The Sept/Oct exit exam resolution asks us to consider the features, aims, and methods of American public education.
The following is a list of some potential value/criterion pairs for either side of the resolution.
Remember that some of these pairs work best for one side, and that one of your main obligations is to prove your value superior to that of your opponent.
Also note that this is a work in progress. Don't see a pair you like? Suggest one in the comments, and I'll add it to the list.
One of the primary questions, when choosing a core value, is whether you should go with a value inherent in the resolution (and thus easy to warrant), or a larger value that might be "more valuable," but a more tenuous link. That's why I've divided value/criterion pairs into three categories.
Values Inherent in Education
V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Universal high standards
V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Accountability (Public accountability?)
V: Morality
C: Moral education / Socialization
V: Self-sufficiency
C: Increasing personal autonomy and educational choice / freedom
V: Personal Fulfillment
C: Well-rounded education / educating the whole child
Values to Which Public Education is Instrumental
In other words, what education is good for.
V: Societal Welfare
C: Equality of opportunity
V: Societal Welfare
C: Educational excellence
V: National Security
C: Educational excellence
V: Democracy
C: Educated citizenry
Values not necessarily inherent to education, but which are individually or societally important
V: Justice
C: Rawls' difference principle / reducing inequality
V: Democracy
C: Local control of education / Community Standards
V: Economic Stability
C: Workforce preparation through education
Showing posts with label exit exams resolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exit exams resolution. Show all posts
Aug 21, 2009
negating the exit exam resolution
Regarding the September / October LD resolution, one of my readers asks,
What are those goods?
Equality
A standardized test, when properly designed to eliminate subtle biases, levels the playing field in several ways. It exposes deficiencies in particular classes, schools, districts, or states, which allows educators or policymakers to allocate resources, change teaching strategies, etc. It can also expose inequalities across relevant demographic factors--race, gender, socioeconomic status, and the like. (The last, in educational research, is usually the most powerful determiner of one's educational fate.) Standardized tests have sparked real educational reforms, and an overall interest in overcoming the "soft bigotry of low expectations," in George W. Bush's memorable phrase.
Fairness
A standardized test is more objective than a teacher's gut feeling or a parent's pride. Administered in a tightly controlled environment, it's arguably less amenable to cheating or other kinds of corruption.
Democracy
A healthy democracy depends on an informed citizenry; the foundation is public education. Standardized tests in subjects that society, through democratic processes, has deemed educationally essential--math, science, history, letters--ensure a "floor" of democratic competence.
National Security / Economic Stability
Educationally, the U.S. lags behind other nations. The Neg can argue that this is because of the U.S.'s disparate, hodgepodge system of "local control," and that the use of standardized tests is a remedy.
That's great, I can hear you saying. So taking a test is important. Let's require everyone to take the test, then, but not require it be passed for graduation.
Two responses.
First, passing the test helps guarantee the worth of the diploma to cautious or skeptical observers, including employers and college admissions officers.
Second, and perhaps more important, it ensures the test is taken seriously. Consider Washington state. The WASL has four components: reading, writing, math, and science. Reading and writing are required for passing since 2006; as this handy chart shows (comparing my school's results to the state average), scores improved significantly after that year. (Yes, there are several counterarguments, and I'm glad you're already thinking about them.) In contrast, the math test has been an on-again, off-again requirement over its history, and scores have reflected that, including a significant dip this past year when students were able to graduate after failing, provided they continued taking math courses. Science has never been required, and our scores are abysmal.
Not only is the passage requirement essential for students to take it seriously, but it adds an extra layer of accountability for teachers. (The Aff might say, "merit pay would work better," but the Neg could respond that merit pay without an objective measure, like test scores, is susceptible to cronyism.)
For all the arguments listed above, accountability is the linchpin to the entire Negative case.
Last, a word about strategy. DO NOT let the affirmative pin you into defending the status quo, or tests in their present incarnation. Tests vary from state to state, in quantity, breadth, and quality. If needed, create a resolutional analysis or overview that makes this as distinct from a policy debate as possible. It's likely that the affirmative will try to present evidence that testing has failed; you can argue that those failures aren't inherent to tests, but to the lack of political will to implement them. Or you can try to sidestep the empirical debate altogether, arguing the proposal on an entirely moral plane. (This is LD, lest this resolution make you think otherwise.)
Some responses to Aff arguments
1. This will make teachers "teach to the test."
"Teach to the test" is only as bad as the test. Make the test an accurate reflection of what students have learned, measuring it against what they should have learned, and teaching to the test can be a positive thing.
2. What about students with test anxiety, or who through no fault of their own fare poorly on tests? And is it fair to have such a limited slice of time represent a student's work and worth?
Think of an analogous situation: written (or, these days, computer-based) tests for driver's licenses. Nobody complains that they're somehow unjust, even though they cause much anxiety and are not always a fair representation of a person's true ability. The key is to allow retakes, and to remediate--to help students who struggle to succeed. Failure is just a speed bump on the road to success.
3. Tests are biased.
Not well-designed tests. And even a slightly biased test that helps "raise the bar" and improve education is better than a system free of individual accountability that leaves children behind. (See what I did there?)
