Reduce homework, lengthen schooltime

My thanks to Muted for his response – it is a challenging, direct rebuttal. On BoP issues, Con need not have to present a case, but if he does not then any proven benefit is enough for me. As is, a weighing is required. Just quickly, Con couldn’t rebut all arguments of mine last round (as per rules) , yet (as per memory retention and short term memory!) I’ll remind readers that my points ‘Reduction in general mischief’ and ‘Working Mindset / Lack of Agrarian Workforce’ and most of ‘Homework vs. Instruction’ have not been contended as yet. Let’s go to the arguments – Con’s then a focus on mine. School and Work Life Con laments about how students aren’t being prepared for school. I agree completely and would be ready to debate a host of policies. The point though is whether my proposal increases the time spent on school related work – currently called homework and time in school. If homework currently is > the increase in schooltime (and reduction in ‘homework’) then my system gives more time for student use. The converse applies. Let’s assume the net ‘homework’ component remains the same. Does the amount of student free time, time not required to be at school, increase? Yes. Under the current model lunch, recess and all other breaks occur at set times – they are immovable to the student; it is bad luck if you’d like to sacrifice a break at school for an equivalent amount of time outside school – you can’t. Under my model, as readers may recall, you can. Recall in R1 how we had 80 minutes of break built into the day; 40 was automatically set aside for lunch. That left 40 minutes which students could elect to have at the start or the end of the day. If they chose the day’s end then they could leave school at the start of that break. So, in terms of time which students can utilise freely (free time for things like work), my model provides 20 minutes extra for extracurricular activities, work etc. notwithstanding any changes in the amount of homework. If Con argues for a change in homework amount (the extra time ought to cancel out the reduction) then he gets to drink the associated poison. That is... aside from all the other benefits of the scheme, particularly memory retention, which we’ll touch on later. For instance, in R2 I discussed how teacher instruction can help students do homework more productively if they’re stuck. Time saved is time that can be used for the very activities Con values. Con needs to demonstrate how my model decreases available free time. Homework reduction is equivalent to school being lengthened; under my model extra free time is available. Lamenting school’s uselessness is irrelevant unless it can be linked to time for other activities. Con’s calculation makes no sense as well. In Australia a 9-3 approx. (I have 8:50-3:10) day is the norm, although a longer school year is the compensation [1] [2]. Con, why the – (40*2 – 20) ? Con needs to elaborate on this example. Memory retention, homework, spacing effect Con lamented the failure of school. Con’s first source started with “The Department for Work and Pensions minister said he was "genuinely shocked" by "the very small number of young people coming out of school with good GCSE passes in core subjects”(about 1 in 6 said later) . What would help with this? Better memory retention. In R2 I outlined how spaced presentation was superior to massed presentation for memory retention purposes, and how school promoted spaced presentation by virtue of the lessons being spaced out on the timetable. Indeed, school forces spaced presentation vs. the massed presentation of the home. Con does state that the spacing effect can occur at home. Agreed. However, this will necessarily happen less than under the model, ergo worse memory retention. Also, I specifically noted that a student will tend to do homework in clumps (say, a bunch of maths exercises) because massed presentation is at work! But it doesn’t end there for memory retention. I recently read Memory by Jonathan K. Foster (first published 2009), one of OUP’s fascination very short introductions. To quote one part: “Other things being equal, we tend to remember information better if we are in a similar physical context and emotional state at the time we wish to retrieve information as we were in at the time we were exposed to that information.” School is more akin to work than the home environment, so as per a more similar physical context we remember better. This is specified in the encoding specificity principle. Also, the emotional state at school is more constant than at home, more like work. This again promotes better memory retention as the retrieval cue matches memories better. This sort of logic strongly explains why we can’t remember dreams – the physical context is different, our emotional state different and our physiological state are also different. On Con’s other points: Technology is getting better, but it’s no substitute for a qualified teacher at school at the ready – that’s what my model gives. Also, technology is a wash – every year 9 student in the public sector is already given a laptop. [3] At least in NSW they do! On comfort, I concede homes are generally more comfortable, although friends can mitigate this discomfort. To recap, homework done at school is done in a manner of spaced presentation. This is superior for memory retention. Furthermore, recall is strengthened by a similar emotional state and physical context, which happens when learning is conducted more strongly in a given place, such as school. These effects far outweigh some minor comfort benefits. Memory is strengthened tremendously by shifting homework to school time. Cost / Teacher Workload Con is right, the US has poor teacher pay: See that? The US is far to the right...I strongly suggest higher pay for teachers, and more respect as in Finland. [4] Would that we could change that. However, Con makes the mistake of assuming a higher workload for teachers, and the associated problems. Evidence? No, assertion. Remember, the increased time at school is in substitute for marking things like homework at home, there doesn’t have to be additional lectures. If Con wishes to contend that homework shouldn’t be marked he can. I'm all for Con's concerns... if they apply to the proposed model, which isn't proven. In fact, reducing homework separates work and home life, which is beneficial. Also, with better memory retention the teacher has to waste less time re-explaining content. Time saved that can be utilised as the teacher wishes. Finally, my cost points weren’t refuted – debase private tuition costs, reduce day care costs, and, crucially, streamline use of public transport and the like (more efficient, less cost of public transport... maybe those savings could go to teachers pay in a dream...) . And my last point, to quote from R2: “Parents can work for longer. There’s less concern for parents to be at home, supervising their children, if they can trust that their child is safe and productive at school, vs. potentially the converse at home.” That point ties into the social mischief point, which hasn’t been contended as yet. Families save money if students aren’t damaging things, doing drugs , as well as earning more through working longer hours of course. Conclusion Con must refute the points of this round + those of mine unscathed of mine by his R2 (in part as per the rules). Con has work to do, specifically, he must prove how his points apply to my model and not just a general attack on schools, and how they outweigh my benefits. I look forward to Con’s reply. Sources 1 - http://www.infoplease.com... 2 - http://nces.ed.gov... 3 - http://ozteacher.com.au... 4 - http://www.smh.com.au...