Cyber School

However nowhere did I ever suggest that the kids would use more programs to learn about computers. Instead I said they should have a more *complete curriculum* which could require more than one program. Additionally it was my opponent himself who suggested the students learn about the web (from R2: "They use only one program and that one program surly cannot teach them much of anything about the web" - Con). Con says cyber schools will make "the program" incredibly easy and whatnot. I don't think Con understands the nature of cyber school. When I took online classes, we used a program (Blackboard) which essentially was a medium for teachers and students to interact. The teacher would use the program to post assignments, start discussions, engage the class in forum debates, submit assignments, post notes, look at slides, etc [1]. This program has absolutely nothing to do with the class's curriculum -- it was simply an amazing internet tool to help run the class smoothly and allow for an engaging and educational experience. You can teach almost all subjects through this medium. Next, Con says the kids' social experience will not be that of "traditional" schooling. First, I don't think this matters considering they're still being socialized with outside activities. If socializing refers to social relationships, then this can just as easily be achieved outside of school, so I don't feel this is a strong contention. One researcher notes, "Child psychologists point out that children do very well when they can operate on a one-to-one basis or work in small groups of two or three or four. But strain often shows when they meet with classroom-size or larger groups for typical all-class activities. .. The quality of a child's sociality depends not so much on how many children he plays with as it does on his emotional stability, his sense of self-worth, and his unselfish concern for others" [2]. On that note, psychologist Donald Felker states, "From the time the children enter school they show a steady downward trend of self-concept as they meet the pressures of the early school years. An implication of this is that the very nature of school is detrimental in its effect on children's self-image" [3]. In that case, school can actually be detrimental to the socialization of some kids. Second, there was a time when home-schooling was the norm (think of our Founding Fathers -- they turned out okay). People had perfectly fine social relationships when that was the case; in fact, some studies suggest we're less social and more isolated than ever. Also, interacting with people via the internet is still interaction of some kind. There's a reason Facebook is called a "social network. " Finally on this point, cyber schools can easily have functions that allow kids to meet up and have outside activities (at the discretion of their parents of course). One major flaw in my opponent's criticism is that he keeps thinking of how cyber schools are *now* and assuming the standard will stay like that in the future. I disagree. I think as these schools got more popular, economic competition would spur a ton of great ideas to make this option a success. Nevertheless I'm not sure my opponent has even painted an accurate portrayal of what online classes are like now but I digress. Con's next argument is "Teacher give lectures and push students to do their work. " Quite obviously the same would apply to cyber school. However Con's real point here is that parents want their children babysat by an adult instead of sitting in front of a computer all day. I feel this contention is completely irrelevant. Con said in the opening round that he does not believe cyber school should be an option. For the parents who DO choose this option (i. e. , because they don't work or because their kids are older) cyber school should be permissible. Con cannot say parents don't want something they choose. My opponent writes, "I've read that colleges are skeptical of accepting Cyber Schoolers just for the fact that it's not the traditional way of schooling. " If cyber school got more popular, this would no longer be an issue. Moreover once again it should be an OPTION to choose cyber school regardless of this statistic. The student may not want to attend college, or may not think their chances of admission are severely affected. Regardless, Con's assumption is negated by the actual statistics. According to the research, home-schooled candidates very often become top college prospects thereby negating this point entirely [4]. Con writes, "Most kids would't go out looking for a club, they would just be happy they are out of traditional school. I know this because I am in traditional school right now. " This is a completely illogical and fallactious assertion that simply does not follow. How can Con attending a traditional school speak for those NOT attending traditional school? It seems he cannot relate to their experience whatsoever, so his opinion really has no bearing. Further it wouldn't be up to the children to get themselves socialized in outside activities; that would be the parent's job. Con also says that home-schooled kids don't get the advantage of gym class. Of course home-schooled kids can still get regular exercise, so this is not a strong argument. More importantly, Con mentions the home-schooled child potentially becoming lazy, unmotivated or a couch potato. My response is that it's not the government's job to ensure this is not the case. Parents are parents; legislators are not. My opponent contends that cyber school ought to not be an option, i. e. , be legally impermissible. However the State saying they want to make sure children don't wind up fat and lazy is clearly not a legal and especially not practical reason to prohibit such a thing. It would be entirely unconstitutional to even suggest this. Plus, kids sit down during most of school anyway. Because cyber-schooling would require less hours (no fluff time - just education) it would actually give kids even more time to go play outside or get moving. Finally my opponent completely disregards my presentation of the Luddite Fallacy. As I explained, the job market will shift. Yes programming requires more skill level than say cutting grass, but this rebuttal fails for two reasons. First, the mowing lawn job market will not be affected by cyber school's existence, so those whose only skill is to cut grass will still have a job. It will be the *teachers* Con suggests are out of work in this example. Clearly teachers are skilled and educated; I see no reason why they couldn't say change their college major from Education to Computer Programming (if they really wanted to get a job and make money). That about sums up my second point: the job market will shift because people will adapt to the demands of labor. Right now there may not be a lot of computer programmers, but as we become increasingly reliant on the internet, that will surely change - I assure you. Once again my opponent also makes the mistake of assuming the way things are now, or SOME (bad) cyber school policies will always be in effect. This of course is unreasonable. Programs can be altered; curriculum's can be tweaked; rules can be changed. Thus in conclusion, my opponent has not given us any reason to prohibit cyber schooling. Meanwhile, I've proven that kids can still become just as educated and socialized via this method. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.blackboard.com... [2] . http://vftonline.org... [3] Felker, Donald. Building Positive Self-Concepts. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN. 1974. [4] . http://www.post-gazette.com...