I read with interest the web article on the homework wars. One of the comments hit like a brick:

Kim Marshall, AB '69, EdM '81, the principal of Mather School in Boston, added a practical "real life" perspective to the discussion, telling panelists that although it makes "little difference academically" for elementary school children, "homework is a reality" for almost all students and can be an asset if assigned properly. "Homework should be useful, aligned with the curriculum, and kids should be able to do it alone," he said.

Marshall told the audience he believes homework teaches students responsibility and "sends a powerful message to parents that the school means business."

Homework makes no academic difference? Intuitively, that seems wrong. But suppose it is true. Isn't that the point? The other qualities that Marshall cites, and also the qualities touted by the Harvard prof whose name is un-remember-able, are valuable qualities but not at all what homework is supposed to be about.

This point is pragmatic and reasonable. Like exercise, doing homework teaches the discipline it takes to learn, even if it doesn't always "work." People call this "busy work" but that's oversimplifying the matter. Mastering self-discipline is difficult and needs to be reinforced by not only teachers, but parents and peers. I see that young people have no problems becoming "disciplined" in sports training... but I think intellectual "work" is considered non-work, busy work, etc., especially in terms of those who probably need it most -- the very very young. But having never taught anything but college-level courses, I really can't speak with authority on this issue. All I know is that what high schools do with homework impacts on the expectations and abilities of college students to do homework and conduct independent research.

I'm still skeptical about the value of homework. If we assign it to teach discipline, what assurance do we have that we are really teaching discipline? And discipline for what? Like you, I assign homework pretty freely, but, also like you, I want the work students do to be meaningful and valuable. And, thinking about the work that my daughters have brought home from elementary and middle school over the years, most of it would pass the two part test I just created. I'm just not convinced it really fosters the virtues we want it to. Some students love to read, so they read passionately and even love to learn how to read more critically. They don't experience reading homework as discipline. Students who hate to read won't become good readers just because we assign a lot of it.

Good points, John. I guess one of the elements that matters about homework -- and which we take for granted -- is the change in environment. Simply setting the material free from the cage of the classroom or the library, letting ideas run wild in the student's individual milieux, can pay off in ways we can never anticipate or measure. And it tethers said experience to the classroom at the same time. But it can certainly become something of a "choke chain" if there's too much of it.

In college, the equation of an hour spent in class with one "credit hour" assumes X number of hours of work will also be spent outside the class (twice as much, I believe). Part of the issue is that class doesn't really hold enough time to both teach and apply... the application of learned material can happen outside the class (as does the teacher's grading of it usually). But maybe all this is so obvious that it doesn't need saying. Sorry...just thinking out loud. Your concern about whether homework accomplishes what it attempts to is a valid one and I assume it is entirely determined by individual teachers when they grade.