The Instigator
WestlakeDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardize

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: 9/17/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,546 times Debate No: 9510
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

WestlakeDebater

Pro

AFFIRMATIVE

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

1 AC

Definitions-

Ought- used to express duty or obligation

Standardized exit exams: A standardized test is a test administered and scored in a consistent manner. The tests are designed in such a way that the questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner

Value: Justice defined as fairness

Justice as fairness is the only method of justice we can look as any other system requires impossible goals that are often not even defined. However Justice as fairness gives a clear definition.

The Standard is Ensuring Equal Opportunity. This is the most important standard because a society cannot conceptualize justice if it is only obtainable by a few in the society. In order to conceptualize justice we need to ensure that everyone has an equal voice and position when determining justice via the original position.

I burden my opponent to prove that standardized testing is fair and if this is not done you must Affirm.

1AC

Contention 1- Students with more money hold an advantage over students with less

The Princeton Review is one of the most widely known and respected forms of Standardized exit exam private tutoring. They Guarantee that you'll get the score you want on any test. This is extremely useful and can mean the difference between a local state school and Harvard Law, so to speak. However just 24 hours of small group tutoring is $1800 according the Princeton Review website. According to CNN, we spend now an average of $5,340 on groceries a year. That is enough to last the average person more than 4 months of groceries. According to the center of American progress there are 13 million Americans earning minimum wage. The simple fact that there is just more than one person that cannot afford tutoring of any kind shows an immediate advantage based on household income. This is unfair and thereby standardized exit exams become not so standard for every student. My impact is this. The fact that some students hole an inherent advantage over others immediately throws the testing into an unfair state.
Direct impact: the working world becomes dominated by the wealthy and the cycle of poverty is never broken.

Contention 2- Standardized Exit Exams are unfair

A students entire academic career should not be brought down to multiple choice questions? How can you gauge what someone has learned in 12 years with a test? This is unfair. Let's say for example that there is one question that the student does not know and that question is the difference between graduating or not graduation high school. This hardly seems fair. This comes down to another advantage and a not so standardized test. The advantage is luck
Sub-point 1
If student A gets this answer wrong and fails and student B just guesses on this answer and gets it right. then student B assuming he is in the same situation as student A gets to graduate while student A does not. This comes down to luck and is unfair.

Impact: people who are sick are immediately put at a disadvantage
Metz

Con

I negate: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

NC
Observation 1. The resolution draws into question the issue of whether or not minimum graduation requirements, in the form of a test ought to be implemented. Thus if I prove that these requirements will be beneficial they ought to be implemented and we voted negative.

Observation 2. Because I, as the negative, am bound to proving one standardized test ought to be implemented, I have basic fiat power. This means I can fiat specific elements of a test while still remaining resolutional. i.e I can establish the test as a minimum requirement that can be built upon locally. In fact this is the very test I intend to bring into the round. I still fulfill my burden because I am defending a "standardized exit exam" that is "required in order to graduate".

I agree with both the Value and the Criterion my opponent has set down. This means whoever can better demonstrate the principles of equal opportunity wins the round.

The Sole Contention of the negative Case is that Decentralized Standard-setting results in an un-equal educational system.

Decentralized standards lead to a race to the bottom. Those schools with the lowest standards benefit the most. This creates an incentive to lower standards and benefit from districts with higher standards

Julian Betts [1] explains
"In the very simplest case, where all districts are alike, decentralization would likely lead to inefficiently low standards.20 To see this, suppose each district's non-college bound graduates are pooled to some extent with graduates of other districts in the labor market. That is, employers do not fully distinguish graduates of any district that chooses a different standard. The reward to raising standards in any given district is thus attenuated. The district's graduates would be of higher quality, but would not be fully identified as such, and so would only reap some of the benefits; the rest of the gains would spill over to graduates of other districts, with whom they are pooled in the labor market. As a result of this "externality", local standard-setters have an incentive to free ride on the standards of other districts, establishing cutoffs that are too low to maximize their collective welfare. A centralized standard-setter would avoid this problem. Even in this simple case, with identical districts, there are winners and losers in the choice between decentralized and centralized standards. Since centralization raises standards, the winners are those who rise to the challenge, and the losers are those who become discouraged from exerting effort. But each district would, on the whole, be better off with a centralized standard-setter choosing the same cutoff for all districts. This logic is independent of the weights attached to winners and losers; even the most egalitarian collection of standard-setters would prefer standards set centrally, rather than each of them riding free in a standard-cutting race to the bottom."

