High School Education should be simplified and focus on specialization.
Debate Rounds (5)
1. Math should be only one to two years. The students will learn only the basics.
2. English should focus on writing persuasive and expository papers as well as reading non fiction. In addition public speech should be taught.
3. Science should focus on anatomy and medicine only for people to understand what is going on in the body
4. Social Studies should focus on using historical evidence to relate it to solving modern day problems.
5. Career classes like business essentials and architecture should be taught and go into further detail. There should be more classes like these.
6 Career classes should teach at a college level and students should have opportunities to obtain college credits for these classes.
7. The core classes should not build on each other and could be taken simotaneousely . For example, a person could take government and history in the same year and not take any sciences.
1. People do not need to know some of this stuff.
Why does an accountant need to know what is inside of the mitochondria of a cell? They don't. So do not make them learn it. If a student wants to pursue biology, then have them take a class specialized in medicine or something like it.
2. College is crazy expensive so people should get as much out of the way as possible while it is free.
By offering college credits, the school encourages people to decide what they want to be when they grow up and can help out financially without hurting the school financially.
3. America has basically no hope of competing with Europe with regards to education, so stop trying.
Concentrate less on the specific stuff and more on what is needed for an average person's life. Then teach specialization.
4. Students learn things that interest them better.
If a student likes psychology, they will learn psychology better than a person who like business while the person who likes business will learn business better than the person who likes psychology. I know that some students are smarter and could provide exceptions, but I am simply generalizing.
5. Schools should focus more on problem solving.
While knowing the parts of the cell may be useful for the next test, learning how to solve political problems will stick with a person every time they vote.
6. Schools should teach how to use what they know through writing and speaking.
My plan for English and Social Studies explains this.
How this plan will benefit us.
1. Everything learned will have value.
2. Less money will be wasted on teaching students things that are useless except for a few students.
When debating, use logic with limited facts. I would like you to post your plan for education reform or if you would just want to keep it the same so we can debate plans. Keep education plans at a high school level.
Round 1 is posting your plan, the rest is fair game.
1.Math should be taught all four years. There will be options of which four classes are taken.
2.English classes should focus on persuasive and expository writing as well as literature.
3.Science should be what it is now, 4 years with various classes to chose from.
4.Social Studies should focus on more practical government/economics type classes, but still teach history.
5.There should be some advanced core classes that provide college credit.
6.Core classes still build on each other with the exception of social studies classes.
7.Computer skills classes should be mandatory.
8.All else should remain as it currently is.
1.Math builds logic, a necessary skill.
2.Persuasive and Expository writing is useful and there are many benefits to reading.
3.Math and science is the basis of our technological society and must be taught.
4.Core classes will always build on each other. The reason we aren't teaching 3rd graders physics is that they have not learned the important information necessary to comprehend it yet.
5.Most jobs in America require regular computer use.
6.Most high school students have not fully decided their career and should be exposed to as many options as possible.
1. Math teaches many important skills, but why would any normal person need to learn trigonometry, parabolas, hyperbolas, or virtually anything people learn today. People should learn things like math of finance and basic graphing and limit it to that. People who want to pursue a career in which they would use the more specific information can take a class on it.
2.I completely agree with teaching expository and persuasive writing, but I believe people should learn to read these types of writing as well as things like business letters and informational things like encyclopedias. People should focus on reading for information for things like research papers. Literature is good for people who find it interesting and should, again, be optional. Why does an accountant need to read Shakespeare while they could be reading something that will build their research skills.
3.Yes, science and math is important for the technological development of society. However, how is teaching people what is inside of the mitochondria of the cell. How is being able to diagram electrons important for most people. These skills are important for people who find it interesting and want to pursue it as a career. Again, I say make them optional. These things would be useful to people who are in chemistry and mathematics careers but not anyone else. I will end this point with what is the last time you have used hyperbolas or electron configurations.
4. I agree completely with what you say for social studies.
I disagree with your idea of having classes build on each other. I would like it if students could take three different English courses in one school year and be done with English for all of high school. You claimed that third graders cannot learn physics. Of course not. Elementary and middle school education has to build on itself. However, high school should teach a variety of useful information and set people up for careers and life.
5. I have taken a computing in the modern world course where I learned programming, web design, animation, and computer history. Most of this will not be used in many jobs, but will be used for computer programmers. This computer course that you would require did not once teach research and typing. It did not teach internet use. It taught nothing that would be used in most jobs. I would not require a computer class but would emphasize using computers for typing papers and research.
