Charter schools? My biggest question is, is it possible for public schools to do everything that charter schools do (and which are laudable)? Can a traditional public school adopt creative incentive structures for students? Can a public school allow students to choose different programs within the school with different focuses (ie, arts, math, life lessons...)? Can a public school set specific binding goals for itself in its relationship to the state? Can public schools give teachers greater autonomy? From my perspective, the answer is, to an extent, yes. And, that's generally where I have difficulty with charter schools. It may not be entirely necessary to achieve the stated goals, and there are certain significant costs: charter schools create a two-tiered system that draws the "more qualified" students (and sometimes more affable) away from public schools, leaving public schools in the dust or under-attended and under-funded.

But I do like that charter schools can offer a great testing ground for new and innovative educational programs. I'm not sure public schools can be quite as radical and unconventional. But, maybe that's a good thing that students not be the testing grounds for radical methods.

Here's our article on the topic on Debatepedia:

Debate: Charter schools

Debate: Guantanamo Bay

We just "finished" our debate article on Guantanamo Bay and put it up on Debatepedia's Debate Digest. Check it out:

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Guantanamo_Bay#Yes

What compels me toward favoring closing Guantanamo, as Obama ordered on January 22nd, is that it refreshes America's image as a leader of the rule of law and its moral authority, which is important in its own right, but which also has meaning in rallying its allies around battling terrorism (because we are all taking the high ground and can justify our actions to our publics as such) and in diminishing the rallying case of terrorists (ie. that the US and the West are Big Bad bullies).

My opinion about the practicality of closing Guantanamo and the intel that might be lost is that these issues are not as significant as people make them out to be. Moving terrorists to the US for trial or returning them home will not be as difficult as people say (US courts and prisons can handle the influx of detainees). And, I don't see the national security gains as all that high from the info obtained there or from the preventiveness of detaining the individuals there. There are many reasons for this, but see them in our pro/con article. Enjoy.

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Guantanamo_Bay#Yes