Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

Students should not be burdened with excessive homework at school.

I believe that homework has a place in schools, as without it, teachers would struggle to cover the necessary material, especially in high school where the curriculum demands the completion of extensive topics within a single semester. In my experience, students often needed to continue their work at home to ensure they could keep up with the pace of the lessons. To eliminate homework entirely would require significant changes, such as altering the curriculum or extending the school year, both of which would be substantial adjustments for the educational system. I can see the logic in reducing homework for younger students, from kindergarten to grade 6, but I argue that students in grades 7, 8, and high school should still be assigned homework. Homework can also facilitate a collaborative learning environment, where students can seek help from their parents if they are struggling to understand a concept. Personally, homework has been beneficial for my own learning. I agree that too much homework can encroach on free time, but that doesn’t mean we should eliminate it altogether. A more balanced approach, perhaps limiting homework to a few sheets per week and a project every other month, would be more reasonable.

I've actually been reading a few debates on here about homeschooling vs public school education. Honestly, I actually think that the homeschoolers have some good points; being able to hand craft their children's education sounds awesome to me. I've also read some success stories on different sites about how their kids easily get high tests scores and go on to college. The ways and methods they used to help their children get there were really creative and actually gave me a few ideas....However, I don't believe homeschooling should have to mean taking the kids out of school at all. As for posting a con side, I honestly can't think of any points I could make. Most of the homeschoolers in the stories that I've read used outside classes/activities/curriculum to teach their kids, and so the children weren't even being taught at home or by their parents. The parents were mainly there to pick curriculum or structure routines for their children, they didn't really teach.

Thanks to Logic_on_rails again for a great debate.I would like to apologize to Logic_on_rails and to the readers, I have had some personal issues arise unexpectedly and have not given this debate the preparation and time it deserves.That said, let's address the key points of this debate and my consclusions.Burden of ProofMy Burden of Proof is to prove that greatly reducing the amount of homework given [to High School students] in favor of increasing/setting the length of the school day from 9am to 5 pm does not provide sufficient increased benefit to society or the students to justify making said change.School Day.I maintain that Lengthening the school day will ultimately detract from the extra-curricular activities that Students can participate in, both by directly decreasing the amount of overall time available for those activities and by decreasing the viability of participating in activities.Pro has countered this point, I find that his endeavor to represent a lengthened school day as conducive to extra curricar activity participation and early low-skill job market participation is somewhat falacious. Homework can typically done in a broken or segmented fashion if necessary, playing baseball, rugby, or waiting tables cannot. On this point, merits of lengthening school day. LearningI do not feel compelled to completely counter the Spacing Effect. I will concede that spaced Learning may help some students learn more than alternative learning methods. I do not concede that all homework is conterproductive to spaced learning in school, by extension, I do not concede that spaced learning in school offers significant enough marginal benefit to justify changing the status quo. The Merits of HomeworkHomework is a necessary tool of education. By extension, reductions in Homework will hamper ability to fully develop and achieve the best level of education & should be seen as a failure on the part of the education system.I disagree with Pro's rebuttal: Homework put into school time does not maintain the benefits of homework performed at home. I maintain that addition of either taught hours or "study hall hours" at school again does not offer sufficient benefit to justify changing status quo.Reduction in General MischiefOn Pro's point: Extended. A solid school environment reduces the disproportionately high amount of youth crime for the reasons discussed in R2, such as empirical evidence showing how governments reduce harmful drug use, with education being cited as one of the main factors for smoking’s decline being one. Refer to R2.I have outlined in earlier rounds the merits of extra curriculars to this end. I do not believe that extension of the school day is mutually exclusive with participation in extra curriculars with respect to reduction of mischievious behavior. Again. No obligation to change status quo.Working Mindset / Lack of Agrarian Workfroce CurrentlyOn working mindset point. Extra curricular activities in my definition and as explained above include low-skill labor market jobs.What better way is there to prepare for the working world and mindset than actual participation in the labor force?An agrarianism. This is an international policy debate (theory). The world still relies heavily on agriculture. It is somewhat narrow-minded to assume that it does not. [1] Afghanistan: ½ of the GDP comes from agriculture, not including the illicit opium economy... Bangladesh: Of the 80% of the population that lives in rural areas, 54% work in agriculture... Bhutan: 1/3 of the GDP comes from agriculture, and is a key source of income, employment, and food security for mostBhutanese... India: Some 72% of the India’s 1.1 billion people live in rural areas... Maldives: Fisheries accounts for 8 percent of the country's GDP... Nepal: The country’s challenge is to transform subsistence agriculture based on low-value cereals into a commercialeconomic activity... Pakistan: 40% of the country’s labor force works in agriculture, which accounts for 22% of the GDP... Sri Lanka: Agriculture accounts for only 17% of the GDP, yet 80% of the population lives in rural areas.. Feasibility / Cost I maintain my earlier points on Fasibility and Cost. Pro's rebuttals do not sufficiently disprove my points or the viability of them.The implicit cost of a change argues for the status quo.SummaryI have, in my opinion, fulfilled my burden of proof in that I have offered reasonable evidence and logic to support the maintenance of status quo.The proposed change will create too great a social disruption to justify its imposition.Readers, ask yourselves simply if we can expect the world to alter a years old educational system if the change is not 100% necessary.Thanks again to Logic_ on_rails.[1] http://web.worldbank.org...

