Child Labour
Summary: Is the imposition of sanctions on states the best way to end child labour?
In the past activists have tried to encourage consumers to boycott companies using child labour by means of negative publicity about the conditions under which children work. The debate is partly, therefore, about whether such action (which may be ignored) is sufficient to force companies themselves to act, or whether it is more effective to use sanctions to pressurise governments into setting up national legal regulations (which might be avoided or repealed). However, there is a second issue: whilst it is normally deemed a truism that child labour is inherently bad, a subtler reasoning is sometimes illuminating. It is hard to see how child labour on family farms can be avoided, when countries do not have the resources to set up schools and to pay families a minimum income. Ultimately child labour ends up more as a question of solving poverty than a simple moral or emotional issue.A model for a sanctions regime would need to take several details into account: both general ones regarding sanctions cases (by whom will sanctions be imposed? And to what extent will they be enforced?) and questions particular to this topic: what age is a ‘child’? Is child labour inherently a issue, or is the debate really about minimum labour standards for any employee?
Pros
There is an international duty on governments to uphold the dignity of man. This can only be done with the independence gained from education, a good quality of life and independent income. Child labour destroys the creativity and innocence of the young, and must be stopped.
Sanctions provide the only means of forcing states to take action. Consumer pressure is too weak to do so - whilst opinion pollsters are told their interviewees are willing to pay more for ethical products, very few people put this into daily practice.
Pressure on trans-national companies is not enough. It is a fallacy to believe that all child labour equals sweatshop work for multinationals in poor countries. There is a difference between this, family labour on farms (in both developed and less developed countries), the use and trade of child prostitutes and countries who force children into their armies.
Ending child labour will allow the young to have greater chances of education and development. This will increase the human resources of a country for the future, thus encouraging economic growth. Their labour will be replaced by drawing from the large pool of underemployed adults in most developing countries; often these will be the parents of current child workers, so there will be little or no overall impact on family income.
It is true that alternatives will need to be found to previous employment - but raising liquidity by loans secured on future earnings or micro-banking are both possible scenarios. The international community was able to place human rights over the cause of free trade in the cases of South Africa and Burma - so why not here?
This is an argument for a targeted and more sophisticated use of sanctions, not against them in any form. Sometimes free market economics is simply an excuse for a denial of responsibility.
Cons
Whilst codes of ‘human rights’ are effective bases for enforcing political and legal standards, they are less effective in dealing with social and economic ones. It is realistic to use sanctions to enforce rights to free expression and the rule of law; impossible to force an impoverished state to maintain Western standards of education and labour laws, which did not exist when the West developed. This use of sanctions merely lessens their impact when used for the correct purposes.
Consumer power has proven highly effective in the past in forcing trans-national companies to institute ethical practices. Boycotts of one producer lead others to act out of fear of negative publicity - the market takes care of the problem itself.
Quite true - this is why sanctions, an inherently blunt instrument, will always fail. Imposing sanctions on whole states is unfair as they are not wholly responsible for the actions of individuals within them. Should we impose sanctions on the USA because illegal sweatshops have been found to exist there?
A utopian vision of all previously labouring children entering school is belied by evidence showing many either cannot afford to pay school fees or continue to work at the same time. In fact, many TNCs have now set up after-work schools within the very factories that activists criticise.
Placing sanctions on some companies will merely hide child labour underground. Moving children, who have to work from poverty, into unregulated and criminal areas of the economy will only worsen the situation. Is it really likely that the WTO, a bastion of free trade, would accept the restrictions that sanctions entail?
Sanctions harm the poorest in society - companies will simply move to areas where the restrictions do not apply. Past experience has shown that government interference with the market does more harm than good.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Balance in the media
Summary: Should news broadcasters be required to be balanced and impartial in their reporting of events?
Globally countries operate a number of differing codes with regards to media balance in broadcast news services. Some liberal democratic states allow for news to be reported with significant ideological bias, on both sides of the political spectrum. It is common within Europe, however, for news broadcasters to be required by law to present balanced coverage of news, with a range of viewpoints being offered. Is there a need for the state to demand balance in this area? And even if there is, is it legitimate for it to do so?
Pros
A free media should be just that, without a requirement for balance. The reporting of news is a vital form of free speech and the expression of opinion. Individuals and groups do not all see issues in the same way, and they should not be required to report and commentate on them as if they did. Forcing reporters, media owners and employees to portray sides of a story that they do not agree with is an infringement on their public expression of political conviction. For a state to maintain or use such rights of content regulation is unjust and arguably dangerous.
It is a double standard to impose requirements of balance on one form of media and not others. Newspapers, magazines and Internet commentary are all permitted to report news from an ideological perspective provided they do not misrepresent the truth. There is no evidence that this is harmful, and the huge volumes of sales that these media enjoy show that people are supportive of this kind of reporting.
The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or educate the public, but merely to provide a service that people are willing to buy. No other private industry is charged with 'contributing to democracy' - their responsibilities run no further than maximising profitability. Constraining the media in this way is a blatant and unjustified restriction on the right to trade.
Private news coverage does offer this public good. A free media market would be responsive to the wide range of political convictions individuals have. There would thus be a broad and representative range of political opinions catered for, which can compete in 'the marketplace of ideas'. Also, people who may now be apathetic and disengaged from current affairs could be presented with news coverage which is more accessible for them. This would make it more likely that they will take an interest in news stories of which they might otherwise have remained ignorant
Adult voters do not need to be treated like children. They are more than able to deliberate, weigh up issues and form opinions. Their ability to do this is the absolute basic assumption of the liberal democratic model. If news reporting is biased, outlandish or exaggerated then people will be capable of judging this. For the differing perspectives in between the state has no right whatsoever to say any are wrong or right. Voters can and should decide upon their own perspective in news coverage.
