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

I thank Con for his points and arguments. However, I'm afraid they don't seem to constitute sufficient reasons for the case Con is trying to make. Recall that Con is making the case that the school has *no onus* for developing academic competencies and life skills in students. In Con's own words, *schools are only a medium to sustain and promote children* and "the onus of developing the right attitude and ability towards achieving academic competency lies solely with the coherent synergy of family, peers, society and surroundings." (Con thus seems to agree with my interpretation of the topic, and he has said nothing against the reasons I gave in support of that interpretation, so it stands as is). What reasons has Con given so far for this case? (1) "A child is like a clean slate" susceptible to be moulded in the right manner". I agree fully with Con's claim here. The only thing is that it does not give any positive reason to think that schools have no onus for developing life skills and academic competencies in students! Indeed, my view is that children must be moulded in the right manner *both* by parents *and* by the school. So this point (1) does not seem to constitute any evidence for Con's case. (2) "Before we become a part of the educational system, we start learning from our surroundings" Our interactions start with our fellow human beings" This effectively ensures that, by the time children join school, their moral compasses are fixed". Here I disagree with Con. It may be true that children are influenced by others from the time they are born (and I already acknowledge this in my above response to Con's point 1), but I don't see how this is evidence that "their moral compasses are fixed" before they are of school age (i.e. 5-7 years old). So, I think Con's point (2) here is unsubstantiated as it stands, in the absence of further evidence. Indeed, I'll argue against this point later on in this post. (3) "What have schools become today? They've become a realm where teachers are pitched into a desperate race against time to complete their portions." I think this claim is true, but again I don't see how it counts as evidence for Con's case. Why couldn't it simply show that schools are *failing* to fulfil their responsibilities as institutions that *do* bear the onus of ensuring students have the relevant competencies? Indeed, I think if anything this claim is evidence for *my* case as Pro. The reason is that it is quite plausible that the *reason why* we think under-resourced schools are 'unsatisfactory' or undesirable, is precisely because we think those schools have a responsibility they need to live up to: i.e. a responsibility to educate students to the appropriate level, for which they need resources and teachers who are not pressured by unreasonable demands. Con doesn't think that schools have such a responsibility, so Con needs to give us an alternative explanation as to why under-resourced schools are an undesirable thing. As far as I can see these are the main points Con made for his case. I have argued that there are reasons to think Con's points are unconvincing. Further I have argued that Con's point (3) is actually a reason for *my* case as Pro. Having given my evaluation of Con's arguments I will now turn to my own positive arguments. First, let me recap the argument I gave in my first post. I said that parents cannot be reasonably expected to have the *necessary abilities* to develop academic competencies in students. But if parents don't have the necessary abilities, it's not reasonable to expect them to be *solely responsible* for developing these academic competencies. But then with who does the responsibility lie? I claim that *in general*, the best candidate is the institutional school, because in general schools *do* have the necessary abilities. They can pay to employ teachers who are experts in high school chemistry, physics, english etc. Schools (considered as institutions) thus, in virtue of their teachers, have abilities that far outstrip parents (and peers, society etc. outside the school setting). The same applies for life skills: while *some* life skills can be developed outside of school (e.g. having good table manners and behaving well around strangers) other skills often are developed in school (e.g. sex education, outdoor education, swimming, and behaving well around one's peers at school etc.). Let me now give another argument. My claim here is (contrary to Con's point 2 above) human beings remain highly undeveloped (and therefore fragile) in their character by the time they reach school age (5-7). Indeed, key aspects of moral reasoning only manifest themselves by ages 7-10. But if so, schools bear significant responsibility for developing these aspects of moral reasoning. Therefore, schools have an onus of developing significant life skills in students (of young age). Let me defend my claims. First, the claim that school-age children have undeveloped moral compasses (i.e. reasoning concerning right and wrong) as well as undeveloped character traits. As evidence I cite Larry Nucci's (1997) study on moral development and character formation. Nucci states that the morality of children up to pre-school age (i.e. ages 3-6) is primarily based on the idea that "When you get hit, it hurts, and you start to cry". However it is "not yet structured by understandings of fairness as reciprocity" treating others as one would wish to be treated". Nucci says that it is only by age 10 that such an understanding is developed. But this means that children develop facets of their basic moral reasoning while at school age (7-10). So I think there's good evidence that children remain quite morally underdeveloped even by school age. Onto the second claim, that if children are underdeveloped in this way then schools have the responsibility and onus of ensuring this development take place. This seems quite plausible because students spend 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week at school. In this time students need ongoing moral formation. Thus the school bears significant responsibility for ensuring that formation takes place. Of course, when students get home they need ongoing formation from their parents. But this doesn't affect my conclusion: the onus still lies *to a significant degree* with schools to develop a student's moral life correctly. In conclusion, three reasons to affirm Pro: "Con's point (3) that under-resourced schools are bad, which I argued gives reason to affirm Pro; "my argument from my first post which I re-iterated, from the inability of parents to develop all the academic competencies of children (which remains unchallenged); "and finally the second argument I have given here from the underdeveloped character of young school-age children. REFERENCES Nucci, Larry (1997). "Moral Development and Character Formation". In Walberg, H. J. & Haertel, G. D., *Psychology and educational practice.* Berkeley: MacCarchan. p. 127-157. Accessed online at http://tigger.uic.edu...