The Instigator
stickghost
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

should schools turn to a technology school or a normal school

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 2 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 39187
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

stickghost

Pro

I think schools should turn to technology schools because kids have fun on ipads and computers etc and help raise grades to help kids who are failing but kids should atleast do some worksheets and test but technology will help the kids with their test scores
jvava

Con

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you.

I am going to lay out my stance quite simply: I support a 'normal', traditional school because the proof is in the facts. Before we started to modernize education to fit the need of the students, the USA ranked much higher in the world in terms of education.

We need to stop reshaping the needs of the classroom, both public and private, and instead focus on what provided us with solid scores: traditional methods of teaching.
Debate Round No. 1
stickghost

Pro

No technology because it will help kids who are failing but should still have some worksheets but will help them and I researched and it said that 12% of the kids who use technology will have a increased chance to pass
jvava

Con

Can you cite the resource that you got this information from?

Now, I believe that technology is a waste of resources and tax-payer money for our schools. Let me explain.

Technology would be quite pricey for our schools. In a time when teachers are getting laid-off, classes are being cut, and many sports teams are being eliminated to fit within the boundaries of the budget, I believe that placing technology in our schools would be a major setback to our education system.

What I wish to see brought into the classroom are more teachers to make class sizes smaller. This is a proved method of increasing direct teacher-to-student one on one time, and to make sure that the students really gets what he/she is being taught.

But why is the use of technology in education a downfall to the system?

As I stated, it would setback budgets and force the removal of teachers, teams, etc. Technology is one example in a list of many that has brought the public education system down. Before we had technology, before we started to shape the classroom according to the wants of the students, the American education system had much better standings in the world. This is what I want to bring back to the current system. Sure, we'd have to update it just a bit. But traditional methods of teaching have a much better record than the methods that are in place now. The proof can be found in students' grades.

"Traditional skills such as critical thinking, reading, writing and math are being forgotten so that shortcuts can be taken and the classroom can be "fun". Let's stick with fulfilling the purpose of schools instead of creating a new one."
-Jilleen Rickard

I largely agree with this statement. Shortcuts are being taken to ensure that students are having "fun". Shortcuts are demolishing the education system. The USA recently ranked just "average" compared to other international leaders.

The problem with adding technology into schools is not only a finical problem. It is a problem that makes us ask ourselves this question - is the education system too broken and decayed to fix?

I argue no. We need to reintroduce traditional methods of teaching into education. We have reshaped the classroom enough - an experiment that hasn't worked, and it is apparent in our scores. Adding technology adds to this unsuccessful experiment by allowing bigger shortcuts and larger budget cuts for our public education system.
Debate Round No. 2
stickghost

Pro

It may cost a lot of money but it will be worth it it helps kids with life and makes it fun if they are board than they won't do much work but if they have fun they will do a lot of the work
jvava

Con

1. "It may cost a lot of money but it will be worth it..."

Yes, it will cost cost a lot. It will take money out of schools that the schools don't have currently.

I support a measure to spend our funds and tax-payer money on proved methods of improving education. Smaller class sizes, for example.

This is a website that shows both the benefits and disadvantages to smaller class sizes: http://www.publicschoolreview.com...

"Several studies have shown that reducing class size increases overall student achievement, especially for younger, disadvantaged children. The following are some of the benefits of fewer students in a classroom.
Students receive more individualized attention and interact more with the teacher.
Teachers have more flexibility to use different instructional approaches.
Fewer students are less distracting to each other than a large group of children.
Teachers have more time to teach because there are fewer discipline problems.
Students are more likely to participate in class and become more involved.
Teachers have more time to cover additional material and use more supplementary texts and enrichment activities."

This, as you can see, is a huge benefit to spending public funds wisely. Here are one of the disadvantages of this system - and, yet, it still proves my point.

"Those who oppose making class reduction a priority generally acknowledge that there are benefits from smaller classes, especially for young children. They apply cost-benefit analyses, however, to conclude that the costs for reducing class sizes are too high for what they call the slight benefits."

Even the side against this claim acknowledges that it is a good idea, but is too costly.