It is highly questionable that this balance can be achieved through a regulated system. There are always inherent biases within an institutionalised media that skew reporting and keep some issues off the agenda altogether. This is all the more dangerous given that it is done in the name of balance and impartiality. At least with a free media market viewers would know that what they were seeing was an opinion and viewpoint, and be able to treat it as such.
Cons
The issue is not that networks are forced to report any one particular angle, but merely that they should present multiple perspectives when events are contested, for example by interviewing representatives from more than one political party. Many of those working within the media take a great pride in providing this balance, and those who don't are not prevented from expressing their opinions in other manners outside of their work. If opinions were being suppressed then it may be a case of unfreedom, but the requirement for balance is for more perspectives to be put forward. This is very different from limiting expression.
There is a difference between the reporting of events, which is the primary aim of TV news, and commentary on these events, which is more important to newspapers and blogs etc. Individuals can only make a meaningful choice regarding their preferred commentary on events when they are clear about the situations under discussion. If the news itself is biased then the individual is not choosing between the political discussions regarding the events, but the very version of events itself. Subjectivity regarding opinions should be welcome, but subjectivity regarding the facts of an event impedes rather than supports a healthy deliberative democracy.
There may be an inherent right to trade, but there is no right at all to trade free from regulation. It has long since been recognised that the airwaves of a nation are public property, and thus governments have good reason to licence and regulate those who trade in them. In fact every industry must prove a public good before being allowed access to public property. The arguments for deregulation of such industries thus hinge on their offering this benefit to society and not on any innate right to do business. Therefore if governments believe the public good is best served by a balanced media, they are more than justified in legislating for this.
4. It is very questionable as to whether a really broad range of perspectives would be available. Whilst networks do differ in their output this is rarely representative of the entire spectrum of opinion. Also, given the cost of news provision, media markets frequently become concentrated in the hands of a few major players, such as Rupert Murdoch, or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. This not only reduces the breadth of perspectives, but also means that they are those of commercial bodies, with particular and similar interests. Why for example would major media providers report impartially on questions of media ownership? Would there really be the same appetite to criticise a media friendly government? Impartial reporting is better served through regulation, than creating a market of similarly self-interested 'competitors'.
If we are treating citizens as rational decision making agents then it would be best to provide them with full information rather than slanted coverage. Research also shows that anything up to a quarter of newspaper readers are unable to identify any bias they may have. If people are seeking news from a source which they do not realise is biased, then how are they expected to make mature decisions based upon this information? It is better to start with news that is balanced, rather than risk this confusion.
The very fact that groups on both sides of disputes frequently claim that 'balanced' news reporting is biased against them proves that this is not true. It firstly shows that a middle ground is being found, and secondly that there are systems in place by which the claims of regulated media can be challenged if any bias were to creep in. Broadcasters are under an even greater pressure to respond to such complaints when they are required to be impartial than if they were allowed to present unbalanced coverage.
Globally countries operate a number of differing codes with regards to media balance in broadcast news services. Some liberal democratic states allow for news to be reported with significant ideological bias, on both sides of the political spectrum. It is common within Europe, however, for news broadcasters to be required by law to present balanced coverage of news, with a range of viewpoints being offered. Is there a need for the state to demand balance in this area? And even if there is, is it legitimate for it to do so?
Pros
A free media should be just that, without a requirement for balance. The reporting of news is a vital form of free speech and the expression of opinion. Individuals and groups do not all see issues in the same way, and they should not be required to report and commentate on them as if they did. Forcing reporters, media owners and employees to portray sides of a story that they do not agree with is an infringement on their public expression of political conviction. For a state to maintain or use such rights of content regulation is unjust and arguably dangerous.
It is a double standard to impose requirements of balance on one form of media and not others. Newspapers, magazines and Internet commentary are all permitted to report news from an ideological perspective provided they do not misrepresent the truth. There is no evidence that this is harmful, and the huge volumes of sales that these media enjoy show that people are supportive of this kind of reporting.
The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or educate the public, but merely to provide a service that people are willing to buy. No other private industry is charged with 'contributing to democracy' - their responsibilities run no further than maximising profitability. Constraining the media in this way is a blatant and unjustified restriction on the right to trade.
Private news coverage does offer this public good. A free media market would be responsive to the wide range of political convictions individuals have. There would thus be a broad and representative range of political opinions catered for, which can compete in 'the marketplace of ideas'. Also, people who may now be apathetic and disengaged from current affairs could be presented with news coverage which is more accessible for them. This would make it more likely that they will take an interest in news stories of which they might otherwise have remained ignorant
Adult voters do not need to be treated like children. They are more than able to deliberate, weigh up issues and form opinions. Their ability to do this is the absolute basic assumption of the liberal democratic model. If news reporting is biased, outlandish or exaggerated then people will be capable of judging this. For the differing perspectives in between the state has no right whatsoever to say any are wrong or right. Voters can and should decide upon their own perspective in news coverage.
It is highly questionable that this balance can be achieved through a regulated system. There are always inherent biases within an institutionalised media that skew reporting and keep some issues off the agenda altogether. This is all the more dangerous given that it is done in the name of balance and impartiality. At least with a free media market viewers would know that what they were seeing was an opinion and viewpoint, and be able to treat it as such.
Cons
The issue is not that networks are forced to report any one particular angle, but merely that they should present multiple perspectives when events are contested, for example by interviewing representatives from more than one political party. Many of those working within the media take a great pride in providing this balance, and those who don't are not prevented from expressing their opinions in other manners outside of their work. If opinions were being suppressed then it may be a case of unfreedom, but the requirement for balance is for more perspectives to be put forward. This is very different from limiting expression.
There is a difference between the reporting of events, which is the primary aim of TV news, and commentary on these events, which is more important to newspapers and blogs etc. Individuals can only make a meaningful choice regarding their preferred commentary on events when they are clear about the situations under discussion. If the news itself is biased then the individual is not choosing between the political discussions regarding the events, but the very version of events itself. Subjectivity regarding opinions should be welcome, but subjectivity regarding the facts of an event impedes rather than supports a healthy deliberative democracy.