Thanks Con, and good luck!Procrastination affects everyone and can show up in many different ways. For instance, when a student procrastinates, it not only affects his grade and the quality of his content, but also the teacher’s opinion of him as a student. I believe procrastination should be carefully documented before we say that it is beneficial.Argument 1: Breathing is a task which needs to be accomplished.According to Ann Brown, the average person takes between 17,280 and 23,040 breaths a day.[4] Not only do we breathe constantly, but it also seems that we need to breathe to stay alive.[5] For these reasons, I believe that breathing is, for all practical purposes, necessary. Holding one’s breath in can result in brain damage,[6] temporary blindness,[7] and even death.[8] While certain forms of holding air in can have some temporary soothing effects, there are usually other long term problems involved. For instance, according to Breathing.com, “Breath holding can give some relief from hyperventilation but at the cost of tightening the stomach muscles, worsening the startle response and over time inviting shallow breathing.”[9] I believe it follows that not breathing, or avoiding breathing, is bad. We can now structure a syllogism from the scientific evidence and definitions provided at the beginning of this debate.1. Breathing is a task which must be accomplished.2. Avoiding the act of breathing is bad.C. Therefore, in this way, procrastination is bad.This argument shows that procrastination is bad for something that we do constantly. I challenge my opponent to find something we do more than breathing which would be beneficial for us to procrastinate. Argument 2: Types of procrastination.According to Joel Brown, there are 6 different types of procrastinators, and only one type is said to feel that they work best when under pressure.[10] Unless there is a huge inequality in the population, I assume that procrastinating is only very useful for (roughly) 1/6 of the population. But for my opponent to win, he has to show how procrastination is beneficial (at least) 51% of the time.Even websites that emphasis the good traits of procrastination always have to remind us of all the bad forms it can easily become.[11] Chrissy Scivicque, who wrote an article claiming that procrastination isn’t always bad, said, “Procrastination becomes a problem, however, when it’s not being used productively or when it becomes a mindless form of escape.”[12]We can organize each form of procrastination based on this statement.• Procrastination that is productive and is not a mindless form of escape – good• Procrastination that is productive and is a mindless form of escape – problem• Procrastination that is not productive and is not a mindless form of escape – problem• Procrastination that is not productive and is a mindless form of escape – problem.If these forms of procrastination are relatively balanced, it follows that procrastination is generally beneficial for only 1 out of 4 cases. This would indicate that procrastination is not generally beneficial.Argument 3: JUST DO ITGET OFF OF YOUR BUM AND JUST DO IT!!!!!![13] Shia LaBeouf is a famous motivational speaker who has affected the lives of many individuals. His motivational speech “Just Do It” received over 13 million views and 200,000 likes on Youtube alone. His message is targeted towards people who want to procrastinate.Recently, Shia LaBeouf helped Goku to turn Super Saiyan.[14] Without Shia’s help, Goku might have procrastinated and never got around to turning into a super powerful blonde. This is extremely important to everyday life because Goku is pretty cool.[15] Also, good anime role models help inspire younger kids to find true meaning in their lives. For instance, a user posted this message on an anime forum: “I would say Luffy from One Piece has been one of my biggest role models in my life. I keep a one piece symbol on me pretty much 99% of the time. kind of obsessive but it reminds me to keep chasing my dreams.”[16]It seems, based on the testimony, that anime characters can inspire people to do great things. Who knows how many kids will feel inspired by Goku’s magical transformation, all thanks to Shia LaBeouf. JUST DO IT!!!!!!!Argument 4: Procrastination is not possible.Procrastination is not possible because time is an illusion.[17] We cannot prove that the past ever existed, or that the future will exist.[18] In fact, according to Josh Richardson, Quantum Theory proves that time does not exist. He states, “There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour’s Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time.”[19] To illustrate the impossibility of time, ask yourself whether you were the same person you were five minutes ago. How about five years ago? What gives a person their individuality throughout time?The only sensible answer is that we are actually different people for each ‘second’ of our existence. This makes sense if every ‘second’ is actually a parallel universe, and there are multiple versions of me, each having a different experience. With so many parallel universes, it is no wonder that in some of them, I might have the illusion of a memory (or different thoughts which I falsely believe are memories). But for each universe, I have a different understanding, a different thought in my head, and I am even composed of different atoms.[20] This hypothesis has a bonus of nicely answering Meno’s Paradox (how can one learn what he does not know). The answer is that we are not learning; we are inherently static.Now this shows us that time does not exist. But is time philosophically possible?Let us turn to Zeno’s famous paradox to consider the answer. A runner is racing a tortoise, who receives a 10 meter head start to accommodate for its slow pace. The gun goes off. The runner fully expects to catch up with the tortoise, but each time he approaches his opponent, his opponent has moved a short distance. So the runner has to match that short distance. But each time he does, the tortoise would have moved an even shorter distance, which the runner again has to match. In the end, the runner cannot ever catch up with the tortoise. Here is a chart to help us visualize this idea.Runner Tortoise1 step ½ step½ step ¼ step¼ step 1/8 step… And so on… And so on…But if this can be applied to a full step, then it can also be applied to a ½ step, and a ¼ step, and a 1/8 step…Dr. Grimes has this to say. “So it sounds like I’m saying that you can complete an infinite process. Now an infinite process doesn’t have a last step. So how can something without a last step be completed?”[21]In short, motion is moving between an infinite amount of distances. Therefore, motion is a supertask, which is logically impossible.[22] In the same way, moving through time, forwards or backwards, is logically impossible. Therefore time is impossible.So if time is impossible, then procrastination is also impossible. For what static individual needs to accomplish certain tasks?And if procrastination is impossible, how can it be beneficial? I take it that impossibilities cannot exist. Therefore they cannot be beneficial. Note that this is about something which inherently CANNOT exist, not just something which does not exist. For instance, a 17$ bill could be beneficial if it existed. But if a 17$ bill could not exist, then it could not produce anything good in any possible universe. Ergo it is not beneficial. My arguments are the best.Sources:[4] https://blog.epa.gov...[5] http://www.clean-air-kids.org.uk...[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...[7] https://www.quora.com...[8] http://www.nbcnews.com...[9] http://www.breathing.com...[10] http://addicted2success.com...[11] http://www.lifehack.org...[12] http://www.forbes.com...[13] [14] [15] http://www.ign.com...[16] http://www.anime-forums.com...[17] https://www.google.com...[18] http://rationalwiki.org...[19] http://themindunleashed.org...[20]http://www.science20.com...[21] https://youtu.be...[22] https://en.wikipedia.org...

By American education system, I am talking about K-12 grade and college. The education has a bit of a snowball effect. In elementary school, students must take standardized test so that the government can evaluate the schools and provide funding based off of that. Teachers then teach students how to take tests and teach to prepare for the test, and less to teach for the sake of learning. Same goes for high school; however, now students are placed under even more stress to succeed on these tests in order to prepare and get into college. By the time, students arrive at college, they have already arrived with mental health issues that arose throughout their elementary through high school years. An article in Newsweek by Katie Baker, explores how colleges are failing to support students who do struggle with mental illnesses. This article points out the fact that colleges have great disability services and accommodations for learning and physical disabilities but mental health disabilities are a whole different story. (http://www.newsweek.com...) Mental illnesses is such a wide spectrum, however, for brevity, I'd like to narrow it down to depression and anxiety. These two are the most common mental illnesses that seem to develop due to the amount of stress placed on students. Mental health to me is simply the well being of both the psychological and emotions of a person. When you say that there are homework clubs and other opportunities for homework help, how does that address and provide a solution for the amount of homework given? Groups such as the National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association suggest ten minutes of homework per day for each grade level is generally a good rule of thumb for elementary and middle school students. However, many students report to having 80 minutes of homework in elementary school and upward to 100 minutes of homework in middle school, exceeding the recommended amount. (http://www.k12.com...) I believe the lack of resources and proper education about mental health is further perpetrating the problem that there is a rise in mental health issues. To be more exact , according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, suicide is the second leading cause of death of 15-24 year olds and the third leading cause of death of people aged 10-24 in the United States. There are gym and health classes that help keep kids bodies in shape and healthy, but not classes to teach kids how to manage stress and encourage healthy and safe coping mechanisms. Without these skills and techniques kids are left feeling hopeless, helpless and stressed out. These are some of main symptoms of depression and anxiety. Would you please share your source from where you talk about adding multiple homework club and what considered other opportunities? What are your definitions of the American education system, mental health and mental illnesses? That way we can be on the same page?

