High school students should have to pass a national exit exam to graduate
Debate Rounds (4)
2nd)The main reason why schools give an exit exam is to cover all material that has been covered through the kids high schools years. It lets the Board of Governors of the school to know how well children are doing, its also a way to know if a child needs help in a certain subject. If a kid doesn't pass the exam, they shouldn't be able to continue and go into college unless they pass it. When you fail the test, obviously they are struggling and if we let them continue and go to college they are just going to have a much harder time and they will be taught stuff that wont make sense to them just like in the exam.
The problem with national examinations is that it would place authorities over examination to the federal government. Many things that our Founders fought for were to eliminate things about central government. The ideal government was to restrict federal government to war and defense. Many things were to be restricted to the state. Every state has their way of preparing kids for the future. Why trample that? Why not let control of education be to the states and citizens. Federal government, if it has too much power, can take on a God complex. We've seen happen in foreign countries. So, no. I don't believe there should be a national exam. It would just make the states unhappy.
Either way they should, to review key concepts that they have went over and to make sure they have a grasp on all the things they have learned. What if they continue and go to college and don't understand a single thing because they didn't take the test that would prepare them?
But the whole issues tie into kids taking it.
Every state has a different program which deals with preparing young minds for the future. Some believe in statewide testing. Others might have other ways. You also have to take into account private schools vs public schools. How about the parents who teach their kids?
Tests also should not even be completely the part. Sure, tests are part of it.
National exams would also be too costly.
We have to be pragmatic about education.
Here are just some objectives of the test. "Students know what is expected and that the test really counts, so they work harder.
"Schools identify and can address student weaknesses early.
"Similarly, schools discover areas of overall weakness, prompting them to refocus resources where they are most needed.
"Education across the state is more consistent, eliminating situations where schools in some districts are superior to others.
"The public sees gains from year to year and regains confidence in public schools.
Source used http://www.ecs.org...
That's not what I mean. Obviously schools teach common subjects. However, every school implements policies. Some believe in testings. Others don't. Why should schools who believe in testing what their ways imposed on schools that don't. It's not fair, and it's also unfair to the kids going to the schools.
Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JayConar 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to rebut Con's argument, instead attempting to claim that Con was being irrelevant when he was not. Ironically, with Pro being pro-national exit exam, I found it hard to understand what she was attempting to say for large portions of her argument, this was due to her rather difficult to understand sentence structure and spelling. Both Pro and Con attempted to use sources.
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.