There may be an inherent right to trade, but there is no right at all to trade free from regulation. It has long since been recognised that the airwaves of a nation are public property, and thus governments have good reason to licence and regulate those who trade in them. In fact every industry must prove a public good before being allowed access to public property. The arguments for deregulation of such industries thus hinge on their offering this benefit to society and not on any innate right to do business. Therefore if governments believe the public good is best served by a balanced media, they are more than justified in legislating for this.
4. It is very questionable as to whether a really broad range of perspectives would be available. Whilst networks do differ in their output this is rarely representative of the entire spectrum of opinion. Also, given the cost of news provision, media markets frequently become concentrated in the hands of a few major players, such as Rupert Murdoch, or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. This not only reduces the breadth of perspectives, but also means that they are those of commercial bodies, with particular and similar interests. Why for example would major media providers report impartially on questions of media ownership? Would there really be the same appetite to criticise a media friendly government? Impartial reporting is better served through regulation, than creating a market of similarly self-interested 'competitors'.
If we are treating citizens as rational decision making agents then it would be best to provide them with full information rather than slanted coverage. Research also shows that anything up to a quarter of newspaper readers are unable to identify any bias they may have. If people are seeking news from a source which they do not realise is biased, then how are they expected to make mature decisions based upon this information? It is better to start with news that is balanced, rather than risk this confusion.
The very fact that groups on both sides of disputes frequently claim that 'balanced' news reporting is biased against them proves that this is not true. It firstly shows that a middle ground is being found, and secondly that there are systems in place by which the claims of regulated media can be challenged if any bias were to creep in. Broadcasters are under an even greater pressure to respond to such complaints when they are required to be impartial than if they were allowed to present unbalanced coverage.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Unhealthy food, banning from schools
Obesity is the condition of being very overweight, to the point where your health suffers. Doctors usually say that someone with a body mass index above 30 is obese. There is an increasing problem with obesity in the developed world, and this often starts in childhood. Some people have argued that unhealthy school meals and vending machines are partly to blame and that they should be banned. In the UK the TV chef Jamie Oliver ran a high profile campaign to rid schools of unhealthy (junk) food, and the British government has started to take action as well. Local and national groups are also lobbying for change in America and a number of other countries. However, many people argue that schools are the wrong places to target and that it does not solve the problem.
Arguments
Pros
Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.
Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how they eat when they are young. Schools can help to make those habits healthy ones. If you don’t eat fresh food and vegetables at home, you might not get to try them and then you are unlikely to cook them for yourself later. Schools can introduce young people to healthy food.
Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused by unhealthy eating such as poor concentration, tooth decay and vitamin deficiencies. Schools can play a part in fighting these problems by providing healthy lunches in their canteens. Even if this is only one of the meals in a child’s day, schools can have a good effect on the overall diet of their students. If children are eating grilled chicken, vegetables and fruit at lunch rather than fried chicken, chips and cakes, that will have a positive effect on their health, and their schoolwork will improve too.
There is a good past example for schools getting involved in diet. Traditionally schools have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home. In the UK school meals were first made available by a reforming Liberal government a hundred years ago as a way of improving the health of the nation.
Schools teach healthy eating in Food Science and then undermine that by having vending machines full of chocolate and crisps outside the classrooms. We wouldn’t let schools have cigarette machines, so why let them sell food which is bad for your health?
If children try healthy food at school, they can take their knowledge home and introduce new food to their family. If a family always has frozen pizzas, they could suggest that they have other Italian food too, such as pasta and tomato sauce.
Cons
Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.
Schools need to teach pupils about how to make healthy choices and what makes a balanced diet. They need education on what’s good for you but then need to be given the chance to choose for themselves between an apple and a chocolate bar. Otherwise as soon as they’re out of school, they’ll still eat three chocolate bars because you haven’t changed their mindset. They may even eat more junk food on purpose as an act of rebellion. So schools should serve a range of food, not just salads and other “health foods”, in order to provide such a choice.
A balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salt – how do you decide what is healthy and what is not? Portions are key to a healthy diet. If pupils are very active and involved in sport, they may need to eat a lot of calories. You have to teach children and their parents to make responsible choices for themselves. The upbringing of children is mostly down to parents – the state shouldn’t take the job on through its schools.
There is a difference between providing something healthy as a free extra and limiting children’s access to food at lunchtime. You won’t make a difference with school meals if a child can just have an extra Macdonald’s burger or three more chocolate bars on the way home if they are hungry. If a school wants to make a difference, they should have more compulsory PE lessons to improve children’s fitness levels.
The difference between cigarettes and unhealthy foods is that even smoking occasionally is bad for your health, whereas eating fat, sugar and salt in moderation is not bad for you. It’s important to learn about how to make choices for a balanced diet.
If children don’t eat healthily at home they are more likely to avoid healthy school dinners. Instead they will bring an unhealthy packed lunch or go out of school for junk food in the lunchhour. Figures show that since the Jamie Oliver campaign in the UK, demand for school dinners has gone down by 20%. So there is no quick fix to encourage healthy eating and school meal campaigns may even be unhelpful. Tackling obesity properly will mean changing our food culture and that will involve the media, advertisers, food retailers and educators all playing a part.
Arguments
Pros
Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.
Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how they eat when they are young. Schools can help to make those habits healthy ones. If you don’t eat fresh food and vegetables at home, you might not get to try them and then you are unlikely to cook them for yourself later. Schools can introduce young people to healthy food.
Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused by unhealthy eating such as poor concentration, tooth decay and vitamin deficiencies. Schools can play a part in fighting these problems by providing healthy lunches in their canteens. Even if this is only one of the meals in a child’s day, schools can have a good effect on the overall diet of their students. If children are eating grilled chicken, vegetables and fruit at lunch rather than fried chicken, chips and cakes, that will have a positive effect on their health, and their schoolwork will improve too.