Thanks for the conformation. Firstly, the pro dominant problem with this method of homeschooling comes with homeschooling on a school day. Around elementary level a child is expected to attend around 6-7 hours of schooling per day, with homework then added on top of that (expected to be 30 - 60 mins per night). Do you not think then adding 2-3 hours of home tutoring on top of this would not be extremely overworking the child? Adding up to 9-10 hours per day of schooling this would allow little free time, restricting the child's ability to attend clubs and extra curricular activities. This all seems a bit much, especially at elementary level.

Unlike my other arguments, my round 4 statements will be brief and straight to the point. On the usage of stem programs:Due to the fact that the pro truly didn't clarify how these programs are helpful there is nothing to debate on this topic on getting Access to information: as i have stated earlier technology can be useful for research but can also be a distraction to many students. So on this topic i believe that it would be better to research from home. Increase the popularity of distance learning: technology can be helpful for students to apply for colleges and scholarships but there would be no time during school for students to do these task(unless a new class was made). This would be a task best meant for home where there is much more time. Lastly i would like to say that although using technology in school would be a much more enjoyable for students, the amount of students that would be off task would outweigh the amount of students that would benefit. With this i will bring my final argument to an end, thanking the pro for a good debate.

"True, you are free to choose the curriculum taught to your child, BUT the same CORE curriculum is taught whether it be home school or public school. Still being free to choose your schedule doesn't really mean anything since the parent will still set a schedule for the child, just with different hours."Yes but in home school you get taught the same core. Also they get better test scores in those core curriculums: In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile. [1]So bot teach the curriculum, and on average homeschooling does it better. "If you have the right teachers teaching you, then public school could be better for the child. What if the parent doesn't know English that well?"All of these are what if questions, Home schooling out preforms public schools in reading, (50% in public ve 65-75 in hpmeschool) So once again, on average the home schooling method trums a public school in all subjects, well maybe except art ad such, but your argument here doesnt work because the numbers are against you. Also the numbers here can be found in my second source. "I will agree home school can be more educational, BUT does harm by sheltering the child and not letting them experience what real life is"False! A study of adults who were home educated found that none were unemployed and none were on welfare, 94% said home education prepared them to be independent persons, 79% said it helped them interact with individuals from different levels of society, and they strongly supported the home education method. [2]So in the job world t benifits to be homeschooled, and 79% of them say it helps them interact with others. So most homeschooling helps kids larn to interect (I do not know how) and they can experience the 'real world', So facts here also trump your argument. Also home schooling is cheaperAnother obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests. [1]So home schools are cheaper, and you get better scores on average, best of both worlds, cheap ad good. Saves the taxpayer money:Home education families are not dependent on public, tax-funded resources - they likely save American taxpayers over $10 billion per year. [2]So overall they save 10 billion dollars a year in tax money for americans, so thank them. Conlusion: 1. kids learn better in home schooling, in every subject, which includes the core curriculum. 2. Helps kids interact with others when they are an adult, I do not know how but facts are facts. 3. It is cheaper4. It saves tax dollars5. Kids in homeschools get a better life compared to those that did public schooling, i.e. the non unemployed and none on wellfare statistic. I await your response. :)http://www.hslda.org... [1]http://www.nheri.org... [2]

Resolved: It would, on balance, be beneficial to reduce the amount of homework given in conjunction with an extension to the school day [see model below].Proposal: Have a strong reduction in homework, lengthen school to a 9-5 length day.RulesThe debate shall adhere to the following structure:Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, Resolution / Model Outline and DefinitionsRound 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals (see below on this)Round 3: New Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)The only rules I insists upon are the following, but I will accept any reasonable clarifications or amendments my opponent might choose to provide in Round 1, although clarification prior to acceptance is preferred.Arguments and source citations must appear within the four rounds of this debate only. Arguments and citations may not appear in offsite links, other debates, forums, or comments.Dropped arguments are not concessions. Arguments should be seen as whole units from opening to closing statements.Although R2 is not to be used for rebuttals, it is possible that my opponent’s arguments may lend themselves to countering mine naturally. This is allowed as it’s not a rebuttal per se. What I don’t want to see is a line by line refutation in round 2.All words are to take their standard definition. The only matter is what constitutes homework. A discussion of this is under the model outline section.To voters, please judge this debate based on this debate and not upon preconceptions you may have.Model Outline / Resolutional MattersWhile R1 is not for arguing, it’s critical to discuss the resolution and precisely what we’re debating on this contentious issue. Let me outline a few things that are to be taken as given barring reasonable amendments in round 1.ScopeThis debate is not limited to the US only. Also, the debate focuses primarily on a high school context as we might make exceptions for kindergarten students for instance.HomeworkI divide homework into 2 categories:1. Assignments / assessments / major projects2. Worksheets, maths exercises etc.We are discussing the elimination of type 2. Type 1 still exists, although in a perhaps reduced manner. The extended school day enables more learning (vs. homework) ; Con can dispute this if he wishes later.Timing / School logisticsLogistics, on the school level, is not meant to be a crucial issue in this debate – bureaucrats could probably resolve this matter. However, the school day would be reworked to accommodate a 9-5. My proposal is as follows:To accommodate the 2 hour extension to the school day an additional 20 minutes of rest / break, in the vein of lunch or morning tea, would be added. This would be added to the 20 minute morning tea and 40 minute lunch break typically found in schools (no negotiation on this – this is to be accepted) . That totals 80 minutes. Students retain their 40 minute lunch. 2 other 40 minute blocks would be scheduled into the day – one near the end of the day, one near the start. Students would choose which time block they wish to spend their free time (like choosing an elective; it’s a choice for the same duration that the same subjects are kept) in (40 minutes), and be in class for the other 40; yes, classes aside from this one retain their usual one hour length.Why the complexity? If students choose to have their free time in the later 40 minutes block, after all other classes, then they could leave school during this break. This is to accommodate extra-curricular activities and the like. More on this in round 2.A clarification To clear up 2 uncertainties from my previous debate, teaching will be as normal from 9-5 as per the model outline. On the scope, I’d prefer this remain to higher years where it’s more applicable – homework reduction + school extension doesn’t work if there’s no homework to reduce, as with younger students! However, I’ll say that all students go from 9-5. However, the amount of free time would be greater for younger students because the homework reduction associated with increased school time does not exist for them; this time is transferred to free time. Let’s not get bogged down on logistics though if possible. Weighing mechanismsThis is up for contention, to a point. One judges education reform based on what educational end (or ends) are desired. It is the debaters place to forward these ends, and have the voters judge policies as per which end they believe encapsulates the goal of education, or should encapsulate such a goal. The greatest overall good resulting from these policies is to be preferred when judging.More in later rounds if need be.A quick note on sourcingSome among you will have noted that some sections of this are eerily similar to this thread’s OP http://www.debate.org.... Before people scream plagiarism, I am that thread’s author. This idea had it’s genesis from http://www.debate.org... and I will later be borrowing on a quote from YYW in that thread (which I was a contributor to). Aside from not having to source these repeatedly, I’d recommend the audience read these threads for their own education (mind the pun) , especially the latter one. Also, I have done a partial debate on the subject, so I'll be using my round 2 arguments from http://www.debate.org...I thank whoever my opponent may be for this debate for agreeing to debate this subject. Let’s have an intellectually rigorous debate on this subject (I myself am undecided personally) and be civil and convivial. Voters, please read the debate in full and judge appropriately; we are in your debt for taking the time to read this debate readers.

