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

Observations: 1) He agrees that his job is to show that NCLB increases the prosperity of our nation. He later states that all he has to do is show one case in which NCLB could help. Increasing the prosperity of our nation does not entail simply showing one benefit, but rather if the benefits are bigger than the negatives. This makes his second observation void, since he states that all he needs to do is show one benefit when he clearly agrees he must show it increases the nation's prosperity. 2) This point is voided by his agreement in observation 1. It remains that my job is to show how NCLB is not beneficial. 3) Since Pro still carries the burden of proof, he is to show what an ideal for of NCLB would look like. Here he does not state that giving phone numbers and names to army recruiters is a flaw. I think it's increasingly clear that if he does not say that this is a flaw that it is to stand for an ideal form, since this is a large part in NCLB. Rebuttal: 1) States define the Standards - My opponent finally attempts to give an example of how an ideal form would work, albeit vague. He believes the national government would step in and help define the standards. The problem this runs into is the constitution. The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the national government is a reserved power given to the states. This would include setting the standard, especially education. If indeed an ideal form would allow the national government to step in, it would be unconstitutional. I would consider that being unconstitutional is not beneficial to the nation. I believe my opponent would agree that not violating the constitution is a good start for a law. As you can see there is no way to change this and that this is a problem that cannot be avoided; ideal state or not. This makes the opponents second point on this topic mute and re-instills the validity of my source, since this problem exists in any form of NCLB. My opponent does not do anything to combat this problem, meaning it still stands. My argument from round 1 upholds. Please flow it into round 3. 2) The use of standardized tests - Once again I stated that the use of standardized tests applies in both an ideal form and the current form. My opponent gave no ways this could be avoided. While this is an ideal form of the plan, ideal people are not involved. Teachers are humans and naturally they are going to do what they can to ensure their students do well on the test they are given. The current form isn't designed for teachers to teach to the test, but as humans they are inclined to do so. There is no way around this. Once again my opponent doesn't refute this point and it goes hand-in-hand with the resolution since standardized tests are part of NCLB. My argument from round 1 upholds. Please flow it into round 3. 3) Schools receive funding based on scores. - My opponent believes an ideal form would remove the benefits to remove poorly performing students. This means he'd remove performance based funding to schools, since this is what drives the schools to remove underachievers. The whole system of NCLB is predicated on the idea of performance based funding. Since he says it's a problem, then he's saying the system of NCLB is flawed. An ideal form of a system that is flawed does not mean the system is good. Remember that an ideal system doesn't mean that the teachers and administrators are perfect. They are humans, and they are inclined to do what's beneficial to them. If he is to remove the benefits of removing poorly performing students, then the system is a failure. I believe he realizes the problem he has presented himself. I will concede this point and accept his argument, which means he is saying the idea of NCLB is flawed. Since the idea of NCLB is flawed, it doesn't matter whether the system is ideal or not. Once again, a perfect form of something flawed, is not a good thing. Please flow the argument that the idea of NCLB is flawed into round 3. 4) It costs money - Since my opponent has given no ideas of what an ideal form would look like, one can only assume it will cost more as you look at progressive data. According to my source NCLB costs a lot of money and "improvements" would cost even more. In no way does my opponent show that this wouldn't happen. Since I gave actual data as opposed to opinion, my argument holds more weight. My opponent did nothing to refute this point, therefore my case in round 1 stands. Please flow my fourth point from round 1 into round 3. I have given points that both affect the current form of NCLB and an ideal form. I didn't simply give flaws in the laws of NCLB, but rather flaws in the ideology of NCLB. The ideology of NCLB is something that is part of NCLB in any form, thus they are flaws in NCLB which shows that NCLB is NOT beneficial to the welfare of the United States. I believe I have clearly given details and sources as to why NCLB won't work whereas my opponent has only given vague generalizations and has given no details as to how NCLB would be beneficial. I have clearly showed that the idea of NCLB is flawed and that is something even my opponent conceded in his third contention. Thank you and I await my opponent to usher in the 3rd round. Good luck.