Standardized testing should not be abolished in the United States.

While the time limit is technically up, what are your thoughts on the debate?

I'll read the vote later for reference, thanks.

I don't have an opinion but probably lean pro if forced to take a stance.

Are you Pro or Con on this subject?

I don't know the all the US standerized tests, so i'm not completely sure but isn't that the only test in the US with those exact measures?

"A standardized test is a test that is administered and scored in a consistent, or "standard", manner."

The above is the definition given. It seems like the definition could literally apply to any test at all

They are likely to be divided into three sections. Design, multiple choice and an essay. Which is considering other factors that standerized testing doesn't have. However, as for the ones that are only multiple choice, I believe some allow team courses? That said, as I have said, standerized tests are discriminating. This is also a huge difference.

These stem competitions are not the entirety of the future on college applications. Advanced classes and electives as well play a part and other possible factors. Some schools allow entry only on standerized testing scores. The problem are these tests are unfair. If stem competitions are the reason for some entries in colleges, at least they don't discriminate. Though I doubt the schools like that. Unless stem competitions discriminate? I wouldn't know.

You somewhat repeat what you've already said. I believe that it isn't a good measure on how well a teacher may teach. Of course I probably couldn't prove zero impact at all. However as for the entirety of their capability, it doesn't prove it all. If I say a area that teachers get 60 scoring, that just backtracks. That let's pro know that con does think standerized testing scores prove a teachers capabilities. That goes against my previous statment and leaves room for the contention that pro mentioned in the beginning. Pro spent their entire time rebuttaling against me rather than supporting his contention. I wouldn't want to bring his points back up, giving him leverage when it was already, for the most part, moved on.

As for not defining standerized testing, that's my bad. I assumed the description gave a valid simple definition of standerized testing. Though I will clear up any confusion on the definition in future debates.

I might judge it anyway, but it won't be easy and even after reading it twice, I don't know who won unless I get out a pen and a paper

Here is another reason I didn't want to judge this.

There were some implicit arguments made.

1. Funding from standardized tests should go to underperforming schools where the most funding is needed.

2. Funding goes to over performing schools.

Some citations or facts on how federal funding ties in with test scores currently would be nice, as well as pointing out to pro that if you give more funding to underperforming schools, it incentivized teachers to do a shitty job teaching.

"That is a good point, but that would also contridict myself. I personally state that the standerized test doesn't prove a teacher's capability to teach"

Were you arguing that they have zero impact on test results or just that it isn't a good measure of their ability to teach.

Let's assume a few things.

1. Average test score is 75
2. Avg score in bad neighborhoods is 50
3. Avg score in public charter school is 90

The following scenarios can be true, given those hypothetical data points

1. Schools are rewarded with funding to pay teachers more in the schools with higher average scores.
2. The people hiring teachers for those schools are more competent than the state so when they see a teacher getting scores of 60 in bad neighborhood schools averaging 50, they know she is a better than average teacher and will give her a salary bump to come there.

So we have the following two seemingly contradictory things that can simultaneously be true.

1. standardized tests are bad at determining the ability of teachers when compared to nation wide averages.

2. The funding that rewards better performing schools starts a snow ball where all competent teachers will move to where they are least needed so they can better support their family.

"Pro's statement: "All standardized tests do is point out that it exists and force administration to take accountability for addressing it directly. Usually, through state funding which goes directly into personalized assistance & coaching. Extend"

My issue is that somebody reading the debate who doesn't know what a standardized test is, may assume you guys are debating all testing period. There should have been some effort made to define standardized testing in a way that let voters know that other forms of testing exist to test knowledge.

Great debate

"... Eventually they move from those areas into predominantly white schools, leaving black schools with all shitty teachers.
This wasn't argued in the debate but it's the general reasoning for opposing standardized tests."

That is a good point, but that would also contridict myself. I personally state that the standerized test doesn't prove a teacher's capability to teach. If I included teachers would be chasing the better sallery, it would/could also affect my argument. What makes a good teacher? And how is that proven? There are simply many factors, and it might not even be the teacher. Hence the addition to students messing around in class. In the long run it might've affected more than what I brought to the table, plus part of pro's contention could've been recovered with the mentioning of teachers.

"This wasn't explained in the debate which is why I am personally reluctant to vote, but standardized tests in this context usually refer to tests required at the state or federal level and usually tests scores are used to determine funding, teacher bonuses etc."

