On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States

My opponent has plagiarized from . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... If one doesn't site the link, it is still considered PLAGIARISM. Now onto through refutations of my opponents points:The counter repudiations will be in round 3. I would now like to begin: Contention #1- Standardized Testing results in incomplete educationPart A- Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education. The talked a lot about how teachers only prepare students for the tests therefore stopping a well rounded education. As I understood this point, teachers don't teach students everything, they prepare students for the test. However, on the contrary, standardized tests ensure a well rounded, balanced education. What is on the test is what the student needs to know which once again leads to a well rounded education. . http://www.educationreport.org... Consider a test of reading comprehension. Teachers may prepare their students by working on sample problems. Teachers may spend time instructing students on how to identify a passage’s main idea. They may also show them how to use context clues to figure out unknown words. Further, teachers may show students how to identify supporting evidence or conclusion sentences. These critical reading skills are precisely what teachers should be teaching anyway; in this light, teaching to the test may not be such a bad thing after all. Another criticism of teaching to the test is that other untested subjects do not receive as much attention. Rather than spending extra time at recess or in music or art, students practice for reading, math, science or social studies tests. Again, is this a bad thing? Students need a balanced curriculum, but the best thing we can do is to ensure that they are developing the cognitive abilities and skills that will prepare them for success in the workforce or higher education. Part B- Standardized testing mostly hurt minorities and the poor. However, I once again dont see the link. Studying is not about your skin color or your financial class. It is about hard work and dedication. If the poor work really hard to get a 300 on their NJAsk, theu can do it. If they dont, they will blatantly fail. The same goes for anyone in the upper class. If someone from the upper class works hard, they will get a scholarship and success. If they decide to waste their life while being a student, they will also receive the school to prison pipeline. Its not about heritage, its about dedication. Now onto a quick note about the disabled and language learners. Such people are given the easier gradient of the test or if the gradient stays the same, the expectation falls giving them the same chance for success. Contention #2- Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. Part A- One size does not fit all. My opponent went on about how the educators try to fit for the test. However, my opponents assertion and his evidence are completely irrelevant. And yet, I will attempt a thorough refuation. The one fit all approach and teachers trying to fit the tests is beneficial. What is on the test is what teachers should teach. For instance, on the third grade NJASk or PARK Test, students would be asked to measure angles and perhaps to multiply 5 digit numbers. Without the test, would the teacher be teaching the student 2+2? No. The hypotenuse? No. Teachers would be going over 5 digit number multiplication and measuring angles. About the one size fits all approach. .. Students who are on the same grade level are expected to know the same thing and the one size fits all in this case is a strong benefit of the education system. Part B- Tests do not cover material that is actually taught. However, tests cover what is taught. The teachers spend a lot of time preparing students to take the test. Educators give out practice tests to give students a feel about what the tests are about. If afterall what is on a standardized test is not knows by the student, then there is probably a problem. The teacher probably does not teach what is needed. Standardized tests have material that the student NEEDS to know. If they dont know it, school curriculum needs to be changed. Contention #3- Standardized testing hurts teachers. Part A- Teachers loose control of the curriculum. However, as I have mentioned numerous times, the teachers decide what they teach students and so does the education system. Of course, there are certain basics. These basics are tested just to make sure that the teachers are doing what they need. Standardized tests breifly go over what was studied throughout the year. If a teacher taught the required curriculum, whats the worry? None. Teachers dont loose any control over curriculum. WHAT THE TEACHERS TEACH IS ON THE TEST. Standardized tests are based on what teachers are expected to teach by the program. Tests dont provide the curriculum. The tests rely on the teachers and education program. In simple language, what the teacher SHOULD teach is in the test. If the teacher is teaching grade appropriate information, there will be no detriment to teachers. What the pro stated was that standardized testing directs the curriculum. However, the standardized testing is what teachers need to teach nevertheless. Part B- Teachers loose control of content and scope. They talked about how activities such as art will be squeezed out of the program. However, that is absolutely untrue. Activities such as art are required for the student program. The whole day is not spent on language arts and math. There is a schedule for every singl homeroom.