students of public high schools ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate

Con begins by sighting the value of education. I agree, and throughout this debate I will demonstrate how valuing education has nothing to do with making standardized tests mandatory. Moreover, I will prove how the implementation of mandatory standardized tests to graduate actually hinders and often discourges education. REBUTTAL: 1) Extrinsic Motivation. a) Con writes that extrinsic motivation should be the standard because it stimulates an individual to perform certain tasks despite a lack of interest. The counter to that is simple: If students aren't interested in the material, they will have a harder time of grasping or understanding the material than if they learned about it in a fun and yet educational way. If you don't spark student's interest, then they won't be encouraged to learn or develop a self-motivating passion for knowledge or natural inquisition usually necessary for success. Focusing strictly on passing tests instead of understanding the concepts behind the lessons discourages education and instead promotes just learning how to get by via passing the exams. b) Con also notes that people are rewarded in the long-run once they achieve the goal of passing the exams. However, as I will point out throughout the debate, there are several flaws with the exams itself that may prevent even competent individuals from passing the tests. The frustration of failure may discourage students from learning in general. 2) Test necessity. a) Con asks, "Should we really disregard a system that tests the basic skills needed to perform well in a professional occupation? " Yes. If a certain occupation requires specific skills, I don't see anything wrong with those employers issuing an exam to test candidates in order to ensure that they are capable of properly functioning in the workforce to accomplish certain tasks. This is done all the via the CPA exam, the bar exam, etc. I'd argue that they are necessary because they prove that people are capable of performing the duties of the jobs that they were hired to do. However, Con fails to demonstrate why these exit exams should be necessary for proving anything upon exiting from high school. Students should be able to graduate simply for demonstrating that they understand the material that they are expected to. There are other ways to demonstrate this knowledge aside from general standardized tests. b) Con says that these exams are "Very accommodating to graduating students in that they will be able to assess the areas they need to improve upon to be ready for the real world. " You'll notice that Con has failed to explain how everything required to know on an exit exam from HS is applicable in the "real world. " 3) Problems with the test. a) Con writes, "Yes, measured gains are noisy and unstable. Yes, socioeconomic and demographic factors have some influence on measured student progress. And indeed, scaling is a problem. No standardized test is perfect, yet we use them all the time. .. " Okay, how is a test which results are unfair, unstable and unreliable a GOOD or useful thing? b) Just because we "use them all the time" isn't an argument in favor of the tests. That's an appeal to tradition fallacy. 4) Jobs. The idea that exams should be allowed because people shouldn't be picky about what job they get in today's economy is irrelevant (and kind of absurd). 5) Diplomas and College. Con writes, "Without exit exams, colleges may not look to a diploma as a means to judge what a student has learned. " If exit exams are mandatory, why is a diploma necessary? I say that if a student receives a diploma, that should be enough. .. Or, the college can issue individual entrance exams that students need to pass in order to gain admission to the college. On a final note, colleges usually determine admission based on SATs or ACTs. Now I'm not sure about everywhere in the country, but at my school, SATs weren't mandatory. Regardless, if a college requires them, it should be the student's decision/responsibility to take them. ARGUMENTS: 1) Test performance. a) Not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. Some people panic, get sick, choke, etc. These tests are very intimidating to students who sometimes obsess over the results. Therefore one's performance on the rest is really not a very accurate indicator of how each individual performs. b) A lot of students suffer from things like dyslexia or other learning disabilities which inhibit them from performing up to par on the exam. As such, these individuals may never have a fair chance at passing the exam. On the other hand, if they're given an advantage (such as longer time to complete the test), this might not be fair to the other students who are not given more time despite their own personal (sometimes undiagnosed) need. Either way, there's hardly a way to make these exams universally fair for everyone, which goes against your very own value and criterion. 2) Learning Inhibition. a) Preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. b) Because people are intelligent in different ways, this test is discriminatory because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 3) Alternatives. a) If one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. These can be discussed amongst administrators, school boards and teachers in each individual district and vary upon school, class or possibly even individual so long as they show sufficient skill in designated areas. 4) Usefulness/Uselessness a) Some people need to graduate HS to accomplish goals such as entering the military or other specific fields of training. I posit that some of the knowledge required on the exams will have nothing to do with some individual's direction in life, but because they need to graduate HS in order to tend to their other options, the negation of this resolution stands in their way of success. This again seems to go against Con's value. b) Studies show that those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society [1]. c) While standardized tests may be useful in finding out what one knows and does not know (in terms of what they should or are expected to know), this should have nothing to do with whether or not they GRADUATE. Instead, they can be tools or guides used to determine which areas a pupil may need more help or focus in. The graduation aspect is also supported by the reality that different schools in different towns and states require different things to pass. Not all standardized tests are the same, and as such a student from a different school may also have an unfair advantage. This again does not seem to uphold Con's value. 5) Costs a) Creating the tests, preparing for the tests, giving the tests and grading the tests all cost money. Because Con has not proven that these tests are necessary OR beneficial (or even reliable or relevant), then this cost is unnecessary and therefore an unfair tax burden. Source: [1] . http://hsee.umn.edu...