Instigator / Pro
19
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4329
Standardized testing should not be abolished in the United States.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
12
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
A standardized test is a test that is administered and scored in a consistent, or "standard", manner. Standardized tests are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_test
Rules:
1. On-balance.
2. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point, two are a full concession.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
I will be defending that Standardized Testing should remain in the education system, as it is a crucial part of learning.
BOP:
Burden of proof is shared.
Contentions
l. Standard Testing Provides Consistent Framework
Standardized testing allows states to examine and compare the successes and failures of high-performing schools and low-performing schools. The methods used to obtain these results rely on factually observing whether students are receiving a quality education and keeps this pattern the same for all schools.
Repetition is the Mother of Learning
While it is true that standardized testing can be tedious at times, re-doing the same task is exposure to the same facts and is beneficial for long-term memory as well as future performance.
The Right To Choose
As has been demonstrated above that standardized testing collects objective information on the schools’ teaching ability. When this information is made available, parents can now make an informed decision on which school to enroll their child into that works best for their education. Parents can’t make an informed decision, without standardized tests providing these results.
ll. Identify Strengths & Weaknesses
Those that fail can identify which areas they struggle with the most and can work on improving in these areas. This also ensures that teachers and school officials are personally invested in ensuring that they are taking their work seriously and fulfilling their obligation to educate the student.
- Knowing shortcomings early-on is vital so those flaws can be improved upon early before reaching adult life.
- Being aware of strengths is also a sure confidence-booster and can be useful information for students looking to advance classes. These skills look great on a college application.
lll. Support for Failing Students
Oftentimes there will be students that will fail under circumstances beyond their own control whether it be for disability, low-status, or lack of a privilege, this information will be useful for schools to identify and decide upon the type of support the student needs.
It also stands to reason that without standardized testing, that schools may never notice a student requires support and overlook this which will negatively impact them once they graduate.
Con
#2
Thanks Sir.Lancelot,
Preamble:
I am defending the point that Standardized Testing should be abolished. This will be backed up by four contentions.
Burden of Proof:
BoP is shared with both the instigator and contender.
1. Inaccurate
Straight forward, standardized tests are not always accurate.
Stress
Stress has to be one of my major points. I've done multiple different tests, some even musically. There have been times when I was a kid I freaked out and messed everything up, my solo, my opportunity. This is a major thing with students, usually referred to as 'testing anxiety'.
"One of the most problematic aspects of a standardized test is the intense stress and dread that many students experience when it comes to testing, leading them to not do as well because of test-taking anxiety or pressure. Students know that taking these tests could shape the rest of their future, which puts a lot of pressure on them to test well. As a result of the stress and anxiety, the test scores may not truly reflect their abilities." (2)
That's not the only thing. There is also stress among the students and their parents. I think this goes without saying but students usually feel the need to please their parents and in this case it would be having 'good results' this greatly pressures the student. How so? They might feel they need to better themselves or change themselves to fit expectations. To please colleges, parents, peers, etc.
They could despise learning just because they have convinced themselves they are lower than their peers because of their grade.
Cheating
Many students actually cheat on standardized and based on a poll result there was about 95% (both undergraduates and graduates) that actually conceded to the fact that they cheated on the test in some sort of form. What does this actually judge? (3)
Though i've already showed results from a poll its also common knowledge that students would cheat. But why would they cheat?
- Poor study skills
- Assessment stakes
- Low expectations of success / low self-confidence in abilities
Carnegie Mellon University confirms, "Some students might cheat because they have poor study skills that prevent them from keeping up with the material. Students are more likely to cheat or plagiarize if the assessment is very high-stakes or if they have low expectations of success due to perceived lack of ability or test anxiety." (4)
2. Unfairness
Money, money, money...
I would say money revolves around everything and anything. This does apply with standardized tests but also different things. Different things such as going into a university, smarter individuals are denied while the rich are granted an opportunity in college.
There are so many examples of the rich having more advantages in situations but it is also seen in education. The advantages are unfair and end up affecting the difference between students. If you have the money, you can even get special tutors that will help you do well on a test. If you don’t have the money, and your school is in a low socio-economic area that gets less funding than rich suburban schools, then you’re not getting the same preparation for the test as those at the higher socio-economic levels do. (5)
That's not all folks! Not only is there a difference between wealthy students and low-income students, but also among black students and white students. This is confirmed, "Mcardle from the University of Southern California found that wealthy students earn higher SAT scores compared to their low-income peers and that the difference in SAT scores between high- and low-income students was twice as large among black students compared to white students. (6)
3. Diversity difference
Diversity is everywhere, in almost if not every school. Everyone is different, not the same as another. We shouldn't treat everyone like they must or are the same. This is a major problem with standardized tests, they treat everyone identically.
