THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN HOMEWORK

Homework is a task (often called an assignment) set by teachers for students to do outside normal
lessons – usually at home in the evening. Schools have been setting homework in developed countries for
over a century, but until the past few decades usually only older students had to do it. More recently
younger students have also been given homework by their primary or elementary schools. In England the
government does not make schools give homework but it does set guidelines 1. Five year olds are
expected to do an hour a week, increasing to three hours a week at 11 and ten hours or more a week at
16 2. American studies report the amount of homework being set for younger students doubling over the
past twenty-five years or so, although some doubt these findings.

Countries, schools and subjects differ a lot on how much homework is set, and at what age, but almost
all high school students have to do at least some most nights. Most children have never liked homework
but from time to time it is also debated by politicians, parents and teachers. Sometimes there are
demands for more homework, as part of a drive for “higher standards”. At other times there are calls for
less homework to be set, especially in primary/ elementary schools. This topic looks at whether
homework should be banned altogether.

Affirmative

- Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of student’s time

POINT: Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school.
Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not
seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for
primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between
homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is
necessary in high school.1International comparisons of older students have found no positive
relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan
and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more
homework get worse results! Sorrentino, 2011, Britt, 2005

COUNTERPOINT : Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is
because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it.
Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning
new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however,
and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of
educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in
how much they are learning. Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that
by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how
well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in
elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance
learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time
management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on
their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments. 1 Strauss,
20062 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 20003Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001
- Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good
lessons

POINT : Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers'

time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours
of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with
little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should
be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The
heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool
from which schools can recruit.1 Speranza, 2011

COUNTERPOINT : Teachers accept that marking student work is an important part of their job.
Well planned homework should not take so long to mark that the rest of their job suffers, and it
can inform their understanding of their students, helping them design new activities to engage
and stretch them. As for recruitment, although teachers do often work in the evenings, they are
not alone in this and they get long holidays to compensate.

- Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do their activities

POINT : Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10
minutes homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than
an hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every
night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the environment through play, doing
creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also important for
young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but homework often
squeezes the time available for all these things. 1 Associated Press, 2009

COUNTERPOINT: Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little
time to complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more
than an hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem
with the amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are
engaging in sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to
suggest that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities.
In addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children
set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work. 1 BBC News, 2008

- Homework puts students off learning

POINT : Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing
homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will
 take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something
new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free
time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late.
After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike
education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children,
because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.1 BBC News,
2008

COUNTERPOINT : If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the
teacher. As Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the
skills to design homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning'
.1The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for
themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can
help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research
however suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in
Britain indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than
before'.2 Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may
indeed lack support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to
provide the help they need.1 Strauss, 2006
2
BBC News, 2008

- Homework is about ‘winning’ on test, not learning

POINT : Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all
students of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and
teachers whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about
their students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but
simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just
their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn
for the students' own benefit.1 Sorrentino

COUNTERPOINT : Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at

tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of
assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a
good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the
student, the two need not be separated.

- The ban on homework could be easily enforced through school inspections

POINT : In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students
are receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body
that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a
level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very
quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves.
Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.1 Ofsted, 2011
 COUNTERPOINT : Many states do not in fact have a structured school inspection system that
could enforce such a ban. The United States, for example, has one of the largest student bodies
in the world but the state does not have a formal inspection system that could enforce a ban on
homework. Therefore any ban would only prove a recommendation at best, and could not
possibly hope to be enforced.

Furthermore, even in those states that do have inspection bodies, the regularity of inspections
allows school principals to prepare for their arrival. Students might be forced by their teachers to
lie to inspectors, otherwise they would receive even more homework. Furthermore, the school
inspections are partly so that they can test the ability of students – therefore teachers are
encouraged to give their students homework so that they do better on these inspections.

