CRITIQUE OF “Why Teachers Shouldn’t Assign Homework” (reprinted in Critical Thinking, Bassham et al., 3rd edition, page 197 #6)
In “Why Teachers Shouldn’t Assign Homework”
(published in an anonymous newspaper call-in column in the Wilkes-Barre
Times Leader, September 11, 2000), the author’s thesis is that children
should not have homework. The author states the thesis in the second sentence,
“I don’t believe the children should receive any homework whatsoever.” The
author deserves credit for stating the thesis in the paper, but the statement
should not begin with the words “I don’t believe…” The thesis is not a thesis
about the author’s beliefs. It is really a thesis about homework for children,
so they should state it that way.
The main problem with the thesis statement, however, is
the word “children.” It is vague, and in this context the vagueness is not
appropriate. It’s a problem because there is a great difference between stating
that children in K-6th grade should not have homework and stating
that children in K-12 should not have homework. If the thesis refers to K-6, it
is plausible and could have good supporting arguments. If it refers to K-12, it
is an extreme thesis, having almost no chance of receiving adequate support.
Using the Principle of Charity, I will assume that the author meant to convey
the more reasonable thesis referring to K-6, although there is a good chance
that they were also thinking of 7th-8th grades.
The author does not need to supply much background
information, because virtually everyone in the general public is familiar with
the issue of homework in elementary schools. If the thesis stated that homework
in K-6 should be reduced, the author would have to supply information
about how much homework kids in those grades have been getting in recent years
compared to earlier times, to allow readers to think for themselves about
whether the homework needs to be reduced. With a thesis of eliminating all
homework, however, it is not important for the readers to know precisely what
the workload for these children is.
The article lays out three arguments very clearly. The
first argument claims that, since the hours children spend in school during the
day should be enough for accomplishing whatever they need to do, it follows
that there is no legitimate need for homework. The second argument says that
giving homework puts some students at a disadvantage. In particular, students
who do not have a supportive home environment for doing homework are at a
disadvantage. Since this is unfair, there should be no homework for any
students. The third argument is an argument by analogy. It says that, since
adults can work for eight hours and come home to relax and enjoy themselves,
children should likewise relax and enjoy themselves after school. Thus, they
should not have homework. (Incidentally, this third argument would apply
equally well to all grade levels, but the first two seem to be considerably
weaker applied to higher grade levels.)
The first argument states that the time spent in class
during the day should be enough, but provides no support for this controversial
claim. This is an unsupported assertion (standing in need of support). This
premise is, in fact, every bit as controversial as the thesis. Anyone who
rejects the thesis will not accept this premise, so it is ineffective. The
premise actually says the same thing as the conclusion, using different
wording. Saying that the hours spent in school should be enough is virtually
the same as saying that there is no need for homework. Thus, this is arguing in
a circle, and is ineffective.
The second argument seems stronger at first. Schools
should do their best to avoid doing things that are unfair. That is, they
should try to maintain a “level playing field” as much as possible. If giving
homework is unfair because it puts some students at a disadvantage, there is
definitely a problem. The solution proposed in the thesis, however, is
definitely not the only possible solution. So we need to see if there might be
a better solution. This is where it is important for the author to consider
other positions and counterarguments, but the author fails to look at
any competing positions or competing arguments. A very compelling
counterargument at this point says that we should not solve this problem by
eliminating homework, because that just removes the educational advantage for
students with good home environments. A better solution, according to this
counterargument, would be to make up for the disadvantage to students who don’t
have a good home environment. We could do this, for example, with after-school
study and tutorial rooms at the school. It’s a good idea in general to give
students who would otherwise go home to an empty house activities at school
under proper supervision. In addition, this plan would help them learn more and
get better grades.
The third argument has a false premise. The premise says
that adults come home from work and “have the rest of the day to enjoy
themselves.” That’s true of some adults, but I’m confident that a large
majority of adults have significant amounts of work to do at home. Many adults,
almost all adults in salaried positions in fact, have to take work home with
them sometimes. In addition, all adults have work to do in maintaining a home,
such as preparing meals, doing dishes, doing laundry, cleaning the home, doing
yard work, paying bills, etc.
Even if the premise in the third argument were
true, it would commit the Fallacy of Weak Analogy. Children’s education exists
primarily for their own benefit, whereas many adults work only out of
necessity to pay the bills. Education, especially at these younger grades, is
an essential part of normal healthy intellectual, social, and physical
development. It is in the child’s best long-term interests to learn reading,
writing, and arithmetic. When adults have an analogous situation of working
primarily for themselves – out of their own passions and interests, for example
– they are most likely to bring work home with them. Almost all adults who
leave their work behind at the end of the day are not getting any personal
growth and development from their work. These adults are the ones who work only
out of necessity and hence are most dissimilar to the children. Children also
go to school “out of necessity,” but we adults realize that it is best for
them, even if they don’t like it.
The author does not consider any counterarguments. Some
obvious arguments for homework cite the benefits of learning to structure your
own time, becoming self-motivated, interacting with parents in the learning
process, repeating study of the same material, reviewing material in a quieter
environment without a lot of other children around, and learning individual responsibility.
To make a compelling case, the author should have acknowledged the benefits of
homework and shown that the negatives outweigh the benefits. Instead, they just
ignored some obvious benefits of homework, making their essay very one-sided.
Overall, the argumentation is very weak. The thesis and
arguments are laid out clearly, and the writing generally maintains an
appropriate tone of serious argumentation and a clear focus on the topic.
However, the article as a whole would probably not convince anyone of the main
thesis.