DOCSLIB.ORG

Cross–Examination in Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cross–Examination in Debate A GUIDE TO Cross- E amination XDEBatE W.E. Schuetz and David Gardiner Co–Authors Jana M. Riggins, Editor Designed by David C. Trussell Revised Summer 2017 UNIVERSITY INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE Preface This publication serves to provide contest rules, procedures and theoretical background to assist you in being successful in UIL CX Debate competition. You will, of course, want to consult debate texts for expanded information on theory. My special thanks to the co-authors of this endeavor, Bill Schuetz and David Gardiner. Both are talented educators and successful coaches who freely give the priceless gift of mentoring. They are individuals who have unselfishly shared their personal time to serve as contest officials for the UIL CX Debate State Meet, to teach workshops at Student Activities Conferences, to serve on League committees and to serve in other valuable consulting capacities. They give of their time and energy because of their love for young people and their commitment to the art of argumentation. Their support of the UIL is deeply appreciated. In addition, special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Rich Edwards of Baylor University who, for many years, has provided the section over Internet Debate Research written specific to the current debate resolution. Dr. Edwards’ contribution to high school policy debate in Texas and across the nation is unparalleled. UIl was proud to nominate him to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of the National Fed- eration of State High School Associations. As you read this manual, remember that debate is an ever-evolving discipline. Paradigms and theory continue to evolve, and though you may initially find academic debate confusing, I challenge you to persevere. Debate is much like learning to drive a car — all the instruction in the world doesn’t have meaning until you sit behind the wheel, turn the key in the ignition, and put the car in motion. Then, it all comes together! The same is true for debate — commit yourself to the study of debate texts, use this manual as a guide to success in UIL competition, and be sure to enter the tournament arena to test your skills. As you become your own advocate, you’ll realize why so many high school debaters have become significant leaders in society. Best of luck! Jana Riggins, Editor UIL State Speech & Debate Director About the Authors W.E. Schuetz is a speech and debate teacher at Gregory–Portland High School in Portland, Texas, where he has taught for over four decades. During his teaching career, he has coached numerous award-winning competitors in extemporaneous speaking, cross-examination debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He has earned certification not only in speech, but also in history, English, earth science, biology, physical education and health. Active in UIL, Mr. Schuetz has served as contest director for the Conference A CX Debate State Tournament, and he is a certified One-Act Play judge. He also presents workshops at the UIL Capital Conference in the summer and at Student Activities Conferences during the fall. Mr. Schuetz has received numerous prestigious awards, including the National Federation Citation Award and Outstanding District Chair for the National Speech and Debate Association. He has also received the Texas Speech Communication Association Teacher of the Year award. He has authored several study reports for the National Debate Topic Selection process, has chaired the National Debate Topic Selection Wording Committee and is a vital contributor to LD Debate resolutions, serving on the UIL State Advisory Committee. Mr. Schuetz holds a Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M University in College Station and a Master of Arts from Corpus Christi State University. David Gardiner is a speech and debate teacher at for the Corpus Christi Independent School District where he has coached students to UIL State and NSDA Nationals honors multiple years. Mr. Gardiner has served as District Director of extemporaneous speaking, cross-examination debate and Lincoln- Douglas Debate contests and has been appointed to the Regional Speech Advisory Committee. Nomi- nated for the Texas Speech Communication Association Teacher of the Year Award, he has also been a contest official for the UIL CX Debate State tournament. He has presented several study reports at the National Debate Topic Selection meeting, with his topics advancing to the final national ballot and he has served on the National Wording Committee. He was a high school and college debater, and also participated in UIL One-Act Play. Mr. Gardiner holds a Speech Communication degree from Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 — Foundations Advocacy ............................................................................................................ 5 Resolutional Analysis ......................................................................................... 5 Researching the Topic ......................................................................................... 6 The Stock Issues ................................................................................................. 9 Section 2 — Structures Debate Format .................................................................................................. 10 Writing an Affirmative Case ............................................................................. 11 Negative Strategy ............................................................................................. 12 Speaker Responsibilities ................................................................................... 22 Flowing the Debate ........................................................................................... 23 Cross-Examination Period ................................................................................ 26 Section 3 — Details Tournament Practice and Procedure ................................................................. 