The onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school.

I will here argue in affirmative of the contention that the onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school (call this contention [C]). First, I want to clarify some things: first, the burden of proof, and second, the meaning of [C]. I will not criticise my opponent's opening argument in this round (I will save that for the later rounds). Thus, after my clarificatory points I will move on to my argument for [C] which will proceed in two parts. First, the burden of proof. I take it that each of us bear the burden of proof (the 'onus', as it were! ) of making a positive case for/against [C]. My opponent has already made a positive case against [C], and in what follows I will show where I disagree with my opponent's case, and my reasons for doing so. I will then make a positive case in favour of [C], which my opponent will have to show is less plausible than his positive case against [C]. Second, the meaning of [C]. It seems to me that [C] could mean one of two things: [C1] The UNIQUE and ONLY onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school. [C2] The (non-unique) onus of developing academic competencies and life skills in students lies with the school. I do not dispute that both are possible readings of [C]. It's worth noting that [C1] is a much stronger claim than [C2] and would require much more argument on my part. Likewise, denying [C2] would be a much stronger claim than denying [C1] on the part of my opponent. I must confess that when I accepted this debate I read [C] to mean [C2] and not [C1]. The reason is because my opponent squarely asserted in his opening statement: "Schools are only a medium to sustain and promote [children]. Nothing more, my friends, and certainly nothing less". This statement seems to me to suggest that according to my opponent schools are importantly different from parents, in that schools are merely a medium for sustaining and promoting children, while parents are not. I read this as saying that parents are unique in bearing responsibility for children's education in a way that schools are not. Schools, as *a medium* of promoting and sustaining students, are ultimately not *necessary* for the development of the academic competencies and life skills of students. Parents, on the other hand (according to my opponent), are in fact necessary for the development of the competencies and skills of students. The onus is thus on them. Given the context of my opponent's framing of [C], I I take it that it is thus reasonable to interpret [C] as meaning something like [C2]. I thus will not argue that schools *alone* are necessary for the education of students, and hence are the *SOLE* bearers of responsibility for education; instead, I will merely argue that they are *a* necessary component of the education of students, and thus bear *some* onus (indeed, a significant portion of it). I take it that if multiple institutions/individuals bear joint responsibility for education, then one can truly say of each party that the onus is on them, at least in part. Now, onto my two-part argument. (A) Parents are not the only necessary bearers of responsibility for developing the academic competencies of their children. My argument for this claim is as follows. the parent(s) of a child are not to be *reasonably expected* to possess the abilities required to develop *all* academic competencies in their child. But if a parent is not to be reasonably expected to possess such abilities, then they cannot be responsible for developing all those competencies. Therefore, parents are not responsible for developing all the academic competencies in their child. Now, given our context (i. e. english speaking countries in which school access is generally available), it is in fact the case that there *are* schools capable of developing some of these academic competencies which are outside the (reasonably expected) capabilities of parents. (For instance, competency in upper-secondary level chemistry). Given that schools are likely to be the *only* institutions with such a capability, it is reasonable to also hold that these capabilities confer *responsibility* on these institutions to develop these specific academic competencies in students, where applicable. Now, even if the argument so far holds, it doesn't yet make a case for [C], because according to [C] schools don't just have the onus of developing academic competencies"they also have the onus of developing *life skills*. Surely these lie with the parents? Here the second part of my argument comes in. (B) Schools bear necessary responsibility for developing life skills in their students. My argument for this claim is that adolescents require the development of life skills *constantly*. That is to say, there is no point in adolescence where the development of life skills is not required. Furthermore, in my prior argument I argued that schools bear responsibility for developing some of the academic competencies of students. But in order for schools to fulfil that responsibility, students need to spend a significant amount of *time* at schools to develop these competencies (e. g. learning math, or learning chemistry, would require enrolment at school and the spending of a significant amount of time at school during the year). Now, if it is true that adolescents require the development of life skills constantly, it follows that they require the development of life skills at school as well. Finally, schools generally have the requisite capacities and abilities for developing life skills in addition to academic competencies. It is thus reasonable to hold them responsible, in part, for the development of life skills in students. I take it that the above considerations, if correct, show that schools bear a necessary responsibility for developing both the academic competencies as well as the life skills of students, at least in part. Given that responsibility, and their capacity to fulfil that responsibility, it is reasonable to conclude that the onus is on schools to fulfil that responsibility in developing the academic competencies and life skills of students. The conclusions of my arguments may appear weak, because they do not say that the onus lies *wholly* with the school. But that is not a problem, because as I said earlier, the contention at hand is not that the onus lies *wholly* with the school"it is merely that *some* onus lies with the school. My argument, I believe, establishes this conclusion. I await my opponent's response and thank him again for creating an interesting topic for debate.