In other words, "Standardized tests don’t value diversity. There are a wide range of differences in the people who take standardized tests: they have different cultural backgrounds, different levels of proficiency in the English language, different learning and thinking styles, different family backgrounds, different past experiences. And yet the standardized test treats them as if they were all identical; identical to the group that took the test several years ago, and to which the test has been “normed” (e.g. this original group is the “norm group” against which any future test-takers are to be compared)." (7)
Everyone has a different home environment or mental health situation. There are different advantages for every student. Not everyone has the capacity to study and receive extra assistance.
4. Impacts
Many students feel its unfair that tests can discount education. Many say its a great opportunity but is it really? Can this be the opposite? Does it affect opportunities? I believe it can.
This is not just my own opinion but others have spoken. "I believe required tests are redundant. I am spending two years in a teacher preparation program, and yet, I have to prove I am competent enough to teach. This competency is determined via a standardized test. It is unfair that a single test has the ability to discount the education I and millions of others students have worked so hard to obtain." (8)
Refutations:
l. Standard Testing Provides Consistent Framework
(not enough characters to copy and paste)
I'm going to be honest, I feel like you're contentions somewhat all circle around the same thing.
Are the teachers doing a good job at teaching? Can they help students who are struggling? This feels like what you're entire contentions are saying overall.
Well first off, this relates to my first contention. But I will extend it further than what my contention just states. We shouldn't be reliant on testing for the 'successes', if students are having a hard time grasping what they are learning in schools, this is what they should be concerned about. If students feel like they are failing everyday and this is evident, once again, this is what should be focused on. There are other ways to observe whether students are receiving a quality education.
Repetition is the Mother of Learning
Hopefully you are talking about standardized testing? I have another idea what you're talking about, however, can you confirm?
Repeating the same test every year doesn't mean that it will, help with "same facts and is beneficial for long-term memory as well as future performance." Most if not all students forget the material they are testing next year. Elaborate?
The Right To Choose
It doesn't always mean the school or teachers ability to teach, it would be the students ability to grasp the information.
Standardized tests don't measure educational quality. People, like you, tend to think that if standardized tests scores are high that means that the teachers are doing a wonderful job if not high scores they aren't doing a good job, this is simply false.
The standardized test scores focus on something outside of school, you need outside knowledge. For some it might be considered common knowledge for others, not so much.
"One of the chief reasons that children's socioeconomic status is so highly correlated with standardized test scores is that many items on standardized achievement tests really focus on assessing knowledge and/or skills learned outside of school—knowledge and/or skills more likely to be learned in some socioeconomic settings than in others." (9)
Let me confirm what these tests are actually trying to show:
- Native intellectual ability
- Out-of-school learning
- Socioeconomic status (10)
This partly relates to my fourth contention.
ll. Identify Strengths & Weaknesses
(not enough characters to copy and paste)
I'm not sure about them being interested or invested in the students either way.. That's another topic, I wont get into it.
That said, there are other ways to do this. Why not look at grades? If it is shown that many students grades are falling behind, why are we worrying about a single test? We should be worried about the grades, if there is a pattern between multiple students, start there. There are other ways to have an obligation to educate a student.
lll. Support for Failing Students
(not enough characters to copy and paste)
Without realizing it my opponent has partly conceded to my fourth contention. "Oftentimes there will be students that will fail under circumstances beyond their own control whether it be for disability, low-status, or lack of a privilege." Though I know they will somehow have prepared a response, so go ahead.
This goes for my first comment, "We should be worried about the grades, if there is a pattern between multiple students, start there."
If students are falling behind on grades or having trouble in class with just answering questions then it should be obvious the students are needing help. Grades can identify what type of student needs help. Teachers can even identify which students need help based on work, without grading the work. There are many ways to see which students need help without standardized testing.
- Knowing shortcomings early-on is vital so those flaws can be improved upon early before reaching adult life.
- Being aware of strengths is also a sure confidence-booster
I wanted to specifically address these.
As for your first mention, I would like to point out you 'already' agree these are 'flaws' meaning someone might put themselves down for these 'flaws', which counters your second mention. But to address this comment, the tests do not evaluate creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, artistic ability, or other knowledge areas. They just can't be judged. All of which are vital in adulthood.
For your second mention, this works vise-versa. It can bring down someone and relate to my second contention.
Sources:
Comments.
Round 2
Pro
#3
- Accountability.
- Awareness.
