Homework Should Not Be Required

Thanks Danielle! Observations OBV1: My opponent is affirming a change in the status quo meaning that my role is to defend the status quo. My opponent’s burden in this debate is to show why the status quo should be changed and as a result of this they hold the burden of proof. Since my opponent holds the burden of proof here, I will not be providing a constructive case. I will merely be refuting my opponent’s case. OBV2: Voters ought to vote pro if, by the end of the debate, they found Pro’s case more convincing than mine. Voters ought to vote Con if, by the end of the debate, I have managed to refute my opponent’s arguments (and therefore proven that the status quo is better than my opponent’s proposed change). Counterplan I will be producing a counterplan upon the resolution. This counterplan will allow me to advance my burden and win the debate but by making a minor alteration to the status quo (and therefore giving me a small share of the BOP to defend it). The Center for Public Education (CPE) produced a balanced report showing both sides to the debate on the necessity of homework. The conclusion that they made was that homework can be bad and get rid of children’s motivation when it is given in high quantity. Homework in moderate quantity produces better effects. With this information being considered, I present the following syllogism: P1: Too much homework is negative. P2: Homework in moderate quantity is positive. C1: Homework should be given in moderate quantity. This simple counterplan advances my burden and also improves the system of homework since it negates the arguments regarding stress, loss of motivation, etc. [Rebuttals] Point 1 My opponent’s report collected data from 14 - 26 years ago [3]. The system of education in all countries has changed since then [2]. As well as the data being largely outdated it is also very limited, in that it only analyzed 0.00000947368% of children [3][4]. This is extremely low and cannot sufficiently prove that homework is a net detriment when 99.99999163742% of the children are excluded from this study. Furthermore, even the article my opponent cites claims that this isn’t a reason to abolish homework - it is merely a reason to change the system [3]. The entire article that my opponent cites next (regarding TIMSS) is contingent on there being heavy homework loads. My counterplan explicitly deals with this issue. In fact the very study my opponent cites states directly after it speaks out the claim that my opponent uses: “The TIMSS can’t be used to determine if homework is actually helping or hurting academic performance overall. But it can help us see how much homework students are doing, and what conditions are associated with higher national levels of homework.” [5] This conclusively proves that the issue here comes down to homework quantity which is something that is negated already. Point 2 Next my opponent attempts to show that homework places a burden on parents. My opponent fails to explain the impact of this argument which is why it breaks down easily. She states that parents have rebelled and that some parents have gone to court and won. I am confused as to how this advances her burden in this debate. I could easily cite people going to court as proponents of homework and winning. I could easily also show that people have protested as proponents of homework too. It’s a controversial issue - of course there will be people for and against it. That doesn’t contribute or advance your burden in any way. One example is where a boy and his classmates demanded more homework and the parents agreed [6]. This protest negates my opponent’s since this is all they cite to attempt to affirm this point. My opponent’s next paragraph of point 2 is once again contingent on quantity. Homework can cut into family time but given that my counterplan specifically reduces the issue of homework in large quantity this point is negated. The same response can be made for the next point regarding the Stanford researcher’s findings. The next sub point regarding the “one mother” is extremely minor and is once again refuted by the counterplan. Additionally, only 10% of parents find that their child receives too much homework (on a national level); 64% find that their children’s homework is “about the right amount” and 25% believed that their child was not receiving enough homework [7]. This ultimately means that this one scenario that my opponent cites is in the minority and this will be solved under my counterplan regardless. The next reason is precisely why I am introducing the counterplan. I am aware that people may not have the time to dedicate to producing excellent quality homework which is why I introduced the counterplan which (again) refutes the point. My opponent makes the unsourced claim that most of the time parents need to help out their children with homework. I will not be addressing the bare assertion here. If / when my opponent chooses to source this claim I will respond to it. Lastly my opponent claims that it adds an extra burden on to teachers. The fact of the matter is that teachers are paid to mark homework (as well as fulfill their other duties). If homework were to be removed the salaries of teachers would also decline. It is part of the responsibility of a teacher and it is a burden that they accept and are made aware of when they apply for the job. [8] Point 3 My counterplan partially addresses the point regarding too much time being spent however I will expand upon another point I wish to make. My opponent raises the (unsourced) objection of children losing time for activities and rest. Sutton Trust Research concluded that 76% of children of all backgrounds do a range of out of school activities [9]. This shows that an overwhelming majority of people manage to do homework alongside creative and physical activities (and this statistic only refers to out of school activities). Next my opponent talks about a hateful relationship regarding learning being an issue. This article specifically references to the quantity (which my counterplan addresses). In the conclusion it even recommends that homework should be given in smaller quantities as this is ideal and will help them to learn and to have time to do activities that will help to benefit them [10]. My opponent also lists many things that are beneficial such as sports, artwork and playtime. All 3 of these things are taught / applied at most schools [11]. With this information alongside the statistic that 76% of children participate in out of school activities this point is successfully refuted. Point 4 Again, the review my opponent cites in an attempt to prove that homework results in the loss of sleep, self esteem and childhood is refuted by the counterplan as it once again references to excessive homework and homework taking up valuable time from children. Voters should NOT buy my opponent’s claim that it encourages cheating and creates a gap between the intelligent and academically struggling because this is once again bare assertion on my opponent’s behalf. Afterwards, my opponent quotes Alfie Kohn in an attempt to show that there is a better alternative to homework. The problem is that the proposed change can be done within the status quo, thus making it unnecessary to ban homework. Involving students in decisions about assignments can be done within school and then the assignment can be set once those decisions have been made - this can and does happen [12]. In the final paragraph my opponent quasi-concedes. She says: “As such, we can improve the status quo by asking students the best way to reinforce what they have learned in class. While this might include some work from home, it probably won't look like the standard version of homework that is uniform, repetitive and monotonous.” She says that the improvement might involve some work from home. My opponent attempts to distinguish this from homework by saying that homework is uniform, repetitive and monotonous whereas her work from home idea will not be. The fact is that homework is simply defined as: “schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home.” [13]. Meaning that my opponent’s proposition falls under the definition of homework and is therefore, in essence, a concession. To conclude, my opponent is unable to provide any good reason as to why homework should be banned. At best she manages to show that homework (at its current state) can be slightly excessive and can take away time from students. My counterplan addresses this and even if it didn’t, this isn’t a valid reason to ban homework, as this issue can be resolved within the status quo. On multiple occasions she fails to provide the impact of her contentions. I have successfully refuted my opponent’s points and shown why homework should not remain as a part of the status quo. The resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... [2] https://www.oecd.org... [3] http://research.indiana.edu... [4] http://www.gapminder.org... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] http://www.express.co.uk... [7] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [8] https://www.prospects.ac.uk... [9] https://societycentral.ac.uk... [10] http://www.salon.com... [11] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [12] http://www2.ed.gov... [13] http://tinyurl.com...