6.You are right, I would say 1 in 2 high school students do not know what they want to do when they grow up. However, many have an idea of what field they desire and even those who do not know what interests them and they will study it. Even if, big if, they do not know this, they can try a variety of classes to see which they like best.
Why my idea should be supported.
1. Fewer resources would be wasted teaching students what they do not want to learn.
2. College would not be such a huge expense because students would be in it less time.
3. Problem solving skills developed by my social studies program would improve in students.
4. People would learn to write with courses developed specifically for writing. I have found writing to be a skill getting increasing weaker.
5. Since illness and going to doctors are parts of life, teaching people medicine and anatomy as stated in my plan for science would set people up for this unlike the current plan.
6. I have found that many high school students do not have opinions on politics which is not acceptable for people who would be voting in just one to four years. My social studies plan would develop opinions in students without forcing opinions onto students. This is because my plan involves solving problems and in order to solve problems, one has to form an opinion on how to solve these problems. This plan would reduce the problem of ignorant voters.
This plan saves resources, increases the quality of student life, encourages college education, and prepares students for life. There is no reason, after this debate, this plan should not be taken seriously and adopted.
1.Math is important in today's society. Studying math "helps with organizational and problem-solving skills."  It also is used in many jobs . Finally, it opens up the left side of the brain that helps with logical reasoning and critical thinking.
2.Public speech is not very useful in most occupations.
3.It is important that people know more about how the world around them works, not just their body.
4.It would be unreasonable to offer a real selection of career classes at a high school. There would not be enough room or money. We have colleges for that.
5.There is no reason for college level classes at high school to cost any less than if they were at college, so the cost would just be transferred to the high school.
6.Talking multiple of one kind of class one year then forgetting about it for the next three years would not be beneficial. The students would be less likely to remember what they learned if they can get it all over in one year instead of learning more each year.
7.Having the option to only take the classes you are interested in would be a problem. Students should be exposed to as many subjects as possible to aid in the career decision process. Also, most students go to school because they have to, not because they like to learn, so most students would just choose the easiest classes.
8.The problem solving skills from social studies would be developed in math instead.
9.My plan also involves writing skills, so they would improve in both plans.
10. Classes like government in my plan would give the students opportunities to form political opinions.
Defense for my plan
1.The idea behind required math classes is less about learning to graph a specific function then it is about learning to use your brain. As I said earlier, math helps with organization, problem solving skills, reasoning, thinking with numbers, and critical thinking.
2.The idea behind teaching literature in schools is getting people to read more. The book choice would be up to each school, but I would suggest more modern novels to get students to like reading and to continue reading after high school. Reading helps stimulate your brain, expand your vocabulary, and increase creativity.  This is a habit that can be used no matter what career is chosen.
3.The reasoning for teaching more science is the same that the Pro uses for biology and anatomy. It is just as important to know how the rest of the world works as it is to know how your body works.
4.As I said earlier, if students were given the option to take all of one subject in one year, there would be far less retention of information. This would be a waste of time and money.
5.While a computers course like Pro suggests sounds fun, I was thinking something a little more basic. The computer skills class at my school teaches keyboarding, word processing, spreadsheet and power point use, and basic internet navigation. These would be very useful skills because over half of the jobs in America require computer use. 
6.As I said before, students should be exposed to as many subjects as possible to aid in the career decision process. Those that already know what they want to do will still benefit from additional education.
My plan helps educate students on a broader scale so they are more intelligent, not just able to do a single job. Students are not forced to decide the course of the rest of their lives at the beginning of high school and are exposed to all subjects. Finally, my plan emphasizes the subjects most applicable in the modern world, while the Pro just pushes them aside.
1. Of course math is important in society. People need to learn the basic functions, algebre, and some geometry. All of this can be taught in one year as opposed to dragging it out into extremely detailed classes. In addition, these things are used in many jobs, as you have previously stated, but matrices, conics, and trigonometry is not. Furthermore, my social studies plan would open the left side of the brain as opposed to math so this point
2. Public speech in the typical sense is may not be very useful. However, simply being able to present an idea to two or three people is required for most jobs. Teaching this class would teach people how to speak correctly and builds verbal presentation skills. These skills are basically nonexistent in many students today.