Negative

- Homework encourages students to work more indenpendently (by themselves)

POINT : Homework encourages students to work more independently, as they will have to at
college and in their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility and skills in personal
organization, working to deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always “spoon-
fed” topics at school they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. A
gradual increase in homework responsibilities over the years allows these skills to develop 1. For
instance, to read a novel or complete a research project, there is simply no time at school to do it
properly. Students have to act independently and be willing to read or write, knowing that if they
struggle, they will have to work through the problem or the difficult words themselves. Diane
Ravitch points out that a novel like Jane Eyre cannot be completed if it is not read at home –
students have to work through it themselves 2.1 Bempechat, 20042 Ravitch, 2007

COUNTERPOINT: Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check
whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied
off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the
internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the
classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning.
Furthermore, if teachers want to develop independence in their students, students should be
given a choice in the matter of homework. Otherwise, they’re not using their judgement and
therefore they aren’t being independent at all 1.1 Sorrentino, 2011
- Homework ensures that students practice what they are taught at school

POINT : Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done
in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and
become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be
practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment,
revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke
University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests
when they do short homework assignments related to the test 1. Students gain confidence from
such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests. 1 Strauss, 2006

COUNTERPOINT : Homework does not ensure that students practise what they are taught at
school. To practise what a student has been taught requires the presence of a teacher or tutor
who can guide the student if they get something wrong. Homework, done by the student on their
own, offers little support and is only a source of stress. If confused, the student may only come
to dislike the topic or subject, which will only further reduce their ability to remember what they
were taught.

- Homework provides a link between child, school and the home

POINT : Education is a partnership between the child, the school and the home 1. Homework is
one of the main ways in which the student’s family can be involved with their learning. Many
parents value the chance to see what their child is studying and to support them in it. It has
been described as the ‘window into the school’ for parents, the area in which schools, parents
and students interact daily 2. And schools need parents’ support in encouraging students to read
at home, to help with the practising of tables, and to give them opportunities to research new
topics. 1 Walker, et. al, 2004 2 Gill & Schlossman, 2003

COUNTERPOINT : Homework is a class issue. In school everyone is equal, but at home some
people have advantages because of their family background. Middle-class families with books and
computers will be able to help their children much more than poorer ones can. This can mean
poorer children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done
homework. David Baker, a researcher, believes too much homework causes parents and children
to get angry with each other and argue, destroying the child’s confidence 1. On the other hand
pushy parents may even end up doing their kids’ homework for them – cheating and not helping
the student learn at all. 1Britt, 2005
- Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information
beyond that which they are taught at school

POINT : Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each
school day – not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting
homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also
makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising
individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the
learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom – students should take skills learnt in
the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students
to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how
to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home,
with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student.

COUNTERPOINT : Homework is not an essential part of information. If what was to be learnt

from homework was that essential, it would not be left to the child to learn on their own and
away from school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply setting homework because they are
expected to set it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The best environment for learning is
in a classroom, where the student is able to ask for assistance if stuck and the teacher is
available to help. .1 BBC News, 2008
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES MOTHERS SHOULD STAY AT HOME AND LOOK AFTER THEIR
CHILDREN.

In the age of apparent equality women are increasingly encouraged to ‘have it all’, balancing career,
children and marriage in order to be seen as successful. Some feel this is bad for children who are then
cared for by a child-minder, nursery, or member of the extended family. Others feel that no harm comes
to children if the alternative care is good and that children may in fact benefit if paid work makes the
mother happier and her work improves the family’s living standards . Occasionally fathers will also decide
to stay home as carers instead of mothers. In many countries, mothers (and sometimes fathers) have a
legal right to maternity (or paternity leave). The Czech Republic has the longest parental leave
programme, lasting until the children are 2-3 years old and can be taken by either parent. For UK women
this comprises 26 weeks paid leave and 26 weeks unpaid leave. Recently the British government has
made changes so that this leave can be shared between partners as the parents see fit. In Sweden, leave
is offered to either parent until the child is 18 months old. The USA does not have a national paid
maternity leave program (although there are schemes in some states), compared with 50 weeks paid
maternity leave across the border in Canada. India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, and Japan (and
many more) offer around three months paid maternity leave, and Australia began a paid maternity leave
programme in 2011 (All statistics from the International Labour Organisation) 1. Other options exist, such
as protecting the right to ask for part-time work or flexible hours. However in many families, especially
where the mother earns the majority of the family’s income and may be the only earner , it is financially
impossible for the mother to stop work without considerable state support, which in most cases doesn’t
exist. Many studies point to the years before a child starts school as the most important in its educational
and emotional development. For this reason, should the mother be at home, at least until her children
start school? Or can children develop equally well- or sometimes better- with support from others in
addition to their mothers? In the context of this debate, I use the term ‘housemother’ to express a
mother who stays at home to look after her children, and ‘housefather’ to mean the same thing in
relation to their father.