- Consistency.
- Objectivity.
^^^ Reasons for Standardized Tests.
It’s important to know that alternatives to Standard Tests do not offer the effectiveness to be a competent substitute, and require more effort and planning to implement than simply refining & tweaking the Standardized Testing system.
Con’s concerns
Racism, Diversity, & Learning Gaps
There is a learning gap between caucasian students versus students of color, but this is not a fault of Standardized Testing. We needed Standardized Testing to compare results to even observe and be aware that this gap exists, so we can work on overcoming it.
Standardized assessments are the only way of knowing these racial disparities exist.
Consider the following.:
- If an african american from a low status was secretly a prodigy and they were taking Basic Algebra, then it reasons they aren’t receiving the proper education to challenge their minds and grow. So if they happen to outperform everyone else on the math scores of the test, then they would be given the opportunity to switch to an advanced class so that they can meet their potential.
But the student needed the Standardized Test to make staff aware of this learning potential. Were it not for the test, this student’s education would be overlooked and his intellectual growth would be stunted. He would stagnate.
It is only by holding everyone to the same standard that we can truly separate the exceptional, the neglected, and the underachievers.
Schools get funding for underperforming students if they use standardized testing.
- “A 1965 law called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which tied extra funding for disadvantaged students to state compliance, was reauthorized in 2003 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). For states to be eligible for that extra federal funding, they had to annually assess student learning through standardized tests (grades 3-8 and once in high school). They also had to report out test results of historically-neglected groups, like students with disabilities, English-language learners, and low-income children. Each group—as well as schools, districts, and states—was supposed to meet a benchmark called “Adequate Yearly Progress,” or AYP.”
Standard tests regularly incorporate questions targeted to certain groups or ethnicities, that they may know more about than caucasian students. To say that the Standardized Testing system does not value diversity is objectively false.
While money does give certain students an advantage over others, money is also used to fund schools so that they are equipped with the resources to help disadvantaged students a chance to catch up. As demonstrated by the quote above.
But it is also very misleading to claim that money is the primary reason why a large rate of rich students succeed vs the low rate of poor students that fail.
- Because for one, cultural and ethnical beliefs play a role. It has been found that rich parents are more likely to take an aggressive interest in their child’s development and demand nothing, but high standards. This means pestering staff for extra assistance.
- While families of low-income are more likely to be overlooked because of being humbler and more modest in their pursuits.
Anxiety
This is actually a pretty weak reason to object to standardized testing. If the anxiety is so profound that it has a sabotaging impact on the student’s test performance, then there is a bigger problem at hand.
Testing anxiety is perfectly common and manageable, with enough preparation and training as well as getting a proper diet and sleep, it can be overcome. Job interviews are known to be stressful but we cannot skip this stage of processing just to accommodate the emotions of the applicant, when such a stage is important to gauge their skills and whether or not they’re a good match for the position.
Conversely, the interviewee shouldn’t skip the interview just because they’re nervous when it’s good exposure and they may need the money.
Con
#4
I've lost a bit of motivation, but don't get me wrong, this is not a concession. I'll just be late on my posts this entire debate.
This won't be my best, I don't have time to check over anything for today, so, hopefully my next argument posted is better, we'll see.
Extending the following:
1. Inaccurate, Cheating.
2. Diversity
3. Unfairness.
4. Impacts.
I believe pro hasn't proved *much of* anything against my position.
Refutations:
- Accountability.
- Awareness.
- Consistency.
- Objectivity.
Pro making new arguments or something? Elaborate.
If you're talking about your previous claims, I have already disproved them for the most part. Unless you just haven't responded?
It’s important to know that alternatives to Standard Tests do not offer the effectiveness to be a competent substitute, and require more effort and planning to implement than simply refining & tweaking the Standardized Testing system.
There are many different alternatives..
- Multiple measures. As the name describes, multiple measures is a way of using multiple forms of data to track, gauge, and better understand how a student is performing. ...
- Portfolios. ...
- Sampling. ...
- Game-based assessment. ...
- Social and emotional skills surveys. ...
- Inspections. ...
- Low-stakes testing.
Defense:
Con’s concernsRacism, Diversity, & Learning Gaps
Even though there's more, sure.
There is a learning gap between caucasian students versus students of color, but this is not a fault of Standardized Testing. We needed Standardized Testing to compare results to even observe and be aware that this gap exists, so we can work on overcoming it.
Ah yes, pro admitting to the point there is a learning gap. Cool, that's all I need. Everything you say besides that is irreverent.
"We needed Standardized Testing to compare results to even observe and be aware that this gap exists, so we can work on overcoming it."
