Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

I accept my opponents definition of a standardized test in the sense that, in theory, standardized tests try to achieve the guidelines presented in the definition. I reserve the right to challenge the definition in later rounds. I will start by stating my contentions then refuting any brought up by my opponent. What is the point of school? To learn the last time I checked! Learning is defined as: acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information. [1] Schools seek to achieve this through the classroom; however, possible. I believe standardized testing impedes on a schools ability to to just that: help students learn. If we look at state's education systems today we will see that almost every states already require standardized tests for high students graduate. In fact 2/3 of students our already required to take them to pass. [9] This is an effect of No Child Left Behind requiring them to receive certain funding. [8] Looking at these we can see many of the failures that standardized testing plagues our education system with. [A] It's not fair to judge the ability of someone's entire academic career on whether or not they answer A, B, C or D on a test at one time. There is so much more to learning then that! What if you're a bad test taker? What if you got sick during the test? What if I have to go to the bathroom during the test? What if I'm just plain nervous? To know if you could pass or fail high school on the basis of 1 test it very intimidating to most students. To truly gauge a what a person has learned you must look at what they have achieved over the period of their academic career, not just 1 test. [B] Standardized testing funnels money from other subjects. If we look to No Child Left behind as an example, we can see that since it's passage 22 percent of elementary school leaders surveyed reported a decline in their art and music instruction. [2] If I want to be a preform in the arts when I grow up I won't have the skills I need because it was cut from my school to increase math education. This is not to say math is not important, but standardized testing that requires it to pass high school puts an overemphasis on it at the cost of other subjects. "Arts and cultural industries generate $1 .2 billion in revenues, $413 million in wages, and 19,500 jobs, totaling 6% of all employment in the County" [4] [C] High school exit exams have proven not to be any more beneficial then those not taking them in job readiness. Here are some highlights for a study done: "Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exit exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. " [3] If exit exams have no bearing a a student ability to succeed in a job, then why are we wasting time and money on them? [D] We are wasting time and money on exit exams. Not only our we wasting teaching time on taking a standardized test, but money as well. Consider the things that go preparing for a test and costs : Making the test (already costs thousands for many states), preparing for it (teachers must take time to be briefed on it, students also have to study (see point E for more info on that)), administering the test, (usually takes up to a day), grading it (think about having to grade MILLIONS OF TESTS, we do have electronic machines, but almost always someone has to go over it for mistakes. It also takes away time that could be used for teaching. )) [E] Teachers and students teach and study to the test. This creates a tunnel vision mentality where only the info that's going to be on the test is important. When you teach to the test you leave behind critical thinking skills. Just asking someone to answer A, B, C, or D does require one to look at a piece of information critically, instead their thinking only need graze the surface. [F] There's a strong luck component. If I only have to answer A, B, C, or D and I fail by one question, but the guys next to me passes by one question because he "guessed right" is that really fair? How does that demonstrate learning? Why should even some of a high schoolers grades to tied to something with such a high luck component? [G] If we wish to catch to other nations in the international ranking then we need to ditch standardized tests. Many other nations such as Ireland and Iceland do not use standardized testing as a means of grading students, instead electing to use performance based criteria to grade students. The ironic part of the whole situation is that they still score higher then us on international exams. Combine this with the fact we spend $9,666 a pupil [5] which is less then Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand, but still got outperformed on international standardized test. [6] [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyurl.com... [8] . http://tinyurl.com... [9] . http://tinyurl.com... Standardized testing does nothing but hinder learning. The resolution is negated. 1. Purposes of a diploma I fail to see how this relates the resolution whatsoever. 2. Standardized tests certify level of accomplishment A standardized test merely means you are accomplished in selecting A, B, C, or D as the answer. As you'll see in my contention [C] this idea is supported. If standardized tests verify accomplishment shouldn't we see a difference in job readiness? "The standards for the tests should be provided by the states and the tests built, administered, and graded by an independent organization, much in the way that SAT and similar tests are performed. " If each state has a different test, is it really standardized? "By keeping the tests basic, students who do not do well under the pressure of test conditions can still pass. However, student who cannot muster basic skills under test conditions cannot be expected to call up those skills under job pressures as well, so they ought not receive diplomas. " So by making an easy test everyone can pass it! Wait, doesn't that diminish the accomplishment of passing the test? This contention would seem to contradict your earlier statement: "The valid public purpose is to certify a level of competence to prospective employers and to schools beyond high school having admission standards. " 3. Standardized tests establish school performance Once again this school performance only assess what the test is administered on. State's tests are almost exclusivity focused on math, reading, and science. A school has a hard time offering other subjects is they receive funding solely based on the performance of these subjects. "Employers today consider high school diplomas only as proof that 18-year-olds attended school, according to a study released February 9 by the American Diploma Project, a consortium of three education-reform groups. . .. The project's two-year review of education in five states found that more than half of high school graduates need remedial classes in college, and most who attend college never obtain a four-year degree. Employers rated high school graduates as "fair" or "poor" on basic abilities. " Hmmm… considering that already ⅔ of students are required already to take standardized test, this would seem to prove that standardized tests are not working. My space is limited so I had to cut my contentions and response short. More to come in round 2. I request that my opponent please number his contentions so save space when responding to them. I look forward to the rest of this debate!