This post in no way exhausts the options for the Negative. If you have other brilliant ideas for negating the resolution, or questions about my initial efforts, share them in the comments.
Ok so aff seems pretty easy. it seems like the only neg argument is that we need one test that holds all students to the same level. Are there any other, better neg arguments we can think of?That claim shows the basic instrumentality of standardized tests: they're not intrinsically good, but are only worth the goods they bring to those who take them, or those who administer them, or the society that requires them.
What are those goods?
Equality
A standardized test, when properly designed to eliminate subtle biases, levels the playing field in several ways. It exposes deficiencies in particular classes, schools, districts, or states, which allows educators or policymakers to allocate resources, change teaching strategies, etc. It can also expose inequalities across relevant demographic factors--race, gender, socioeconomic status, and the like. (The last, in educational research, is usually the most powerful determiner of one's educational fate.) Standardized tests have sparked real educational reforms, and an overall interest in overcoming the "soft bigotry of low expectations," in George W. Bush's memorable phrase.
Fairness
A standardized test is more objective than a teacher's gut feeling or a parent's pride. Administered in a tightly controlled environment, it's arguably less amenable to cheating or other kinds of corruption.
Democracy
A healthy democracy depends on an informed citizenry; the foundation is public education. Standardized tests in subjects that society, through democratic processes, has deemed educationally essential--math, science, history, letters--ensure a "floor" of democratic competence.
National Security / Economic Stability
Educationally, the U.S. lags behind other nations. The Neg can argue that this is because of the U.S.'s disparate, hodgepodge system of "local control," and that the use of standardized tests is a remedy.
That's great, I can hear you saying. So taking a test is important. Let's require everyone to take the test, then, but not require it be passed for graduation.
Two responses.
First, passing the test helps guarantee the worth of the diploma to cautious or skeptical observers, including employers and college admissions officers.
Second, and perhaps more important, it ensures the test is taken seriously. Consider Washington state. The WASL has four components: reading, writing, math, and science. Reading and writing are required for passing since 2006; as this handy chart shows (comparing my school's results to the state average), scores improved significantly after that year. (Yes, there are several counterarguments, and I'm glad you're already thinking about them.) In contrast, the math test has been an on-again, off-again requirement over its history, and scores have reflected that, including a significant dip this past year when students were able to graduate after failing, provided they continued taking math courses. Science has never been required, and our scores are abysmal.
Not only is the passage requirement essential for students to take it seriously, but it adds an extra layer of accountability for teachers. (The Aff might say, "merit pay would work better," but the Neg could respond that merit pay without an objective measure, like test scores, is susceptible to cronyism.)
For all the arguments listed above, accountability is the linchpin to the entire Negative case.
Last, a word about strategy. DO NOT let the affirmative pin you into defending the status quo, or tests in their present incarnation. Tests vary from state to state, in quantity, breadth, and quality. If needed, create a resolutional analysis or overview that makes this as distinct from a policy debate as possible. It's likely that the affirmative will try to present evidence that testing has failed; you can argue that those failures aren't inherent to tests, but to the lack of political will to implement them. Or you can try to sidestep the empirical debate altogether, arguing the proposal on an entirely moral plane. (This is LD, lest this resolution make you think otherwise.)
Some responses to Aff arguments
1. This will make teachers "teach to the test."
"Teach to the test" is only as bad as the test. Make the test an accurate reflection of what students have learned, measuring it against what they should have learned, and teaching to the test can be a positive thing.
2. What about students with test anxiety, or who through no fault of their own fare poorly on tests? And is it fair to have such a limited slice of time represent a student's work and worth?
Think of an analogous situation: written (or, these days, computer-based) tests for driver's licenses. Nobody complains that they're somehow unjust, even though they cause much anxiety and are not always a fair representation of a person's true ability. The key is to allow retakes, and to remediate--to help students who struggle to succeed. Failure is just a speed bump on the road to success.
3. Tests are biased.
Not well-designed tests. And even a slightly biased test that helps "raise the bar" and improve education is better than a system free of individual accountability that leaves children behind. (See what I did there?)
This post in no way exhausts the options for the Negative. If you have other brilliant ideas for negating the resolution, or questions about my initial efforts, share them in the comments.
Aug 17, 2009
high stakes exit exams: empirical evidence
The '09 Sept/Oct LD resolution requires the Negative to defend the use of mandatory high school exit exams. There are many ways to make the argument, most of which involve claims about academic rigor (exit exams hold students accountable) or equality (exit exams ensure all students everywhere are meeting standard.) It's therefore highly likely that both sides will look at empirical evidence to make their case.
Unfortunately, we have a dearth of quality evidence of the overall effects of high stakes exit exams in the United States. In an article titled "Exit Exams Harm Students Who Fail Them - and Don't Benefit Students Who Pass Them," published in Phi Delta Kappan in May of '09, John Robert Warren and Eric Grodsky look at all the states that have exit exams, a data set covering 33 years, and compare their students' outcomes to those of students in states with no exit exams.
