Standardized tests in all schools
Debate Rounds (3)
Standardized tests, when properly administered, provide a standard assessment of students' learned knowledge and determine whether or not students are prepared to move on to the next progressive level of schooling. If administered properly, this type of testing is a fair process that simply gauges student ability.
In response to Con's claim that these tests are unfair, I would ask: What makes standardized tests unfair?
I would like to also note that one personal experience is not sufficient evidence to judge the entire testing practice.
Regarding Con's initial hypothetical that a student passes all of their classes, fails the test, and is held back:
It is possible that a student could technically pass a class (via cheating, getting a D or C, extra credit) and not have achieved the appropriate level of knowledge. It's the same concept as taking notes. I could take notes for an hour, and then not remember a single thing, as it is all written on paper. I have the information in hand, but I have the responsibility to use it as well.
Standardized tests are meant to be difficult. They are designed to test you, and you as the student have a responsibility to study for them if you want to perform well. Failing the standardized test is the result of a lack of preparedness, or the result of a failure to learn the proper information, either of which are the fault of the student, and in some cases, select teachers. If you pass your class, but don't learn anything, then what's the point?
So in round two:
I challenge Con to provide reasonable evidence that supports the claim that standardized testing is an unfair practice.
I also challenge Con to disprove my argument that students can pass a class without really learning the material.
If you pass the classes for the year until you take the standardized test and fail by let's say... 2points it seems unfair do u not think so .. I had a friend who had As and B's her senior year till she took the test and failed by three points and had to repeat the year even with all of her credits they made her repeat agin it's not fair.
However, for the sake of the argument, let's suggest that a teenager is attempting to get their driver's license. They take and pass all of the proper courses, but then go to take their actual driving exam, and fall painfully short of passing the driving portion of the exam. In order to uphold the integrity of the process, that is a fail. It would be irresponsible to grant that person a driver's license when they have not thoroughly proven themselves capable of driving safely. Likewise, to curve the grade and bump up a failing student to a passing student would be damaging to the integrity of the test, and could also result in the student having a much more difficult time at the next level.
Hypothetically speaking, if the standardized test is an isolated incident, and the student knew everything that they were supposed to have learned, then retesting would be the best option. There is no way that you can argue that a student should be passed because they were close enough. If 3 points are accepted as close enough, then why not 4, then why not 5, and so on and so fourth. This results in a lowering of standards, which was a proven disaster with the "No Child Left Behind" Program during the Bush administration.
For the third and final round:
Once again I challenge Con to disprove my argument that students can pass a class without really learning the material.
I would challenge Con to prove beyond firsthand experience that standardized testing is unfair.
Con presents the hypothetical scenario that a student could no all of the appropriate material and then fail the test due to overstudying and stressing themselves out about the test. I understand that this is a possible scenario, but one hypothetical scenario is not a fair basis to condemn the entire testing process. As I stated in round two, a retesting opportunity would ideally be the solution to such a scenario.
However, in order for Con to win this debate, they would be required to have disputed my arguments, and given some reasonable logic to substantiate the claim that standardized testing is unfair. Con argued on the basis of personal opinions, personal experience, and hypothetical scenarios, while offering no credible evidence to support the claim that standardized testing is unfair. If Con had provided some concrete reasoning for how someone could pass a class and fail the exam, or justification for why this is an unfair process, then Con would have a much more firm argument.
It is possible to pass a class without learning all of the proper material.
Standardized testing measures students' knowledge and ability before admitting them to the next level of schooling.
Standardized testing does not warrant any judgement as unfair unless it can be successfully argued as discriminatory or unreasonable.
Failing a standardized test results in a student's inability to proceed on to the next grade level.
Con has not successfully disputed any of these points.
Please vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: 1) Con made only weak arguments. 2) Con went too personal 3) Pro made some good arguments.
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.