The Instigator
enchantedpanini
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Siege
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

This house would support streaming in high schools

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Siege
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 34808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

enchantedpanini

Con

Streaming in high schools is often quick to provoke prejudice from students and teachers alike. It has been proven that students, if placed in a lower stream, can start to suffer academically. A test was held where a group of students with mixed academic ability were split randomly into groups. Some were told that they were in higher classes and others were told that they were in a bottom class. Though these students were split randomly, what they had been told slowly became true; those who were told that they were in the top classes achieved well and those who were told that they were in bottom classes began to achieve lower results. Similarly, teachers often only bother to teach top students competently as prejudice causes them to have low expectations for their lower classes. This has the potential to start a vicious circle: The lower the student's achievement, the lower the standard of teaching. The lower the standard of teaching, the lower the student's achievement etc... In conclusion, streaming in schools is a ridiculous concept; it lowers the achievement of students who are already not achieving very well and it lowers standard of education as teachers abandon their responsibilities with lower classes. Why would anyone want this for an institution whose sole purpose is to educate? This house does not support streaming in high schools as it is clearly a flawed, unhelpful system.
Siege

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting topic.

My opponent would like to have you believe that streaming students labels them for life. She claims that it encourages them to achieve based on where they were placed. However, I disagree. Streaming is a necessary part of the schooling system. The most obvious example is what are commonly referred to as "special ed", or special education classes. These classes are for kids who traditionally struggle in normal classes and are recognized for having lower IQs. To state that these students should be put into classes with normal students is simply preposterous. Due to the various learning disabilities, there are two things that could happen

1/ Their more specific needs would cause the teacher to slow down solely for their sake, slowing the pace for the entire classroom
or
2/ They would become self-conscious of their inability to grasp things as quickly as the other students and stay quiet instead of asking for help, causing their own education to suffer.

Imagine being in a Language Arts classroom,where the teacher then asks you to read a section aloud. Due to your dyslexia, you struggle reading the section, going very slowly and making simple mistakes. Finding it funny, the rest of the class laughs at you. From then on, as to not embarrass yourself, you don't bother reading out loud again so while the rest of the class reads, you slowly fall behind. Placing low ability students in a normal classroom will either cause their own education to suffer, or allow the entire class to suffer.

On the flip side, high-achieving, or "gifted" students can easily get bored in an non-streamed classroom. This is the sole purpose of Gifted Support classes. High achieving students need to be pushed harder or they may become complacent.

To explain it more simply, an non-streamed classroom is like a classroom going on a hike. You will have very athletic kids (high achieving kids), and also very unfit kids (low achieving) with a few people in between mixed among them. The unfit kids will move slower than the athletes and need much more breaks. Simply speaking, either the entire group slows down to cater to the unfit kids or the class moves at a normal pace as the unfit kids struggle to keep up. On the flip side, if you break the hikers up into groups based on ability, you will have the athletes finishing the hike much faster while the unfit kids finish much slower, however, everyone within the group will be at the same pace and become motivated by the other students who share the same abilities.

To conclude, I completely disagree with the Pro's motion that streaming is detrimental to students. On the contrary,I would like to put forward the motion that not only is streaming advantageous to students, but a near-necessity in order for students to receive the most out of their education.
Debate Round No. 1
enchantedpanini

Con

Due to a large homework load, I will have to forfeit this round to my opponent.
Thank you. :)
Siege

Pro

I'll foreit this round also to keep things even.
Debate Round No. 2
enchantedpanini

Con

Firstly, thank you very much to my opponent for also forfeiting the last round. It was much appreciated.
Back to the debate at hand, my opponent has just informed us that streaming in schools fails to meet the needs of individual students with different learning abilities. He has stated that the advanced are held back and the less advanced are either pushed too far or bullied for their lack of ability. Of course, I cannot deny this, but these things should be viewed in a far more positive light. While levels of frustration in a non-streamed classroom may run high at first, they are bound to settle eventually. In fact, working in such an environment trains people to work with difference, to accept different abilities. They develop socially and become well-prepared for what comes after high school and university: work. I don't believe that any workplaces are streamed and lack of preparation for this can lead to social issues between workmates. Those who are more advanced academically may become frustrated having to work with others who are not at their level; those who are not as advanced would struggle. One could argue that workers could become accustomed to this frustration, but it has been proven that the younger the mind, the quicker it adapts. High school students need to learn how to interact well with those of different academic abilities while their brains are still prepared to adapt to their needs. I"m sure that this makes it clear to anyone that streaming in high schools ought to be banned for the sake of students' social well-being later in life.
Siege

Pro

My opponent's main point this round is that having non-streamed classroom prepares student's for life, as the workplace will not be streamed, however, I would like to dispute this point.