28 UIL Rules .......................................................................................................... 28 Debater’s Code of Ethics .................................................................................. 38 How to Judge the Judge .................................................................................... 39 Misunderstood UIL Rules ................................................................................. 40 Debate Jargon ................................................................................................... 42 Improving Debate Skills ................................................................................... 42 Debate in Texas ................................................................................................. 43 Selecting a Resolution ...................................................................................... 45 Section 4 - How to Run the Meet Preparing for the tournament ............................................................................ 48 Computer Guidelines ........................................................................................ 49 Substitutions ..................................................................................................... 50 Pairing/Power Matching/Tabulation ................................................................. 52 Appendix .................................................................................................................... 57 SECTION 1 — FOUNDATIONS WHY SHOULD YOU DEBatE? The answer is advocacy. Webster’s Dictionary defines advocacy as speaking or writ- ing in support of something. An advocate is someone defending or promoting an issue or position. When you debate, you advocate adoption of the debate resolution through implementation of your affirmative case or you defend a negative strategy as being the best in the round. Through advocacy, you appeal to the judge by offering evidence and argumentation to support your position. It is important to be the best advocate under these circumstances. It is even more important to learn the process of advocacy because after debate, you have the rest of your life to live, and the skills you learn from debate will be invaluable. On a personal level, you need to be your own best advocate. You will probably have to sell yourself to an employer to obtain that “once-in-a-lifetime” job. At some point in your career, you might request a salary increase. You may be called upon to support and campaign for a candidate seeking elective office. You could be for or against a major bond issue affecting your taxes and your community. All of these decisions are important because they will impact your life and certainly your happiness. Some debaters become professional advocates. Are you considering a career as an attorney? Your clients will be dependent upon your skills as an advocate. Do you aspire to public office? In a political posi- tion, you are speaking for and acting for your entire constituency. Are you a good salesperson? You will be convincing individuals and companies to purchase the products you represent. You may become a professional fund raiser or lobbyist. Regardless of your choice of profession, advocacy will definitely play a role. Income and quality of life are direct results of your persuasiveness. As a debater, you will learn advocacy from the ground up. You will learn how to research an issue, how to analyze your research, and how to organize your research to orally support your position. Debating will teach you note-taking skills, listening skills,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEBATING AGENT of ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M
    DEBATING AGENT OF ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M. Cheshier By the end of last year's academic wider than those few discussed here. This Court enforces, then the counterplan to sim- achievement season, agent of action essay does not review the merits of state ply have the Court initiate action which it counterplans were well established as a legislative or judicial action, although those then enforces as it would other decisions generic of choice, and the early indication will obviously be viable strategies in cer- might well be plan inclusive. Or is it? Even if is that they will have a similarly dominant tain debates. It does not review the compli- the outcome is very similar, one might ar- influence in privacy debates. While the cated literatures surrounding the Congres- gue the mandates of the plan are essentially summer experience of students at the sional delegation power, though in some different from the counterplan. And if we Dartmouth Debate Institute may be atypi- debates the delegation/nondelegation issue decide otherwise, wouldn't every cal, almost every round there came down to will arise. Nor does it review the range of counterplan become plan-inclusive, if only an agent counterplan, a Clinton popularity/ potential international action counterplans because both the plan and counterplan political capital position, a privacy critique, available on this topic, most of which would share similar language regarding "normal and associated theory attacks. The strate- presumably involve either consultation or means", "enforcement," and "funding"? gic benefits are plain to see - agent harmonization of American privacy policy Since there is, in certain quarters, a counterplans often capture the case advan- with the European Union - it was only little growing hostility to plan-inclusiveness, and tage and open the way for political process more than a month ago that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Research SD-5 Gathering Information About Commercial Products and Services