3. How does knowing how the world around them works beneficial to an accountant. Knowing how the world around them works is beneficial to scientists. However, knowing how the body works is useful for anyone who goes to a doctor or gets sick. Everyone.
4. It is reasonable if the core classes are cut. In addition, teachers can teach different subjects in the same classroom. For example, the business essentials teacher can also teach the legal environment of business, in the same classroom. No additional staff or room is needed for this.
5. Students pay tuition fees at colleges, not government schools. Schools already offer classes like architecture, I am simply advocating going in depth in programs like architecture and offering opportunities for college credit. Then, you do not have to take it at college. Then you do not have to pay for it.
6. They may forget some things, but when something is hammered into you like writing, you will remember the important things. For example, if, for English, a school offers Persuasive comp., Expository Comp., and Public Speech, the student could take all three at the same time if they wanted to. These classes would not build on each other so they could be taken at the same time or in any order. If the students took the classes one per year in the order mentioned above, they would still possibly forget persuasive anyway, just like students forget how to write the paragraph styles taught just in ninth grade.
7. You run off of the assumption that students hate school and will always take the easy way out. You also claim that students are clueless about their future. Yes, many students do hate school but they will still stick with their favorite classes. If a student loves architecture, they will take it over accounting(which for the purpose of this explanation is the easiest class), which is completely opposite of their love and can be boring.
8. Yes, social studies will develop the skills that you claim would be lost by cutting math to one or two years.
9. No disagreement
10. Both plans push for students to form political oppinions
Now to criticize your plan.
1. That is what math is about now, and this is taught by graphing specific functions most often.
My plan would help teach organization, problem solving, reasoning, thinking with numbers, and crititical thinking in a much shorter amount of time with real life problems.
2. People should read more. But, reading should be more research oriented. Reading encyclopedias and non fiction books will teach people how to research and builds critical reading skills. Research can be used in all jobs and in real life. If people want to read fiction, they can do so. But it will not be emphasized in school.
3. It is not as important as medicine and anatomy actually. People will always get sick and go to doctors. These classes, or class if they are combined, can be used much more then knowing about single and double replacement chemical reactions. People get sick everyday, but people rarely ever mix random chemical to find a precipitate.
4. I have already disproven this fact.
5. Computer classes will always be or will become increasingly detailed and thus, useless. I emphasize using computers in all the other classes without offering general computer classes. I would still offer web design and programming classes for those who want to pursue computer programming careers.
6.As I stated before, people already know what they are interested in, they will pursue this and the rest of the classes would be about preparing them for basic life.
In all reality, my plan emphasizes subjects most applicable in the modern world. My plan teaches life skills and general knowledge you need to know to get through life. I do not care about making people more intelligent, intelligence means nothing if it is not used. My plan emphasizes using a person's intelligence. My plan involves developing knowledge in what a student finds interesting. In all reality, I find that today's high schools force students to make career decisions today, and I believe my plan will actually take the pressure to know exactly what they want to do off of the student. In addition, students will also be exposed to different things when the useless core classes are cut down. The students have more class openings for them to fill with things that they find interesting.
To sum my plan up:
My plan is about developing a students interest, encouraging problem solving and the formation of opinions, and cutting classes that teach information average people do not use on a daily basis.
1.Math is important to society, as I have said before. Math and science are the most important subjects in our modern society and the more that is known about them, the better off students are. I do not quite understand what your social studies plan is or how it applies here. Could you please explain it in more detail?
2.Yes, public speech is a nice skill, but not as important as reading. If the Pro could give more specific detail than "most jobs", this argument might be acceptable, but everyone can and should read for the benefits I have stated above.
3.The Pro's argument against science has no logical basis. He argument is pretty much that anatomy and medicine are important because you get sick a lot, but knowing how the world works is not important because you aren't in the world very often. You are in the world and exposed to physics and chemistry just as often as you are exposed to anatomy. Also, just because you get sick doesn't mean you need to know anatomy. The doctor knows enough without you contributing your knowledge.
4.It would still be impractical to get a real selection of career classes in a high school even without core classes. Colleges are much bigger than the average high school because they need all the room to fit all the classes. While a lot of different subjects might fit at a high school, it would be impossible to go into depth on them.
5.The Pro misunderstands my argument about the cost not decreasing. It is true that the students would pay less, but the cost would not just vanish. The government would have to pay the price for college level education. It would be impractical to have the government pay for college classes for high school students with the current financial state it is in.
