Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability.
Debate Rounds (3)
I am aware that this topic may not be overtly captivating but this is an upcomming topic of mine so I decided to gt some practice on it.
Before I begin I would like to lay down a few rules:
I want to keep this debate fairly brief for this purpose I have set the character max. to 5,000
Please do not except this debate unless you plan to respond
PLEASE give me feed back, not inherently on what occurs in this debate but on additional arguments for Pro or Con if you would like to post the link to some good evidence please do that as well. Of coarse this is optional but I really would appreciate it.
And with that my opening speech:
Point 1. The pressure. Standardized testing creates an environment in which hinders children from being able to truly do there best. Standardized testing creates an enormous amount of pressure on kids to do well because they know that a large part of there future could be depending on these tests. In addition these test often cost money in order to take. In lower in come communities often families break there backs in order to raise enough money to purchase such tests for there children. In these cases not only is your future dependent on these tests but you are worried that you will fail thus putting $100 or so dollars that your family worked hard to earn to waste.
Point 2 lack of subjects: One might say that debate is an academic pursuit and I would agree that it is. A child may be very good in debate but do poorly in math, science, language, and history. Standardized testing does not include debate so the childs one good skill would be ignored however he would do poorly on the other fields and then essentially be deemed "unintelligent."
I thank you all for reading and I urge you to vote CON
As Pro, I have to state what my opponent has said in his title. I believe that standardized testing accurately represents a student's academic ability. That is, for each of the subjects that are covered in the standardized tests, those parts accurately test the abilities of that student.
"Standardized testing can be composed of multiple-choice, true-false, essay questions, authentic assessments, or nearly any other form of assessment. Multiple-choice and true-false items are often chosen because they can be given and scored inexpensively and quickly by scoring special answer sheets by computer or via computer-adaptive testing. Some standardized tests have short-answer or essay writing components that are assigned a score by independent evaluators who use rubrics (rules or guidelines) and benchmark papers (examples of papers for each possible score) to determine the grade to be given to a response. Most assessments, however, are not scored by people; people are used to score items that are not able to be scored easily by computer (i.e., essays). For example, the Graduate Record Exam is a computer-adaptive assessment that requires no scoring by people (except for the writing portion)." These standardized exams test the important subjects, on different levels, so one would need to know how to write, decipher correct answers from the wrong ones, and deal with "true/false" statements.
Standardized tests are used to examine a students ability to answer those questions in the fields of math, science, history, and English. "In the field of psychometrics, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing place standards about validity and reliability, along with errors of measurement and individuals with disabilities. The third and final major topic covers standards related to testing applications, credentialing, plus testing in program evaluation and public policy."  This means that the results are accurate, and can be generalized with all of the other students who take the same or similar tests around the country. This helps keep the testing process inexpensive, fast, reliable, and accurate.
Point 1. Pressure. Students are put under pressure while taking this test, and anyone who has will agree. This is also true in the workplace, because there are usually deadlines to finish work by. This actually helps students get used to the grind of the work day, because no matter what you choose as an occupation, there is going to be pressure involved. It would be impossible to test every student in their own perfect and personal environment. This would require far too much supervision and if it were to be administered anywhere outside of educational supervision, it would be void and subject to cheating anyway. As far as the dependency of the students future riding on these tests, I would disagree that for a successful future, students must do well on these tests. There are plenty of rich, successful people who didn't even finish college or do well on standardized tests. There are a few (like the SAT and the ACT) that help you get into some prestigious schools, but ones future is not dependent on these tests.
2. I agree with you that debating can be seen as an academic pursuit, and that someone with great debating skills won't be able to show the testers that they have great debating skills. However, to be a good debater, one must have the skills that they do test in standardized tests such as the English/language, history, and writing portions. A failure to spell and have good grammar would actually hinder your debating. (As seen in another debate I am currently in.)  Knowing history helps you to pinpoint good arguments and being up good sources to help support debating. Aside from debating, math and science are basic fundamentals in education. Sure, one could skate by only knowing basic math and science, but or someone to excel in their respective fields, one must know what they test on the standardized tests. The tests help educators find those people who deserve awards or grants to help support their future education. Again, it would be impossible to compile a test for everyone to take that would include more specific skill sets. The test is long enough as it is; adding to the test would create more pressure and would end up hurting the students who have a good grasp of English, science, math, and history because it would require them to know even more than they should at that point in their life.
