Program Profile: The Urban Debate League for High School Students

This is a competitive, social-policy debate program to advance academic achievement, community contributions, and life success of students in grades 9 to 12 in urban school districts. The program is rated Promising. The program was shown to have a statistically significant, positive effect on high school graduation and college readiness, as indicated by ACT scores.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Sites

The goal of an Urban Debate League (UDL) is to provide high school students (grades 9 to 12) in urban school districts with the opportunity to participate in a competitive, social-policy debate program. The first UDL was founded in 1985 in the Atlanta Public School District. Typically, these leagues are created through partnerships with school districts and a nonprofit organization with a board of directors, including community leaders in education, civic, and business. The UDL promotes debate as part of academic competition and regular classroom curriculum.

This program description is based on the  Chicago Debate League (CDL)’s implementation of an UDL in a Chicago high school. The CDL was formed in 1997, through a partnership between the Chicago Debate Commission and Chicago Public Schools, to advance the academic achievement, community contributions, and life success of Chicago youth through debate.

Program Theory

Debate programs affect a student’s academic performance by increasing school engagement, reading, and writing skills, and providing a structured and motivating activity (i.e., winning debate tournaments). In addition, competitive, policy debate programs align with the Common Core Standards in English language arts, reading, and oral communication. Participation in school-related, extracurricular activities can be influential in improving educational outcomes for students from urban school districts (Anderson and Mezuk 2012).

Program Activities

The CDL team at each school is open to all students (i.e., there are no tryouts). Before the start of the school year, the CDL hosts a week-long debate workshop for students. This workshop introduces students to the fundamentals of debate and familiarizes them with the annual debate topic. Throughout the school year, students attend 3 to 5 hours of classroom or afterschool debate practice each week, and learn about debate fundamentals, argument strategies, and vocabulary. Students also review ballots from previous competitions for areas of improvement.

Each team consists of two students who create and defend a position on a specified social-policy topic. Policy debate trains students to 1) read and interpret complex text, 2) develop and write arguments based on these texts, 3) verbally express and defend evidence-based claims, 4) listen and interpret opposing arguments, 5) collaborate with peers, and 6) effectively manage time.

Six to eight tournaments are held each academic year. Tournaments consist of four to six, 90-minute rounds of arguments on a specific topic, followed by elimination rounds. In each 90-minute round, students present their argument and rebut the argument of the opposing team. Judges then assess the research in the argument presented, evaluate the students’ persuasiveness, and make a decision.

Study

Anderson and Mezuk (2012) examined the impact of the Chicago Debate League (CDL) program on the high school graduation rates and college readiness of high school students over a 10-year period, in Chicago, Ill. The treatment group (n = 2,449) consisted of student debaters, who had participated in at least one tournament, identified through CDL tournament records from the 1997 through 2007 school years. The comparison group (n = 9,730) consisted of a random sample of students from the same school and school year who had not participated in the debate program. 

Over 60 percent of the treatment group was female, and the majority of students were Black (49.3 percent) or Hispanic (29.2 percent); a smaller percentage was white (14.6 percent) and other races (6.9 percent). A little over half of the comparison group was female (53.5 percent), and the majority of students were Black (45.6 percent) or Hispanic (33.5 percent); a smaller percentage was white (14.0 percent) and other races (6.9 percent). The groups did not significantly differ in terms of race on baseline demographics. However, students in the treatment group were significantly more likely to be women, younger in age during the ninth grade, and at low risk for not completing high school. The analyses of results controlled for these differences. 

School records were obtained from the Chicago Public Schools and the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. College readiness was measured using American College Test (ACT) scores. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the probability of graduation and college readiness.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Asad, Asad L., and Monica C. Bell. 2014. “Winning to Learn, Learning to Win: Evaluative Frames and Practices in Urban Debate.” Qualitative Sociology 37(1): 1–26.

Mezuk, Briana. 2009. “Urban Debate and High School Educational Outcomes for African American Males: The Case of the Chicago Debate League.” The Journal of Negro Education 78(3):290–304.

Mezuk, Briana, Irina Bondarenko, Suzanne Smith, and Eric Tucker. 2011. “Impact of Participating in a Policy Debate Program on Academic Achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate League.” Educational Research and Reviews 6(9): 622–35. (This study was reviewed but did not meet Crime Solutions' criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Winkler, Carol K., C. Kevin Fortner, and Sara Baugh-Harris. 2013. “Overcoming Educational Challenges to Women Living in At-Risk Communities through Urban Debate.” Forum on Public Policy 1 (Women’s Issues). (This study was reviewed but did not meet Crime Solutions' criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)