touche firstly you cant learn social skills from online, there's no body language or eye language involved which obviously doesn't provide good social skills. as for the bullying issue lets say you kind of "evolve" and learn ways to stop or even prevent bullying, I know this by firsthand because I used to get bullied a lot when I was in primary (elementary) but eventually learned how to stand up to bullies. Sure, some teachers might not allow talking in class, but have you ever thought why. Teachers usually stop talking because the desired amount of work isn't being completed and try to HELP the students catch up by removing a distraction which was simple, so if you want to talk do your work to. And you not being able to "chill" at home because of homework doesn't really make sense, teachers give you homework with a reasonable time limit for completion. you not being able to "chill" means your not spreading your workload and organizing things, such as giving yourself 45 minutes of free time for every one and a half hours of studying and homework. It could also be that you don't complete schoolwork at school , which then get transferred to your homework (that's how it works at our school). also, the cirriculum for school are made to be easy to understand, easy to comprehend and made so its at your grades average level, none of the work is forced into you, every subject can be fun if you apply yourself. if if you don't like a certain subject you can just not take it on your chosen subjects in year nine and after. as for the "homework plague", again spreading your workload helps alt in giving you time to enjoy.

Students that take education online often take it less seriously, it is also more difficult to test them as they could easily cheat- A written test would still b standard. by "kids" it sounds like you are suggest high schoolers- Online education isn't feasible at all for them as they are still required to go and learn witting a school building. I terms of college students, Online lessons often will not carry him/he as far as going and learning at the college would. While textbooks are very heavy, e-books are an option but DOES NOT count as online education- it would still be traditional education but with heavier textbooks replaced with an electronic option. Handwriting should NOT be avoided- you can't run away from it. No matter where you go and/or how you live, there are always forms that cannot be filled out online and still require you to write. You will always need to type AND write and while your handwriting does not need to be great- it just needs to be decently readable, Many people often blame the use of technology to be the cause of worse handwriting- While this isn't always the case, that also isn't the subject of this debate. It is faster to type than to write out your thoughts, that's why projects are often type -is school- rather than written out. HOWEVER, many students never learn to type properly as it isn't mandatory in many schools to take a typing class thus reducing ones efficiency, often to "search and peck" speeds... Digital storage isn't always better- while it makes it easier to create redundant copies of a file, I have seen many classmates lose there saved document BUT still have the physical copy to re-type from.


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

When not in school, we should have personal time to engage in activities of our own choosing. We should anticipate a reasonable amount of homework each day, allowing us to plan other pursuits around it. Homework can be a valuable component of family time as it offers an opportunity for parents and other family members to be involved in the educational process. It can foster a collaborative learning environment where family members can support and engage with each other in the academic growth of the student.

My opponent particularly has a lot of studies that she cited, and many of the things she said are things that I've discussed in my own case. Already you can see that the entirety of my case works as counters. Therefore, I'm going to go down my opponent's case while making references to substantiate as well as defend my claims. As my opponent didn't argue my observations, they are extended across the flow. Quality and Effectiveness of Homeschools: My opponent seems to have misunderstood the point of my Contention 1 and Sub-point 1a. I'm not saying that homeschooled children have any more probability to abuse and neglect. I'm saying that BECAUSE they don't have any more probability for abuse and neglect (and may in fact have less probability for abuse and neglect), it may show an appearance in the data that homeschools are better than government-provided schools. My opponent doesn't consider the lurking variables in her research, including family conditions, socio-economic status, and other factors that could determine the effectiveness of a homeschool, as I explained in my sub-point 1a. If my opponent is telling us that little or no abuse occurs in these homeschools, or drug abuse, or etc., we immediately see that this is a lurking variable explaining the effectiveness of homeschools in her research. Would a homeschool be just as effective in an environment where there's abuse, neglect, drug use, alcoholism, gang activity, or other negative conditions? Because the current data only looks at homes that don't have such problems, we won't know, and if my opponent is trying to prove that homeschools are intrinsically better than government-provided schools (O3), homeschools should be able to function in such an environment. All I'm saying is: if there were homeschooling in such negative conditions or in a neighborhood with dangerous activity, the data would look a little differently. What my opponent has proven is only that this model of schooling works in environments such as the ones that the studies look at and are able to look at. She hasn't proven that homeschools are better simply because they're homeschools. This rebuttal applies to pretty much every single study concerning the characteristics and advantages of children in homeschools.Universality: First, I would need to see the study my opponent is looking at to understand what the study meant when it said that homeschool students have learned to do work by themselves. I also need to see a study about how effective a learning environment with no parents would be as well. In my studies, most homeschool students had at least one parent at the home (in homes where mostly two parents were existent). In any event, despite the fact that parents nor tutors have to be the ones to take up the teaching responsibility, it doesn't erase the other costs of materials that can mount to $400-600 per month. Many families can afford that, but what if they can't? In my evidence, I even stated that experts on this trade have said that homeschooling isn't for everyone in terms of economics. Not only does this show you that homeschooling can be exclusive, but if further drives the point of my sub-point 1a: that homeschools are not intrinsically better, and their quality (like any school) depends on the quality of the environment. Religious Fundementalism: This is where my opponent and I agree on many things and disagree on one. Both my opponent and I agree that parents do bring children to homeschools to indoctrinate. My opponent says it's not the primary reason, but if she looks back at my evidence, we can see that most parents that bring children to homeschools is because of religious reasons. Whether or not this is a good thing is where our agreements end. My opponent has no evidence that children from religious upbringing have a stronger regard for society. Furthermore, I agree that parents have a say what their child is around in reasons of practicality, like if the schools have gang violence, drug problems, or something that directly affects the health of the person. However, when the parents are bringing children to a different setting simply because of a confliction of religious beliefs, the action becomes from practical to arbitrary. Teachers also spread beliefs, but unlike homeschools, they don't make it the word of rule in schools. I'm still supportive of the freedom of religion, including to children. Many good things have come from religious fundementalism, including what my opponent has stated, but secularism has done the same good things without the cost to society that I mentioned. The agenda of religious fundementalism is not just to provide help, but enforce beliefs in the community that are detrimental to its structure and cohesiveness as well as the inherent rights of people. This is what I explained in my case.

Great arguments, however, the trend is to be more not traditional as ever, and we no longer live in an agrarian society so kids don't need to be home all summer wasting their brains away... so go to school and prosper. Family Education says" students in year-round schools that have everyone on the same track have shown improved achievement scores over those in traditional schools. Read more on FamilyEducation: http://school.familyeducation.com... Go School!

Students shouldnt have homework because it is a waste of time people just do it to get it done or copy others.

