The Instigator
Shadowraith
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school

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: 7/22/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,853 times Debate No: 9013
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Shadowraith

Pro

I reckon that students should be made to go to school untill the end of high school because it will give them a better understanding of the subjects that they are doing. Because untill years 11 and 12 there isnt much depth into any of the topics its only untill the last 2 years of high school that you really get into a subject.
RoyLatham

Con

Welcome to debate.org. You have picked a good topic, and I look forward to a spirited debate.

There are six reasons why students should not be forced to go to school until the end of high school:

1. Pro did not define "the end of high school." A reasonable definition would be "until a high school diploma is achieved." That means a student could be kept in school for many years. This is unreasonable and impractical, and potentially forever. It is unreasonable because at some point the person is better off getting a job or doing something else. This is impractical because of the cost to the taxpayer. It is immoral because once a person is 18, it constitutes involuntary servitude. Minors can be directed to do things because they are not legally responsible for many of their decisions, but adults should not directed by the state as to how they spend their lives.

2. Pro asserts that subjects are not covered in depth until the 11th and 12th years. The state has a compelling interest in educating students on the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. The compelling interest derives from the importance of having functional citizens. However, there is no compelling interest in forcing students to learn the fine points of literature or history. It's generally a good to learn such things from the viewpoint of individual development, but it doesn't rise to the level of a compelling interest. It's also good to learn to swim or learn to drive a car, but there is no compelling interest of the state that justifies requiring them.

3. Keeping students in school does not compel them to actually learn anything of substance. Students who leave school generally have some sort of problem that makes them unsuited to benefit from classroom teaching. Compelling them to be in the classroom doesn't address the problem that has made them want to leave in the first place.

4. Some students are far better off pursing jobs that do not require so much education. they may be bored to tears by the classroom environment, but eager to pursue jobs in the trades. The may succeed in jobs like construction or various people-oriented service jobs. Holding them in the classroom is a pointless annoyance for the individual and a waste of taxpayer money. We would do better to encourage the development of apprentice systems rather than attempting to keep students in school who do not want to be there.

5. Some of the very best educational systems do not require completion of high school. Japan and Taiwan allow exiting after middle school, before their three-year high schools. A successful education system does not derive from compulsory attendance, but rather from a citizenry who believe in the value of education.

"Japan has one of the world's best-educated populations, with 100% enrollment in compulsory grades and zero illiteracy. While not compulsory, high school (koukou) enrollment is over 96% nationwide and nearly 100% in the cities. High school drop out rate is about 2% and has been increasing. About 46% of all high school graduates go on to university or junior college." http://japanese.about.com...

The resolution misunderstands the education problem. The problem is to evolve a society that values education more highly.

6. Educational resources are limited and precious. Society is better off spending resources for education beyond the basics on students who want to learn than on students who have little interest and are unlikely to benefit. Not having to carry uninterested students frees teachers and classroom space for a greater range of valuable elective course options and advanced placement courses.

For these reasons, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowraith

Pro

I believe that students should be made to go to school untill the end of year twelve for the folowing reasons

The subjects from year 7-10 do not cover a specific topic in depth its only till year 11-12 that the topics really go into depth it would give the students more learning and help to better prepare them for whats going to happen in real life. Why should they be alloud to leave if theres only two more years left it makes no sense its only two years its not going to kill them and at the end of year 12 they get the choice whether too go to university or not so make them get the most of there education while its there.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro needs to counter each of the six reasons I gave and say either why the point is not valid, or why something else is so much more important. This is best done by using the numbers to index the replies. Otherwise, the arguments stand as unrefuted, and it is difficult to win a debate with so many unanswered arguments.

Pro, why do you think that a student who leaves high school could complete it in two years? The students who leave are usually way behind in their studies, so it might take many years for them to earn a diploma. Schargel, et al, http://www.focusas.com... have identified as risk factors for dropping out:

*Absent 20 or more times during the previous school year
*Retained in at least one grade
*Low grades (Cs and Ds or below)
*Disciplinary problems or disruptive behavior
*Has attended five or more schools during a lifetime

Note that low grades and repeated grades are among the factors, and they indicate that these students are unlikely to finish high school on the normal schedule.

Moreover, requiring attendance does not treat any of these problems, nor any of the psychological risk factors associated with dropping out. Students are frequently absent despite existing requirements that they attend school.

The high rate of drop outs is a serious problem, but requiring attendance won't accomplish the goal of getting students to learn the material. The correct approach includes increased counseling of students and of parents, education of parents on the importance of education for their children, and increased emphasis by community leaders on the importance of education. Schargel op cit calls for "educational leaders who firmly believe that all children can succeed, schools that effectively meet the needs of nontraditional learners, and educational communities that don't give up on students who are at risk of dropping out." The experience in Japan, for example, shows that success derives from family and community motivating students, not from requiring more years of attendance.

Previous arguments stand unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowraith

Pro

Shadowraith forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro challenged me to this debate. He should have then followed through with well-researched arguments, and he should have not have forfeited the last round. It's disappointing because the topic is a good one.

As it is, my six arguments made in the first round stand unrefuted by logic or data. The US has a serious problem with drop outs, but attempting to force students to attend school for many more years won't make them learn much, won't motivated them, and won't ensure they ever get a diploma. Japan has an enviably low drop-out rate despite having the last three years of school optional. The problem must be solved by attacking the problem of society having a low regard for education. This can be done by community leadership, encouraging parents to put a higher value on education, and through more counseling of at risk students. Requiring attendance pointlessly spends precious resources on the wrong approach.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Is this a debate? No offense Shadowraith, but you really did not counter Latham's points at all.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Devastating victory by Con. Run-on sentences, dropped arguments, no sources and FFing last minute removes Pro as a candidate for any points whatsoever.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Erick.
Vote Placed by Erick 4 years ago
Erick
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: :)
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ShadowraithRoyLathamTied
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