There is a good past example for schools getting involved in diet. Traditionally schools have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home. In the UK school meals were first made available by a reforming Liberal government a hundred years ago as a way of improving the health of the nation.
Schools teach healthy eating in Food Science and then undermine that by having vending machines full of chocolate and crisps outside the classrooms. We wouldn’t let schools have cigarette machines, so why let them sell food which is bad for your health?
If children try healthy food at school, they can take their knowledge home and introduce new food to their family. If a family always has frozen pizzas, they could suggest that they have other Italian food too, such as pasta and tomato sauce.
Cons
Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.
Schools need to teach pupils about how to make healthy choices and what makes a balanced diet. They need education on what’s good for you but then need to be given the chance to choose for themselves between an apple and a chocolate bar. Otherwise as soon as they’re out of school, they’ll still eat three chocolate bars because you haven’t changed their mindset. They may even eat more junk food on purpose as an act of rebellion. So schools should serve a range of food, not just salads and other “health foods”, in order to provide such a choice.
A balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salt – how do you decide what is healthy and what is not? Portions are key to a healthy diet. If pupils are very active and involved in sport, they may need to eat a lot of calories. You have to teach children and their parents to make responsible choices for themselves. The upbringing of children is mostly down to parents – the state shouldn’t take the job on through its schools.
There is a difference between providing something healthy as a free extra and limiting children’s access to food at lunchtime. You won’t make a difference with school meals if a child can just have an extra Macdonald’s burger or three more chocolate bars on the way home if they are hungry. If a school wants to make a difference, they should have more compulsory PE lessons to improve children’s fitness levels.
The difference between cigarettes and unhealthy foods is that even smoking occasionally is bad for your health, whereas eating fat, sugar and salt in moderation is not bad for you. It’s important to learn about how to make choices for a balanced diet.
If children don’t eat healthily at home they are more likely to avoid healthy school dinners. Instead they will bring an unhealthy packed lunch or go out of school for junk food in the lunchhour. Figures show that since the Jamie Oliver campaign in the UK, demand for school dinners has gone down by 20%. So there is no quick fix to encourage healthy eating and school meal campaigns may even be unhelpful. Tackling obesity properly will mean changing our food culture and that will involve the media, advertisers, food retailers and educators all playing a part.
Global Warming: Is More Action Needed?
Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of evidence to suggest that industrialisation is having an effect on the climate of the planet. As concern has grown, a number of international bodies have been set up to research the issue, and more recently a series of treaties have been established to help curb the emission of so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The most important of these was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (see below for a link to the full text of the agreement) as part of which the European Union, the USA and Japan agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The protocol has come under attack from both sides - many environmentalists feel that it does not really address the threat of global warming, while many in industry feel it is an unnecessary burden.Global warming is a particularly difficult issue as it demands a world-wide response. Many developing nations are understandably angered that a problem that seems to have been created by the rich, developed nations will have most impact on them. A global consensus remains far off.
Arguments
Pros
Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to provide energy. This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect': they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that "... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
Computer models predict that continued global warming could have catastrophic effects. Changes in temperature could devastate wildlife, as local vegetation dies off. Patterns of disease could change - already, isolated cases of malaria have been reported far north of traditional danger zones as warmer weather allows the mosquitoes which carry the disease to spread. Most importantly, a portion of the polar ice caps might melt and lead to a rise in sea level, which has already increased by between 10 and 25cm in the last 100 years. Giant cracks have been found in the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, which suggest that it is breaking apart; a section 48 miles wide and 22 miles long drifted free and melted as early as 1994. If, as experts suggest, temperatures rise a further 3°C over the next century, low-lying areas of land and even entire countries - such as Bangladesh - could disappear under the waves.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.
Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the emission of greenhouse gases affects everyone. It is therefore vital that the entire world responds now. The targets set by the Kyoto protocol will barely scratch the surface of the problem. Only minimal reductions were agreed to by the developed world, and no real agreement was reached involving the developing world, which is producing a greater percentage of greenhouse gas emissions every year.Gases such as CO2 remain in the atmosphere for centuries. If we wait until we can see the results of global warming, it may be too late - the damage will have been done, and reducing emissions then will have no effect for generations. We therefore must act now, and we must act globally. Developed countries must do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels. They must assist developing nations to do the same, by sharing technology or perhaps through 'emissions trading' - allowing poorer countries to sell their quota of pollution in return for hard cash. International pressure must be exerted against those countries which do not co-operate; even if this slows economic growth, it is the poorest regions in the world which would suffer most from more droughts and floods and rising sea-levels. However difficult it may be in the short term, it may save millions of lives in the future.
Cons
That mankind is causing global warming is far from being a proven fact. It is true that records show that average temperatures have increased over this century; however, temperatures actually dropped slightly between the 1930s and the 1970s. This was not associated with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions - in fact, they were increasing over this period. If the 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for global warming, how can this be?Accurate records simply do not cover a long enough period to be useful. The earth's average temperature varies naturally through time, and we so far have few or no good explanations to explain events such as the ice ages. Indeed, there was a 'mini-ice age' around four hundred years ago, during which the Thames in London repeatedly froze over during winter; this was followed by an intensive but natural period of 'global warming'. We do not have enough information to say that current trends are not simply natural variation.
Again, our computer models for predicting climate change are far from reliable. The weather is a hugely complex system that we are only just beginning to understand; it is affected by millions of factors, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, and other cycles which we are gradually discovering. Very slight changes in the computer model result in immense differences in predictions. Some scientists have, for example, suggested that global warming could actually cause a drop in sea level, as rainfall patterns and ocean currents shift. Indeed, refinements in the models used by the IPCC have caused it to tone down its predictions. In 1990, it estimated that by 2100 the average temperature would rise by 3°C and the sea rise by about 65cm; by 1995, it had revised these to 2°C and 50cm. The more research takes place, the less 'catastrophic' global warming seems to be; however, it is always the predictions of doom which are most widely reported in the media.
Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.
