Schools Should Stay Public, Not Online
Debate Rounds (5)
Learning online is not nearly as effective as learning from a teacher live and in the flesh. Watching videos may not answer all the questions that a student actually has to ask, therefore leaving that student confused and wondering what to do. If the student can't handle the basic topics taught at the beginning, then they will have an even harder time learning about the topics that build off of that idea.
Not only do schools systems teach valuable life building skills, they also allow for students to have a social life outside of technology. Making friends is a necessity for any child through young adult. Without this social interaction, it leads to loneliness, and despair. The social interactions gained at school can be hard to find anywhere else in the world.
Despite making friends, schools have one downfall, which is bullying. While this may be a terrible reality, bullying helps students prepare for the real world. It toughens up the students for the workforce. Without bullying, students would grow up to be too sensitive to work. This hardship of bullying builds character and self-esteem in the victims, showing that they can stand up for themselves. The character building made by a bully may be cruel, but it is essential for growth and development.
With schools moving to online, none of these topics would be able to be covered by a computer, no matter how powerful the system may be. Public schools contain necessities that can't be obtained anywhere else.
Thank you Con for the good topic. I would first like to assume that you are arguing against home schooling/school on computers at home.
Since Con has made several arguments I will take it that arguments should be made in the first round.
1. Con makes numerous arguments that students can only gain teamwork abilities and life skills while at public schools. He also states that taking away kids from their "peers" will hurt the learning process. These statements are baseless/with out evidence or argument. Many students are hurt by their peers because of pressure to participate in drug use or criminal activity. Not to mention the social norm that is disobedience in the classroom. Many kids in public schools are more focused on their image than their grades precisely because of the desire they have to impress peers. Just because these kids are in school doesn't even mean they are "social". To be social is a choice. A student could go home and play video games or watch tv all day long with no other interaction with people or friends besides school. That being said, the notion that a social life can only be achieved through public school is false. A person getting their education online could have the same amount of social interaction as a student going to public school. Its all about choice.
2. Con argues that online classes do not compare with live teaching. A student is limited to certain instructors in public schools. Some of them may be great teachers but there is also the very real possibility of a bad teacher. A student in a public school cant help it if they get bad teachers. An online student can look for good lectures on the subject they are studying. As for not getting the subject, the student can either watch the video again and pay attention for what they missed, or they can look at another resource to find the answer. This may not be as easy to do in the middle of class while you are trying to take notes at the speed of sound.
3. Cons point about the hardship of bullying is almost funny. Bullying has been shown as a leading cause of low self esteem and depression amongst students. There are also thousands of students who were not bullied and turned out to be productive citizens.
"With schools moving to online, none of these topics would be able to be covered by a computer, no matter how powerful the system may be. Public schools contain necessities that can't be obtained anywhere else."
The topics con claims wouldn't be covered are all none academic. By this I mean in no way has con proved that a switch to online courses would hinder the student learning process. He only makes baseless claims that it would be harmful to the ability to conduct in social activities that may be good or bad.
Students are limited in choice when it comes to public schools. Usually by their county or some type of boundary. Online students will have a variety of choice in education and what courses they want to take. It allows them to be flexible with their work and also allows them to take classes that may help them prepare for what they will major in college. There are countless online schools that offer numerous courses that can be completed earlier than high school.
In closing I would like to point out that social interaction is achievable outside of public school and that it can not be the only factor in determining which system of learning is better for the student and their ability to succeed academically.
This is all I saw that needed to be covered and I await Cons response.
On Bullying effects -
Online schools list of benefits (essentially what I stated while giving an example of an online institute offering high school courses) -
As Pros stated in round one, I have not provided any arguments based on academics and test scores for Homeschooling/Online School vs. Public Schools.
In many circumstances, homeschooling and online schools are much more expensive than public schools. This drain of money can lead to financial crisis, but this is not the main topic for this argument.
My main point for this round will be the education differences. In homeschooling and online schooling, teachers are not always certified to teach the required material. This would cause the teacher to have to learn along with the student, in an effort to be able to teach the right material. If the wrong material is being taught, then the student cannot hope to do well on test scores.
In order to be employed at a public school as a teacher, you must be qualified as a teacher in your subject and have at least a bachelors degree. Being able to specialize in one specific topic would be more beneficial than having a teacher who teaches you all topics, not having a specialty in any specific one. This specialty gives students the chance to learn from an expert, instead of learning from a teacher who knows little about the subject besides what the textbook provides.
Aside from teacher qualifications, colleges more often than not have stricter admission policies to those that are home schooled. This not only allows the student to not be able to enter the college of their choice, but this also allows for other students taught in a public setting to beat them out for it, whereas if they were enrolled in a public school, the student would have a better chance at being accepted into college.