Further, it is, to an extent, covered that test scores were to determine funding. Round two and three cover this briefly. And the description states what a standardized test is alone.. Might be putting myself at more risk stating the following, but it's whatever.

The following:

Pro's statement: "All standardized tests do is point out that it exists and force administration to take accountability for addressing it directly. Usually, through state funding which goes directly into personalized assistance & coaching. Extend."

Con's response to the statement: "If it's forcing them to take accountability, then why hasn't it happened already? Why are there still learning gaps?
Hence, this funding obviously isn't helping.

This funding doesn't always go to personalized assistance or coaching, either."

Standardized testing is not "standard testing"

This wasn't explained in the debate which is why I am personally reluctant to vote, but standardized tests in this context usually refer to tests required at the state or federal level and usually tests scores are used to determine funding, teacher bonuses etc.

A lot of the criticism of them is that good teachers will leave the places that need them most to chase salary and bonuses. Basically we already know predominantly black schools will get low scores on tests and teachers will be judged by something out of their control which is the low IQ of students in those areas. Eventually they move from those areas into predominantly white schools, leaving black schools with all shitty teachers.

This wasn't argued in the debate but it's the general reasoning for opposing standardized tests.

Every school tests children to determine whether they learned the material. This in the American standard would be your standard test, but don't confuse your standard test for standardized tests, because they are opposite things.

Standard means typical. Like this is a standard day. Standardized means basically the opposite of standard in this regard. Usually standardized means something like "to make all,the same".

Like "we standardized how to make burgers at McDonald's" while a standard Hamburger would come from a back yard grill and widely vary from person to person.

"Stem competitions are something that access creativity and those other factors unlike the testing."

Such as PhysicsBowl, BBO, USABO, AMC12, they only have multiple choice questions. By what margins do they prevail over what you consider "standard testing"?

Apples to oranges, stem competitions are a choice. And are they biased and discriminatory? Stem competitions are something that access creativity and those other factors unlike the testing.

There are other ways to spot what students know about those things with different objectives.

Consider my quotes in the final round:

"I have a son who has been able to pass the written portion of the state driving exam since he was eight, but still can’t drive well enough to get the license. The reverse is also true in many cases: students who can perform well, but can’t pass certain types of tests. I find out whether my students know how to write a researched paper, by having them write one (or several). More important, I check their progress along the way (formative assessments) and provide additional instruction or support as the results indicate."

Maybe, i'll add to this response a bit later/next comment.

To be fair, some STEM competitions like the AMC12 and UKChO and PhysicsBowl are basically standardized testing. By abolishing them you are just taking away things to do from kids good at science and math and stuff.

This is still minus the existence of math majors. Sure, biology majors aspiring to be biologists can intern at even HS level, but how can the university know that you know how to calculate with 3D matrices or to find the hamiltonian of anything? How does the university know that you know enough about general relativity and particle physics to assign you as a grad student to a particle accelerator?

You can say that "we will fix it", whatever you want to say. "You" is not targeted towards you, personally. But are you really? The US has been reminded several times and what has happened? Absolutely nothing. We can't trust something that obviously isn't getting taken care of responsibly. You say you will, you have our trust but what happens when you don't do something you say you will? You become untrustworthy, and I believe that is exactly how I view the US responsibly. in handling this matter.

By those who are benefiting, who are those who are being hurt by it?
My main reason, and I keep bringing it up, for my contention Impacts.

If there are negative and discriminatory effects, they are allowing it? So, as the USA are they allowing racism though disprove of it at the same time? You can't have both sides. If you are a feminist, which is believing in equal rights, you can't ask for equal rights but also hold men to their biased standards such as opening the door for a woman, walking on the right side, etc. You can't be two sided.

Your denying the right of equality, of everyone being on the same level. Sure some obviously will be smarter, or less smarter than others but when you have effects that are biased that is different. You are denying that right, as said, of having equal terms as others.

I state there are other ways to get attention to that person, that could benefit. I state that creativity and things as of such should be factored in. Taking a test that only benefit the privileged and certain folks is unfair towards the rest who really have a slim chance of being benefited.

If only there was more room for characters it would've been a bit more expressive but it is what it is now.

Thanks. I'm mostly in for the votes for feedback, I know my arguments lacked and honestly its good to hear some advice to improve.

Standardized tests should, for the most part, not be obligatory in the US(For example, AP exams, the SAT, the ACT, etc), but abolition is something else. By abolishing you are also taking away the right of those who knows how to actually benefit from them.

I respect your decision either way.