    Market Research SD-5 Gathering Information About Commercial Products and Services DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRA M JANUARY 2008 Contents Foreword 1 The Market Research Other Considerations 32 Background 2 Process 13 Amount of Information Strategic Market Research to Gather 32 What Is Market Research? 2 (Market Surveillance) 14 Procurement Integrity Act 32 Why Do Market Research? 2 Identify the Market or Market Paperwork Reduction Act 33 Segment of Interest 14 When Is Market Research Cost of Market Research 34 Done? 5 Identify Sources of Market Information 16 Who Should Be Involved In Market Research? 7 Collect Relevant Market Other Information Information 17 Technical Specialist 8 Document the Results 18 on Market Research 35 User 9 Logistics Specialist 9 Tactical Market Research Appendix A 36 (Market Investigation) 19 Testing Specialist 9 Types of Information Summarize Strategic Market Available on the Internet Cost Analyst 10 Research 19 Legal Counsel 10 Formulate Requirements 20 Appendix B 39 Contracting Officer 10 Web-Based Information Identify Sources of Sources Information 21 Guiding Principles 11 Collect Product or Service Appendix C 47 Examples of Tactical Start Early 11 Information from Sources 22 Collect Information from Information Define and Document Product or Service Users 26 Requirements 11 Evaluate the Data 27 Refine as You Proceed 12 Document the Results 30 Tailor the Investigation 12 Repeat as Necessary 12 Communicate 12 Involve Users 12 Foreword The Department of Defense (DoD) relies extensively on the commercial market for the products and services it needs, whether those products and services are purely commercial, modified for DoD use from commercial products and services, or designed specifically for DoD.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • How to Choose a Search Engine Or Directory
    How to Choose a Search Engine or Directory Fields & File Types If you want to search for... Choose... Audio/Music AllTheWeb | AltaVista | Dogpile | Fazzle | FindSounds.com | Lycos Music Downloads | Lycos Multimedia Search | Singingfish Date last modified AllTheWeb Advanced Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Google Advanced Search | HotBot Advanced Search | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Domain/Site/URL AllTheWeb Advanced Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Google Advanced Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | SearchEdu.com | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search File Format AllTheWeb Advanced Web Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Geographic location Exalead Advanced Search | HotBot Advanced Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Images AllTheWeb | AltaVista | The Amazing Picture Machine | Ditto | Dogpile | Fazzle | Google Image Search | IceRocket | Ixquick | Mamma | Picsearch Language AllTheWeb Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Google Language Tools | HotBot Advanced Search | iBoogie Advanced Web Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Multimedia & video All TheWeb | AltaVista | Dogpile | Fazzle | IceRocket | Singingfish | Yahoo Video Search Page Title/URL AOL Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Multitasking Web Search on Alta Vista
    1 Multitasking Web Search on Alta Vista Amanda Spink* & Bernard J. Jansen Minsoo Park School of Info Sciences and Jan Pedersen School of Information Technology Chief Scientist Sciences The Pennsylvania State Overture Web Search University of Pittsburgh University Division 610 IS Building, 135 N. 4P Thomas Building 1070 Arastradero Road Bellefield Avenue University Park PA 16802 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Pittsburgh PA 15260 Tel: (814) 865-6459 [email protected] Tel: (412) 624-9454 Fax: (814) 865-6424 Fax: (412) 648-7001 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected],edu * To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Ozmutlu [8] show that IR searches often include Abstract multiple topics, during a single search session or A user’s single session with a Web search engine multitasking search. Spink, Batemen and Greisdorf may consist of seeking information on single or [9] found that eleven (3.8%) of the 287 Excite users multiple topics. Most Web search sessions consist of responding to a Web-based survey reported two queries of two words. We present findings from a multitasking searches. However, limited knowledge study of two-query search sessions on the Alta Vista exists on the characteristics and patterns of Web search engine to examine the degree of multitasking searches. Recent studies have examined multitasking search by typical web searchers. A multitasking searching on the Excite and sample of two-query length search sessions were AlltheWeb.com Web search engines [10, 11]. filtered from Alta Vista transaction logs from 2003. Ozmutlu, Ozmutlu and Spink [10] provide a Findings include: (1) 81% of two-query sessions detailed analysis of multitasking sessions on were multitasking searches, and (2) there are a broad AlltheWeb.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value
    White Paper The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value BrightPlanet.com LLC July 2000 The author of this study is Michael K. Bergman. Editorial assistance was provided by Mark Smither; analysis and retrieval assistance was provided by Will Bushee. This White Paper is the property of BrightPlanet.com LLC. Users are free to distribute and use it for personal use.. Some of the information in this document is preliminary. BrightPlanet plans future revisions as better information and documentation is obtained. We welcome submission of improved information and statistics from others involved with the “deep” Web. Mata Hari® is a registered trademark and BrightPlanet™, CompletePlanet™, LexiBot™, search filter™ and A Better Way to Search™ are pending trademarks of BrightPlanet.com LLC. All other trademarks are the respective property of their registered owners. © 2000 BrightPlanet.com LLC. All rights reserved. Summary BrightPlanet has uncovered the “deep” Web — a vast reservoir of Internet content that is 500 times larger than the known “surface” World Wide Web. What makes the discovery of the deep Web so significant is the quality of content found within. There are literally hundreds of billions of highly valuable documents hidden in searchable databases that cannot be retrieved by conventional search engines. This discovery is the result of groundbreaking search technology developed by BrightPlanet called a LexiBot™ — the first and only search technology capable of identifying, retrieving, qualifying, classifying and organizing “deep” and “surface” content from the World Wide Web. The LexiBot allows searchers to dive deep and explore hidden data from multiple sources simultaneously using directed queries. Businesses, researchers and consumers now have access to the most valuable and hard- to-find information on the Web and can retrieve it with pinpoint accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Consultant Counterplan Legitimate