Well I am a thirteen years old and in the eighth grade (please don't let my age persuade you that I am not capable of crushing someone older then myself in a debate.) Well I attend school that is mostly reliant on technology. For example my algebra teacher told me that she envisioned her class going completely digital. I found that very odd considering that (most) kids my age do not retain information from a computer as quickly as she wanted us too. Well our class has now transformed into her dream class, we do , tests, practice work, homework and anything in between on computers. Now that transformation has happened, most of her class is failing or barley grasping the information. Ohh did I fail to mention that the way we write notes, is basically copying down the things she writes on the Promethean board to a student version PPT (PowerPoint)? Well yup! That's her amazing way of teaching a group of kids.. Hilarious right? Well if my way of thinking is in complete disarray, then I hope my challenger will (or at least attempt) to convince me otherwise.

Now, I'll try and post a good counter argument for my opponent =) "Yes but in home school you get taught the same core. Also they get better test scores in those core curriculums: In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile. [1]" My opponent says homeschooled children are taught the same core curriculum. If you look at my source, then you will see that weeding a vegetable garden can be considered a science lesson and walking a dog can be a nature experiment. Seriously? You say to me this is core curriculum? To me it is almost laughable. My opponent also says home schooled students get better scores, but what he is failing to tell you is that the students that take these types of tests are self-selecting, in other words, it is up to the parent if their child is to take this test, so you can't argue that homeschool students overall are doing better than their public school counterparts. Also, when broken down demographically, homeschoolers may not do as well in testing since homeschoolers tend to come from higher earning parents whom have more formal education than parents in the general population; the median income for home school families is significantly higher than that of all families with children in the United States; and almost all home school students are in married couple families. When samplings are done, successful homeschooling parents are more likely to allow their children to be tested; in a public school you don't have that option, so the validity of these tests are inaccurate. The total numbers of homeschoolers is actually unknown, and so again if you do not know the number of homeschoolers, you cannot truly give accurate numbers. Brian Ray, president of the Home Education Research Institute that "achievement was statistically significantly related, in cases, to the father's educational level, mother's educational level, gender of the student, years home educated." However, dismisses this relationship no supporting evidence and simply wrote, "the relationships were, however, weak and not practically significant." Now, when related to publicly schooled children, the negative effects of divorce, minority status and television are considered significant. When related to publically schooled children, the positive effects of parental involvement, parents' educational status, and the expectancy theory are considered strong and significant, so why does Brian Ray, a president of Home Education Research Institute, feel that the relationship is "weak and not practically significant" when related to schooled children? Also, other researchers also have recognized the relationship between the demographic characteristics and high test scores of homeschooled students. http://www.eric.ed.gov... Also, I would like to point out, like I mentioned above, that typically a homeschool student belongs to a family that have obtained bachelor degrees and masters; by law, the only qualification a parent or guardian needs is a high school diploma or GED at best. Now, consider this, people who opt for GED's are usually people who had trouble in school, dropped out of school, lacked the desire or hope to finish a traditional high school. These troubles may include poor performance in school, lack of discipline or effort, undiagnosed learning disabilities, a dislike for their educational environment, boredom with traditional learning models, teen pregnancy, lack of parental support, or drug and alcohol addictions. In other words, GED recipients in general were not successful students who were likely to achieve a traditional high school diploma. http://nces.ed.gov... http://www.doe.k12.ga.us... http://www.essortment.com... "A study of adults who were home educated found that none were unemployed and none were on welfare, 94% said home education prepared them to be independent persons, 79% said it helped them interact with individuals from different levels of society, and they strongly supported the home education method. [2]" To counter this argument I will refer back to my statements above. Children that come from homeschooling are typically High income, VERY well educated families that hold HIGH expectations for their children to excel socially and academically and do not take in to account the total number of homeschooled children since this number is unknown. So, why would you have a person coming from a wealthy family on welfare? "All of these are what if questions, Home schooling out preforms public schools in reading, (50% in public ve 65-75 in hpmeschool) So once again, on average the home schooling method trums a public school in all subjects, well maybe except art ad such, but your argument here doesnt work because the numbers are against you. Also the numbers here can be found in my second source." Once again, his numbers are not showing the total number of student's homeschooled. Since these tests are self-selected on the homeschooled children, let's let the public schools do a self-selected test, then I bet these numbers would show a drastic change. If you let one be self-selective, then why not the other? "Also home schooling is cheaper Another obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests. [1] So home schools are cheaper, and you get better scores on average, best of both worlds, cheap ad good. Saves the taxpayer money: Home education families are not dependent on public, tax-funded resources - they likely save American taxpayers over $10 billion per year. [2] So overall they save 10 billion dollars a year in tax money for americans, so thank them." First, public school is technically free, I mean the taxpayers do pay for it, but there is a reason you can claim educational credits on your taxes. You could argue that it really isn't cheaper considering that the parent has to buy or rent books depending where you live and free to the student attending public school. Cheaper to the tax payers, but you are paying taxes either way. Overall it is only cheaper depending on you choose to teach your child. Conclusion: 1. My opponents' numbers are flawed due to the unknown number of homeschoolers. 2. Public schools allow for more interactions because they have more children to play and interact with. 3. Almost all of my opponents' arguments are based on numbers that are flawed since the total number of homeschoolers is unknown. 4. Not all of kids that are homeschooled receive a better life. This is research in which I believe would allow the person to agree or not agree to participate in this research. How many refused to do this research that was homeschooled? 5. If homeschooling was so great then why isn't everyone doing it? I think numbers would be a lot higher if it so much cheaper, especially with the American economy doing bad. Thanks =)

Hello and thanks for your reply. I am not sure if you are familiar with cyber schooling or not, but your point about cyber schooling helping students knowledge with the World Wide Web (Internet) is basically not true in most cases. Yes a student gets a laptop, and yes they use the program, but it is pretty much step by step setup for them. They use only one program and that one program surly cannot teach them much of anything about the web. Now for my argument. I believe there shouldn't be any type of homeschooling/cyber schooling. ( I meant them both in my title and you somewhat addressed homeschooling. Anyways, I believe it messes with a students social life, and all the benefits of going to an actual high school. First off, a college wont think as much of a student who got good grades in a cyber school, as much as they would a student who did it in a regular high school. I think we can all agree on that for obvious reasons. Secondly, the student misses out on all of the clubs and extracurricular activities the schools offer. Those are big things colleges look at. Also just the social impact of being apart of those clubs or sports usually has a great impact on students. (http://www.public.iastate.edu...) Lastly, imagine if everyone went to cyber schools, then teachers would loose jobs. (In an economy that we are vigorously trying to get jobs for people) Many jobs would be lost. No such thing as a school board, all the food companies loose lots of business because the schools wont need to buy any food from them. Janitors loose jobs, lawn care company's, bus company's, lots of company's will suffer. I just see Cyber school having a lot more cons than pros.