Before I move on to the workplace, let's move on the where most students go after primary education - secondary education, ie: college/university. Now my opponent will have you believe that we need to prepare student's for the world after primary education, which is not streamed, but I argue that student's are in fact, streamed in the real world. Look up the information for any college, and you can find an "average" SAT/ACT score for that school. Simply put, low-ability student's are not getting into Harvard/Oxford, and the high-ability kids there will never have to interact with them while there. Likewise, the high-achieving students are not applying to the Community College of Hawaii, and the low-ability student's there will also not have to interact with the high-ability. This is streaming at it's finest. Nowhere will you see a school where both kids that have perfect SAT scores go as well as the kids who barely passed high school.

So what about the workplace? The workplace is very similar in this aspect. Frankly speaking, the high-ability kids go to the top schools so they can get the top jobs upon graduation. Places like Google, Apple, Goldman Sachs...are all recruiting high-ability kids only. The top-tier jobs do not even look at the lower-tier schools. Likewise, the jobs that the vast majority of the lower-ability people get, they will not be interacting with high-ability people, except maybe in a manager position. Now, obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but the foundation is solid. You do not typically see geniuses working hand-in-hand with the mentally challenged, or many times, even the ordinary.

With this, I would like for you to vote Pro for this motion, as streaming is very important to the success of students.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
This was a well-reasoned debate by both sides.

CON makes an interesting point about the placebo effect, but it is unsourced and not brought up again, and thus fell by the wayside. What was the clincher IMHO was PRO's arguments that life is streamed - jobs, college, etc, all are streamed and thus tiered for differing ability levels. As this was only a 2 round debate, and CON did not really rebut anything PRO said but actually conceded multiple points, arguments obviously go to PRO.

Conduct to PRO for the gracious round #2.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
Can't vote because of the sites identity verification system so here are my thoughts:

Pro presents a much better argument here. It is indeed the case that real life has a sort of "streaming" built in as does university. He is not correct that top tier jobs "do not even look at" students from lower level schools, however, unless he is referring to Asia where the name of one's school is taken far too seriously.

Con says that in a non-streamed classroom, the students would adapt to the situation. This is true, but Con gives no reason to believe that the adaptation would be a positive one. The adaptation would likely be that the students stop trying as was implied by Pro in his example about the dyslexic student.

If I could vote, I would give arguments to Pro.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Needs sources, or at least definitions.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
enchantedpaniniSiegeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
enchantedpaniniSiegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not seem to object to pro's argument properly.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
enchantedpaniniSiegeTied
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: I had a discussion recently on God where someone went "Once you've been introduced to the concept of God, you cannot state you don't know anymore: you either believe or you don't." And the response was "You've tried to explain it to me, but I'm just more confused than before. You use that word as if we both understand it, but hell, I have no idea what you're on about!" That is like this debate. I am more confused about what streaming is now than before I read the debate. All I can gather is that it is about splitting up people into groups, but even then I'm not that sure. So no one convinced me because I am just more confused. Conduct for ff.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
enchantedpaniniSiegeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro's graciousness. As to arguments, Con failed to anticipate Pro's final rebuttals. Unfortunately, this debate as a whole was hampered by Con's R2 forfeit, which made this debate even shorter. Con failed to counter any of Pro's R1 rebuttals, and Pro addressed all of her points. Con had BoP, and failed to meet it. Good job for a first debate, though!
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
enchantedpaniniSiegeTied
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: Both sides were good, but Con had to forfeit. Pro was kind enough not to bring up any further arguments when Con forfeited. So, Pro gets conduct points.