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

Thank you for your response. ===REBUTTAL=== PRO: "In the world of jobs, as you progress, you get paid more. If you have a profession that requires intelligence, you will be paid more. The system works in that it rewards schools eager to push their students to their capacity and granting them more money because of this. Schools that do not attempt to push their students have their funds cut because obviously they are not working for the betterment of their students. " 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. PRO"1) I quote this article that: " It is important to note that neither IQ, future academic performance, nor life success can be predicted from an individuals race or ethnicity. " [Source: . http://social.jrank.org......] This means that results of IQ tests do not determine the total outcome of a persons success in life. Furthermore, SAT's are not IQ tests. " The articles I provided DID talk about standardized testing as a whole, not just IQ tests. NCLB focuses on different tests (SAT and EST) to gauge students intelligence. PRO:"2) The form of NCLB is an ideal form. My source says that: "Researchers have suggested several possible explanations to account for racial and ethnic differences in intellectual performance. The first explanation is that standardized IQ tests and testing procedures are culturally biased toward European-American middle class knowledge and experiences. " Taking this into account, it is obvious under an ideal form of NCLB, the tests would be balanced to include fair questions towards Hispanics, native American, European-American, African Americans and all other ethnicities of society. " 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. PRO:"Standardized testing does not mean students learn to the test. There are ways to combat this, namely, rotating the questions randomly each year. This way, students learn to the course. I would like to ask my opponent what he sees as essential skills for life. Subjects thought in school are essential to future jobs (E. G. Maths, Science) and therefore are beneficial to further life. Furthermore, standardized testing allows for the better recording of test results. Teachers quickly spot where students are lacking, and therefore have the ability to teach was used to be a weak point. Education is quickly bettered. However, this system is already ideal" 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.