1
International Labour Organization, 'Conditions of Work and Employment Programme (TRAVAIL)',

Affirmative

- The role of the mother is sacred

POINT : In many religions and cultures the role of the mother is a sacred one. The bible,
specifically in scriptures Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2: 4-5, focuses on women’s role as ‘keepers of
the house’, who should bear children and raise them in the way of the lord. In Proverbs 31: 28-
31 women as a whole are praised for the successful raising of children and home, and as such
this role is valued more than a mother working. In the Quran, mothers are regarded highly (e.g.
17:23, 31:14, 46:15). The prophet Muhammad even stated that 'Paradise lies at the feet of your
mother'. The Islamic Scholar Majmoo' Fatawa wa Maqalat Mutanawwi'ah explains that within the
Quran ‘She [the mother] is to be given precedence over and above the father’. Yet for a mother
to earn this regard, she must stay in the home above all else, and this involves not gaining
employment outside the home when caring for children. Hindu scriptures similarly often state
that one must worship his or her mother first (Vanparva313.60, Apastamba Dharmsutra
i.10.28.9). Thus for many religions the role of mother is sacred. This means that the woman
should be viewed as privileged and valued as a housemother, a god-given position that is not
available to the father.
 In secular circles as well, often women look after children because in most countries they
originally receive more maternity leave than a father does paternity leave 1, or are necessary
carers because they provide breast milk. In this case the mother’s choice to look after the child
at an early age is merely a practical one, and if during this time a closer bond develops between
mother and child, then it seems easier that they should continue to care for the child.

1. Child Policy International, 'Maternity, Paternity, and Parental Leaves in the OECD Countries
1998-2002'

COUNTERPOINT: Scripture is out of date when it comes to issues of women’s rights and
responsibilities no matter how sacred they may consider the role of motherhood. Focusing on the
traditional stereotyped role of mother as the primary care giver is extremely restrictive for
women. It is such religious beliefs that have meant that social prejudice is so developed world
wide that even when women are given the option of letting the fathers care for the children, they
often feel that this is not really a possibility. This severely limits a woman’s freedom of
opportunities, and is likely to restrict her future employment prospects. As both partners have
created their child, it is only just that the care of the child is assumed to be shared unless other
issues, such as finance, change this position.Regarding the importance of maternal breast-
feeding, few mothers breastfeed for longer than the period allowed for paid maternity leave in
many countries. This is therefore not an argument for their staying at home for longer than the
period of leave.

- Childcare options are bad, and often unaffordable for poorer families

POINT : The BBC has previously recorded that in the UK childcare options are often unaffordable,
and families with two working parents are often not much better off than families with one
working parent (October 2003) 1. There is more recent evidence of this from Aviva’s Family
Finances Report in 2011, which found ‘parents questioning whether they can both afford to work,
due to the high cost of childcare 2. Workingmums.net reports a similar situation in the USA, and
from anecdotal evidence, such as a number of blogs, it appears this situation is common
worldwide. If this is the case, then maybe it is logical for mothers to save on childcare costs and
give up their own work.