But if it’s any consolation, whiteflame is jewish and ended up voting against me in a debate where I was against Hitler.

And Barney is a progressive and biased against me when I was arguing systemic racism doesn’t exist, but ended up voting for me.

Fair enough.

I really should recuse myself from this one, sorry.

That also makes me kind of biased, as my main job is to prepare students by helping them to channel stress, become more productive citizens, solve problems, and compete in an unforgiving world.

Pretty sure you know where that would put me.

Con did do a pretty good job.
You might actually be impressed by some of their counter-arguments.

But it’s entirely up to you if you decide to vote or not.

I figured you might like this subject because you said you work in education I believe.

If you really need me to :D
You probably already know what my votes going to be though unless con did a very good job.

Would you guys like to vote on this as well?

I'll vote on this before time's up.

Bump, I guess. ^^^

I just read this. I think con made a lot of mistakes, but I am not convinced they won until I do my impact analysis later, but it intuitively feels like con won for now.

I know one thing con should have done is point out there is a difference between standardized tests and just any test a little better, but con seems like they did really well

Small questions, just for future reference..

"pro brings with this is that homework and other things are easy to cheat on (they are brought home in most cases) and grades cannot fairly function without standardized testing."
When was this said? I must have completely passed this..

"The issue is that con doesn't explain how each of these methods can fairly assess student learning in a way that is competitive."
Was it supposed to be competitive in the first place? You can try to beat someones score all you want, but in the end, it's really about having your own score and placing somewhere high. I have heard of students who just click through answers, so honestly, what really is competitive?

Is this the impression you were left with or something unaddressed that pro stated?

"If con made the argument that universities and other institutions of higher learning shouldn't be competitive, I would've had them won the debate as it justifies the low-stakes methods of testing, but right now there is no justification."

I'm a bit confused, competitive in what way? Competitive as limiting students with lower scores to get higher education? Or in what way?
As for the rest, nothing to really say. Alternatives were not my priority as you don't need alternatives for something to get removed. Though I can get that side of the vote. No hate towards the vote, just once again, reference for future debates. Overall, thanks.

Thanks. In general, I think your formatting is pretty solid. (You too, Bella.) What the top debaters (whiteflame, blamonkey, MisterChris) tend to do, which I didn't notice until very recently, is put a framework (or at least a syllogism) right at the beginning of their opening telling the audience how the debate should be judged. For example, if one of them was arguing that a wealth tax was just, they might put a section arguing that the debate should be judged on the basis of utilitarianism. They then give a decent argument defending that framework. One danger is that you can't make the framework too narrow, or else it's easy to attack. If you're arguing that the US invasion of Iraq was unjustified, it's tempting to say right at the beginning that no invasion of any sort is justified. But voters won't like this. So it's better to argue for a different framework that favors you, but indirectly (if you're arguing for euthanasia, for example, say that voters should judge based on whether a law reduces human suffering.) When whiteflame talks about "weighing impacts against each other," this is what he's talking about. It might seem like he's defaulting to utilitarianism, but he's really just looking for a solid framework, and for strong arguments defending why that framework should be used.

This might not mean much to some voters, but the top debaters are often the most active voters. Not to mention, it makes your argument more consistent so you're not on the defensive as much. In this debate, I don't think there are many frameworks to choose from. But even saying something like "To meet my BoP, I must prove that the benefits of standardized testing outweigh the harms," helps you to set up impacts and might seem more convincing to the audience. I know it seems redundant, but a lot of voters will look for that.

Thanks for the vote.

You really are the most impressive debater I’ve cone across. If you had any advice for me, I’d strongly consider what you have to say.

I really liked your arguments.

Particularly, the one about the education inequality caused by wealth gaps. And the other about percentage of students who cheat.

I have thought about comparing though with the side effects it might tarnish the idea. My main goal was the impacts. Which is also the reason for my last quoting in the final argument.

I've only checked out one of Whiteflame's vote out of cirousity, but never completely regarded it. Might check it out, we'll see. Appreciated.

Sure. I think your biggest issue was lack of a tangible impact. Stress is a point in your favor, but how much stress is being caused, and how does it compare to the benefits of standardized testing? You might have also benefited by comparing the current system to one in another country where standardized testing has already been abolished, or comparing schools that use it to schools that don't. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how much of the current problems are being caused by standardized testing.

If you want to get better at framework and impact, read a lot of whiteflame's votes, and also look at how he structures his arguments. He goes into a lot of detail that I think is helpful.