The evidence for global warming is not strong enough to merit this kind of response - it is entirely possible that the changes over the past century have been purely natural. Environmentalists in the developed world can afford the luxury of demanding government action, as increasingly technology-based economies mean that reducing pollution will have a minimal impact on prosperity or employment. Those in the developing world are not so lucky. Industrialisation is a key part of building successful economies and bringing prosperity to the world's poorest people; heavy industry is often the only area in which developing nations can compete.Global action on greenhouse gas emissions would sustain the inequalities of the current status quo. The developing world would be entirely dependent on multinationals to provide the technology they needed to keep pollution levels low, or else would have to stop expanding their economies. Having apparently caused the problem through the industrialisation that made them powerful, developed countries would essentially be pulling the ladder up behind them, depriving other countries of the chance to do the same. This is simply unacceptable: in the modern world, one of our first priorities must be to help the poorest people achieve the prosperity they need to support themselves. The current evidence for global warming does not begin to merit endangering this goal.
Arguments
Pros
Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to provide energy. This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect': they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that "... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
Computer models predict that continued global warming could have catastrophic effects. Changes in temperature could devastate wildlife, as local vegetation dies off. Patterns of disease could change - already, isolated cases of malaria have been reported far north of traditional danger zones as warmer weather allows the mosquitoes which carry the disease to spread. Most importantly, a portion of the polar ice caps might melt and lead to a rise in sea level, which has already increased by between 10 and 25cm in the last 100 years. Giant cracks have been found in the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, which suggest that it is breaking apart; a section 48 miles wide and 22 miles long drifted free and melted as early as 1994. If, as experts suggest, temperatures rise a further 3°C over the next century, low-lying areas of land and even entire countries - such as Bangladesh - could disappear under the waves.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.
Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the emission of greenhouse gases affects everyone. It is therefore vital that the entire world responds now. The targets set by the Kyoto protocol will barely scratch the surface of the problem. Only minimal reductions were agreed to by the developed world, and no real agreement was reached involving the developing world, which is producing a greater percentage of greenhouse gas emissions every year.Gases such as CO2 remain in the atmosphere for centuries. If we wait until we can see the results of global warming, it may be too late - the damage will have been done, and reducing emissions then will have no effect for generations. We therefore must act now, and we must act globally. Developed countries must do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels. They must assist developing nations to do the same, by sharing technology or perhaps through 'emissions trading' - allowing poorer countries to sell their quota of pollution in return for hard cash. International pressure must be exerted against those countries which do not co-operate; even if this slows economic growth, it is the poorest regions in the world which would suffer most from more droughts and floods and rising sea-levels. However difficult it may be in the short term, it may save millions of lives in the future.
Cons
That mankind is causing global warming is far from being a proven fact. It is true that records show that average temperatures have increased over this century; however, temperatures actually dropped slightly between the 1930s and the 1970s. This was not associated with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions - in fact, they were increasing over this period. If the 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for global warming, how can this be?Accurate records simply do not cover a long enough period to be useful. The earth's average temperature varies naturally through time, and we so far have few or no good explanations to explain events such as the ice ages. Indeed, there was a 'mini-ice age' around four hundred years ago, during which the Thames in London repeatedly froze over during winter; this was followed by an intensive but natural period of 'global warming'. We do not have enough information to say that current trends are not simply natural variation.
Again, our computer models for predicting climate change are far from reliable. The weather is a hugely complex system that we are only just beginning to understand; it is affected by millions of factors, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, and other cycles which we are gradually discovering. Very slight changes in the computer model result in immense differences in predictions. Some scientists have, for example, suggested that global warming could actually cause a drop in sea level, as rainfall patterns and ocean currents shift. Indeed, refinements in the models used by the IPCC have caused it to tone down its predictions. In 1990, it estimated that by 2100 the average temperature would rise by 3°C and the sea rise by about 65cm; by 1995, it had revised these to 2°C and 50cm. The more research takes place, the less 'catastrophic' global warming seems to be; however, it is always the predictions of doom which are most widely reported in the media.
Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.
The evidence for global warming is not strong enough to merit this kind of response - it is entirely possible that the changes over the past century have been purely natural. Environmentalists in the developed world can afford the luxury of demanding government action, as increasingly technology-based economies mean that reducing pollution will have a minimal impact on prosperity or employment. Those in the developing world are not so lucky. Industrialisation is a key part of building successful economies and bringing prosperity to the world's poorest people; heavy industry is often the only area in which developing nations can compete.Global action on greenhouse gas emissions would sustain the inequalities of the current status quo. The developing world would be entirely dependent on multinationals to provide the technology they needed to keep pollution levels low, or else would have to stop expanding their economies. Having apparently caused the problem through the industrialisation that made them powerful, developed countries would essentially be pulling the ladder up behind them, depriving other countries of the chance to do the same. This is simply unacceptable: in the modern world, one of our first priorities must be to help the poorest people achieve the prosperity they need to support themselves. The current evidence for global warming does not begin to merit endangering this goal.
50 Argument Essay Topics
These topics are sure to spark some interest.
1. Is global climate change man-made?
2. Is the death penalty effective?
3. Is our election process fair?
4. Do colleges put too much stock in standardized test scores?
5. Is torture ever acceptable?
6. Should men get paternity leave from work?
7. Is a lottery a good idea?
8. Do we have a fair taxation system?
9. Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?
10. Is cheating out of control?
11. Are we too dependent on computers?
12. Are parents clueless about child predators on the Internet?
13. Should animals be used for research?
14. Should cigarette smoking be banned?
15. Are cell phones dangerous?
16. Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy?