6.Classes building on each other would help retention of information because previously learned ideas would be used later on. Also, the Pro has given no benefits to not having core classes build on each other. Until he can provide some benefits, my argument stands.
7.It is more important to expose students to more classes than to let them pick their favorites. I am not saying that most students hate school, only that those who do not like it will chose easy classes. Many students are lazy and do not think about what will be the best for their future. They would chose classes that are easy and somewhat acceptable to them, not those that would get them a good job.
8.Again, please explain your social studies program.
1.Math should be taught all four years because it is important to understanding the world in which we live. Also, if you teach it for longer, all the skills gained from math will increase.
2.You will rarely get a student to enjoy reading by making him read encyclopedias. Schools would use more entertaining books that get students into reading. This way more students would develop life-long reading habits and gain the benefits of reading. Also, how often would these research and critical reading skills be used? I do not see how "all jobs" would benefit from researching.
3.The medicine and anatomy skills would not be used any less that chemistry or physics. The Pro claims that medicine and anatomy would be useful if you get sick, but when was the last time the doctor asked you to diagnose the problem for him? All sciences would be useful to understand the world around you.
4.The Pro says that he has "disproven" the idea that taking all core classes at once would reduce information retention, but this is false. He has not disproven anything, as I have already shown.
5.The Pro seems to think that it is impossible to have a basic computer class, but this is not true. The required computer class(es) would teach only keyboarding, word processing, spreadsheet and power point use, and basic internet navigation, as I said before. Electives would still be offered for more advanced classes. Also, the Pro says "I emphasize using computers in all the other classes." He said nothing about this in his plan, only adding it after seeing my plan. I know there is no real rule against this, but it seems kind of unfair to change what you are arguing for after the debate has started.
6.The Pro says that people already know what they are interested in, but this is not backed up by the statistics. After getting out of high school 80% of potential college students don't know what they want to major in and 50% of college students switch majors after starting.  If the Pro cannot produce any reasonable evidence to counter this, then it can be assumed that most students don't know what they want to do.
In his closing remarks, the Pro makes many statements that go against his position. Firstly, he says "I do not care about making people more intelligent." Making people more intelligent is the major goal of schools. He also says "today's high schools force students to make career decisions today, and I believe my plan will actually take the pressure to know exactly what they want to do off of the student." This goes directly against what he is advocating because his plan forces students to choose what kind of lasses they want to take early on. Finally, he says "students will also be exposed to different things when the useless core classes are cut down." They would actually be exposed to far less under the Pro plan because they would only choose the classes that they like.
I should win this debate because I am exposing the students to more subjects and helping them choose what they want to do with their life. They can take more specific career focused classes at college because that is what college is for. I also teach more important classes because computers, math, and science are the basis of our society.
1. But hyperbolas and matrices are not important like knowing how to calculate interest. Everyone should know that, but only statisticians need to know about the formulas for matrices. My social studies program, instead of randomly teaching history, would be about teaching history with parts in which the teachers give problems that students must use their problem solving skills to resolve and use history to prove it. Thus, the problem solving skill that you claim would be lost by cutting down on math would be returned in history class, but with a more real-life application.
2. Most jobs-any job that requires sales, persuasion, or informing people.
3. People should know the difference between viruses and bacteria. They should know that too many antibiotics are not good. Without these classes, this knowledge, that everyone who gets sick should use, would be lost. However, why does a person need to take physics, which teaches that gravity causes a ball to hit the ground. All the people need to know is that it hits the ground(unless the student strives to be a physicist).
4. I am not saying to turn high schools into colleges. I am saying to offer more career classes and to teach them at a higher level and have the opportunity to gain college credit off of them. We have AP classes, so why not make classes like AP business or architecture. Except all career classes would be taught at college levels, students do not have to take the opportunity to get the credit for them.
5. The government would not pay the teachers any more. They would just encourage more information about that class to be taught. It is the same as the government paying for an AP class.
6. The benefits of not having classes build on each other is that if one concept is not completely learned, it will not kill that student for the rest of high school. (This principle just applies to high school, not the primary and secondary schools.)
7.Why does a student who hates to design need to take architecture. Why do students who do not like touching dead things need to take biology. They will never need these classes. It is more important to teach the important things for life and then let them specialize in what they like.
8. See 1(above)
Criticisms for your defense.