The overall conclusions--based on data published here--are mixed. Here are a few of the findings.
Academic Achievement
Job Preparation
Dropout Rates
It would be unfair to argue that the authors would fall squarely on the Affirmative side of the resolution. As they write,
Unless they can find an exemplary state that bucks the trend, and use it as a model for the nation, Negatives would be wise to resist any Affirmative attempts to wrestle them into defending the status quo. If Warren and Grodsky are right, there isn't much in the status quo worth defending.
Unfortunately, we have a dearth of quality evidence of the overall effects of high stakes exit exams in the United States. In an article titled "Exit Exams Harm Students Who Fail Them - and Don't Benefit Students Who Pass Them," published in Phi Delta Kappan in May of '09, John Robert Warren and Eric Grodsky look at all the states that have exit exams, a data set covering 33 years, and compare their students' outcomes to those of students in states with no exit exams.
The overall conclusions--based on data published here--are mixed. Here are a few of the findings.
Academic Achievement
We found no evidence for any effect of exit exams (minimum competency or higher competency) on reading or math achievement at the mean or at any of several cut-points of the achievement distribution. These results hold for 13-year-olds and for 17-year-olds and don't vary across racial/ethnic or social class backgrounds, undermining claims of disparate impact.So, on the one hand, exit exams don't seem to disproportionately affect minorities (at least in this one respect), a point for the Neg against any Aff arguing that standardized tests are unfair. On the other hand, they're not making any difference in academic achievement, potentially a point for the Aff, at least on defense.
Job Preparation
We use data from the 1980 through 2000 U.S. Censuses and from the 1984 through 2002 Current Population Surveys to evaluate the labor market returns to exit exams (Warren, Grodsky, and Lee 2008). Both data sources include large, nationally representative samples of American young people. We limited our focus to 20- to 23-year-olds with no college education (and along the way we found that exit exams have no bearing on 20- to 23-year-olds' chances of having attended college). Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exit exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds.This is potentially a critical point for the Affirmative. If students who have taken an exit exam are statistically no better prepared for the world of work, perhaps the process is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Dropout Rates
Our analyses indicate that state exit exams reduce high school graduation rates (Warren, Jenkins and Kulick 2006). In states with "minimum competency" exit exams (assessing mastery of material that students should learn before 9th grade), graduation rates decline by about one percentage point. In states with "higher competency" exit exams, graduation rates decline by about two percentage points. Nationally, each percentage point reduction in the graduation rate means about 35,000 fewer young people leave high school with a diploma each year.The social and economic impacts of dropping out are well documented; one merely has to make the extrapolation to a bleaker economic and social future for those who fail.
It would be unfair to argue that the authors would fall squarely on the Affirmative side of the resolution. As they write,
Exit exam policies are broken, and states should either fix them or get rid of them, but either option requires a political will that is in scarce supply among policy makers and politicians.Absent junking exit exams, the other option would be to make them more rigorous--in the short term, denying significantly more students their diploma, which, as the authors note, is "now a prerequisite for social and economic success in American society."
Unless they can find an exemplary state that bucks the trend, and use it as a model for the nation, Negatives would be wise to resist any Affirmative attempts to wrestle them into defending the status quo. If Warren and Grodsky are right, there isn't much in the status quo worth defending.
Aug 15, 2009
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
The September/October NFL Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution has been released:
1. FairTest doesn't like standardized tests. Not at all. (And here's a good research starting point.)
2. Some of the best available empirical research, and its implications for the debate.
3. Joe Nusz goes looking for values in the resolution, by examining a typical school vision statement. A good way to approach the subject.
4. I offer some ideas for negating the resolution.
5. By request: Albert Einstein on the relative value of knowledge and imagination.
6. Back by popular demand: Value / criterion pairs for the resolution--a work in progress.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.Some questions to get you started in your casewriting:
- What are the core values, tenets, or missions of public education? (Some potential answers, while I'm thinking about it: civic preparation / democratic principles, academic rigor, social equality, socialization, fairness, social justice, diversity, economic strength / job preparation, industry, truth, social sorting, preparation for the "real world")
- Is it fair to judge one's entire academic career on a single slice in time?
- Is it fair to have different standardized exit exams across different states?
- What uniquely American educational features (i.e., local control) come into play?
- Do standardized exit exams have to be tied to graduation to be meaningful?
- Does it matter what kind of "standardized exit exams" we're talking about? In other words, what does "standardized" mean? Norm-referenced? Criterion-referenced? Either? Both? Neither?
- When it comes to this issue, which figures have the most authority? Politicians? Teachers? Parents? Students? Educational experts? Think tanks?
- Do "multiple intelligences" play a role?
1. FairTest doesn't like standardized tests. Not at all. (And here's a good research starting point.)
2. Some of the best available empirical research, and its implications for the debate.
3. Joe Nusz goes looking for values in the resolution, by examining a typical school vision statement. A good way to approach the subject.
4. I offer some ideas for negating the resolution.
5. By request: Albert Einstein on the relative value of knowledge and imagination.
6. Back by popular demand: Value / criterion pairs for the resolution--a work in progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)