That on balance, the NCLB act has improved academic achievement in the United States

okay im going NC-->AC Con Contention One: Improvements cannot be causally linked to No Child Left Behind. lets break down this contention for what it really is. the first part of the NC asserts that states have decreased their standards. the second part basically focuses upon the notion that GPAs have continued to be bad. First off, I concede the fact that some states have lowered testing standards. however, if you look to the NAEP test which is a national test where standards have not lowered since the implementation, scores are at an all time high, and more progress was made on this test in the 5 years following the implementation of NCLB than in the previous twenty combined. Thus, if scores are increasing on a test where standards are not changing because of NCLB, we can conclude that NCLB has increased academic achievement in the united states. . http://www.ed.gov... To attack the second part of this contention, we must realize what we are really debating here. we are not debating whether academic standards are good or bad in the united states, but if academic achievement has improved since the implementation of NCLB. thus when the NEG asserts that a great portion of U. S. students go to schools with bad standards, we must realize that the NEG never actually shows the impact that NCLB has had on GPA, as they only give statistics from 2000, approximately three full years before the mandate actually came into compliance. furthermore even if the NEG can show you that grades have decreased, GPA is not as reliable as standardize tests. GPA is subject to grade arbitrary grade inflation, and fluctuates from state to state. where as the national test is reliable and bars are set to be regular for all students taking the tests. National test scores have increased thus deeming the Negative's 1st contention to be flawed and void. "Contention Two: Problems in academic achievement can be linked to the act's implementation. " I will go a little more line by line while addressing this contention NEG STATES: " "drill and kill" students with test preparation, narrow the curriculum, and take other steps to artificially raise test scores. test preparation is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, test preparation is key to several things within the educational process. for example, teachers are more motivated to stay with the curriculum instead of straying away from it through teaching arbitrary lessons that really don't enhance students knowledge of the subject they are in. this is validated by the analysis of Richard P Phelps in 2005 where he states that " what teachers do in their classrooms without standards is not necessarily "broader", in fact standards keep a more uniform course, and keep teachers teaching the curriculum rather than an arbitrary course not proven to enhance one's understanding or knowledge of the subject they are in. " test preparation is used quite rigorously throughout America's education system "i. e. ACT and AP tests". NEG STATES: "NCLB causes "teaching to the test," i. e. , teaching a scripted, narrowed and dumbed-down curriculum concentrated on memorization of facts and the lower-level thinking skills needed to pass the standardized tests. " This is a common myth that overshadows NCLB tests. Logically this cannot happen because teachers do not actually k know what are on these tests. This is validated by the analysis from Mathews, covers education for The Washington Post, in 2006 where he states : "the state test is nothing more than another useful guide and motivator, with no significant change in the way they present their lessons. Those who complain [about teaching to the test] are not really talking about teaching to the state test. Unless teachers sneak into the counseling office and steal a copy, which can get them fired, they don't know what's on the test. They are teaching not to the test but to the state standards Teacher and students work together to beat an exam that requires thought and analysis, not just memorization. If that is teaching to the test, let's have more of it. " Thus the claims made by the Negative in this avenue are inherently false. NS: "While average NAEP scores increased in math, it was at a much slower rate than in previous years. Results for grades 4 and 8 climbed dramatically in the 1990's but essentially flat lined from 03 to 05. " NCLB testing can be attributed to these losses because it forces teachers to teach test-taking skills that are irrelevant to the higher order thinking skills necessary to actually perform on national tests. " The truth to this argument is that improvement on these tests was fairly steady until the late 90's where we see a huge gain on these NAEP test scores. however, it starts to decline in the early 2000's before the actual implementation, meaning that on top of the lack of causation between this argument, there is no correlation. NS: "The number of schools identified for needing improvement increased from about 8,400 in school year 2004-2005 to over 10,700 in 2006-2007. " So instead of helping increase school performance, NCLB has rather increased the number of schools needing improvement. doesn't this negate your argument that route memorization skills are happening? that less states are meeting AYP? furthermore, couldn't there be other erroneous factors such as local reforms or district wide reforms that are causing this? where is the inherently? ON TO THE AFF CASE SUBPOINT A- First, kick the state test score debate, as national test scores are the real issue. cross apply the arguments I made earlier about why the Negative arguments about the national test scores are flawed. SUBPOINT B- This is undoubtedly the biggest part of this debate, and the primary reason why you are going to vote affirmative. my opponent concedes that states have increased time spent on math and reading due to NCLB. this is the most inherent argument that you will find in this round, for it is directly caused by NCLB as agreed on by both sides. the Negative argues that NCLB takes time away from history and science. however, the main focus of my contention is to assert that math and reading are fundamental to every subject on the academic spectrum, and cross apply to similar gains in those subjects as well. in reference to that argument I used a study by the Manhattan institute in 2008 which empirically concluded that " High stakes testing systems led to significant learning gains in low-stakes subjects such as history, science, social studies, and many others. Student proficiency increase[s] under high stakes sanctions primarily because the improvements that students make in math and reading enhances their ability to learn other materials" meaning that when kids gain those math and reading skills they are better at all of the subjects that the negative discussed. in response to his International science tests, what was the methodology of this study and where was it from? furthermore we can see that kids are better readers and are better at math when more than 235,000 more children in the u. s. have gained these skills just because of the mandated focus on math and reading. . http://www.ed.gov... CONTENTION 2 Where in the CEP study does it say that specifically? I don't ever remember reading that. that will have to be something that can be cleared up in your next speech. furthermore if 80 of students have gotten better and twenty percent have gotten worse, there has still been an increase, thus there must be an affirmation. CONTENTION 3: The negation fails to give any evidence to substantiate this Who is this according to? at the point where I give cited empirical evidence that because of the EET mandate teacher quality across all demographics has increased, don't the voters prefer my analysis?