Being home schooled also does not allow for a student to participate in extra-curricular activities, academic or likewise. Studies show that students who participate in these activities not only gain life skills such as time management, leadership skills, and responsibility, but these also show that those students achieve higher SAT and ACT scores. Online and homeschooling does not provide the student with these opportunities.
I list my reasons above as to why education in the school cannot be matched by that in the home.
The information on teacher qualifications was found here:
My other main piece of information about extra-curricular activities, was found on this article:
I again thank the Pros, as he has taken u my offer of debate, and am excited to see what he will come back with.
Thank you con for the swift response. I will go over some of what Con has said.
"In home schooling and online schooling, teachers are not always certified to teach the required material"
I would like to affirm the debate topic that, 'Schools should Stay public, not online." That being said we are debating whether or not schooling should be done online. Not by the parent directly or some tutor that comes to the home. Secondly Cons point about teacher qualifications are not backed up with any evidence. His source simply states that home schooling teachers may not be as qualified, " Teachers are not always qualified to teach all subjects" - http://www.educationbug.org...
It states nothing about lecturers or instructing that can be found in online institutions. It may even be said that online teachers are more qualified. Online teachers usually require at least a masters degree in their subject and many online institutions ask for some in class experience. They require exceptional review, communication, and computer program skills.
Cons statements about college admissions for students are unfounded. He gives no evidence to back up his claim that,
"whereas if they were enrolled in a public school, the student would have a better chance at being accepted into college."
As I stated in previous arguments the social problems that can derive from public schooling can hold kids back from getting into college or even cause them to drop out. If a student can finish school earlier online and with more focus than in public school there would seem to be no reason to deny them acceptance over a public school student. There are also numerous colleges that offer online classes and programs who may look favorably on a student who received a high school education online. Also, students who receive their education at home online can register for the SAT and take it wherever it is administered. They can use it when applying for college the same as public school students.
To address Cons comments on extra curricular activities and their benefits to students: It is entirely possible and more likely to pick up time management, leadership skills, and responsibility working at a job than just an extra curricular. County sports teams are also almost always available to online students who may want to participate in sports. Other than that many communities have social clubs and events that take place outside the public school system. To say any of these opportunities would be unavailable to them anywhere else is silly.
I await Cons response
Online teaching qualifications
I will use this round to further back up my previous arguments and provide further information to give another stand point on the topic.
In round one, argument stated that students introduced to public school are more susceptible to violence and drug abuse due to peer pressure.
" Many students are hurt by their peers because of pressure to participate in drug use or criminal activity"
While this may be true, this prepares students for what they will see after school. A student with no experience with peer pressure wont be able to easily say no to this unlike a student who has dealt with the same peer pressure his entire life. I would also like to point out that in round one, Pro did not supply any sources stating the above statements to be true.
I again thank him for continuing the debate, and I have some further arguments to add.
Entire industries can rely on these high school courses that can only be taught in the classroom. Of these, fashion design, home construction, drivers education and culinary arts classes can only be taught hands on. Taking these courses online wouldn't be able to give you the proper amount of skill and knowledge needed to take this into the real world situation. Having a fashion design class online would be a futile attempt to learn anything.
Culinary classes may be taught using recipes on the other hand, but would be difficult to master without the guidance of a supervisor. These are just a few examples of classes that require a hands on education to take out into the real world.
I appreciate the responses given here and I await Pros response.
As for con making regards to the benefits of dealing with peer pressure, yes I suppose people who resist the tempting of their peers may fare better later on in the same situation, but what of those who fall victim? Should we ignore the fact that many fall into a life of drug use because of their peers despite however many don't? Of course not. This wont be a problem with online schooling. It is likely that because of influence from online health courses the student will resist offers to participate in drug use because of the uncorrupted knowledge they received pertaining to the harms of many types of drugs.
My opponent makes a very good case for certain career courses like cooking classes and fashion design. What he ignores is that even though he may have these programs at his educational institution, these programs are not offered in most public schools. When they are not offered they may be available in other ways such as community courses or in private business. You can take apprenticeships with chefs and designers for those who are truly interested.
Lastly I would like to express my feeling that the main academic focus hear should hopefully not be culinary arts and fashion design. These careers are not what the majority of students will pursue and therefore a majority will not need. Though, as I have covered before, the academic needs of these students can be found online.
Putt-Putt forfeited this round.
Putt-Putt forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 years 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: After thoroughly reading the arguments from both sides, Pro came out on top. Also, Con forfeited two rounds and didn't rebut Pro's final claims.
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.