Just proves it is the fault of standardized testing, you're just trying to say we need to overcome the racism that is happening.
Standardized assessments are the only way of knowing these racial disparities exist.
So, pro concedes that these racial disparities exist? That's all I need for my claim to continue.
If standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it.
Consider the following.:
- If an african american from a low status was secretly a prodigy and they were taking Basic Algebra, then it reasons they aren’t receiving the proper education to challenge their minds and grow. So if they happen to outperform everyone else on the math scores of the test, then they would be given the opportunity to switch to an advanced class so that they can meet their potential.
But the student needed the Standardized Test to make staff aware of this learning potential. Were it not for the test, this student’s education would be overlooked and his intellectual growth would be stunted. He would stagnate.
I don't think you get advanced classes for every school? There are other tests are determine that, at least sometimes.
Also, how do they get these advanced classes if they are getting lower scorers than they should/could be getting? That can't happen unless they are graded a different way.
I think you might be meaning something different? I guess i'm not really 'in the mood' right now, it would be appreciated if elaborate, that is if I am getting the wrong idea.
It is only by holding everyone to the same standard that we can truly separate the exceptional, the neglected, and the underachievers.
This I can get, there still are different ways to find out these issues without the side effects.
If this is what you were getting out of this entire argument, then, this is my, somewhat, response.
Schools get funding for underperforming students if they use standardized testing.
- “A 1965 law called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which tied extra funding for disadvantaged students to state compliance, was reauthorized in 2003 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). For states to be eligible for that extra federal funding, they had to annually assess student learning through standardized tests (grades 3-8 and once in high school). They also had to report out test results of historically-neglected groups, like students with disabilities, English-language learners, and low-income children. Each group—as well as schools, districts, and states—was supposed to meet a benchmark called “Adequate Yearly Progress,” or AYP.”
Standard tests regularly incorporate questions targeted to certain groups or ethnicities, that they may know more about than caucasian students. To say that the Standardized Testing system does not value diversity is objectively false.
So, what has pro tried to prove here?
- Schools get funded for underpreforming students.
Alright, good point. I'm glad you mentioned this, but what does this have to do with the results of the students? Sure, the schools get funding but this doesn't just excuse the lower scores they receive.
So, still, standardized testing does not value diversity.
While money does give certain students an advantage over others, money is also used to fund schools so that they are equipped with the resources to help disadvantaged students a chance to catch up. As demonstrated by the quote above.
Pro just admitted to my point: "While money does give certain students an advantage ..". Everything else said doesn't matter because it doesn't relate to the different between the higher-income to lower-income.
- They should be funded in a different way.
- Honestly, with my cited evidence of lower-income students, many people are at a disadvantage compared to others.
But it is also very misleading to claim that money is the primary reason why a large rate of rich students succeed vs the low rate of poor students that fail.
- Because for one, cultural and ethnical beliefs play a role. It has been found that rich parents are more likely to take an aggressive interest in their child’s development and demand nothing, but high standards. This means pestering staff for extra assistance.
- While families of low-income are more likely to be overlooked because of being humbler and more modest in their pursuits.
Yes, it can be the primary reason or in other words, it is more likely because they are rich.
Addressing the points separately:
- Aggressive interest by putting them in schools that benefit the rich, sure.
- The same thing applies, from above, for the most part. In fact, low-income people are more likely to need or encourage more assistance, it just doesn't, most of the time, way above the advantage with higher-income families.
Further, it is not completely misleading. It's been proven.
The lowest average SAT scores come from students whose families make less than $20,000 in household income, compared to the highest averages that come from students whose families make more than $200,000, according to a 2015 analysis from Inside Higher Education.
Students of low-income backgrounds lack instructions and resources when it comes to these tests. Most of the time these students go to schools that do not give proper instruction on how to take these tests.
Let's not forget that some standardized tests such as SAT and ACT cost, meaning people of higher-income parents are more likely to be able to take the test multiple times.
AnxietyThis is actually a pretty weak reason to object to standardized testing. If the anxiety is so profound that it has a sabotaging impact on the student’s test performance, then there is a bigger problem at hand.
This isn't weak at all.
Testing anxiety is perfectly common and manageable, with enough preparation and training as well as getting a proper diet and sleep, it can be overcome. Job interviews are known to be stressful but we cannot skip this stage of processing just to accommodate the emotions of the applicant, when such a stage is important to gauge their skills and whether or not they’re a good match for the position.