    THE D G E IS THE CONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN LEGITIMATE? by David M. Cheshier The most popular category of counterplan on the “weap- ons of mass destruction” (WMD) topic involves consultation. The negative argues that instead of promptly adopting and imple- menting the plan, the United States should consult some speci- fied government beforehand, only moving forward if the plan meets the approval of our consultation partner. Many versions were produced over the summer, including counterplans to consult NATO, Japan, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Canada. On this resolution, the consultation counterplan is often an irresistible strategic option for the negative. Because most plan texts as written advocate immediate implementation (if they don’t the affirmative may be in topicality trouble), the counterplan is mutually exclusive, for one can’t act and consult about acting at the same time. Because the resolution locks the affirmative into frequently defending policies the rest of the world would agree to, the counterplan consultation process would usually culminate in the eventual passage of the plan. Thus, the negative is able to argue there is little or no downside to asking for input. Consulta- tion promises to capture the advantages, with the value added benefit of an improvement in America’s relations with NATO, Rus- sia, or China (from here on I’ll use Russia as my example). The view is also prevalent that the consultation counterplan cannot be permuted by the affirmative, since to do so invariably commits the affirmative either to severance or intrinsicness (more on this shortly). Consultation is here to stay. For the counterplan to work, the negative must include lan- guage, which gives the consultation partner a “veto” over the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • CDL High School Core Files August 2019
    Table of Contents Red/Maroon Conference Argument Limits Blue/Silver Conference Argument Limits Ukraine AFFIRMATIVE (Rookie/Novice – Beginner) Plan Plan: The United States federal government should end all direct commercial and foreign military sales of arms to Ukraine. Contention 1 - Inherency Trump is currently committed to increasing arms sales to Ukraine. Contention 2 is Harms – Ukraine Crisis Arm sales entangle the US and Ukraine. This is bad because Ukraine uses its relations with the US to antagonize Russia. U.S-Russia Military confrontation over Ukraine escalates to nuclear war. Contention 3 is Solvency Ending arms sales reduces tensions with Moscow and stops conflict escalation. Plan solves – ending arms sales respects Russia’s influence. That’s key to better relations. [Optional] Contention 4 is Harms (China-Russia) Relations Tensions with the US push Russia towards China. That improves China-Russian relations. Creation of a Russia-China alliance fuels arctic militarization. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative—Chicago Debates High School Core Files 2019- 2020 Arctic militarization causes conflict escalation. Arctic conflict escalates to nuclear war. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative Ukraine 2AC/1AR On Case Answers 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #1: Arms sales good turn 1. Extend our Carpenter 2018 evidence - it says___________________________________________ __ 2. The plan solves for Russia’s perceptions – it sees the provision of weapons as a provocation. 3. Arming Ukraine fails to deter Russia and results in entanglement which forces US escalation. 4. Arms won’t deter Russia – they cause conflict escalation and back the US into a corner. 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #2: Democracy Turn 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Research
    Discipline Specific Researching on the Internet The internet is growing exponentially, and thousands of new web pages are being added each day. The upside is that you have an enormous amount of information only a few mouse clicks away. The downside is that you must refine your approach to online research in order to target the handful of websites that may be useful to you. The following search tops are designed to get you stared and save you time. Happy hunting! Finding Sources Go to www.library.unh.edu The University of New Hampshire Library has access to dozens of online databases catering to nearly every subject you may be studying. The site also has several online research guides and tools to ensure you'll find what you need. The library’s web site is a good first choice to help narrow your research. Try several search engines Google is the most popular search engine in the world, so that is a good place to start. There are, however, other search engines that might be of use to you: Altavista.com askjeeves.com ditto.com excite.com metacrawler.com dogpile.com Alltheweb.com yahoo.com Use the advanced search function Most search engines have a link for “advanced search.” This can be extremely useful in narrowing your search, as the additional features enable you to search by exact phrase, date range, domain, language, date of web page update, and more. Choose your search words carefully Use words that are specific, or unique, to what you are looking for. Some words are very common and will lead to far too many hits.