On a side note, I agree that there should be more specific subjects in tests, but they should be optional and used to help you occupationally so that you can find a job easier.
My opponent said that pressure actually helps children to learn and become more prepared for future work places, this may be true but is irrelevant. The resulution says: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. So the fact that pressure produced by these tests can help prepare one for a future career is irrelevant becuase it does not prove that these tests appropriately represent a student's academic ability.
My opponent also said that he agreed that debate was an academic pursuit and was not on the test. I agree that english,history, and writting skills can compliment one's debating. However, that does not mean that these things are equivellant to it.
Once again I thank my opponent for allowing me to test this resolution. I don't know if I already said this but I will be debating this in a few months, so all feedback is appreciated!
I strongly urge a CON ballot.
TheLastLightEver forfeited this round.
Pressure does have a great effect on the results of standardized tests. The amount of pressure on students changes daily, depending on any number of different circumstances. When test day comes, the students do feel more pressure, I agree, but pressure has nothing to do with whether or not the standardized test itself represents a students academic ability.
The problem is in the way that the test is presented to the student. Suppose this scenario: A student is passed a practice standardized test, and is told he can take as much time as he wants on it and that the results will not be shown to anyone because it is practice. He is also told to answer as best as he can because it will help him accurately gauge how long it will take when the real test comes along. He is relieved of pressure in this scenario, and the test accurately represents his academic ability.
In another scenario, the same kid is given the test that will determine his acceptance into certain colleges. This test is timed, costs money, in a setting with (sometimes) hundreds of other students, and is supervised by some authority. It is certainly a high pressure situation. This exam still accurately test a students academic ability, but under a high pressure situation.
The test itself hasn't actually changed, so it still accurately represents academic ability. The thing that has changed is the context in which that student has taken the test. We can either accept the fact that contextually, the atmosphere will always be different, and thus all standardized tests are subject to the difference in students, the amount of emotional pressure he or she is under while taking the test, the manner in which the test is administered, and so on. There are virtually too many different variables to look at to determine what setting and atmosphere are going to be the best for each student. I say that life is full of pressure, and we are forced to deal with pressure on a daily basis. Students are conditioned to take tests, are used to dealing with pressures, and are actually given practice tests as they pass through elementary school. In fact, ever state has at least one standardized test for students to take before they reach the ACT or SAT.  These tests do not effect the students collegiate career or their job placement later in life, so there is far less pressure, but still prepare the students for later tests under pressure.
With all that said, I say that pressure is irrelevant in this debate because it does not actually change the questions on the test itself. The questions within the test are objective and the grading of the answers is objective. The only thing that changes under pressure is the way that the student takes the test, which is again, not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not standardized tests accurately measure a student's academic ability, not how pressure effects the outcome of students scores. If voters can honestly find a way that pressure can change how the test is composed, I invite them to vote against me.
2. Lack of Subjects.
We both agree that standardized tests obviously do not encompass every skill or subject that is taught in school. I also agree that english, history, and writing compliment other skills like debating. My opponent states that the subjects (english, history, science, math, and writing) do not equate to the skills that can be tested in other subjects, namely debating. I would like to refute this by saying that nothing can quite equate to any subject, unless it is that specific subject. Again, the problem does not lie in the test, but in the way it is presented to the students. The test by itself accurately represents a students academic ability. For the given amount of time allowed, the test contains a good mix of core subjects, that supplement specific skills. It accurately represents a students academic ability to correctly answer questions that encompass the subjects that are entailed in every specific subject or field. If anyone can truly find a career that does not contain any of the tested subjects, I invite them to vote against me. If the voters truthfully cannot find one, my point has been made and I should rightly receive the votes.
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.