College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 11:51:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Education Controversy Paper  (Read 8238 times)
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« on: April 18, 2012, 12:30:39 PM »

Thanks to Malcolm for reminding me to post about this. I am going to revise and resubmit the education paper. 

I have posted the original paper from 2010 and the supplement from 2011. I am planning to retain the basic theme of reducing the federal role in promoting free market (or neoliberal) educational programs such as charter schools, standardized student testing and teacher evaluation programs. I will be exploring the range of possible approaches, especially to reflect to concerns about the scope of mechanisms from last season.

 I welcome feedback and suggestions. Post or email me at stables at usc.edu

* Education Controversy Paper.pdf (243.16 KB - downloaded 818 times.)
* Education Reform Update for 2011.pdf (131.38 KB - downloaded 836 times.)
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
rcheek
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2012, 01:05:05 PM »

Would there be any interest in student loan reform as a sub-topic to this?
Logged
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2012, 02:31:02 PM »

Speaking for myself - yes I would be very interested in exploring how to consider student loans as an aspect of this. I think it may direct some of the potential topic focus toward higher education (which is also moving to greater embrace of standardized assessment), but I think the question of tuition and debt is certainly a relevant aspect of the paper. Backchannel me and we can coordinate.

Thanks!
Gordon
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2012, 03:13:30 PM »

The new edition of the Education Paper is attached.

Gordon

Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
max.o.archer
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2012, 02:57:41 PM »

Is it the author's intent for this controversy to focus primarily upon elementary and secondary schooling, with the possibility of including higher education?  Or would it be possible for the resolution be narrowed during the wording process to exclude higher education, or perhaps even focus solely upon higher education?
Logged
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2012, 03:40:06 PM »

You identify three possible options for wordings.

First - I think the original core of the literature focused on elementary and secondary education because that was the primary location of much of these initiatives, such as No Child Left Behind. I do think there is a very viable topic proposal that would just include elementary and secondary education and attempt to remove these kinds of programs.

Second - Higher education has become more prominent in this literature with the rise of for-profit institutions, the new measures to link public funding to specific accountability measures (such as graduation rates) and the expanding student loan crisis. I am not yet 100% sure that a higher education only topic would be robust enough, but I would certainly encourage the committee and community to explore this option if education was selected.

Finally - a mixture of all levels of education is also a possible option. The general nature of the policies is consistent, even if there are some distinct applications. You can consider the challenges of public support for-profit charter schools and for-profit colleges as similar (though not the same) as well the accountability measures mentioned above. Especially if the community were interested in debating the removal of fewer neo-liberal policy mechanisms, it would certainly be an option to include primary, secondary and higher education in wording proposals.


Posted on: Today at 03:57:41 PM Posted by: max.o.archer
Insert Quote
Is it the author's intent for this controversy to focus primarily upon elementary and secondary schooling, with the possibility of including higher education?  Or would it be possible for the resolution be narrowed during the wording process to exclude higher education, or perhaps even focus solely upon higher education?
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2012, 02:54:50 PM »

everyone should rank this paper near the top!  It's long overdue that we debate education, the uniqueness is very strong, and Gordon has done a great job of highlighting the core challenges.

The education system is so important, and I would hope that as a community of educators we recognize that importance enough to debate about it, especially as the push for privatized initiatives is only going to be come stronger as all levels of government face further budget pressures.  

I like this topic because it captures a diverse range of issues but still revolves around the fundamental problems facing the education system as a whole.  Unions, standardization measures, accountability, school choice, and privatization broadly are some of the biggest crises facing this country, and part of a cultural shift that began thirty years ago but is starting to accelerate at a phenomenal pace. 

The addition of post-secondary education would be intriguing as it gets into issues like student loan debt and the influence that private corporations are having on University initiatives, but it's not necessary for those of you who fear having it added.  The ballot can include diverse options.  And frankly Gordon's done such a good job of finding the key issues that the work of the topic committee can be very focused-Hester will have a strong base of knowledge coming into his summer lab!

In the past, one objection I've heard is states, which is not nearly as viable on this topic as many may believe.  The counterplan has real rollback/funding issues as a shift in state policy that contradicts federal guidelines (AND pisses off the GOP) is subject to the arg that the feds can choke funding it gives to states for education.  

Another objection was "get to nuclear war", but it turns out there are vast policy implications when a country fails to education millions of its citizens.  Those consequences are both social (K stuff!) and economic (policy stuff!).  

Stop being scared.  Stop voting for topics just because they sound simple.  Simplicity is often another way to say "avoiding core issues."  Vote for something intimately related to our professional roles and that truly effects everything we do.  And talk about an opportunity for PR and relevance for programs that like to use the resolution as a springboard for launching campus debates or other initiatives.

I'm getting concerned that we are creating a community that doesn't enjoy topics over big controversial domestic issues.  What up with that?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 02:57:32 PM by Malgor » Logged
tpacheco
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2012, 11:48:05 PM »

This topic has not nearly been given enough attention by the community. This paper was well-done and has clearly defined controversies that could sustain a year of debating. We can debate: about assessments and accountability, what those mean, how to achieve them, and even their desirability; how resources should be distributed, whether it should be based on need or to promote competition; the federal government's role in education and national standards; and education as a right or commodity. All of those pertain to primary and secondary education, and therefore doesn't include different controversies involving higher education. Overlooking this topic would be a mistake. If the controversies don't stand out in the other papers, that is a sign that they aren't fully developed. Don't leave it to the topic committee to figure out the topic when you can vote for a topic that is already figured out.

Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!