Students should be able to choose the school they attend.
Debate Rounds (3)
The U.S. is really the only country that makes their students attend schools based on how the school districts are divided in cities or towns. The only education students are allowed to choose is college or universities.
I have been to Mexico and have family in Mexico. I have seen students being able to choose where they want to attend school. Students get to choose the school based on what they want to learn. Some schools are only vocational and others give a more advanced learning. Two schools that I know of that are vocational and educational are Cecytes and Cobach. Ceytes gives schooling based on how to run a hotel, cleaning rooms, cooking, and learning English. This school is more for those that want to go into a business right after high school. This is especially true if the school is in a more tour place area. Cobach in the other hand is more educational and only those who past their test may attend. This school is for those that wish to attend the university afterwards. Something that I forgot to mention with Cecytes is that even though its a more tour place school is still does offer some math, and writing, and so on for those who continue to a university. Both schools do however have a tuition regardless.
Other countries where I have seen this happen as well are Japan, China, and North Korea. The students are allowed to choose which school they attend. Of course, depending on what it is they are looking for.
Having students choose their school allows students to push themselves to get where they want to. It gives them the opportunity to know what they are looking for. There might be other schools that have this kind of system that I am not aware of at the moment.
I am open to any opinion or if you know of any country that also does this or does something similar i would very much like to know of them.
-Relating to how your arguments are centred about the student's freedom, on the negative, we question the true effectiveness and whether it is actually best for the student to have this freedom. Linking this to many common day-to-day cases where we can see freedom being abused, we believe that freedom should only be justified if it is appropriately used. This correlates with issues such as freedom of speech. Yes, we allow freedom of speech however it is unjustified to use hate speech on others, in this sense extremities violate the code of freedom.
-As I will explain later, it is the state's role to determine what is best for students, specifically the education sector of the state. While no education system is inherently flawless, we have seen that the education system has served many children fine. There are also many further implications which I will address later regarding the impracticalities of attending schools in a different city or town.
Moving onto substantive, there are two main problems with allowing students to decide where they want to go.
1. The maturity level of the students. Students, especially in high school, are often prone to making uninformed decisions. Students are easily influenced by their 'mates', whether it's for good or ill. Under the current system, students are able to pursue their career pathways with freedom after completing high school. So technically, in this debate we are restricting the 'students' to students in high school and/or primary/elementary school.
We cannot let students in this certain age group 'make' their own choices. Sure, there are schools that can be tailored to suit the students individual needs, however Pro has not considered the economic ramifications of making such a move. In this scenario, the government has attempted to provide the best possible education to the students given their particular circumstances.
2. The economic implications. Going to a school in another city on a frequent basis calls for an excessive amount of time spent on the road/travelling. Can we really justify that one school is around 'two hours of work' a day more efficient than another? Can we necessarily justify that a specialised school will certainly cater better for a particular need of a student? Allowing students to freely move between towns will incur large amounts of costs for families. It isn't necessary for us to impose this burden upon families, because these students HAVE the choice to attend the institution of their choice when they graduate. It is also frequently proven that the later stages of education lay down the most important foundations for career pathways, so students are not blocked from their career pathway because of their high school education.
KimberlyG forfeited this round.
KimberlyG forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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: Forfeiture
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.