Furthermore, it is undeniable that a professional carer who looks after a group of children cannot
give as much singular attention to one child, or know all the specific whims of each child.
Psychologist Steve Biddulph 3 believes that this leaves the children desperate for a single adult to
shower them with affection, and a denial of this desire can lead to higher levels of aggression by
the time they reach primary school. However, a housemother would both be able to give the
attention and know the details, and avoid an increase in these levels of aggression. 1 BBC News,
'Childcare 'may not lessen poverty''2 Aviva, 'UK: Parents give up work as childcare costs outstrip
income'3 Biddulph, 'Raising Boys: Why Boys are Different - and How to Help Them Become Happy
and Well-Balanced Men'

COUNTRPOINT : Childcare teaches children to socialise at an early age, and some are state
sponsored. Places such as nursery/playschool or any form of group child care actually teaches
children social skills, such as how to share toys with other children, how to make friends and how
to cope without their parents for a short time at least1, and this is a happy, informal and easy
way for children to learn these skills. Kathy Sylvia disputes the research illustrated by Biddulph
and claims that after the age of two, and in good nurseries, children are no more likely to
become aggressive than those who were looked after by a fulltime housemother. She also claims
that in the cases where aggression levels are higher, this is usually dispelled by the age of 11.
 She bases her findings on the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education project, 2004
(explained further in scrapbook).

Instead of taking time off to look after their children, mothers might use their energy to protest
in their right to free, reliable child care in order to allow them to work if they choose too.In
reality, in Britain one in three working mothers rely on grandparents for childcare, who do
provide affectionate one-to-one care2. Grandparents are also not an unaffordable expense for
poor families.1 Garner, ‘Sending children to nursery early gives them a year’s head start at
primary school’ 2 Griggs, 'Protect, Support, Provide.'

- It is better for society if mothers stay home

POINT : Mothers who stay at home benefit society as a whole. The money that they save on
childcare can be spent in other areas such as pensions, healthcare, or environmental issues. Stay
at home mothers are more likely to have time to be involved with their community. Volunteers
are needed in many spheres of education such as PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), classroom
assistants or organisers of school trips and sharing skills(News Talk Radio) 1. However there are
many other areas where they can make a difference as they have the time, such as volunteering
for charities or community groups and looking after other parents’ children. Those mothers who
stay home are able to become more fully involved in these aspects of community life in the
process making the community a much better place to bring up children.1 News Talk Radio, '6
easy ways to help your child's school'

COUNTERPOINT: Finally, why is it better for mothers to spend time outside the home
volunteering rather than in paid work if we are concerned about the impact of separation from
the mother on the child? Surely one is as harmful, or not, as the other? If mothers aren’t working
and earning a living, where are they going to find the money for pensions, healthcare costs and
environmental issues? Furthermore, if more women were working, then the state would have
more funds from tax. Therefore the state would equally have more money to spend on these
issues if more women worked than if women stayed at home to look after the children. If
mothers work for a living, they can engage in society more directly through their job, and they
can use the money that they earn to make a real difference in their community. The money that
is earned by a working parent typically offsets the costs associated with childcare so leaving the
children in a similarly well off situation1.1. Aviva, 'Family Finances Report, August 2011 'UK:
Parents give up work as childcare costs outstrip income''

- What is best for children

POINT : Early childhood is the most influential period in a child’s development 1. It is in this
period that a child learns which social rules are to be obeyed and how emotions, such as anger,
are expressed. Also it is the period of time when ‘attachment’ begins (see ‘attachment theory’
authors such as Donald Winnicott or John Bowlby, also discussed in ‘scrapbook’ below), and
many psychologists believe this attachment is essential to normal social and emotional
development in the child 2. Therefore the more time the mother spends with the child at this
time, the stronger this attachment will be. Mothers who stay at home can ensure their children
get the best possible start in life. They can help the child learn how to appropriately express
emotions, and create a loving bond. This bond will ensure that they know what their children are
doing, how to make them happy, and when something is wrong.
 When the children are older, a housemother is more able to monitor her children’s activities and
therefore will know if the children are late home from school or tardy going to school and
therefore will be able to notice any problems. Housemothers will also be better equipped to take
their children to other after school activities or social events. For these reasons, if the mother
stays at home when the child is young, she can better ensure that the child has a safer and more
varied experience later on in life. 1. Patterson, Child development 2. Bowlby and King, 'Fifty
Years of Attachment Theory: Recollections of Donald Winnicott and John Bowlby.'