My argument is that we can't afford to spend our money on policies that are proved to work; why would we spend so much more money and other resources on things that limit the amount of teachers within a school? Why would we want our classes to grow larger to afford things like IPads and other technology?

The best one-on-one is with a real-life adult. Not some form of technology that can't answer your questions directly.

I don't want to limit the budgets of schools anymore. That's the reason we have fallen behind in international rankings.

Now, I know an argument that pro-technology in school people like to pull: well, students can bring in their own form of technology.

I am against this. This basically undermines the point of public education, which is supposed to provide the same level of education for everybody. If one student has an IPad, and the other doesn't, than one has it easier than the other. I believe that we should offer the same level of education for everybody - no matter their economical situation, or whether or not their parents allow them to take it to school.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu...

This is an article written by the university of Michigan. It supports my claim that students should learn the same things and do the same things - meaning if one student has to take notes instead of typing notes, all should. It compares the US to Japan, and why the US is failing compared to Japan. One reason is because of the differences offered in education. In Japan, students learn from the same books.

"The first, and most significant way, is that Japanese schools incorporate a
national curriculum created by the Japanese Ministry of Education. Thus, unlike
the educational system in the United States, in which each state
determines its own curriculum, the federal government decides on what each
school must teach, how to teach it, and even what books to teach it with."

Students need to be learning from the same resources. You might say, "If everybody had an IPad, than we could all learn and benefit."

Read the last paragraph of that article.

"Finally, although the US spends a considerable amount of money on
education relative to Japan, much of the funds that are
appropriated are used for things other than academics. These include funds for
transportation, food, athletics and custodians as well as money for programs
such as D.A.R.E. In fact, as much as 40% of US curricula is devoted to
nonacademic subjects (Abbeduto 380). In contrast, most Japanese students walk or
ride their bikes to school and many traditional Japanese schools even have
students clean the school at the end of each day. Furthermore, although
students in Japan do participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports after school,
most are only allowed
o choose one club. Additionally, most students who are considering college
perceive such activities as a hindrance to their chances of passing the entrance
exams that will pave the way to their success (Johnson 1996)."


The reason the US has fallen behind is because we spend too much money on things that we think help our students - not what we know. Japan, instead, devotes their funding strictly to education - meaning that they take a traditional path instead of a modern path. They don't even incorporate buses into their budget; why would they introduce IPads and other such forms technology?

Japan - along with many other nations - is an example of a nation prospering in education because they stick to the book of traditional teaching. They stick to the book of proved methods and logical thinking.

Meanwhile, the US is taking shortcuts to ensure that education is "fun". The fact is, though, that while it may be entertaining, students are not benefiting from it. The US just recently rated "average" among other world leaders in education.

We need to stop taking shortcuts and ensure that our students are being taught with proved method. We need to stop harming our budgets further more and instead focus our finical interests in things that are proved to work.

I am against technology in schools because it, so far, has proved unsuccessful in the US and is harming our budgets by laying off teachers.
Debate Round No. 3
stickghost

Pro

They don't have the money but they have fundraisers that can help the school with money but some componies have free ipads and computers
jvava

Con

1. "They don't have the money but..."

The major reason the school systems don't have much money on hand is due to the enormous spending to make the classroom "fun". This includes some technology already integrated into education - computers, for example. And SmartBoards.

But I don't think that simply spending more money is going to the solve the problems with the education system.

"Finally, although the US spends a considerable amount of money on
education relative to Japan, much of the funds that are
appropriated are used for things other than academics. These include funds for
transportation, food, athletics and custodians as well as money for programs
such as D.A.R.E. In fact, as much as 40% of US curricula is devoted to
nonacademic subjects (Abbeduto 380). In contrast, most Japanese students walk or
ride their bikes to school and many traditional Japanese schools even have
students clean the school at the end of each day. Furthermore, although
students in Japan do participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports after school,
most are only allowed o choose one club. Additionally, most students who are considering college
perceive such activities as a hindrance to their chances of passing the entrance
exams that will pave the way to their success (Johnson 1996)."

