Standardized testing should NOT be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept your proposition of debate, and will be arguing in the side of Standardized Testing should be banned in schools.
Are we using the U.S.A. as a medium for this debate?
1. SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years.
2. SAT's are not expensive at all, and only cost 7$ per student.
3. SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material.
4. SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer etc.
5. SAT's show what level a student is at.
6. SAT's strengthen test taking skills for young ones.
I am looking forward to your rebuttals.
1. "SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years."
Standardized tests are taken on one day out of a year. This day may not be a good judgement of the skills the student has. I, for example, took the Pre-ACT (which is required in my state) after getting a concussion. It is well documented that SATs are not a good judge of a student's skills. A single test score at a young age that shows below average skills may cause a student to be placed in a Special Education program, which are programs that cause a habit cycle that children rarely escape from. This, of course, harms their future. Furthermore, selection based on these programs is racially influenced, as well as influenced by district, breeding disparity. The test scores also can cause a child to be held back a year, which often does not lead to better preformance than the first year in year two. 
2. "SATs are not expensive at all, and only cost $7 per student".
While it may be true that the required tests taken by students are not particularly expensive, the cost of them is often not even worth what the tests will give to the student. There is no evidence that testing actually improves students scores  - in fact, in countries like Finland, where standardized tests have been eradicated have had higher test scores  than other countries.
3. "SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material."
Unfortunately, the idea that a teacher will be judged based off test scores leads to a way of teaching that is detrimental towards the student. Often the teacher teaches to what the child will be tested on, not in the best interest of the student. Of course, this breeds a variety of teaching in the U.S.A. I like to call "taught to know, not to learn". 
4. "SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer, etc.."
While that is true, to get into a program like becoming a pilot, lawyer, doctor, whatever else, you will have graduated from college, which almost always makes it necessary to have taken the SAT (not just a general Standardized Test, to be clear, the one that is taken by juniors out of 2200 points) and/or the ACT, which is good practice. Furthermore, optional Standardized tests would mean that students where practice in Standardized tets would be beneficial could take the tests, but where it wouldn't be (ex., I have a friend who has epilepsy and violently seizes upon taking any SATs from stress - I too am an epileptic, and tend to have seizures, though much less minor, during tests of that kind) they wouldn't have to take it.
5. "SATs show what level a student is at."
In essence this is just a restatement of #1.
6. "SATs strengthen test taking skills for young ones."
This too is basically a restatement, but I will still point out that it teaches bad skills, such as completing tests in the time limit, sitting in stressful rooms worrying, being taught that these tests are absolutely imperative to your life (which freaks children out), and being given bad mediums for preparing.
1. This may be true but it still shows the achievement most of the times
2. Your first part may be true but your second part was getting off topic with my statement.
3. That dosent make sense, because the teacher HAS to make sure that the students know what they need to know.
4. I am sorry to say this, but that's life, stress, we all have to deal with it to reach our goals.
5. You should have taken the second part from 1# and make it 5#
6. This statement dosent make any sense. Children have to be able to take a test and even though it may be stressful, it dosent matter in the long run.
"Same sources as last time"
SATs damage a student's potential and future.
They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future.
The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores.
SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system.
(Thank you, by the way, Pro).
I, too, have the same sources as last time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ricksterpr0 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: clear win for con. he demonstrated superior logic. pro obviously had a biased outlook.
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.