And centralized minimum standardized graduation requirements solve,

Julian Betts [1] Continues

"With heterogeneity across districts, centralization need not always outperform decentralization. However, if we take the analysis one step further, a rather general result obtains. Suppose the centralized standard serves as a minimum requirement for graduation, with the localities retaining the option of setting a higher standard. This arrangement outperforms decentralized standard-setting and is at least as good as central standard-setting without the local option. We get the best of both worlds, with the centralized minimum standard putting a floor on free-riding by districts, while the high achieving districts retain the option of exceeding that standard, if enough of the benefits accrue to their own graduates."

And this links to equal opportunity because we are hurting higher-performing school districts and incentivizing lower-performing ones to continue on along the same path. In order to achieve equal opportunity a minimum universal requirement must be met. This requirement is the standardized test. Thus I meet my resolutional burden.

AC:

C1.
1. This argument is not specific to tests. People with more money have the advantage in almost every aspect of education. Just because many people cannot afford to go to Harvard does not mean Harvard ceases to exist. It is not proven that without these study groups people will inevitably fail the test. Fairness is not defined as everyone having the exact same thing. It just means the test cannot be bias towards on group. The test is not inherently bias, so thus my opponent cannot access his impacts.

2. The direct impact is non-unique. The working world is already dominated by the wealthy, it will not become so do to these tests. Thus he draws an impact that already is happening and so there is no change and thus no impact.

C2.
1. Standardized tests don't evaluate every single thing ever learned. Also its not 12 years. Its a HIGH SCHOOL standardized exam meaning its 4 years. Also they must just meet a minimum standard. As with all standardized tests the purpose of this test is to prove minimum proficiency in the core subjects.
2. Luck has nothing to do with it. While luck may play a small part it is not enough to override fairness. Studying, preparation and paying attention is what is needed to pass. Besides there is luck involved in everything.
A.
There is more than 1 question on the whole test. So while for one question the probability be 25% the probability of passing on total luck becomes very low especially with a lot of questions. Since the probability of events repeating with replacements is found by multiplying the original probability by the number of trials. Therefore the probability of getting every question right is .25^100 or 6.2 X 10^-61. Which is less that a trillionth of a percent... and the probability of passing(75%) is .25^75 or 7 X 10-49 which is still less than a trillionth of a percent.

2. The last impact about sick people makes no sense.... there is no link,warrant or even argument attached to it.

---
Good Luck to my opponent and I await his response.

By the way, to my opponent good luck if you are attending the tournament tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 1
WestlakeDebater

Pro

WestlakeDebater forfeited this round.
Metz

Con

Extend everything. Hopefully my opponent will return for another round....
Debate Round No. 2
WestlakeDebater

Pro

WestlakeDebater forfeited this round.
Metz

Con

Metz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WestlakeDebater

Pro

WestlakeDebater forfeited this round.
Metz

Con

Metz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WestlakeDebater

Pro

WestlakeDebater forfeited this round.
Metz

Con

Um Okay... That failed. Vote neg
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GLOWRAE 7 years ago
GLOWRAE
wow this is amazing...I am actually debating this very resolution tomorrow in my first debate of the year:) Very nervous, but more so excited...any pointers?
Posted by questionmark 7 years ago
questionmark
sounds interesting, i might take it if no one else does
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
WestlakeDebaterMetzTied
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 
Vote Placed by mchahine 7 years ago
mchahine
WestlakeDebaterMetzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
WestlakeDebaterMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03