    [Show full text]
  • Resources for Patrons
    Part 1 Ready Reference on the Web: Resources for Patrons Quick! What is the best Web resource for finding a good vacuum cleaner? Getting information for a grade-school “state” report? Finding a life-saving clinical trial? People just walk up to our desks and ask us these questions every day. And we are expected to answer them in seconds, not minutes or hours. For heaven’s sake! How are we supposed to know? Well, as Robert W. Winter, Arthur G. Coons Professor of the History of Ideas, Emeritus at Occidental College in Los Angeles once told our class, “A liberal arts education will teach you what you don’t know.” In other words, as educated people, as librarians, we know that we don’t know everything, yet we are armed with tools to find out about anything. My hope is that the first section of this book can serve as one of those tools. I have tried to cover some of the most asked subject areas that I encounter every day on the job. I also point to directo- ries of high-quality sites that can quickly connect librarians and their patrons to the answers that they need. These listings may not answer every question. But I guarantee you, if you can learn to turn to them first, your patrons will hail your alacrity and brilliance. And isn’t this glory what we librarians live for? 7 Chapter 1 Searching and Meta-Searching the Internet The topic of searching the Web puts me in an elegiac mood. I think back to 1994 when I was first playing with the Web during my library school internship at the Getty Research Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: the Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy
    BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: The Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy Prepared by Jim Hanson with thanks to Will Gent for his assistance Breaking Down Barriers: Policy Teacher Materials Page 1 BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: SAMPLE POLICY TEACHER MATERIALS By Jim Hanson TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE TEACHER'S MATERIALS ................................................................... 3 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATING: BUILDING TOWARD MINI-DEBATES ....................................... 3 POLICY DEBATING: TOWARD TEAM/CX DEBATES ................................................................. 4 THE MOST ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS ..................................... 5 USING THE LESSON PLANS FOR LECTURES ........................................................................... 6 DEBATE COURSE SYLLABUS .................................................................................................. 7 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR THE BASICS .............................................................................. 9 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR POLICY DEBATING .................................................................. 10 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR ADVANCED POLICY ................................................................. 11 LECTURE OUTLINES ............................................................................................................ 12 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATE LECTURES .................................................................................. 12 SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Participating in a Policy Debate Program and Academic Achievement Among At-Risk Adolescents in an Urban Public School District: 1997–2007
    Journal of Adolescence xxx (2012) 1–11 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997–2007 Susannah Anderson a, Briana Mezuk b,* a Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, USA b Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA abstract Keywords: This study investigates the relationship between participating in a high school debate Adolescent program on college-readiness in the Chicago Public School district over a 10-year period. Education At-risk school students were identified using an index including 8th grade achievement, Debate poverty status, and enrollment in special education. Regression analyses were used to Graduation assess the association between debate participation and graduation and ACT performance. At-risk Overall, debaters were 3.1 times more likely to graduate from high school (95% confidence interval: 2.7–3.5) than non-debaters, and more likely to reach the college-readiness benchmarks on the English, Reading, and Science portions of the ACT. This association was similar for both low-risk and at-risk students. Debate intensity was positively related to higher scores on all sections of the ACT. Findings indicate that debate participation is associated with improved academic performance for at-risk adolescents. Ó 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There are substantial disparities in educational attainment according to race, income, geography and ethnicity.
    [Show full text]