-http://sitemaker.umich.edu...;

This paragraph states my feelings exactly. Japan offers a no-frills education, and they are much higher than us academically. The US has tried to take shortcuts and increase federal funding for education - to afford things like IPads. Yet the system is failing.

I don't think spending more money to make the classroom "fun" is the key to improving the education system.


2. "they have fundraisers that can help the school with money..."

This would only promote wealthier students. This would not benefit students who are poorer in the least. Let me explain.

Having a fundraiser sounds great. But, how about those students who live in the poorer sections of town? How about those students who's neighbors are all poverty-ridden?

Yet, the wealthier student lives in an area that is affluent. His/her neighbors can afford to donate to this fund.

Allowing for a fundraiser to take place will only allow a certain amount of kids to contribute, which results in not being able to afford technology for everybody. Having a fundraiser sounds like a great solution, but not everyone would be able to contribute.

In the end, the school would not have adequate funds to afford this swanky technology. And how about schools that all students live in poverty? How on Earth on they supposed to contribute? One of the things that betters the Japanese education system is allowing all students to study from the same material:

"The first, and most significant way, is that Japanese schools incorporate a
national curriculum created by the Japanese Ministry of Education. Thus, unlike
the educational system in the United States, in which each state
determines its own curriculum, the federal government decides on what each
school must teach, how to teach it, and even what books to teach it with.
Therefore, there are many implications for such a disparity in educational
structure. For American schools, the fact that each state can come up with
their own curriculum means that states have autonomy as well as responsibility
for what each student learns. Consequently, each state can then implement
curricula in schools based on the resources available to each state and what the
state feels is the most important for its students to learn. However, the major
problem with this system is the fact that the resources, namely money, available
to each state and district varies so much that students across the country
receive vastly different qualities of education."

- http://sitemaker.umich.edu...

What I am trying to say is that we need to allow students to study from the same material - something cheap enough for everyone to afford. Allowing some students to have technology and some others not will result in a huge gap in education - not only between states and local districts, but also between race, gender, finical status, etc. Allowing this to take place will expand the gap that is already in place between race, gender, finical status, etc.

Allowing technology in education will cut trimmed budgets, allow students to "have it easier" (which has proved to be a failure, as the US education system has fallen significantly behind) and will allow for a much larger gap between race, gender, finical status, etc. if fundraisers pay for this type of education.





Debate Round No. 4
stickghost

Pro

stickghost forfeited this round.
jvava

Con

I am going to sum up my stance to voters.

Voters, I do not support the integration of technology into public education. Before we started reshaping the classroom to fit the wants of the students, the US public education system was solid. When we started to consider student entertainment, we began to drop. And drop. And today we are only ranked "average" compared to other international leaders when it comes to education. Technology is an example of this reshaping being done in the classroom. It hasn't proved successful.

It also will come with an extreme price tag, lots of tax money. My opponent argued that a fundraiser could take place. Sounds good, but it would be a huge flop to schools that have live in poor areas and possess a high number of free-and-reduced-lunch students. Since it would be a voluntary situation, you would see huge gaps between race and gender when it came to test scores; these new scores would not be positive, though.

I provided evidence as to why a nation like Japan is so much more advanced than we are. They use the same books, standards, and other educational material around the country. They also don't spend much at all on things other than absolute necessities; but, they are much higher than us academically. The reason we are lagging behind is because of the introduction of a varying education system based on state-by-state, district-by-district, city-by-city. We need consistency throughout our schools to improve educational standings, not introduce inconsistencies. Technology is an inconsistency since some students could afford it and some could not.

I hope the voters have listened to both sides, and - by now - have picked the winner.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by stickghost 3 years ago
stickghost
If you think I'm wrong than accept my challange
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
stickghostjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have one this debate, but he didn't research the topic to come up with reliable sources to support his position. Con made many contentions that Pro didn't adequately rebut. Reducing class size is extremely expensive; ipads are cheaper than printed books; etc. Leaving the points unanswered concedes them to Con. con had reasonably good sources; they could have been countered, but were not.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
stickghostjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt con used more sources and backed it up and made it convincing. Pro on the other hand wasn't even clear in the question. It wasn't really a pro/con question, though I can tell what both were saying later on.