1. Math teaches so that 10% of the information students learn is actually useful for the average life. By forcing students who do not like math to lean about trigonometry and matrices, they would learn to hate the subject.
2. And, reading Shakespeare will just make them love to read(not). Any job that requires any type of persuasion or presentation requires research.
3. Why do students need to know that gravity makes a ball fall. It just falls, that is all they need to know unless they go into physics.
4. See my previous response for the similar point above.
5. It would have been too much to say everything. I just wanted to mention my basic points. In addition, your required computer classes would teach nothing more than what emphasizing computer use in computer classes would teach.
6. Many students do not want to know the specific career they want to choose, this is correct. However, many students know what interests them and will go into those careers. Students can also change what classes they take in high school. This is cheaper than paying ten grand at a college to realize they do not like design. This option is not really taken today.
7.Your closing remarks.
Making people more intelligent is a goal of today's schools. I want to prepare them for life get them to decide on career choices BEFORE they get to college. Today, many students are being asked to come up with a list of careers before they reach high school. Then, they are pushed into taking those classes. My plan can give people the option to pursue many different interests in high school. My claim that students would be exposed to more things with my plan was reasoned by having more class spots open for different things or more college credit.
I have done some research recently and most of what you are stating follows convergent teaching. Teacher lectures the students and the students pass test and learn standards. I am pursuing a more hands on method called divergent teaching. This is where students have to come up with ideas to solve problems. My social studies and English programs would greatly encourage this.
1.The benefit that I am trying to reach with my plan for math is not simply to make sure everyone knows how to graph a parabola. Math benefits the brain by making it think in a more abstract numeric way. "That thinking process causes the brain to work, much like a muscle. The more that muscle works out, the better it performs on OTHER tasks."  The basic math classes do not get into hard enough math to truly stretch the brain. Math has the benefit of expanding the brain, creating problem solving skills, and educating students on an important subject in modern society. The Pro"s social studies plan will only help create problem solving skills.
2.Because most jobs do not require sales or persuasion skills beyond what most people naturally have, English classes should focus more on reading than public speaking. Everyone can read, no matter what job they have. As I have said before, reading helps stimulate your brain, expand your vocabulary, and increase creativity.
3.The Pro says that his version of science classes would teach important things like the difference between viruses and bacteria, but this would be no more important than chemistry and physics. It is good to be educated about the world around you, including your body, but doctors know everything that is important for your health. Very few non-doctors actually use their knowledge of the difference between bacteria and virus.
4.If we followed the Pro plan, there would only be room for one or two classes of a limited number of subjects. Pro would not be able to offer a large selection of courses and would not be able to develop the classes he does have. Students would either have a very limited field of career classes to choose from, or they would only be able to take one or two years of any class.
5.The Pro says that the cost for college level classes would not be a large increase on the government because the school could just have the teachers teach at a higher level. Once again, he is only transferring the cost, not getting rid of it. You cannot ask more work of the teachers without paying them any more. College professors are paid more than normal teachers for a reason. You cannot expect a teacher to do a professor"s job at their current salary. Also, the government pays for AP classes because there are very few of them. The government would not pay for all classes to be AP.
6.The Pro"s point about an idea not being learned following a student around works against him. In Pro"s plan, the concept not learned would be forgotten, making the class a waste of time. In my plan, building of the concept would allow the student an opportunity to get help and master it.
7.Firstly, I am not proposing that architecture be a required class. Second, all classes that are required will provide a large benefit to the student. In your example of biology, while the student might not enjoy touching dead things, they would gain important information about the world and the human body. Also, I don"t know about your school, but my school allows students to just watch another group if they are unwilling to touch the dissection.
1.As I have said before, it is not about the specific formulas that are taught in math, it is about the brain development. Math develops the brain in a way that no other subject does.
2.As I said in round 2, the books read in required English classes would be more modern and enjoyable books. I agree that reading Shakespeare would be counterproductive and that is why my plan focuses on books that students will enjoy. Also, most jobs do not require research or presentation.
3.As I have said before, all science is important to understanding the world, including medicine and anatomy. It is important to be educated about the world we live in. Our society is run on technology and science and it is important to understand those things. Also, the classes would go more in depth than saying that gravity exists.
4.Four seems to be getting a bit repetitive, so I"m skipping it.
5.I was under the impression that we were debating the plans presented in round one, not the implied parts that were not in the original plan. Either way, it would not be enough to simply "emphasize computer use". That is like saying we should get rid of English classes and just write essays every once in a while in other classes. In both situations, you just wouldn"t develop the skills needed or learn the important information.