Is pro saying its just gonna disappear? You can get a proper diet, sleep, sure. That doesn't stop stress.. Show me the ways! All seriousness though, no it doesn't. Though I will say with your wording "can", maybe. I'm not sure if this proves you'll no longer have stress?
But sure, tell that to the 40 and 60% of students. As of which is said in the following:
"Estimates are that between 40 and 60% of students have significant test anxiety that interferes with their performing up to their capability."
Conversely, the interviewee shouldn’t skip the interview just because they’re nervous when it’s good exposure and they may need the money.
I'm actually glad you mentioned this example. Though you're comparing two 'completely' different things. The Standarized test is to show someone's ability, trying to find what if any ability(s) you have, which can be affected by stress. While an interview is to highlight your skills that you are already known to have, in result you are pressured to answer questions you don't know or for failed results.
My point was it's not truly reflecting someone's true ability.
Overall I'm confused about your point entirely or its exactly what I think it is.
--
I felt this was worded correctly and needed a place in this debate.
"Standardized testing should slowly transition away from the college application process because a low test score for disadvantaged students becomes a barrier that limits access to higher education."
Sources:
Comments
Round 3
Pro
#5
Rebuttals
The alternatives that Con lists out CAN’T be implemented because of lack of planning and structure. It would simply be easier to refine the errors of the Standardized Testing system than to replace it with something else.
- Multiple Measures- First of all, using MM as a replacement is not only absurdly expensive but is guaranteed to not work. MM uses performance assessments. Performance assessments are condemned because they have been shown repeatedly to be unreliable. 1.
- Portfolios- Portfolios only track what students have learned. They don’t provide any information about a person’s shortcomings or learning gaps, nor do they give any insight on what methods of assistance they require like Standardized Tests do.
- Game-based assessments, social & emotional skills surveys, and inspections follow no criteria or specific approach. While they can be implemented, it would be a catastrophic nightmare to use them as a substitute.
- Low-Stakes Testing- Standardized tests already use low-stakes testing in order to determine skills and learning challenges. These are usually offered in the form of a conventional standard test document but with no official consequences or connection to a grade.
“Ah yes, pro admitting to the point there is a learning gap. Cool, that's all I need. Everything you say besides that is irreverent."We needed Standardized Testing to compare results to even observe and be aware that this gap exists, so we can work on overcoming it."Just proves it is the fault of standardized testing, you're just trying to say we need to overcome the racism that is happening.”
No, it doesn’t. The racial disparities exist without the standardized tests.
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.
“So, pro concedes that these racial disparities exist? That's all I need for my claim to continue.If standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it. “
The existence of racial disparities was never contested, the causation between standardized tests and racism was.
My rebuttal covers in depth exactly how standardized testing confronts racism. Extend.
“I don't think you get advanced classes for every school? There are other tests are determine that, at least sometimes.Also, how do they get these advanced classes if they are getting lower scorers than they should/could be getting? That can't happen unless they are graded a different way.I think you might be meaning something different? I guess i'm not really 'in the mood' right now, it would be appreciated if elaborate, that is if I am getting the wrong idea.”
Regardless of whether certain schools lack advanced classes is irrelevant to whether standardized testing is efficient in testing the IQ levels of closet prodigies.
The grading system isn’t always done objectively, so if a failing student is outperforming his peers on standardized tests and is proven to not be cheating, he will advance. Other tests cannot provide this accommodation because most of them are graded by the teacher and rarely see their way to the superiors.
“Alright, good point. I'm glad you mentioned this, but what does this have to do with the results of the students? Sure, the schools get funding but this doesn't just excuse the lower scores they receive.”
Alternate systems of testing cannot provide the same level of help that these underperforming students require in the same way that standardized testing can.
“Pro just admitted to my point: "While money does give certain students an advantage ..". Everything else said doesn't matter because it doesn't relate to the different between the higher-income to lower-income.
- They should be funded in a different way.
- Honestly, with my cited evidence of lower-income students, many people are at a disadvantage compared to others.”
Extend that the state assumes accountability through school-targeted funding for educational assistance to address learning shortcomings or handicaps.
“Yes, it can be the primary reason or in other words, it is more likely because they are rich.Addressing the points separately:
- Aggressive interest by putting them in schools that benefit the rich, sure.
- The same thing applies, from above, for the most part. In fact, low-income people are more likely to need or encourage more assistance, it just doesn't, most of the time, way above the advantage with higher-income families.
Further, it is not completely misleading. It's been proven.The lowest average SAT scores come from students whose families make less than $20,000 in household income, compared to the highest averages that come from students whose families make more than $200,000, according to a 2015 analysis from Inside Higher Education.Students of low-income backgrounds lack instructions and resources when it comes to these tests. Most of the time these students go to schools that do not give proper instruction on how to take these tests.Let's not forget that some standardized tests such as SAT and ACT cost, meaning people of higher-income parents are more likely to be able to take the test multiple times.”