17. Are test scores a good indication of a school’s competency?
18. Do we have a throw-away society?
19. Is child behavior better or worse than it was years ago?
20. Should companies market to children?
21. Should the government have a say in our diets?
22. Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
23. Does access to condoms irresponsible, dangerous, or bad behavior?
24. Are actors and professional athletes paid too much?
25. Are CEO’s paid too much?
26. Do violent video games cause behavior problems?
27. Should creationism be taught in public schools?
28. Are beauty pageants exploitive?
29. Should English be the official language in the United States?
30. Should the racing industry be forced to use biofuels?
31. When should parents let teens make their own decisions?
33. Should the military be allowed to recruit at high schools?
34. Should the alcoholic drinking age be increased or decreased?
35. Does age matter in relationships?
36. What age is appropriate for dating?
37. Should gay couples be able to marry?
38. Are there benefits to attending a single-sex school?
39. Does boredom lead to trouble?
40. Does participation in sports keep teens out of trouble?
41. Is competition good?
42. Does religion cause war?
43. Should the government provide health care?
44. Should girls ask boys out?
45. Is fashion important?
46. Are girls too mean to each other?
47. Is homework harmful or helpful?
48. Should students be allowed to grade their teachers?
49. Is the cost of college too high?
50. Is college admission too competitive?
1. Is global climate change man-made?
2. Is the death penalty effective?
3. Is our election process fair?
4. Do colleges put too much stock in standardized test scores?
5. Is torture ever acceptable?
6. Should men get paternity leave from work?
7. Is a lottery a good idea?
8. Do we have a fair taxation system?
9. Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?
10. Is cheating out of control?
11. Are we too dependent on computers?
12. Are parents clueless about child predators on the Internet?
13. Should animals be used for research?
14. Should cigarette smoking be banned?
15. Are cell phones dangerous?
16. Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy?
17. Are test scores a good indication of a school’s competency?
18. Do we have a throw-away society?
19. Is child behavior better or worse than it was years ago?
20. Should companies market to children?
21. Should the government have a say in our diets?
22. Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
23. Does access to condoms irresponsible, dangerous, or bad behavior?
24. Are actors and professional athletes paid too much?
25. Are CEO’s paid too much?
26. Do violent video games cause behavior problems?
27. Should creationism be taught in public schools?
28. Are beauty pageants exploitive?
29. Should English be the official language in the United States?
30. Should the racing industry be forced to use biofuels?
31. When should parents let teens make their own decisions?
33. Should the military be allowed to recruit at high schools?
34. Should the alcoholic drinking age be increased or decreased?
35. Does age matter in relationships?
36. What age is appropriate for dating?
37. Should gay couples be able to marry?
38. Are there benefits to attending a single-sex school?
39. Does boredom lead to trouble?
40. Does participation in sports keep teens out of trouble?
41. Is competition good?
42. Does religion cause war?
43. Should the government provide health care?
44. Should girls ask boys out?
45. Is fashion important?
46. Are girls too mean to each other?
47. Is homework harmful or helpful?
48. Should students be allowed to grade their teachers?
49. Is the cost of college too high?
50. Is college admission too competitive?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Homework, ban
Context
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. 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. 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. The arguments could also be adapted for debates on whether less homework should be set, or on ending homework for younger students.
Arguments
Pros
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. International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores. If anything, countries with more homework got worse results!
Homework is almost always done when a child is already tired from a long day at school. As a result few students are at their best when they sit down in the evening to yet more work. Homework ends up being done in a hurry, by students fighting fatigue, and poor quality work is produced. Worse still, students who have been up late trying to finish off their homework, then come tired into school the next day, and so are less ready to learn. Really, what is the point?
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.
Homework produces large amount of pointless work of little educational value, but marking it ties up much of teachers’ time. This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare more effective, inspiring lessons. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.
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.
Homework takes a lot of time up. Being young is not just about doing school work. 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.
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 working class children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done homework. On the other hand pushy parents may even end up doing their kids’ homework for them – cheating. And homework is one of the most common causes of family arguments.
Mobile phones, use by children
Mobile telephones (known as cellphones in America) have only existed for twenty years. In the past decade they have become very widespread with almost every adult in developed countries now owning a small portable phone. Modern phones can perform a wide variety of functions, such as taking and sending photographs and video, playing music and games, and even surfing the internet. Their main use, however, remains for voice calls and for texting short messages. As prices of both phones and calls have come down in the past ten years or so, they have become much more affordable for young people. This has raised questions about whether children should be able to own phones, and if they should be allowed to take them into school. Schools in different countries, and within countries, take very different views on this issue. In some students can carry them as they like, as long as they are off during lessons. Other schools allow them to be carried, but they must never be turned on in school hours. Some (for example, New York schools recently) ban them entirely.
Arguments
Pros
Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.
Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.
Children will always pressure their parents to have the latest thing; phones are only one example of this. Parents can always say “no” or set limits on what they can spend. With modern payment plans children can be given a set amount of credit for calls and texts. Learning to work within financial limits is an important part of growing up. In any case, many young people have part-time jobs so they are spending their own money, not their parents.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is now a normal part of modern life, used by everyone from toddlers to pensioners. So children need to grow up making use of technology such as mobile phones if they are to take their place in society. Such use fits them for the modern workplace with its need for tech-savvy employees with communication skills and the ability to work flexibly. In any case, children often have better phone manners than adults – they are less likely to shout into the phone, more likely to text discreetly, and more aware of text and phone etiquette.
Mobile phones are now a valuable part of student life. Because parents feel their children are safer carrying a phone, they are more likely to allow them to travel to school on their own rather then driving them. This promotes greater independence for the children, while taking traffic off the roads which is environmentally-friendly. Like many other things (girls! boys! the view out of the window!) mobiles can be distracting in class but this doesn’t mean they should be banned. Many schools allow phones to be carried providing they are turned off in lesson.
Anything can be abused, including pencils and paper. New technology always carries some risks but we should not be rushed into panic measures. Children got hold of pornography, gambled and bullied each other long before mobile phones were invented. These problems won’t go away if we ban phone use – they can only be dealt with through good parenting and moral education. In the meantime, parents can get phones which block inappropriate content, and ensure their children do not have credit cards to pay for it.
Cons
There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.
Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.
Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up. Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrolled expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phone with all the latest gadgets. Banning children from carrying cell phones would take away these problems from ordinary financially-stretched families.
Mobile phones are a distraction from the real world, preventing children from interacting with those around them. Constant talking, texting, and games playing take the place of proper socialising. Young people grow up without good manners, unable to relate to those around them in a normal way. They also become fat and lazy, as phone use crowds out healthy activity such as sport or playground games.
Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students’ attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.
Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, gambling and even cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.
Arguments
Pros
Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.
Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.
Children will always pressure their parents to have the latest thing; phones are only one example of this. Parents can always say “no” or set limits on what they can spend. With modern payment plans children can be given a set amount of credit for calls and texts. Learning to work within financial limits is an important part of growing up. In any case, many young people have part-time jobs so they are spending their own money, not their parents.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is now a normal part of modern life, used by everyone from toddlers to pensioners. So children need to grow up making use of technology such as mobile phones if they are to take their place in society. Such use fits them for the modern workplace with its need for tech-savvy employees with communication skills and the ability to work flexibly. In any case, children often have better phone manners than adults – they are less likely to shout into the phone, more likely to text discreetly, and more aware of text and phone etiquette.
Mobile phones are now a valuable part of student life. Because parents feel their children are safer carrying a phone, they are more likely to allow them to travel to school on their own rather then driving them. This promotes greater independence for the children, while taking traffic off the roads which is environmentally-friendly. Like many other things (girls! boys! the view out of the window!) mobiles can be distracting in class but this doesn’t mean they should be banned. Many schools allow phones to be carried providing they are turned off in lesson.
Anything can be abused, including pencils and paper. New technology always carries some risks but we should not be rushed into panic measures. Children got hold of pornography, gambled and bullied each other long before mobile phones were invented. These problems won’t go away if we ban phone use – they can only be dealt with through good parenting and moral education. In the meantime, parents can get phones which block inappropriate content, and ensure their children do not have credit cards to pay for it.
Cons
There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.
Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.
Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up. Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrolled expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phone with all the latest gadgets. Banning children from carrying cell phones would take away these problems from ordinary financially-stretched families.
Mobile phones are a distraction from the real world, preventing children from interacting with those around them. Constant talking, texting, and games playing take the place of proper socialising. Young people grow up without good manners, unable to relate to those around them in a normal way. They also become fat and lazy, as phone use crowds out healthy activity such as sport or playground games.
Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students’ attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.
Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, gambling and even cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.
Foreign languages, compulsory in schools
Arguments
Pros
Foreign languages are important for the economy. The more languages someone can speak, the more places they can work. Foreign language skills help companies do business with other countries. It is especially important that children whose native language is not widely spoken (e.g. Dutch, Danish) learn other languages. However, it is also important for English-speakers to learn foreign languages, since not everyone speaks English. And it is polite to be able to speak some of another person’s language. Governments should try to promote economic growth. Since languages are important for the economy, governments should make all young people learn them.
Foreign languages are important for the individual pupil. Employers value people who are able to speak more than one language. Learning a language will therefore help students get good jobs when they are older. It will also increase their understanding of other cultures.
Pupils cannot decide for themselves what is important. Most do not realise that knowledge of another language will help them in almost any job. For some jobs it is essential. It is hard to learn a language in adulthood, because of time pressures and because the brain becomes less flexible. It is therefore very useful to learn a language when young. Young people are often only concerned with the short term and think little about adulthood. Important choices therefore cannot be left to children. They should be made to learn a language.
A pupil may have a hidden talent for languages. If languages are not compulsory, they would never find this hidden talent. All pupils should be made to learn languages, to see if this is something they are good at.
Many pupils think foreign languages are hard. They think that they will get lower grades than other students if they choose to do languages, rather than “easier” subjects. The solution is to make everyone study a language. This would mean that pupils would not be worried about people getting better grades by picking easier subjects.
In the short term, it might be hard to find teachers. However, modern languages graduates could be given extra money to encourage them to become teachers. In a mobile world, it is also easy to attract teachers from another country to teach their native language abroad. In the long term, making languages compulsory at schools would solve this problem. If languages were compulsory at schools, more people would study them at university and more people would become language teachers.
Cons
Other skills are more important to the economy. Many young people are hardly able to do simple sums or read and write in their own language. More time should be spent on these basic skills, not foreign languages. Not all workers need to know foreign languages. There is therefore no point in making everyone learn them.
It should be up to the individual to decide what is useful for them to study. A pupil may not want a job that would need a foreign language. It is wrong for the state to tell people what is important for them. Cultural understanding can be gained in other subjects (e.g. History, Religious Studies, Geography).
Young people have to learn to make choices. If they do not realise the benefits of learning languages, these benefits should be explained to them. It is better that pupils choose to do languages. If a pupil chooses to study a language, they are more likely to be keen and interested than if it is something they are forced to do. In any case, many adults do successfully learn new languages through evening classes or distance-learning courses. So choices made at school will not limit someone’s options for the rest of their life.
It is not necessary to learn a language all the way through school to find out if you have a hidden talent for it. A short “taster course” is enough to find this out. For every pupil who turns out to have a hidden talent in languages, there are many who do not. It is bad to force people with little interest or ability to study languages. These pupils are likely to be bored in language classes. They could better spend their time learning other things. They are likely to be disruptive to the pupils who actually want to learn.
If languages are harder than other subjects, this is an argument for changing the grades awarded for language papers. The curriculum for language courses could also be made less difficult. A language course should be no harder or easier than any other subject. This is not a reason to make languages compulsory.
There is currently a shortage of language teachers in many countries. If foreign languages were compulsory, even more language teachers would be needed. This would mean that unqualified staff would have to teach language classes. It is unlikely that such staff would be able to teach pupils well or make them interested in languages.
