student ought not be required to take standerdized exit exams to graduate

Now without further adieu. .. REBUTTAL: 1) Students should have to prove what they have learned throughout the year. There are several problems with this argument. a) Just because someone passes a test does not prove that they have actually learned anything. They could have cheated on the test; gotten lucky with multiple choice answers; guessed; or memorized the material but not have actually LEARNED the material. b) There are various forms of intelligence and methods of learning. Most standardized tests don't measure improvement, or the overall education one has received. c) Certain students perform better on standardized tests than others. Just because someone might not do well on a standardized test doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't learned the material. d) As you mentioned, teachers may only teach to pass the test. A real life example is attending an SAT course. I took one, and can say for certain that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about when taking the exam. I simply knew how to deduce the right answer on that one particular test - not learn the proper function of what I was being tested on - making your point against this a moot one. 2) People are often tested in the real world. a) My opponent has not proven that people are often tested on standardized tests in the real world. Now, if he wishes to argue that people are tested in general, that is too broad of an argument because I can say that students are tested in general as well. For instance, Con writes, "Not all tests are written on paper, and I believe those are the hardest tests. " This has nothing to do with the contention which discusses standardized tests specifically. b) Con asserts that these standardized tests will benefit the student in the long run. He hasn't provided any arguments or evidence that proves this is the case. ARGUMENTS: 1) First off, my opponent did nothing to back up his values or criterion. He has cited: Independent Rights --> The rights guaranteed to all people by their government or society. Reason --> It guarantees that all people are given the freedom they need in order to be themselves. Teleology --> The end's affect determines whether the means are moral. How has he incorporated these into any of his arguments? I fail to see how universal rights has anything to do with students being forced to take standardized tests. Moreover, my opponent hasn't proven why people need to take these tests to be free. And finally, as I pointed out in my rebuttal, I don't see how "the ends justify the means" in Con's argument considering that Con hasn't shown how these tests actually benefit the student (which was his main argument). 2) Test performance. a) As I said in my rebuttal, 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. 3) 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 (which again goes against your value) because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 4) Alternatives. a) Considering your presented values of freedom and equal rights, I posit that 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. 5) 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. 6) 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 his criterion of the ends justifying the means does not apply. Source: [1] . http://hsee.umn.edu...