You have some good solid arguments and make a fabulous debater! 1. This may be true but it still shows the achievement most of the times 2. Your first part may be true but your second part was getting off topic with my statement. 3. That dosent make sense, because the teacher HAS to make sure that the students know what they need to know. 4. I am sorry to say this, but that's life, stress, we all have to deal with it to reach our goals. 5. You should have taken the second part from 1# and make it 5# 6. This statement dosent make any sense. Children have to be able to take a test and even though it may be stressful, it dosent matter in the long run. "Same sources as last time"

http://dictionary.reference.com...) Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) ARGUMENT: 1A: Accountability "The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. " (. http://www.ed.gov...) We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better. 1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use. 1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. (. http://www.ed.gov...) Thank you.

Homework is waste of time and all students hate it. People who enjoy what they are doing are more likely to give their full effort. Homework is not one of those things. People like to do things they enjoy.

Yeah that't simply it, I'm too stupid to figure out the basics of a computer. Well sorry to break it to your but I'm quite computer savvy, and I'm not saying that your wrong about how computers are useful at all, I actually love the idea that technologically is incorporated in schools. But I don't like it when we loose that teacher/student interaction (or "bond" if you whim) over it, the way you get the FULL experience of school is by learning from a teacher that you respect, look up to, and challenges you, my generation lacks that because kids now are learning more from a computer then from the person that's meant to be guiding them. What I truly think is programs that teachers assign students for a learning aid (such as LearningUpgrade, @Hometutor ect.) is just a way to escape the whole "Get to know you" deal. I rather learn from a person that can explain thing's that I don't get and MAKE me understand, instead of just searching a bunch of bs that doesn't even explain it to how I learn. Now once again I want to state that technology is a extremely a useful tool and I don't know what I would do without it, But I feel like we are loosing the real learning experience, I rather do everything on paper and learn from a teacher that know's how each student learns because they have some sort of communication/interaction instead of learning off of some program and not retaining any information. Or maybe I can't truly learn from a program because I'm some dumbass who can't control a computer.


Question: Is Assigning Homework Advantageous?

Homework Should Not Be a Mandatory Requirement

In the ongoing debate over the necessity of homework, it is crucial to reiterate that homework should not be a mandatory component of the educational system. The argument against homework is not about its presence or absence but rather its quantity and quality. My opponent seems to contradict themselves by emphasizing the importance of homework quantity in one statement and then dismissing its relevance in favor of difficulty in another. This inconsistency leaves room for confusion and undermines the validity of their argument.

It is evident that the quantity of homework has remained relatively constant over the past three decades, and my opponent has not provided evidence to the contrary. Moreover, they have failed to demonstrate that changes in educational standards over the years have resulted in a significant difference in homework's quality or difficulty. This lack of substantiation weakens their argument that homework is beneficial.

Furthermore, my opponent has not addressed the issue of sample size in their cited studies, which is crucial in determining the credibility and relevance of research findings. Their studies cover a significantly smaller sample size compared to the ones I have presented, which examined data from over 18,000 students. It is unreasonable to expect a study to encompass the entire world population of children, particularly when considering the vast disparities in access to education and resources among different regions. In this context, it is more appropriate to focus on the Western world, particularly the United States, where public education and standardized practices are prevalent.

My opponent's stance on the potential benefits of homework is problematic. They argue that only beneficial homework should be required, yet they cannot guarantee that the homework assigned will indeed be beneficial. This contradiction highlights the absurdity of their position, as it implies that non-beneficial homework should also be mandatory. This notion is even more concerning when considering the potential negative impacts of homework on students.

One of the main issues with homework is the undue burden it places on students, particularly those who require more time to complete assignments or have learning difficulties. Even a reduced homework load can still interfere with family time, recreational activities, and rest. My opponent's suggestion of special classes or assignments to address this issue is insufficient, as it does not account for the varying learning paces among students.

Moreover, the involvement of parents in homework can lead to additional stress and an unfair assessment of the child's abilities. Some parents may have the resources and time to assist their children with homework, while others may not. This disparity can result in a shoddy homework response that reflects poorly on the child, even if the parents are doing

Extend my entire case to this round. To add, another way in which computers can be beneficial to education is the fact that one can register for college classes or particular colleges which they wish to attend. Once more, an advantage which a book doesn't even come close to reproducing.

I too hope for an educational debate. There will be quite a few clashes between my opening and his. In this debate, I will merely be negating the resolution. Although there is no explicit requirement for me to have a BoP, it is implied under the debate structure. My argument will be focused on a few strong points, as opposed to many weak points. As this is my first educational debate (Pun intended), I do not expect to present too compelling a case, but I will try. I. School does not equip the students for work life This is an obvious one. School primarily is meant to equip the student for success in life. Students have been known to be highly underprepared for the realities of the working world [1]. That, however, can be remedied if the student is willing to learn. If, however, a student is kept in school for 9-5, there is absolutely no chance for the student to gain work experience. Work experience is absolutely vital for future job success. This has been recognized by the government, so much so that a “School to Work Initiatives Act” was passed in 1994. [2] Employers routinely value experience over qualifications [3][4]. This simply means that if there were two people with the same qualifications, the one with the more experience is hired. It also means that non-intellectual jobs like plumbing, currently one of the top paying jobs in the U. S. with a pay of $50,000 per year (. http://www.indeed.com....) which do not need qualifications, would oick people with experience and no qualifications other than a license rather than a highly qualified person without experience. No matter how much theoretical knowledge one might attain, without experience, qualifications mean nothing. What the full resolution wishes is for the banishment of any form of partial employment leading leading to a disadvantage between such students and students with work experience. If a student is in school from 9-5, the only time to work would be from 5-10, which is impractical. For now, this is all I have to say on this point. I will await a rebuttal first. II. Spacing effects can be implemented in other ways than through the resolution This point is directly related to one of Pro’s other points. However, it is not exactly a rebuttal as it builds on the same fact but comes to a different conclusion without exactly negating Pro’s points. Pro has already given a concise explanation of the spacing effect, to which I will refer readers. My point rests on the fact that technology can implement this without the need of a human teacher [5]. Technology has been used, and is being used, to enhance the learning process outside of the school. It has been found through multiple studies that people learn more, and faster, in a comfortable environment [6]. The obvious choice for the most comfortable place to be in is definitely the home, unless the student comes from a broken family. Combining information from [5] and [6], it becomes apparent that technology, widely used in homes, can be used to deliver lessons without the need of verbal transition between teacher and student. Students, furthermore, will be much more likely to learn as the environment surrounding them is conducive to learning, as the studies cited in [6] showed very clearly. If the object of schools is not indeed to prepare students for work life, but to place as much knowledge as possible within their memories, then certainly it is more profitable to place students within a comfortable environment, specifically the home, to do homework in a regulated manner, allowing for maximal retention. III. Cost[7][8][9] This is a simple point which I will make very clear. The average pay for a U. S. teacher is incredibly low. A high school teacher will receive on the average, $43,954 per annum. This translates to about $3663 per month. The highest average pay is Special Education, Secondary School, with $44,867, or around $3739 per month. Teachers in the U. S. spend an approximate 11 hours 20 minutes per day on the job. This includes marking homework, preparing lessons, and otherwise teaching. Preparing lessons take up the most time, as a good quality lesson requires much effort on the part of the teacher. Putting together a lesson is not as simple as ABC. At least 95 minutes is needed for job related activities other than direct teaching. If we consider 45 minutes to be for marking, 50 minutes would be taken up solely to prepare a 60 minute lecture. In the U. K. , it is even worse. Many teachers spend the whole night just to prepare for the next day’s lecture! This is highly damaging to their health. To look at the amount given of work/pay, an average U. S. teacher will receive, assuming a total of 22 days of work, a mediocre $15.50/hour. Increasing their workload by 2 hours means that their pay has to increase, something which governments currently, with their already high education budget, would not like. Replacing worn out teachers would also be problematic. It takes only a year for a teacher to get worn out, but it takes at least four/five years to train one. Let us look at the average schedule of a teacher: A day has ~24 hours. 11 hours 20 minutes is spent on the job or on job related things. 8 hours or less will be used for sleep. This means that a teacher will have around 4 hours 40 minutes to have some life outside school. Let us take into account the fact that much of their holiday is also spent on work related items and that 70% of U. K teachers spend whole nights preparing lessons. This means that the 8 hours reserved for sleep will now be used to concoct an effective lesson which, given the under three hours (1 hour 40 minutes being used for eating and other body maintenance) of sleep which might still be used for preparing. What does this make. This makes sleepy teachers who will be ineffective at presenting the lessons they have tried so hard to make during the night. Sleepy teachers, no matter the learning methodology, will not be of help to students. Conclusion: The value of an addition of 20 minutes of extra lessons would not offset the cost in terms of health and quality. This 20 minutes was derived from: 60*2- (40*2 + 20) = 20. This is accurate. The amount of money required to train new teachers far outweigh the benefit in getting knowledge through to the student, which can be gained via other means. Experience in work would also be non-existent, meaning such students would be disadvantaged as a result. I eagerly await a rebuttal of this, as I know Logic_on_rails is a very skilled debater.1. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2. . http://horizon.unc.edu...3. . http://www.careergeekblog.com...4. . http://www.ecademy.com...5. . http://mashable.com...6. . http://www.edutopia.org...7. . http://www.payscale.com... (All information in this section comes from these references)8. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... (U. S. )9. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (U. K. )

