Resolved: That NCLB is a negative policy and should be terminated.

I thank tastytaco for arguing in a timely manner and for making this a notable debate. :). I will start off with his arguments on my attacks and then go on to his attacks on my case. "Now, my opponent points out that the amount of African-Americans graduating in Minnesota is lower than the national average. He purposefully picks out a state that has a wider gap. But, I believe that it would be more effective if we look at trends of graduation rates." First of all, schools' statistics were determined flawed and inaccurate. http://www.associatedcontent.com... He brings up the example of Florida's graduation increase, but why trust that statistic? It seems that every other school has been in on this, and therefore, stats cannot always be trusted . Also, tries to manipulate you with stats from 1 year. http://www.associatedcontent.com... In this report about manipulated high school statistics, it says that other researchers have conducted their own independent studies and placed the true graduation rate around 68%, leaving the national drop out rate approximately 32%. It was conducted in 2005. Now, I know this is not the numbers of 2001-2003, but what it does mean that the chances for manipulation almost guaranteed. Therefore, graduation rates have been decreasing, dropout rates have been increasing (approx. 1/3) and achievement (which I will argue pretty soon here) has become blurred. Also, he fails to tell you of the fact that NCLB does not specify what methodology states must use to demonstrate a reduction in the test score minority gap. Please extend on that argument. To add to that, he doesn't talk of the rules of NCLB, and how strict they are. Because of that, the dropout rates have substantially increase, especially among minorities. These "achievements" have muffled and because of these rules, many dropouts are "quietly exiting the system". Which therefore leads to more "individualized studies" and should not be looked in a positive light. Against his next argument, he agrees with me that $27 billion dollars is a big deal, and he is correct in the aspect that it is under funded. Yet, NCLB sets impossible standards of "proficiency" for funding to continue. This seems illogical, does it not? The under funding is coming at the expense of other students and schools. His argument about his 4th, as I have proven that the states were inaccurate, he makes the point of the graduation rates increasing therefore, there are less pupils per teacher. With the increasing dropout rates, that's the only reason of individualized classes. Against his argument on his subpoint A, he's missing what the goal of terminating NCLB would lead to. Now, I'm not going to argue that NCLB encourages core classes, but shouldn't we have the choice of what we should learn? Yes, we do need core classes, but there are some that we don't need. For example, I need approximately 3 credits of Social Sciences in order to graduate. I want to go to college to major in psychology. As a result, I am basically wasting 2 hours and 45 minutes a week studying for that subject. What I would like to benefit from NCLB being shut down is the ability to choose what we want to study and what core classes will get looked at. He also gives an example of an article about reauthorizing NCLB. One of his statements was, "Schools will not get any additional help to address the challenge that approximately 1.2 million students fail to graduate from high school each year, more than half of whom are students of color." Now, I'd have to say that terminating it will actually give minorities a better chance of getting their diploma on graduation day. If you go to my statement about NCLB's rules, more kids can't keep up with the standards that NCLB is giving them. Chairmen George Miller has proposed reauthorization program, and an article commented on it: It will emphasize the need to narrow the social inequality and income gaps. But right here, in our country, the situation is every bit what I described in the opening paragraph. But the remedy prescribed by our business "philanthropeneurs" and our political leaders is exactly the opposite of what's needed. They've imposed a program that: • Transfers a massive amount of funds from cash-strapped schools and districts to for-profit companies. NCLB is already under funded, therefore they will be taking more money from schools that aren't "proficient." • Forces schools to focus narrowly on two subjects—remedial math and remedial reading. Consequently, inner city schools around the country are eliminating electives, closing libraries, and abandoning enrichment programs. Students won't have that much of choice considering electives will be gone. This is basically a code red on underachieving students. • Forces teachers to narrow their teaching to squeeze in the boatload of subject matter "standards" tested by their subject's standardized test. Teachers universally complain that there's no time provided for developing concepts and authentic learning—just time to cram in mountains of disconnected facts and skills. All in all, this takes out the teaching of schools. • Encourages "teaching to the test"—strategies for guessing the right multiple choice answer, rather than encouraging true thinking and learning— and encourages scripted teaching. Also, this doesn't focus on the learning part of school, it makes the mentality of getting the answer right paramount. • Destabilizes already battered inner-city areas by closing down schools and reopening new schools, only to have the new schools also be punished and then closed by NCLB. This merry go- round leads nowhere but down. Inner city schools already have graduation rates plummeting to below 50%. From http://www.foxnews.com... • Further destabilizes inner-city schools and neighborhoods by accelerating teacher burnout and, consequently, teacher turnover. Teachers whose kids don't do well on standardized tests are punished—bigger classes, less preparation time, more mind-numbing "professional development." • Treats teaching like an entry-level job into the business of education. Force out veteran teachers and hire an army of new teachers from elite schools, the majority of who will tell you in advance that they will be out of the classroom in two years. All in all, my opponent's figures with the national dropout rates can be easily tampered with, which leads to fictional views about NCLB (Don't always believe what you read). Achievements have become easily bent and flexated in order to make them seem as if they've been going beyond the standard. It is a severely under funded law, which leads to schools being falsely accused of "under-achieving", which also leads to them tampering with their scores in order to not become a victim of being cut-off from what little federal funding it has. By terminating it, we gain so many other opportunities and lose little, if not, nothing. Also, a new proposal is being looked at for reauthorization which will extremely limit students' choices on what to learn, therefore, cutting off the smart and intellectual people's education to make up for the one's not exceeding expectations. Students, schools, or education as a whole don't benefit from NCLB. Please, make it simple, don't make any ridiculous reauthorizations, and terminated. Please, vote PRO!!!