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

I would first like to point out two things. First, my opponent seems to have, if only implicitly, agreed with my observations and definitions. He has, however, attacked my contentions and made his own points, so I will rebut those. Second, I would like to once again stress that we are talking about an _IDEAL FORM_ of NCLB. On that note, I will now rebut my opponent's points. ==== REBUTTALS ==== R1: My opponent points out that 'the level is the same for everyone' and that standardized tests 'cater to average students only.' Only one of these is even true in the current, flawed form of NCLB, and the other is either not a problem or would not be present in an ideal form of NCLB. First, "The level is the same for everyone." It's really not. For example, in eleventh grade, there were three levels of English that I could have taken - normal, honors, and "Advanced Placement." That's three levels, not one. Further, is it even a problem to have exams the same for the same class? Let's look back at earlier grades, where state exams are much more common - let's say, 6th grade math. If the same text were given to all students in the sixth grade, then one could accurately determine their relative ability in math - but if the test were different for students who already seem to be smart, then the test scores could not accurately determine someone's relative ability to the other students. But even if one standard level of testing is indeed a flaw, it is a simple one to amend - multiple levels of testing would be created. They would still be standardized across each level, but they would not be standardized with each other. Even so, at least in earlier grades, it is useful to have one test for everyone, since this can help determine course placement. R2. My opponent claims that "students study the same subjects, specifically math and english" and that schools "will not focus on subjects such as History, Geography, Art, Etc., which can be as educational to a student as Maths or English." This is not true. While it may be true that current NCLB legislation is aimed toward the two subjects, it affects classes of other disciplines as well, Science being notable as one. But even if the focus is too specific, that is not a problem for an _ideal form_ of NCLB. Broadening the focus to include other disciplines would not be a large enough change for it not to be considered a form of NCLB, so an ideal form of NCLB might very well focus on all disciplines (assuming that applying to all disciplines rather than a few is in fact good). It matters little, though. Schools that are skimping in other subject areas should be punished, and even under the current system, parents are be able to move their students to a better school (see D2Mc). This competition prevents schools from not performing well, and if it is not sufficient, the system could be modified so that it is even easier for parents to switch their kids to a different school. R4. My opponent claims that NCLB is bad because it underpoulates and overpopulates schools. Ha...! Underpopulated schools, which would likely be schools which are not educating the students very well, deserve to fail - and this competition would make that happen. The overpopulation of good schools means that more good schools would have to be created to ease the burden. Luckily, there happen to be a bunch of failing schools whose carcasses can be improved upon greatly. This would of course require more good teachers and administrators, and a pay raise may be needed for these groups to accomplish this - a good end in itself. Accepting failing schools as they are and letting them remain as they are is not the preferred action. Rather, improving of bad schools through competition and additional funding is superior, and that is something an ideal form of NCLB successfully does. R5. My opponent contends that standardized testing inherently caters to the average rather than to those who are intelligent. This is not true, even in the current system. Studnets who are more intelligent should be placed in more advanced classes, which would have more advanced tests as a result. For instance, I myself took Algebra I in seventh grade and Geometry in 8th - even though that's two years ahead of most. I was not then given the same 7th/8th grade math exam as everyone else - I was given an Algebra I/Geometry exam instead. R6. My opponent contends that a narrowed curriculum creates problems. However, I have already addressed the claims of a reduced curriculum - an ideal form of NCLB would include provisions to avoid this (punishment for schools that do it and competition due to parents being able to switch their students out if they're not being taught enough). Further, an ideal form of NCLB does not necessarily have to be focused only on math and english classes. R7. My opponent contends that overcrowded schools creates problems, though I have already addressed that. If good schools are overcrowded, then more good schools will be created to deal with the problem - and they will be created from the schools that are failing. Further, overcrowded schools will be given more money (since funding is likely proportional to the amount of students taught), and if they also meet NCLB requirements, they will receive additional funding - combined, this will allow such successful schools to expand if necessary. I have rebutted all my opponent's points, and thus I will now allow him to give his closing statements and defend any of his points before I do the same. Until next round, I bid ye fare well.