6.As I have already shown, high school with college classes would not be cheaper than college. Also, when you first start at college, most of your classes are usually more general, with a few specific ones mixed in. Because of this, most classes you take before switching majors would still be beneficial for you. This means that you would not be wasting too much money by switching.
7.The Pro says that he wants to get students to decide on career choices before they go to college, but contradicts himself when he says that they already are being prepared. He says "Today, many students are being asked to come up with a list of careers before they reach high school. Then, they are pushed into taking those classes." If this is already happening, then the students would be prepared under both plans. Also, if they are being pushed into taking those classes, then that implies that there are already classes for them to take. Because my plan has everything the same as the current system except for what I specifically changed, then this is true in my plan as well as his.
In the Pro"s closing statement, he is once again changing his plan. He did say that his social studies classes would focus on problem solving, but there was nothing about that in his English plan. Because the English part is new and should not be acknowledged as legitimate, the only part of his plan that follows the divergent teaching method is his social studies program. One class is not enough to make an entire education system divergent.
I am wining this debate because I have shown how my versions of English and Science classes are more beneficial than Pro"s. I have also shown how the Pro cannot feasibly teach a good selection of career classes without a large cost. Finally, I have shown how it is important to expose students to all core subjects instead of letting them choose which classes to take.
2. " most jobs do not require sales or persuasion skills beyond what most people naturally have"
Last I checked, the job sector that makes up most of our economy is the tertiary sector. This is made up of service jobs. Service jobs involve communication. Thus, most jobs involve communication(your point is disproven). Furthermore, everyone can read, so why teach classes that involve reading. Reading should be just for entertainment. Most jobs do not require anyone to be able to analyze a piece of fiction. Ways to stimulate your brain, expand vocabulary, and increase creativity is, instead of reading other people's creativity, write essays about real life problems and try to persuade people to agree with you through your writing. Though both plans would increase the basic skills, my plan would be better suited for jobs and real life because people can use writing skills.
3. You continue to say that it is good to know about the world around you. However, you never say why. I have explained my reasoning behind teaching medicine multiple times at this point and you have continued to respond with the same thing. What difference does it make if we know how the world came to be, it is here. Having a basic knowledge of anatomy and medicine is useful for when people get sick. People who want to know how the world came to be can learn if they want to, but few jobs are in the quaternary, research, sector of our economy.
4. Con is failing to bring in everything that I have mentioned. For one, all the classes that I would plan to offer would not be full. You could fill up a marketing class with just one class period. Thus, the marketing teacher can also teach business and accounting. Therefore, the same amount of teachers and class periods would be used. Furthermore, the computer skills that you seem to find important can be put into play because many courses would be taught online using programs such as Aplia or Angel.
5. Actually, your building idea works against you. You want courses to build on each other. You believe that the building of courses would lead to mastery. However, you fail to see that if one small section of a course is not learned, it will mess up the learning of all other parts. This would be like building a pyramid without a strong base. The pyramid would fall eventually.
6. Firstly, why would I, a person who desires a career in politics and business, need architecture. Again, why does a person need to know about the world around them. The ball falls. Who cares that it is gravity. How will knowing that gravity makes the ball fall make any difference? It does not. Therefore, no real life benefit would be acquired by teaching biology or physics to a student who does not want to pursue biology or physics.
7. All jobs in the tertiary sector require some sort of presentation. My English class would build presentation skills which are important. Reading books for pleasure should not be required. However, research is required for life. Say a person wants to learn how to change a tire. Researching things on the internet could tell him or her. The things on the internet are also nonfiction.
8. My math plan reduces the basic skills that a person would know, however it will be made up by my Social Studies plan. My math plan teaches the actual important mathematics skills that would be needed for life and many careers.
9. My social studies plan is based on a more problem solving basis. It will build those skills that math would stop teaching using real world problems. In addition, it forces people to form political opinions before they go out and vote. Doing things like this will make students develop to see politics differently than their parents as well.
10. My science plan will teach things beneficial to health as opposed to the meaningless Why's of life. Everything from nutrition to medicine would be taught by my plan. Anyone who gets sick, sees a doctor, or eats would benefit from my plan.
11. Specialization can easily be taught in online courses. Many teachers could teach multiple subjects. In addition, my plan is not to eliminate going to college. My plan is for students to have course credit before entering a college to make college more manageable.
