One of the biggest questions facing societies today, particularly in light of the rise of fundamentalist Islam, is how to deal with a culturally diverse citizenry. Different religions and traditions exist side by side in many cities. Historically, the United States has had a continuing debate about how completely immigrants should adopt the dominant language and culture. Facing growing immigrant communities deter- mined to retain their identity, Europe has had to address the issue. On one side are those who want to enforce a certain degree of integra- tion—a basic knowledge of the national language, the national history, and civil customs. On the other are those who believe that a mul- ticultural society is strong enough to accommodate numerous cultures within it and that it might even gain from the diversity this entails.
PROS
Multiculturalism is clearly better; how can you expect people to give up their heritage? Immigrants do not leave a country to leave their cultural identity behind.
If a society claims to be tolerant of personal choice, it must respect the choice of immigrants to retain their heritage. Anything less smacks of social engineering. Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is anachronistic. The nation-state model for society is crumbling and is being outstripped by transnational models, such as the European Union. As a result, there is less emphasis on national identity. Such exclusive nation- alism is destructive, and history shows it to be so. Perpetuating a national identity inevitably leads to the alienation of those who for religious or other reasons
CONS
If you decide that you want to live in a country, you have to respect its traditions. Expecting new citizens or residents to conform to certain national norms is not unreasonable.
What some people call social engineering, integrationists call ensuring that society is as harmonious and conflict- free as possible. If difference breeds contempt, then the least difference the better.
We totally reject the notion of the demise of the nation- state. It is still the primary mode of national identity. As US history has shown, a nation can absorb millions of immigrants and yet maintained a unique identity.
There is a middle point between denying anyone the right to practice their religion openly and denying any
Sample Motions:
This House would be multicultural. This House believes in multiculturalism. This House believes that the nation-state is dead.
Web Links:
• Australian Government Immigration Website. <http://www.immi.gov.au/multicultural/> Australian government policy on mul- ticulturalism.
• Diversity & Multiculturalism: The New Racism. <http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/> Critique of multiculturalism by the Ayn Rand Institute.
Further Reading:
Barry, Brian M. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Harvard University Press, 2002. Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford University Press, 2001. Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman, eds. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Miller, David. Citizenship and National Identity. Polity Press, 2000.
choose not to conform. If the national identity does not include the wearing of a turban, headdress, or robe, then those who do wear these garments are excluded from the mainstream. Such exclusion gives rise to the notion of the “other” and leaves those perceived as the “other” open to physical assault.
We should embrace the fact that people can support both their old and new nations. It shows that we have moved beyond the divisive national stereotyping that causes conflict. The more tolerance of difference and embrace of other cultures we can achieve, the less con- flict there will be.
sort of national identity or conformity. A shared sense of belonging and purpose is vital for national coherence and serves the nation and the nation’s peoples well in times of war. In addition, we want everyone to cheer their favorite ball team.
This is naïve and presumes, arrogantly, that we have moved beyond the point where we are at risk from ene- mies. As the rise in extremism and its support from some of our own citizens show, we have been too liberal. We have forgotten why nationhood is important and why we all need to feel a communal belonging and affinity with the basic values of our society.
10|The Debatabase Book
PROS
A national curriculum for most core subjects already exists without school boards and local communities even realizing it. Most high school students are preparing for standardized college entrance exams and therefore study what is needed to do well on these tests. Also, only a few textbook companies produce texts for high school stu- dents. When localities select one of these textbooks, they are, in effect, agreeing to what amounts to a national curriculum. Besides, students across the country should learn the same skills.
As long as school boards and localities follow the national curriculum, student success on the test will follow. Drill- ing and “teaching to the test” occur only when schools make a decision to test without altering their curricu- lums. Students undeniably need to have certain basic skills and subject mastery when they graduate. The National Assessment of Educational Progress and the state-developed assessments will test those; the school day affords plenty of time for students to learn the basics and still participate in additional activities and attend classes that go beyond the basics.
The entire reason that public education in America was founded was to develop a more productive workforce. Although education by itself is a worthy goal, ultimately what we want for our children is for them to be success- ful individuals who are able to earn a living when they graduate from high school or college. Focusing on word choices that may also be used in the business world is just a distracter, used by opponents of national testing to shift the debate away from what really needs to happen in our nation’s schools.