Cool, thanks. Elaborate and as of which I could work on.

RFD:

Arguments to Pro, sources to Con. Con had a lot more outside links supporting their case, while Pro was mainly just linking to articles and relying on their own reasoning—reasoning is good, and it won Pro the debate, but Con's sources support their point much more directly.

Pro essentially argues that standardized testing gives a consistent framework to see how much each student knows. Con argues that tests give inaccurate information and favor the rich. There's also stress, which is never really quantified as an impact. I think Pro has a point that tests give some information—if rich kids are able to learn more, shouldn't we be aware of that? They make that point pretty well in R1 and R2.

Con says "We shouldn't be reliant on testing for the 'successes', if students are having a hard time grasping what they are learning in schools"—but it seems like the tests would help us to see if they're having a hard time learning, which Con supports? I'm not sure why this is a point against standardized testing. Con then says there are alternatives, but they haven't said what these are...at this point I'm buying Pro's argument that standardized testing is a good way to measure the things Con is concerned with.

Con says that teachers can identify which students need help based on work, without grading the work. Again, I'm not sure how the grading part is a downside if it helps gives specific feedback to students. Then Con lists a bunch of things tests don't measure, but they seem to be mitigating Pro's impacts, not disproving them or showing why tests should be abolished. Pro points this out pretty easily in R2.

At this point, it's basically the information provided by standardized tests vs the effects of stress. Pro weighs these using an analogy to an interview and mitigates the anxiety by saying it's caused by other issues (which is kind of speculation, but so is the anxiety point in the first place). It's not the best impact calculus, but it's at least an attempt to weigh the benefits and harms of standardized testing.

Con says "If standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it," although this seems to contradict what they said earlier about tutors. I had thought both sides agreed there was a racial disparity in learning overall, not just in testing. But Con seems to be arguing that disparities only exist in testing...Pro points this out, but then they simply claim racism exists outside of testing. It would be better if both sides provided sources, rather than just making claims and insisting they are right. Pro points out issues with alternatives.

Con argues that standardized testing affects school acceptance. But I'm not sure how else they want schools to accept students—maybe this is an argument for something like affirmative action, but Pro shows that standardized testing isn't what's causing the disparity, so I'm not sure how abolishing tests would be better for acceptance? Pro says it would be better to fix standardized testing than replace it, and I don't see Con making a great counterargument here, aside from showing that alternative plans may work as well.

So both sides have an avenue to victory if they just make their impacts more clear. Pro basically just summarizes his previous points in the final round. Con says a lot in the final round, and I guess they did warn Pro, but it feels unfair to consider new evidence provided at the end aside from the general gist.

So now I have to make my decision. Con started making points later on that Pro didn't respond to as much, but it really felt like Con didn't understand what Pro was saying. Despite saying a lot in the final round, Con doesn't say much to address timeliness and unreliability aside from the fact that people will be dedicated.

At the end here, I have to give this to Pro. Even if the alternatives Con mentioned have some merit, there was never a huge argument made that standardized testing was itself harmful or that the information wasn't useful. Con doesn't show that alternatives can't coexist with standardized tests. I just think Pro made a better case that testing will help identify racial disparities.

One

"Are you Pro or Con on this particular subject?"

Pro. Standardized testing is like the only advantage I have here. Could you imagine if colleges look at my applications based majorly on how much charity work, sports team experience, popularity among students, etc. and decide on that? I wouldn't think about it.

All good. I can understand why.

That is my bad, I thought most of the userbase was American. Sorry.

"You guys", "Ungrateful Americans"
Hopefully this is directed towards the DART community mostly, but not entirely. I never once have stated i'm from the United States - I haven't disclosed anything.

All true, yes. I still believe standardized testing should be removed and I would debate this with other countries involved or not. Just because one is more involved in the controversial issue doesn't mean once again, it shouldn't change.

Are you Pro or Con on this particular subject?

Maybe it is just because where I am from but the first thought when I saw this was "Ugh, ungrateful Americans." Sorry for thinking about this.

But you guys really have it easier than us. You guys can take an AP exam for less money than in here, the same goes for SAT and many other opportunities, competitions, activities, etc.

This is my point when I implemented my contention "Impacts", yes, they are better than in Asia however that doesn't mean it shouldn't change.

I would've mentioned other countries if it weren't for the "United States" part of the resolution.

The fact that the US use application essays as a significant part of college entrance is already better than in Asia where it is determined by a single standardized test.

What on earf