COUNTERPOINT : Attachment studies have actually shown that the best relationship occurs when
the child accepts the fact that the mother will leave, but also knows she will return, and
welcomes her when she does. If the mother never leaves the child there is no time for this belief
to develop and the process of developing healthy behaviour concerning the mother's absence will
be delayed.Furthermore, some of the studies referred to by the proposition, e.g., Bowlby were
based on very limited or inappropriate evidence e.g., children wholly separated from their
mothers in institutions.

Children do not need to spend their whole time with their mothers to develop well. Not all
mothers are equally competent or nurturing. Mothers who are depressed or have other problems
can be bad for the development of the child.In this age of technology, a mother does not need to
be at home to ensure that her children are. Contacting the child on a landline telephone would be
one way to ensure they are home. Also many homes are now equipped with internet video
phones and a quick phone-call would be all that was needed to check they are at home and safe.
This also suggests an element of trust between mother and child that would be well appreciated
as a child grows older and teaches the child some forms of responsibility.Flexible and/or part-
time working therefore enables mothers and fathers to combine supervision of children, taking to
after school events with work. Part-time working has long been common for British mothers
specifically.

Negative

- Focusing on the role of the mother ignores role of other carers, namely the father and
grandparents

POINT : Focusing on the mother as primary caregiver ignores the role of the father, which can
have two severe negative impacts. It reduces him to breadwinner outside the home and no
more. Firstly, it sidelines and trivialises the role that the father has in the child’s upbringing.
Secondly, it limits the mother who faces the social pressure that she ‘should’ be the one giving up
work to take care of the child, even if the father is equally capable and willing. Hoffman 1 believes
that, as a result of social stereotyping, a father is unlikely to undertake a fulltime childcare role
unless he is forced to by his partner’s having returned to work. When this ‘higher participation in
child care’ occurs, Hoffman believes it results in an ‘increase in the academic competence of both
boys and girls, but particularly for girls’. Thus according to Hoffman, housefathers actually
increase their children’s IQ levels more than house mothers.
 Perhaps the most important issue with regards to the father’s role is that it is valued and desired
by the father himself. Few employers offer paternity leave at all, and even fewer provide paid
paternity leave. Even for those that do provide leave for fathers, it is often on a very short-term
basis, leaving fathers often to miss out on time with their new born after birth. Over the past few
years, Careerbuilder.com has released an annual survey that suggests that between 30%-50% of
dads in the United States wish they could be stay-at-home parents with their partner working full
time; but this situation is not financially possible for them.2 The focus on the mother as the
‘natural’ or ‘right’ primary caregiver for children ignores the desires of fathers like these.

Ultimately it seems that these issues can only be readdressed by dismissing the belief that
women ‘should’ look after their children, and instead allow parents to decide what is best for
them as a family. 1 Hoffman, 'The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the
Child'2 Ferrara, 'Fewer Working Fathers are Willing to Be Stay At Home Dads'

HOMOGEN : Focusing on the role of the mother as the primary caregiver is not ignoring the
father. Quite the opposite, as the breadwinner the role of the father is essential in enabling the
mother to stay at home and look after the children.

- Mothers who stay at home are not as good role models as those with active careers

POINT : Girls need role models. However, mums who stay at home only offer the role model of
housemother to their daughters. Yet a working mum illustrates to her daughter that she can have
both a career and a family. This type of influence early on and throughout life has shown to have
a huge effect on what women believe they can achieve in their careers 1. If this is true then
housemothers suggest to their daughters that employment is out of their reach, which will
perhaps limit their future choices and hinder them from a satisfying work life. Indeed, daughters
of employed mothers have been found to be more independent, particularly in interaction with
their peers in a school setting, and to score higher on socio-emotional adjustment measures2, so
perhaps with this in mind a working mother is a good influence on daughters.