"True, you are free to choose the curriculum taught to your child, BUT the same CORE curriculum is taught whether it be home school or public school. Still being free to choose your schedule doesn't really mean anything since the parent will still set a schedule for the child, just with different hours."Yes but in home school you get taught the same core. Also they get better test scores in those core curriculums: In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to 37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored between 86th and 92nd percentile. [1]So bot teach the curriculum, and on average homeschooling does it better. "If you have the right teachers teaching you, then public school could be better for the child. What if the parent doesn't know English that well?"All of these are what if questions, Home schooling out preforms public schools in reading, (50% in public ve 65-75 in hpmeschool) So once again, on average the home schooling method trums a public school in all subjects, well maybe except art ad such, but your argument here doesnt work because the numbers are against you. Also the numbers here can be found in my second source. "I will agree home school can be more educational, BUT does harm by sheltering the child and not letting them experience what real life is"False! A study of adults who were home educated found that none were unemployed and none were on welfare, 94% said home education prepared them to be independent persons, 79% said it helped them interact with individuals from different levels of society, and they strongly supported the home education method. [2]So in the job world t benifits to be homeschooled, and 79% of them say it helps them interact with others. So most homeschooling helps kids larn to interect (I do not know how) and they can experience the 'real world', So facts here also trump your argument. Also home schooling is cheaperAnother obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is $5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests. [1]So home schools are cheaper, and you get better scores on average, best of both worlds, cheap ad good. Saves the taxpayer money:Home education families are not dependent on public, tax-funded resources - they likely save American taxpayers over $10 billion per year. [2]So overall they save 10 billion dollars a year in tax money for americans, so thank them. Conlusion: 1. kids learn better in home schooling, in every subject, which includes the core curriculum. 2. Helps kids interact with others when they are an adult, I do not know how but facts are facts. 3. It is cheaper4. It saves tax dollars5. Kids in homeschools get a better life compared to those that did public schooling, i.e. the non unemployed and none on wellfare statistic. I await your response. :)http://www.hslda.org... [1]http://www.nheri.org... [2]

There was this boy in our neighbourhood called Bob. What made Bob so unique is that I never saw him on the bus on the way to school. This made me wonder how he got to school. I asked him if he teleported to school using his mind. He replied "no". "Don't you go to school?" I asked him, shortly after he replied "I go to school at home." I thought that having all your education at home is a bit weird and backwards, but I probably shouldn't have been so surprised. Bob was a backwards kind of guy. He even spelt his name backwards.I then tried to think all backwards the way he does, and soon I came up with a brilliant idea; doing everything a normal person does at home at school. Brushing your teeth, getting dressed, going to sleep, eating breakfast and dinner, that sort of thing. I then thought that I should be as imaginative as the advocates of homsechooling, so I named my idea "Schoolhoming". So that's what I want to debate today, whether my idea of schoolhoming is revolutionary, as I currently believe. I thank you.

I think that kids are getting way to much homework kids spend most of their days at school and don't need that extra stress on them. they are already waking up at 7:00 or 8:00 and going to school stay there for up to 7 hours and then only have a few hours with their family but if they are given homework that makes spending time with your family shorter. now i want you guys that are disagreeing with me to think about this would you rather spend time with your family or spend time doing homework.

I do not think that tests are more effective than assignments or projects. Tests are just questions that prove whether you can answer something or not. Assignments allow you to express it in a larger way. Assignments allow you to express your creativity and sometimes express your opinion. Tests freak some kids out. Especially because they usually cant use their notes. On an assignment you can use whatever notes you need. I think assignments reflect a students work more than a test does.

