This motion invites a clash between rigour and relevance. It asks whether the familiar pillars of schooling—structured curricula, classrooms, high-stakes timed exams, and written assessment—are still the most reliable way to educate young people for adult life. Supporters will frame traditional methods as the fairest, most scalable way to teach knowledge, discipline, and critical thinking, and to sort qualifications in a way employers and universities can trust.

Opponents will question whether those methods reward performance under pressure more than genuine understanding, and whether they neglect creativity, collaboration, communication, and modern forms of literacy. At heart, the debate is about what we mean by “best”: best for social mobility, best for wellbeing, best for the economy, or best for human flourishing.