Finally, as children get older and begin to have a career of their own it could perhaps be difficult
for them to relate to their mothers who they have only seen in a domestic capacity, therefore
working mothers have the advantage of being able to relate these experience with their children.
Boys also need the example of how to be good, supportive, attentive, responsible fathers who
don’t abandon their families.1Thomson, 'Preferential Hiring'2 Hoffman, 'The Effects of the
Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child'

COUNTERPOINT : A role model of a responsible mother who brings up her children well is not a
bad role model for her children to have. Children have other role models apart from their
parents, they may be other relatives or friends or celebrities. There is no complaint that Boys do
not get a good role model on how to be a good stay at housefather because it is assumed that it
is not necessary.

- It is unpractical for many mothers to work at home, because the family needs her
financial support

POINT : Families need financial support as well as emotional support. While it seems indisputable
that a child does need strong emotional connections in order to get the best from life, it is
equally undeniable that families need a strong and reliable source of finance in order to thrive.
 Childhood poverty is shown to have a lasting negative effect upon infants. According to a report
by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation “Young adults who as children suffered financial hardship,
were in trouble with the law or played truant have significantly greater than average chances of
earning lower wages, being unemployed, spending time in prison (men) or becoming a lone
parent (women).”1 Thus financial security becomes just as important as emotional security. This
is especially true for the growing numbers of families headed by lone mothers on low incomes.

Furthermore a mother has to concern herself with the family as a whole, rather than a singular
individual, and it might be in the case of the whole family, the financial needs of the many
outweigh the emotional needs of the one child. Additionally, many housemothers are in a very
vulnerable position. If a housemother is dependent on the wages earned by her working partner
that the relationship power balance will become unequal, with the woman totally relying on the
support of the man. Moreover, if a marriage were to end in divorce, a housemother would find
herself looking for a job with lower qualifications and having been unemployed for a significant
amount of time. 1 Gregg et al., "Child poverty and its consequences"

COUNTERPOINT : Many argue that this is a particular problem for women, as childcare often is
so expensive that a working mother is not financially much better off than a housemother 1. In
this case then perhaps what should be argued is that childcare support systems should be
provided by the state that both allows women to work and look after their children, and gives
them more support, both practical and financial, to allow them to look after their children in the
early years. 1 BBC News, 'Childcare 'may not lessen poverty''

- Encouraging mothers to stay at home wastes the education and talents of many
women

POINT : Many mothers have previous experience in the work place or a trade and skills that
would be valued by society. The fact that these women then become stay-at-home moms results
in a huge loss to various industries. Ohlsson, Sweden’s EU minister, claimed in 2011 that the
GDP of Europe could grow 27% if more mothers were encouraged to work 1. However, if mothers
were to return to work not only would this be a great help to the countries productivity but would
also increase the demand for child care providing many more jobs. They would add to tax
revenue by paying taxes, while also doing the valuable work of raising children. Most employed
mothers work a ‘double shift’ : working hard at childcare and housework when at home. Much
childcare is not paid for by the taxpayer or anybody but is given free by
grandparents2.1. Ohlsson, 'Minister: housewives threaten EU economy'2. Griggs, Protect,
Support, Provide.

COUNTERPOINT: Housemothers do a lot of work that should be valued highly by the state and
society. Housemothers work an unpaid, 24/7 job that is very hard work. They save taxpayers
money as housemothers do not require free childcare. They do all this without a wage and in
many cases without any support (or at least without any extra support than that which is
provided to working mothers). If we accept that a stay-at-home mother is the best thing for the
child, the family and society at large, then rather than encouraging the mother to work, we
should be focusing on the immense amount of productive work she already does in raising the
children and reward this with a better scheme of benefits and support.
- Good nurseries are positive environments for children

POINT:Children are not disadvantaged by the time spent in nurseries whilst their mothers work.
Research by Professor Kathy Sylva indicates that in fact ‘those who attend average to high-
quality nurseries will be able to form better relationships once they start primary school’.1 A
combination of the regular exposure to other children of similar ages and to lessons imparted
from good quality carers ensure that these children enter schools more mature and comfortable
around others than children who were reared solely at home. 1. Jamieson, ‘Toddlers benefit from
nurseries’

