National Speech and Debate Education Day.
The resolution is largely symbolic, intending to raise awareness and appreciation for the educational benefits of speech and debate programs. By recognizing National Speech and Debate Education Day, the legislature aims to galvanize support for these programs in schools, encouraging educators to devote more time to extracurricular speech and debate activities. This initiative could potentially lead to increased resources and funding for these programs, impacting educational policies surrounding extracurricular activities and communications education.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 20 (SCR20), introduced by Senator Morrell, aims to recognize March 3, 2017, as National Speech and Debate Education Day. This resolution is intended to promote awareness of the importance of speech and debate education across all grade levels. The resolution highlights how skills developed through speech and debate—such as communication, critical thinking, and creativity—play a pivotal role in personal advocacy, social movements, and effective public policymaking. The bill stresses the need for such instruction as a vital component of a well-rounded curriculum that fosters essential life skills in students.
The sentiment surrounding SCR20 appears to be positive, reflecting a broad agreement on the value of speech and debate education in developing critical life skills. Legislative support for the measure was strong, as indicated by its unanimous passage with 76 votes in favor and none against. This suggests a collective acknowledgment among lawmakers of the importance of equipping students with essential communication skills.
While SCR20 is primarily a recognition resolution and lacks substantial legislative content to provoke significant controversy, any discussion around budget allocations for speech and debate programs may elicit varied opinions. Some may argue that while supporting these educational activities is important, there should also be a balanced approach to funding across various educational needs. However, the absence of opposition during the voting process suggests that the bill did not face notable points of contention.