There are plenty of resources available that easily can assist those without the inherent advantages of richer people.
The library is a public domain with limitless materials that can aid the studying in order to succeed. Additionally, there are computers available with many practice tests that can be used to achieve an objective.
“Is pro saying its just gonna disappear? You can get a proper diet, sleep, sure. That doesn't stop stress.. Show me the ways! All seriousness though, no it doesn't. Though I will say with your wording "can", maybe. I'm not sure if this proves you'll no longer have stress?But sure, tell that to the 40 and 60% of students. As of which is said in the following:"Estimates are that between 40 and 60% of students have significant test anxiety that interferes with their performing up to their capability."”
Teachers can be legally required to extend prep time if a student’s anxiety warrants a strong enough medical reason, from a doctor’s note or to a psychologist’s intervention. Anxiety is simply not an excuse.
Con
#6
I continue to extend the following:
1. Inaccurate, Cheating.
2. Diversity
3. Unfairness.
4. Anxiety/Stress
5. Impacts.
I have some direct examples I feel are a great way to represent my point that I will be giving next round since I have a loss of characters.
Reminder:
In some schools you are accepted only because of a 'stupid' standardized test, such as Stuyvesant High School its based on SHSAT.
Refutations:
The alternatives that Con lists out CAN’T be implemented because of lack of planning and structure. It would simply be easier to refine the errors of the Standardized Testing system than to replace it with something else.
If we have errors in the system, aka most (there are others, I haven't stated) of my contentions that have been stated then pro has conceded to my points.
My contention, Impacts, has already covered this. It affects higher education for others. I believe that we, society or the higher ups can come up with better, new alternatives, even the same alternatives, or improved alternatives to standardized testing.
Defense:
- Multiple Measures- Character limit
Not completely.
"Researchers have also suggested that multiple measures may more comprehensively support the transition from high school to entry-level, credit-bearing college coursework, as well as the incorporation of alternate assessments in the college placement process."
Also, I realize I forgot to cut out sampling. Sorry about that.
"Multiple measures. This option encompasses a wide array of alternatives. Rather than rely exclusively on standardized tests, Kamenetz recommends collecting different information from students using things like social and emotional skills surveys, game-based assessments, and performance or portfolio-based assessments. One alternative, The Gallup Student Poll, measures hope, engagement, and well-being. Research shows these are indicators of success, linked to grades, retention, and employment."
- Portfolios- Character limit
What do standardized tests do? They try to track what is learned as well..
If you compare them, yes, they can see learning gaps and the struggles. Portfolios also add extra benefits that standardized testing cannot account for such as creativity and originality.
Extend?
- Game-based assessments, social & emotional skills surveys, and inspections- Character limit
Actually, this depends. If most, or a lot of the effects are removed that happen because of standardized testing it's/can be worth it.
- Low-Stakes Testing- Character limit
Check my contention, impacts. I'm not sure what you mean by "low stakes". Also, I provided some more direct examples in the beginning.
Since you can apparently extend arguments that aren't for your side but rebuttals, extend?
No, it doesn’t. The racial disparities exist without the standardized tests.
All you're really saying: "but hey, it doesn't matter if there is racial disparities, it exists without the tests."
But pro, we aren't talking about racism in general. We don't even need the standardized test to know racism occurs, yes.
It seems you added a random argument that says, "racism occurs", yes everyone knows that.
But if there is a specific problem that racial disparities are involved, we should solve the issue. Such as there are always people getting murdered and people at a specific location like a workplace are getting murdered doesn't mean that we should ignore that problem just because murder happens in other places. So, with, the standardized testing, people of color are still getting treated with these racial disparities.
Extend. (Extending towards my contention, Unfairness).
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.
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.
The existence of racial disparities was never contested, the causation between standardized tests and racism was.My rebuttal covers in depth exactly how standardized testing confronts racism. Extend.
Alright pro, what have you confirmed? What have you proved towards racism? I've already said, "if standardized tests weren't here, the racial disparities would exist and we wouldn't have to worry about it.“ that covers your first part. My question is this pro, how is the African American going to get higher scoring compared to people getting twice his scoring? I wonder?
"In 2014, Stuyvesant High School, a public high school that selected students based on the slimmest test scores, accepted 952 students for the following year. Seven of those 952 were Black students, and 21 were Hispanic. This is outrageous, considering that 70% of students in New York City are Black or Latino. These tests don’t reflect intelligence, they expose privilege."
