The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
crackofdawn_Jr
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 7403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

I thank my opponent for participating in this tournament

DEFINITIONS:
Ideal - a conception of something in its perfection(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

ARGUMENT:

1A: Accountability

"The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken
out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards." (http://www.ed.gov...)

We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better.

1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem

With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use.

1C: NCLB is effective
This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards.
(http://www.ed.gov...)

Thank you.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I thank my opponent for sending me the challenge to start this debate.

Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

<>

Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on.

<>

That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws.

<<1C: NCLB is effective
This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards.>>

Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose thier jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT:

1A: Realistic

The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve.

1B: Resources

School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class.

1C: The Future

In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged.
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

Thank you for responding to this debate.

"Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical"

This definition is irrelevant to this debate, as we are discussing an IDEAL form of NCLB.

"Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on."

These flaws only appear because the law in its form now is not ideal.

"That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws."

Again, we're talking about an ideal form of the law.

"Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose their jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department."

Not if the schools are able to improve based on the information they have gotten from the tests, as they would in an ideal form of the law.

"The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve."

The goal of NCLB is not to raise reading proficiency to 100%. If that were true, the passing standard would have lowered. They have not, in fact, standards for proficiency has raised.

"School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class."

Saying that in many schools, students switch classes based on subject, equal time is given, and students learn all subjects equally. Using the info they have gotten from tests, teachers can know how to better improve in teaching their students.

"In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged."

With an ideal form of the law, the standards will not be too high, nor will the punishments be.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I'm leaving for Dallas in about 10 minutes so I won't be able to post this round. I'm sorry.
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

I'm sorry you couldn't post that.

Thak you.
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

crackofdawn_Jr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Nvm, I gave you my points to even it out.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Why do I have 7?
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Dang, I didn't quite understand the resolution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
ournamestoolongcrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
ournamestoolongcrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ournamestoolongcrackofdawn_JrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07