In a society where education is so important to success, we must make sure our schools are performing for our nation’s children. The primary reason for national stan- dards and assessment is to make schools and teachers
CONS
The mandate for a national test makes every local- ity teach the same curriculum. Each state and local- ity should be able to determine its own curriculum as schools across the country are very different and should be able to make decisions at the local level on what will be taught within their classrooms. Requiring national testing removes the traditional rights of localities to adapt to community standards and desires when making curriculum decisions.
Mandating a national test will result in teachers “teach- ing to the tests.” Students will face days of learning how to take tests at the expense of learning skills and knowl- edge that will help them become good citizens and con- tribute in meaningful ways to society. They will become good test takers but will miss out on the joy of learning for learning’s sake. Subjects like art and music that are not covered on the standardized tests could be cut. Our children’s education would become narrowly focused on a yearly test.
Using a national test to determine if schools and stu- dents are working oversimplifies education. Advocates of national testing use terms that are more specific to busi- ness, as if children are simply widgets coming out at the end of an assembly line. Proponents of national testing use terms like “setting objectives,” “getting results,” and “the bottom line” when talking about our nation’s chil- dren. We cannot let the unethical, corrupt, and profit- driven world of business encroach into our nation’s class- rooms.
Using a national test to determine if students are master- ing material is unfair and will drive good teachers out of our classrooms, making existing problems worse. A better alternative is a broad-based assessment, which
NATIONAL TESTING
Responding to mounting concerns that the US educational system was failing its students, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), which mandates that states develop annual assessments (tests) of learning and skills mastered. The scores on these state tests are then compared with those from a sampling of state students who have taken the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The intent is to use the results of these tests to chart national academic progress and provide extra help for schools and students who are falling behind. Education in the United States has historically been the responsibility of states and localities; this measure vastly expands federal involvement in education. Many advocates believe this approach to improving the nation’s schools is wrong and will not accomplish its objective. Others argue that the only way to know how schools and students are performing is to measure them against other schools and other students in other states. As Congress prepares to consider reauthorizing the act in 2007, the debate over national testing continues.
accountable for what goes on in the classroom. If schools and teachers are doing a good job, they have nothing to fear as we move to a national system of accountability through assessment.
Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating good standard tests that motivate students and teach- ers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers associations. In the United States, the quality of educa- tion that students receive depends on what state, county, and town they live in and even in what part of town they reside. This violates the principle of equality that is fundamental to the values of our country. If all teachers are expected to achieve the same standards, the quality of education for all children can go up.
looks at multiple measures of what a student has learned. Instead of testing a student on one day, a multiple-mea- sure assessment uses teacher evaluations, teacher-created tests, and student demonstrations that occur over the entire school year. This would especially benefit students who are not good test takers.
The idea of national standards may seem like a good one until you start to actually try to create the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agree- ment is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Also, good standards are difficult to craft. Standards are either too vague so the test makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are overwhelmed by the sheer number of subjects that must be mastered.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House would ban national testing.
This House believes that national standards are more valuable than locally developed curriculums. This House believes that national standards will have a detrimental effect on education.
This House believes that national standards promote equality in education.
Web Links:
• Education Commission of the States (ECS). <http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp?am=1> Offers a wealth of information about the practical implications of national testing.
• National Education Association (NEA). <http://www.nea.org/accountability> Site maintained by the major national organiza- tion that opposed national standards; currently focuses on the implementation of the initiative.
• PBS Frontline: Testing Our Schools. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools> This companion Web site to the PBS show Frontline presents a balanced overview of the issue of national testing.
Further Reading:
Jones, M. Gail, Brett D. Jones, and Tracy Hargrove. The Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Meier, Deborah, et al., eds. Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Beacon, 2004.
Orfield, Gary, and Mindy Kornhaber, eds. Raising Standards or Raising Barriers: Inequality and High Stakes Testing in Public Educa-
tion. Century Foundation Press, 2001.
Sunderman, Gail L., James S. Kim, and Garry Orfield. NCLB Meets School Realities: Lessons from the Field. Corwin Press, 2005.
12|The Debatabase Book