Regardless of whether certain schools lack advanced classes is irrelevant to whether standardized testing is efficient in testing the IQ levels of closet prodigies.
Yeah, I didn't mention it pro, you did.
The grading system isn’t always done objectively, so if a failing student is outperforming his peers on standardized tests and is proven to not be cheating, he will advance. Other tests cannot provide this accommodation because most of them are graded by the teacher and rarely see their way to the superiors.
Not really? It doesn't mean you will advance, at least not for a lot of K-12.
Alternate systems of testing cannot provide the same level of help that these underperforming students require in the same way that standardized testing can.
Already proved it above.
Also, the standardized testing isn't helping under-performing students. Unless you mean identifying what they are lacking, actually alternitives would be perfect for this because they are without high-stakes. Further, with standardized tests, as far as I know some are graded when the students are out of the school. At least for K-12 students. Students get the stats but this doesn't mean the school is helping them more.
That being said, nationally, students posted the largest score declines ever recorded in math in the assessment's history. In each subject, public school students in a majority of states experienced significant score drops between 2019 and 2022.
Extend that the state assumes accountability through school-targeted funding for educational assistance to address learning shortcomings or handicaps.
I don't understand, it doesn't matter if the school is getting funding, this isn't what we're talking about. The students are still at a disadvantage. You're also once again extending not a contention of your own.. maybe I just really don't understand the entirety of extending, it can be any argument or rebuttals?
I don't really understand the extending either way though. I stated the following: "Honestly, with my cited evidence of lower-income students, many people are at a disadvantage compared to others."
If that state was accountable then they would be getting more funding for lower-income students because they are still at a disadvantage of every rich kid. If this was implemented for educational assistance either it obviously isn't working compared to rich students, the gap hasn't closed.
Viewers and voters, I hope you guys take into consideration that just because only for some (only some) cases of getting funding for disadvantages, it doesn't prove anything towards my contentions both Impacts and Unfairness.
I would like to continue to extend. (Unfairness)
There are plenty of resources available that easily can assist those without the inherent advantages of richer people.The library is a public domain with limitless materials that can aid the studying in order to succeed. Additionally, there are computers available with many practice tests that can be used to achieve an objective.
So... extend... (Unfairness)
Pro hasn't proved anything. Obviously these 'resources' aren't helping enough or just weigh WAY less than the help that richer people are getting. I've already proved this.
Teachers can be legally required to extend prep time if a student’s anxiety warrants a strong enough medical reason, from a doctor’s note or to a psychologist’s intervention. Anxiety is simply not an excuse.
Yep and you would see 40 and 60% (or strong people of anxiety) of students getting extensions, but are they? No, you'll most likely never see that. Therefore, teachers don't always do this. Plus, extended time doesn't fully throw away strong anxiety.
This is sometimes for people with documented anxiety and not everyone is documented.
"This has fueled a mentality of “teaching to test” instead of designing assessments to monitor learning or progress, as these tests dictate many important factors for students and teachers alike. These tests can dictate federal funding for schools and admission to future schools for students, consequently causing immense harm to students’ mental health."
Hence, i'll continue to extend. (Towards my contention, anxiety).
Not completely sure if this one should be extended, so, I won't be surprised if voters ignore this contention.
Sources: Comments.
Round 4
Pro
#7
As stated above, the importance of standardized testing remains one of the most crucial in the education system of the United States.
The issues and errors do not demand an abolishment of standardized testing, but tweaks to refine it. The government is already cracking down on the racial learning gaps by state targeted funds.
Alternative systems would require a massive amount of dedication that would be impossible to implement for two reasons.: Timeliness and unreliability.
As I have shown a clear need for standardized testing for its individual-based approach. Systemically, the struggle of poor students compared to the privileged has been a huge problem, but standardized testing directly monitors the academic performance of each student and develops solo approaches to assist them directly.
Schools that have new applicants require standardized tests, so that they may place them in a suitable learning environment that is not too advanced or low, and can accommodate their current education. If the student is rejected from the school, the scores indicate they may not be a good match for the school and may not thrive very well there.
Con hasn’t demonstrated a need to ban standardized testing. Vote Pro.
Con
#8
I honestly, was beginning to think either you weren't going to write a response or you were contemplating a response. Guess I was wrong on both.
I guess pro can't extend anything anymore? I saw no defense, this is on balance as well, not just on me. Am I confused?
