The Instigator
ksiegrist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
morningowl200
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Educational Reform should be in the hands of the Federal government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 41270
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ksiegrist

Pro

In 2001, President George W. Bush established the "No Child Left Behind Act". This was just one of the many laws that the Federal Government was involved in. This act increased the federal funding for education and gave public schools a standard based reform. Basically, what this did was give our public schools some sort of structure so that we actually have guidelines to follow. The purpose of the "No Child Left Behind Act" is to promote achievement and make sure that all students get the same equality that they deserve. I do agree that this is very reasonable, especially if a student has been trying so hard throughout school, but lacks a few small fundamentals that could be addressed later in life.
You might think that the states and private industries only contribute to Educational funds, but think again. Schools not only get funds from the Department of Education, but they also get funds from other Federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services" Head Start program as well as the Department of Agriculture"s School Lunch program. What I read was that the Federal role in education was just there basically for a backup plan so that if the states and private industries did not have enough funds, they would go to the Federal government for help. Like I said before, the Federal government does contribute to the funds for education already, so instead of the states and private industries always worrying about if they are going to have enough money or not, let the Federal government control and manage Educational Reform because they will always be contributing some sort of funds and the big problem will be solved. The Federal government also has contributed funds to the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children who live in poor urban and rural areas.
There are over 50 million children that attend our public schools throughout the U.S and we need to prepare them for the difficult future that lies ahead. The Federal government must play some sort of role in education, so that they could make a transformation in public schools to make them better. Classrooms are crowded, teachers are not well experienced and there are not enough supplies for every classroom. With the Federal governments help, we will be able to focus on the more important things for our education system. They can be helpful to the public schools by targeting six things, support the profession of teaching, promote and protect equal rights for students, establish high-quality education and support innovation and good practices to promote state improvement.
In the U.S there should be some sort of structure so that you don"t have three or four different things going on at once. It needs to be standardized. You could end up with different states throughout the U.S teaching different things and beliefs. I feel that if the Federal government is not involved, we may have parents voicing their own opinions on what their kids should be taught, which could lead to an uproar of angry parents. The Federal government also gives financial aid to public schools which a lot of the children"s parents like to hear, especially if they are having money problems.
So as you can see, without the Federal Government the U.S would have numerous problems.
morningowl200

Con

The government should not be in charge of education reform. Each individual state and district should be in charge of it"s own schools. They are in the best position to understand what their children need.

Any broad educational reforms that the government passes lumps all of the schools in America into one. Each school is so different and its students so unique that anything the government does will not have a great impact.

For example, I know students that go to two different public schools that are less than twenty miles apart. Each school has equal funding and they are relatively the same size. However, one of the schools was ranked number one in the state while the other is struggling with less than a 20% proficiency rate in nearly all of it"s subjects (as proved by the state wide testing) as well as a 30% truancy rate. If the government were to implant reforms that would effect both schools it would be nearly impossible to say that any reform would be necessary or to the benefit of both schools.
Debate Round No. 1
ksiegrist

Pro

Honestly, without the Federal governments help, we would have no structure. The states may be in the best position to understand what their children need, but the Federal government can do that as well. If the states controlled education, you would be having different information (lessons) taught all around the world, so what if a child moves to a different state? They are going to be learning two totally different things. If the Federal government was involved, you would have the same curriculum in all the states so that if something like that ever did happen, the child as well as the child's parents, wouldn't have to worry about missing something.
morningowl200

Con

I disagree. I think national testing would keep curriculum regulated. For example, if one state chooses to omit certain aspects of American History from its classes, the students would test poorly on AP tests. The same goes for English. If certain states and schools chose not to read a classic selection of appropriately challenging books, then their students would suffer when taking the SAT or ACT.
Schools will cater to make sure that what they are teaching will bring success to their students. Schools want to have good reputations and win awards for their matriculation and high testing scores. They wouldn't do anything (especially drastic curriculum changes) to put that in jeopardy.
Debate Round No. 2
ksiegrist

Pro

Well it seems to me that you kind of helped my argument. You're saying that if one state chooses to omit certain aspects of American History from its classes that the students would do poorly on the AP tests. So basically states shouldn't be in control of Education because they would be setting up their students for failure, whereas if the Federal government was involved, they would have a national curriculum and know what they are doing as far as tests go because they would be standardized.
morningowl200

Con

First of all, I was just using one of the scenarios from your round two argument. You said, "you would be having different information (lessons) taught all around the world". First, I'd like to point out that we already do have different information taught around the world, but I am assuming you meant to say country. Secondly, in my argument I was merely saying that if a state chose to change its curriculum like you mentioned, they would face consequences, namely in the form of their students AP and SAT performance. No state or school would ever want this for their students. The information they teach would be have, to some extent, stick to the information students will come across in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
ksiegrist

Pro

I apologize I meant to say country. But let me give you an example. Singapore is number 1 in the top 10 education preforming countries and the U.S isn't even ranked in the top 10 like we used to be. Why? Because Singapore has a national curriculum and they have structure, unlike the U.S. Most of the information that are taught in schools, no one uses it once they graduate High school because some of it is useless so how could they stick to what they are teaching? The Federal governments involvement should be there even if it is a little bit because then we would have a standard based reform and we would be getting taught things that will be helpful. Like I said in my first argument, what I researched was that the Federal government does play a role already, but they are basically just a backup if the states and private industries don't have enough funds. The Federal government should be involved so that if there was a crisis about money, we wouldn't have to worry about it because the Federal government will already be providing the funds that we need.
morningowl200

Con

If the Federal Government implanted a national curriculum, schools wouldn't necessarily benefit. I take a lot of pleasure in learning things in school based on what is relevant to my town. By implanting a national curriculum, you are erasing the individuality of each classroom. If a teacher had a passion for Steinbeck, but didn't necessarily have the same passion for Shakespeare, but the government said he had to teach Shakespeare, I can guarantee that the level of education would suffer. Students deserve to learn in an enthusiastic environment, where they can openly discuss topics that are relevant to them. And, you claim that in times of financial need, the federal government would be able to provide funding for schools. The federal government already pays the states to run schools. If the state funding is suffering, federal funding is suffering.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.