COUNTERPOINT: Many disagree that nurseries are positive environments for children. Oliver
James, a clinical child psychologist, has written that ‘while nursery care may do no harm to about
two-thirds of children, there is undeniable evidence that the experience is highly stressful and
can be harmful’. Professor Sylva even admitted in her study that ‘some children placed in
nurseries show slightly higher levels of aggression in school’.1 Furthermore, the Sylva study only
applies to good nurseries, which are both hard to find and expensive. Many cannot afford or find
such childcare options, rendering the opposition’s argument null and void. 1. Jamieson, ‘Toddlers
benefit from nurseries’
THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN BEAUTY CONTESTS

The First modern Beauty Pageants took place in the United States in the second half of the 19 th Century
with the first Miss United States bathing beauty contest being held at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware in
1880.[1] Beauty contests are popular in many parts of the world. The biggest, the Miss World
competition, has been running annually since 1951, and although it is less popular in the UK now than it
was in 1968, when it attracted 27.5 million TV viewers, it attracts an enormous worldwide audience – up
to 3 billion viewers in 120 countries.[2] There are beauty contests for various categories of age, sex and
sexuality; this topic focuses on adult women’s beauty contests as overwhelmingly the most popular and
high-profile version.

Note that there are difficult technical issues about running this debate: it probably works best as a values
debate on whether beauty contests are a good thing or not, but this kind of comparison motion is
frowned upon in some policy-based debating circles. Proposing a ban on beauty contests might be met
with various entirely valid opposition lines on enforceability and warped priorities (what about porn?),
which would tend to undermine the point of the debate.

[1] Riverol, A. R., Live from Atlantic City A History of the Miss America Pageant, Bowling Green State
University Popular Press, 1992, p.10

[2] The Miss World History, 2011

Affirmative

- Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women

are entitled to pursue

POINT : In an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which
there are more opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve
their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the
future; the most attractive earn 12% more.[1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty
queens, and they would not have reached their success without the beauty contests they won. In
addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicize charities and causes
they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained.
Beauty pageants can also empower in other ways: The Miss America competition is the largest
provider of scholarship assistance for women in the world[2], indeed it pioneered assistance for
women in higher education in the 40’s and 50’s.[3][1] Day, Elizabeth, ‘Honey Money: The Power
of Erotic Capital by Catherine Hakim – review’,The Observer, 28 August 2011.[2] Miss America,
'Purpose' [3] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’,
Huffington Post, 15 March 2011

COUNTERPOINT : Beauty contests are part of the system that values women solely on their
appearance. It is better to break down that system than seek to work within it. Beauty contests
fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist
keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the
liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they
harm women’s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no
 problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a
woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition’s hypocrisy.[1]

Assigning scholarship funds based on physical appearance rather than academic merit is unfair
because it neuters the aspirations of many regardless of how hard they might work.

[1] Bloom, Alexis and Cassandra Herrman, Frontline World, ‘Nigeria – The Road North’, PBS,
January 2003.

- Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics

POINT : Modern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about
establishing and striving for an ‘ideal’ than rating physical beauty. This was specifically made
mandatory by Lenora Slaughter in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract “ladies” to
participate in the competitions. The modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women
in order to attract women.[1]

[1] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington
Post, 15 March 2011

COUNTERPOINT : This is this is a red herring – beauty pageants areprimarily about physical
attractiveness. Broadcasting data shows that viewers turn off Miss America for the talent and
interview portions of the show while continuing to watch the swimsuit portion.[1]

[1] Peterson, Ivan, ‘A Challenge for Miss America in Reality TV Era’, The New York Times, 9 April
2005

- Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women
relate to their femininity

POINT : A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty
contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of
society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the
entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women –
who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone
should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others.

COUNTERPOINT : Beauty Pageants do limit the choice of others due to putting pressure on
women to conform to this ideal of beauty which is promoted. This is limiting the lifestyle choices
of many more women than choose to take part in the pageants.