I am going to continue to extend the following:
1. Inaccurate, Cheating, (Stress.)
2. Diversity difference.
3. Unfairness.
5. Impacts.
My reasons ^^^
Defense:
The issues and errors do not demand an abolishment of standardized testing, but tweaks to refine it. The government is already cracking down on the racial learning gaps by state targeted funds.
But it hasn't happened yet, obviously and we don't see any progress. Not progress you have stated.
Alternative systems would require a massive amount of dedication that would be impossible to implement for two reasons.: Timeliness and unreliability.
Dedication is for everything. It could get rid of some of the major effects of standardized testing.
It's not impossible.
Unreliable is false, they are reliable and have been listed for that reason by many..
As I have shown a clear need for standardized testing for its individual-based approach. Systemically, the struggle of poor students compared to the privileged has been a huge problem, but standardized testing directly monitors the academic performance of each student and develops solo approaches to assist them directly.
Other things are/can become an individual-based approach as well.
Con admits to the gap, which also shows my need for extending on my contention, Unfairness. I didn't just mention the gap between African Americans but also the gap between 'poor' students and rich students, which continues my contention.
"Approaches to assist them directly." The test doesn't assist them in any way. Even if they are getting help, they aren't getting helped directly nor is it helping. Obviously the scores are not increased significantly or even at all. These problems that they get wrong, are they being helped directly at their school about it? No.
Schools that have new applicants require standardized tests, so that they may place them in a suitable learning environment that is not too advanced or low, and can accommodate their current education. If the student is rejected from the school, the scores indicate they may not be a good match for the school and may not thrive very well there.
Standardized testing doesn't prove almost anything..
Here are my direct examples that both help me further and go against (left) claims made by the pro. I wanted to use them last round but I was limited by characters, please consider the following:
"The current testing system, flaws and all, leaves the work of the majority of teachers totally unexamined. Standardized testing is not nearly rigorous enough or comprehensive enough to tell us what we really need to know to improve teaching and learning in our public schools. 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.
There are many effective teachers out here whose work is not reflected in the test scores, and who regularly use differentiated instruction and per-fomance-based assessments. There are entire teams of teachers, and schools which do so. In short, our myopic focus on standardized testing keeps us from getting a truer picture of what our students and our schools may actually be doing (good and bad). It is a well-documented fact that standardized tests are notoriously poor indicators or predictors of the academic performance of students of color, particularly African American students."
This relates back to my contention Impacts and I love how this keeps being brought up yet you never respond to it. So, let's bring it up one last time. Standardized testing doesn't account for everything I have. Creativity, originality, the list goes on. Being able to deny a person on a racist and unfair test result is just straight up horrible.
Con hasn’t demonstrated a need to ban standardized testing.
Extending the following that weren't responded to or not elaborate response that was my reasoning:
1. Inaccurate, Cheating, Stress.
2. Diversity difference
3. Unfairness.
4. Anxiety/Stress
5. Impacts.
^^^. Some you didn't even bat an eye at such as when my contention talked about cheating and the impacts that were actually a main part that i kept trying to get at but you still never responded.
Overall review & Conclusion:
- Pro has not proved anything for themselves, they have been refuted and were not looked at for the entirety of the debate after round one. This is on balance.
Standardized tests have proven to be quite the problem and nothing has been shown to be changed with the issue. Some may think that its a fair test because everyone is proved the same thing and at the same time but in reality it is not. The system is racist to and unfair to every 'poor' kid that is assigned to a school that provides far less assistance than a kid that is assigned for the rich. It is not accountable for taking into consideration the different learning and thinking styles, different family backgrounds and different past experiences. If you have anxiety, it is not taken into account, you are left helpful where you don't have a choice with how your body works. But lastly, the impacts of it all.
--
Pro, in reality, didn't demonstrate anything but *trying* to refute my claims.
Vote con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16FJlWjQTz74VUHxP64ubjpXkG5FTII-CAJpeU1y254I/edit?usp=sharing
Close debate. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro brings up a lot of benefits of standardized testing, his main point being that it is needed to assess students. Con brings up the negatives of standardized testing (such as stress and sometimes being inaccurate) but fails to properly address the need to assess students. Cons rebuttal to this is basically asking why schools can't look at things like grades, etc, to assess students. The issue 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. Con says we can use other methods like: Multiple measures, Portfolios, Sampling Game-based assessment, Social and emotional skills survey, Inspections, Low-stakes testing. The issue is that con doesn't explain how each of these methods can fairly assess student learning in a way that is competitive. If there is little competitiveness, how do schools separate the smart/hardworking from the dumb/lazy? All of these are things that are low-stakes (which is the point), which also means less competitiveness. 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.
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