School Year Extension

Now onto the debate. .. Pro begins, "I am not saying that with more days of school kids will have the same knowledge, I am not saying that the kids will be on the same page I am saying that teachers will be able to teach the students with that extra time. " I see no reason why the teachers cannot just teach the kids after school if that's what their parents want (educational after school programs already exist; I attended one) or teach the information to them the following year - especially if the length of time added to the school year is not significant. Pro reiterates that he and some classmates want more time in school to learn. Once again, that is his preference and he and others are free to pursue intellectual interests outside of a classroom context. The public school system is not, should not and was never intended to be the only place to learn. I am not arguing that knowledge is bad. I am encouraging it being taught in other ways. I believe that one of life's best teachers is experience. There is a lot you can learn outside of a classroom. Pro neglects to consider this. For instance, playing baseball after school might seem frivolous to Pro; it is just a sport after all. However the social intereaction and experience gained from that opportunity might teach one about team work, dedication, practice, leadership and more. These are invaluable life lessons for both one's professional and personal life, which are undoubtedly equally important. Pro continues to say that school has been greatly beneficial to his education and I will not deny the importance and merit of a good education. However, that is not a contention in favor of supporting the resolution. Learning is good does not translate to school years should be extended, given the other problems and effects of such a change. Now at this point, I'd like to call Pro out for exhibiting rude conduct. Hilariously, while attempting to make me appear silly he has actually asserted completely inaccurate facts. He writes, "All right you seem to not be getting my point on DROPPING OUT. As we all should know without a HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA you can't go to college. It is a simple fact! " Actually, it is entirely possible to attend college - both public and private - without a HS diploma [6]. Pro continues, ". .. but in Russia at age 16 you can study for a university and go to learn trade skills. In America you need 4 English courses, 2 science and 3 maths. If this checks out you need at least 4 years of High School to get 4 English courses. " First of all, Pro is again wrong with the facts about requirements. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with extending the school year, so this contention ought to be dropped entirely. Even if we encouraged students to seek out trade school at 16 like in Russia, that doesn't argue in favor of making the school year longer. My opponent suggests that a certain amount of time is already devoted to athletics (for example), such as Phys Ed class. Therefore, we should encourage students to spend more times studying other things that are harder to learn such as languages. Once again, Pro completely misses the point that he keeps trying to force what he thinks is important for everyone to learn. While I mentioned outside sports hobbies, what if people wanted to spend their free time learning a particular trade or skill, volunteering, having an outside job or something else they pursued outside of the current school year? Pro is in no position to say what students should be learning based on his own perceptions or interests. Language might be hard for him to learn but come easily to other people. Some learn languages on their own (Rosetta Stone, anyone? ). In terms of whether or not we can afford to extend the school year, Pro simply asserts that I am wrong and says we can absolutely afford to do this. First, we see that he does not dispute the reality that this would indeed place a financial burden on us. Next, we must see that Pro did not explain or prove in any way whatsoever that we had money to invest in this unnecessary and perhaps even non-beneficial measure to extend the school year. A quick look at the U. S. National Debt Clock shows that we currently do not have extra money to fiddle around with [7]. Even if politicians spend money elsewhere in useless or futile endeavors (which is absolutely true), that is not a good enough reason to add to the problem and continue it here. Pro says he has proven in every round that longer school years are better. I will dissect every one of his claims. He says, "Longer school years are better for teachers and student. They help them learn more. If we learn more we are better suited for life. " Again, I have proven (a) that students can learn the same information outside of school, (b) that the benefits of more knowledge might not outweigh the potential cost - not only monetary but also in turning students OFF from school -- a contention I've repeated throughout the debate but which Pro completely ignored -- (c) students can learn different information outside of school, and explore other opportunities they may not have the time to if they are in school longer. Pro's videos do not prove how stupid the average American is in any way whatsoever. Nevertheless, I could easily show stupid people from other parts of the world. This is not a strong contention in favor of the resolution. These people spent the same amount of time in school as my parents (who did not attend college; in fact my father dropped out of HS at age 16). However both of my parents know more than the people in his videos seem to. What does this prove? That the amount of time spent in school does not necessarily translate to more knowledge. We see this because some people have spent far more time in school than my parents yet are not anywhere near as intelligence. Throughout this debate, Pro completely failed to make a case against this. Anyway, Pro actually argues in my favor without knowing it. Regarding the woman from the game show, he points out, "She had multiple choice answers and she actually completed High School and she got this question wrong. " Assuming a grade school student got it right, we can once again see that more education does NOT necessarily mean greater intellignce, or more importantly, retained knowledge. This is a significant contention in my favor. Pro's videos actually helped me out, so thank you. Next, Pro tries to validate standardized tests. He says, "If someone doesn't know Math or English they aren't making it far in life. I know that for a fact. " This is not true at all. Some of the most intelligent and successful people I know have absolutely no grasp of basic algebra concepts (from middle school). These tests are known to be inaccurate and insufficient measures of intelligence. Nonetheless, this was never meant to be an argument in Pro's favor to begin with. I was pointing out that just because students might achieve a certain score doesn't mean that they are smarter and more successful than one with a lower score. It only shows some students are better test takers and/or were more prepared for the test. There are innumerable prep courses for standardized tests that an teach one how to get a great score, even if they are completely incompetent in real life. Pro appeals to authority when he says, "If the president wants it done that is a good reason. " That is like saying it was a good reason to kill the Jews because Hitler wanted it and Hitler was the chosen leader of his country. All of Pro's points have been successfully negated. Please extend all of my points that Pro failed to address. SquadSix, it's been fun debating you. Good luck :) [6] . http://www.nytimes.com...[7] . http://www.usdebtclock.org...