luck. [G] Yes, as a matter of fact I have provided evidence that those countries outperform US students. If you had looked at my source you would see that during the PISA international exam they scored higher then the U.S. These school systems did not have standardized tests and yet still managed to score higher. If we look to the why, we can see that these systems allowed to have more freedom in the way they taught and made sure students knew info. You continue to show that asian countries preform us. On standardized tests... How does my opponent think that MORE standardized test will improve that system? Those methods been tried and have failed. We need to look to more innovative ways to teach children. Standardized testing is not the way. I will now move onto my rebuttal of my opponents points. 1. As I've said before 2/3 of students are already taking exit exams, and seeing as you said employers do not think diplomas mean anything, that would seem to support the fact that standardized testing does not mean anything. Simply put: Employers do not think diplomas mean anything. 2/3 of Students with diplomas have had to of passed a exit exam. Therefore employers do not think passing an exit exam means anything. 2. See my point [C]. "No, meeting the requirement for basic competence will be easy for some students and difficult for others." 3. I'll repeat my point [D] seeing as it applies here. "Pro argues that students need to be able to read. I agree. And they do. My point is that there is a over emphases on math, reading and science. In high school people need to start exploring their passions, so they'll be ready for those employers you keep mentioning. (What is not tested does not count, and 85 percent of teachers believe that their school gives less attention to subjects that are not on the state test. One teacher had this to say about how the timing of state tests drives teaching: "At our school, third- and fourth-grade teachers are told not to teach social studies and science until March." As "real learning" takes a backseat to "test learning,")[2] Once again I'm not arguing against Math, Reading, and science, but far too often it's as though other subjects don't exist and considering 6% of our employment comes from the arts it's far too important to ignore." We need to start learning again! Sources in comments!! Sources http://www.education-reform.net... http://www.education.com...