12. By simplifying core classes, schools open up opportunities to teach what a student wants to learn, additional classes, and they would save resources by not teaching meaningless stuff to students.
13. My plan is divergent, student based education. This type of education builds those skills that you talk about more than the convergent education that our schools teach now.
I have met my burden of proof by:
Proving the reasoning behind my plan
Explaining the problem with the current plan and my opponent's plan
Telling the benefits of my plan.
To the voters:
If you are tired of having students learn meaningless information, want students to learn more common sense information, and want students to earn a way of obtaining college credit, vote for me.
If you want schools to waste resources teaching students what they do not want to learn, abandon the opportunities for college credit, or teach students non-useful information that poses little to no real life meaning, vote for my opponent.
Thank you all and vote for me for a positive education reformation.
The first main clash is in the math area. I am advocating four years of math for the reasons I stated last round. "That thinking process [math] causes the brain to work, much like a muscle. The more that muscle works out, the better it performs on OTHER tasks." This shows that math will help strengthen the brain and help outside of math. The Pro says only that "The current math system does not even do what you are trying to do". This does not prove anything, so my claims still stand. The Pro's main counter to my math plan is his social studies plan. While social studies problem solving is beneficial, my social studies program achieves most of the same benefits, such as developing a political opinion through government classes. Also, Pro's problem solving is very different from stretching your brain with numbers.
The next main area is the English classes. They are the same in everything except public speaking (Pro) and reading (Me). The Pro says that public speaking is more important because the service sector is the largest part of the economy. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you saw your plumber use speaking skills? The Pro says that reading would not be used in jobs, but that is not my point. I am saying that teaching students to enjoy reading would provide benefits outside of the work place. Pro's argument about the importance of teaching research skills is weak because very few people need to be taught how to google "how to change a tire". By the way, my computer classes would provide ample teaching about how to find information on the internet.
The third area of clash is the science classes. Pro accuses me of restating the same argument each round, but that is only because he gives me no new argument to refute. I agree with Pro that anatomy and medicine are important, but I think that other sciences are equally important. Pro continuously says that medicine is important if you go to the doctor and I will say again that the doctor knows plenty without you providing the info you learned in high school. He also says that nutrition class would be good, but this was not in the original plan where he said "Science should focus on anatomy and medicine only", so you can disregard it. All science is important so you can understand the world around you and be more educated. The Pro says that I do not explain how that is good, but understanding and knowledge is a worthy end in and of itself. It is good to be educated about this you come in contact with every day because the whole universe operates on laws of physics and chemistry.
The next area is the problems with having lots of specialized classes. There is really no way to do this without a larger campus and more teachers, or putting a larger burden on teachers. The Pro seems to want to do this by having teachers teach lots of different classes, but this would be very difficult. Teachers work hard to prepare lessons for one or two classes, but more than that would be completely unfair to them. There would be no way do this without increasing salaries, which the government doesn't have the money to do.
Pro's arguments against classes building on each other still have no base. He seems to have dropped the "benefits" of classes not building on each other, so we will only look at the benefits of building on each other. The Pro claims that if a student does not learn one subject, it will follow him throughout the other classes, but this is not true. At my school, teachers are willing to help students with things they don't understand, so if/when the concept is used again the student can get help with it.
After this, Pro talks about the problems with teaching "useless information". I have already shown that the only classes that are required are all beneficial to everyone, regardless of their occupation. Any other class, such as architecture which the Pro brings up, will be optional.
The Pro's idea that his program would save money is false. In order to teach more classes at a higher level for college credit, you must put in more money. There is no way to get the benefits without cost. The only way to lower the cost is to pay teachers less or lose some benefits.
The final point of argument is that of computer skills. Pro has conceded that computer skills are important and now is saying that his plan teaches them. He claims that he does this through emphasizing computers in other classes and having online classes. Both of these claims are not in the original plans that we are debating, so you can disregard them. Without those claims, my argument about computer classes goes completely unopposed.
I should win this debate for four main reasons. First, I have shown how my math classes give benefits that cannot be achieved as well by social studies. Second, I have shown that reading is much more useful that public speaking. Third, my computer classes give clear benefits and went unopposed. Finally, it is impractical to successfully provide a good selection of career classes and better to expose students to more subjects.
If any of you readers make this far, thank you for reading through that endless debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.