My opponent claims homeschooling is more convenient: That’s distorting my words a bit. I’m not saying it’s more convenient for everybody. I said MAY be more convenient. Which I think is an undisputable fact. This asserts that moving schools is a great inconvenience-it is a minor inconvenience I have moved a total of three times in my life (from America to Cape town South Africa, from Cape town to Johannesburg SA, and from Jo’burg to Maryland). And like I said I have been homeschooled my whole life. It is actually a great convenience to be homeschooled. When I moved to America from South Africa we were so busy, it really helped for us to be home schooled. What about schools, people have committed suicide because they were bullied and made fun of so much. So you can’t just point out all the problems of home schooling, when there are also many problems with going to a real school. Problems are unavoidable "Firstly, the idea that children who have social, mental or physical problems.." What about bullying. Are their special schools for those who get treated badly? If home schooling is legal than parents have more choices about their childrens education. If home schooling were illegal than parents would have to send their kids to a school even if home schooling would fit their life style better. The government does make sure we're doing what we're supposed to. When the end of the school year comes we will have to have an evaluator come to our house and make sure we have done everything according to the laws of home schooling that have been set out. My work has to get checked at the end of every school year. We must fill out forms, show grades, You are arguing that regular schooling should be the only form of schooling. I’m saying home schooling and regular schooling should both be legal. There are conveniences and inconvenience for both of them. But if only regular schooling is legal that can cause inconveniences. More flexibility the family has much more flexibly in meeting theirs and their kids needs if they have both of these choices set out. It’s much more expensive to homeschool a child than send them to a private school. Homeschooling requires one parent to give up their job Most parents don’t each have a job. And in times like this I think many mom's wouldn't be able to. this is a massive financial blow Furthermore, it requires parents to buy teaching books, an added cost. We have a simple way of helping that problem. We just reuse text books, and you still have to buy books for a regular school. And it’s not like text books are expensive. “if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids…He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school.” My opponent assumes that socialization is a highly objective measure; that you wake up one morning and realise you aren’t socialized. It’s not like parents are anti schooling. At one point in my life I told my parents I wanted to go to a school the next year, they were perfectly fine with that. I never ended up going to school though as I changed my mind. My opponent never argued any right for parents to homeschool their children, but in any case, it is the government's role in our society to ensure that all children get a decent level of education; I wasn’t saying I got good grades. A’s and B’s are about average at my co-op. Experience does give my an advantage as I have been home schooled my whole life  Parents who homeschool their children aren't qualified teachers. Teachers need to go through a system of tertiary education, both in their own subject and in teaching as a whole, to become teachers; parents who homeschool their children don't have these qualifications, and thus won't be able to do the job as well. This a common miss understanding. The home school curriculums are made so that the student is able to do most of the work on his own. So that you don’t need a teacher. For example, for my Algebra I watch a video every day. Then I have to work out problems, then after my problems are checked I watch another video that explains all the problems so that I can see what I did wrong. Parents have to take on a big responsibility when they decide to home school. They will take it seriously.  Part of learning at school is the exposure to different opinions; not only because it is something students will have to get used to when they enter society, but also because it helps them to develop their own beliefs. When homeschooled, only one view will ever be taken into account. Consider, for example, the teaching of evolution; while at a public school evolution and creationism may both be put forward, a homeschooled student is likely to be exposed to only one side. That isn’t true. I think home schooled parents make sure their kids have knowledge of other ideas. I just took a course that concentrated almost completely on other religions, And I’m taking one next year too. In some subjects like science, knowledge has changed drastically from when parents were at school; ideas like evolution or continental drift were only accepted into scientific knowledge recently. Parents are unlikely to understand these ideas. That shows the common lake of understanding of home schoolers. Like I said my parents don’t even teach that much. I can ask them for help but the material is all in the books (which are continually being updated) all I have to do is go back to previous chapters. Home schooling is a right. I see from your profile that your for abortion (even late term). Why should woman have the right to get their babies killed. But parents not have the right to home school their kids? Missionaries. If you’re a missionary to another country when you visit America how are you going to school your children? There are countless reasons why a parent might not want their child to go to a school because of beliefs. Most home schoolers go to more events then a regular school boy. Thus they meet more kids their age, ad socialize .

I remember homework (vaguely). Yuck! I wouldn't want to take unfair advantage. Post your next argument when you are able, there are plenty of rounds left :)

Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or "standard" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of "standard score" which can help interpret how far a child"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. "They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular "cut-line" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to "assessment is powerful for improving teaching" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.

The case for measuring the quality of students performance. (a Grade) What is a grade? According to the Cambridge dictionary grade noun [C] (MEASURE/MARK) /ɡre=8;d/ A measure of the quality of a student’s performance , usually represented by the letters A (the best ) through F (the worst ) So why are measurements of students performance on balance beneficial to and critical to the education of students? Which is the resolution we are presented with. “Grades are detrimental to education” I will outline below why grades are quite simply essential for education , but first take a moment and contemplate. Dear voters what will you be doing once you finish reading both sides of this debate? You will be measuring the quality of our performance relative to each other and in accordment with a grading rubric you will assign us a GRADE. First notice that we are debating if ANY TYPE of grading system is or is not on the whole detrimental to education and if education would be better WITHOUT grades. . 1. Grades give immediate gratification for hard work & and something tangible to work towards. As im sure everyone understands especially those who have kids , children often do not know what is best for them. Grades promote learning and critical thinking even if indirectly which after is the goal of education . As parents have done for ages and continue to do so , parents often set goals for there children for example if bobby gets a 90 on his next exam he will get a PS3 system for Christmas. This thus MOTIVATES bobby tremendously to learn the material and get a high quantifiable grade. Thus qualitative assessments of students performance are absolutely necessary for students that do require something tangible to work towards. Even if this motivates students to learn indirectly they are learning. Furthermore many students myself included have felt a great overwhelming sense of accomplishment when rewarded with a high letter grade on a exam. This further motivates students to keep learning and doing hard work because they see a real tangible pay back to learning. So in conclusion it is clear that Letter grades make it easy and practical for a student to set and chase goals. By examining a teacher’s feedback, following directions and working hard, students are not only able to track their progress by identifying gained knowledge, but are able to see their grades getting higher. Therfore we can also conclude that grades are perhaps the ULTIMATE motivator in education. Furthermore The formation of a goal and the desire to achieve it doesn’t only help students grow within their educational institution, but is a lesson that they can use long after graduation. 2.Efficiency Not only are grades beneficial for students but also teachers greatly benefit from qualitatively quantifying the performance of students. For example letter grading systems provides teachers with concrete and effeicent ways of evaluating mastery of course content by students. Furthermore if a high school student applies to college, one major factor that the admissions office consider are grades. When college students apply to graduate school, the admissions office again considers grades. When students apply for a job, the employer considers the students grades. Without grades, post-secondary schools and employers will have no way to know whether the student learned the material well or badly. Employers would obviously prefer to hire computer programmers and lawyers who achieved top grades rather than those that received the worst grades because top grades are a proxy for learning. The students with the best grades learned the material better than the other students and are therefore likely to make better workers. UC Santa Cruz, for example, used to have a holistic rating system, where each student merely received an "essay" as feedback from each professor. The campus switched to grades so that graduate schools would have some legitimate way to measure students' performance (against each other and against other students from other schools). 3.Grades provide feedback to the student Students might *feel* that they understand the material or that they are learning. However, that subjective feeling must be tested by some objective, external measurement. A student that *thinks* has learned the material may have a rude awakening when he takes a quiz and scores 20/100. Without this external feedback, the student would never know whether he truly understood. Psychological studies have found that all people have a natural bias to believe that they are above average. For students, this translates to most students believing that they have above average knowledge of the subject matter. Without external feedback to dissipate this bias, students that don't really understand the material would not realize that they need to study more or harder. 4. The educational system would crumble without grades. My opponent would have to offer a rival educational system without grades. It is incoherent to talk about whether a student has learned a certain subject matter, without somehow grading their knowledge. Without some tangible form of knowledge, any attempt of a student or teacher to figure out how much a student had learned would be nothing more than a subjective guess based on cognitive bias (such as a teacher saying that students who he or she liked "knew" the material better). Without grades, students that did not talk much during class would likely be marginalized because the teacher would assume they had not learned anything. Thus, I negate the resolution and argue that grades are on the whole necessary and beneficial and the educational system is better with them.