Pros
Foreign languages are important for the economy. The more languages someone can speak, the more places they can work. Foreign language skills help companies do business with other countries. It is especially important that children whose native language is not widely spoken (e.g. Dutch, Danish) learn other languages. However, it is also important for English-speakers to learn foreign languages, since not everyone speaks English. And it is polite to be able to speak some of another person’s language. Governments should try to promote economic growth. Since languages are important for the economy, governments should make all young people learn them.
Foreign languages are important for the individual pupil. Employers value people who are able to speak more than one language. Learning a language will therefore help students get good jobs when they are older. It will also increase their understanding of other cultures.
Pupils cannot decide for themselves what is important. Most do not realise that knowledge of another language will help them in almost any job. For some jobs it is essential. It is hard to learn a language in adulthood, because of time pressures and because the brain becomes less flexible. It is therefore very useful to learn a language when young. Young people are often only concerned with the short term and think little about adulthood. Important choices therefore cannot be left to children. They should be made to learn a language.
A pupil may have a hidden talent for languages. If languages are not compulsory, they would never find this hidden talent. All pupils should be made to learn languages, to see if this is something they are good at.
Many pupils think foreign languages are hard. They think that they will get lower grades than other students if they choose to do languages, rather than “easier” subjects. The solution is to make everyone study a language. This would mean that pupils would not be worried about people getting better grades by picking easier subjects.
In the short term, it might be hard to find teachers. However, modern languages graduates could be given extra money to encourage them to become teachers. In a mobile world, it is also easy to attract teachers from another country to teach their native language abroad. In the long term, making languages compulsory at schools would solve this problem. If languages were compulsory at schools, more people would study them at university and more people would become language teachers.
Cons
Other skills are more important to the economy. Many young people are hardly able to do simple sums or read and write in their own language. More time should be spent on these basic skills, not foreign languages. Not all workers need to know foreign languages. There is therefore no point in making everyone learn them.
It should be up to the individual to decide what is useful for them to study. A pupil may not want a job that would need a foreign language. It is wrong for the state to tell people what is important for them. Cultural understanding can be gained in other subjects (e.g. History, Religious Studies, Geography).
Young people have to learn to make choices. If they do not realise the benefits of learning languages, these benefits should be explained to them. It is better that pupils choose to do languages. If a pupil chooses to study a language, they are more likely to be keen and interested than if it is something they are forced to do. In any case, many adults do successfully learn new languages through evening classes or distance-learning courses. So choices made at school will not limit someone’s options for the rest of their life.
It is not necessary to learn a language all the way through school to find out if you have a hidden talent for it. A short “taster course” is enough to find this out. For every pupil who turns out to have a hidden talent in languages, there are many who do not. It is bad to force people with little interest or ability to study languages. These pupils are likely to be bored in language classes. They could better spend their time learning other things. They are likely to be disruptive to the pupils who actually want to learn.
If languages are harder than other subjects, this is an argument for changing the grades awarded for language papers. The curriculum for language courses could also be made less difficult. A language course should be no harder or easier than any other subject. This is not a reason to make languages compulsory.
There is currently a shortage of language teachers in many countries. If foreign languages were compulsory, even more language teachers would be needed. This would mean that unqualified staff would have to teach language classes. It is unlikely that such staff would be able to teach pupils well or make them interested in languages.
GD
School Uniform
The question of whether children should wear a uniform to school always makes for a lively debate, and not only among students! In some countries school uniform is normal and most schools make their students wear one. Britain is the most obvious example of this, but in many other countries with strong links to Britain uniform often has to be worn to school - examples include Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Africa and many other African countries. Uniform is also required at almost all schools in Japan. In other countries, particularly in continental Europe, the USA and Canada, uniform is very rare in state-funded schools, although private schools may have one.Debates about school uniform have been going on for decades in different countries and districts, but during the 1990s state schools in the USA began to adopt uniforms. At first uniform rules were seen as a way of stopping children dressing in gang colours in troubled urban areas. Later, claims that introducing uniform leads to better discipline and educational results encouraged other school districts and schools to make a change. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have been in favour of school uniforms. Other countries have picked up on this trend - for example, there has been talk of making German children wear uniforms.This topic looks at a very large number of arguments about uniforms. Not all of these will apply in every country or school, so take care only to select the ones that are relevant for your debate. The proposition (affirmative or government) side here is arguing for uniforms to be scrapped, but the case could easily be reversed if your debate is about introducing uniforms instead.
Arguments
Pros
We all have a right to individuality, to make personal choices and to express our personality. This right of free expression includes the way we choose to dress. Making everyone wear the same school uniform infringes on (goes against) our rights and is a misuse of authority. The right to choose what to wear is particularly important for young people, who often have few other ways of expressing their personality or making choices about their lives.
There is no good evidence that links school uniform to improved results. A few schools in the USA reported better test scores after they started having uniform, but most of these made other changes to the running of the school which could have helped instead. Studies looking at lots of schools, with and without uniform, have not found any link between what children wear and school results.
Only a few inner-city schools have had problems with children wearing “gang colours”. Many of these have got rid of the problem not by introducing uniform, but by simply having a dress code which bans such gang clothes and symbols. In fact, uniform boosts a “gang state of mind” by marking children out and dividing students from different schools against each other. This can increase conflict between young people outside school, leading to bullying and violence.
Uniform is often not practical or pleasant to wear. Designs are often old-fashioned and ugly. Clothes that are designed to be worn by all shapes and sizes of student fit no one really well. For cheapness uniform items are often made of polycottons which are hot in warm weather but don’t keep children properly warm in winter. Children in uncomfortable outfits are unlikely to learn much.
There is no proper research that shows that introducing uniform cuts crime in schools. Uniforms can actually lead to more violence, as they make students from rival schools much more obvious in the street or on the bus. “Us-and-them” feelings are made worse by uniform, and bullying and fighting between students from different schools can increase.
Forcing children to wear uniform can ignore their religious and cultural needs. For example, Sikh boys, Orthodox Jews and Islamic girls all express their religious beliefs through the way they dress, and uniform stops them doing this. In particular, school uniforms are often not modest enough in covering the female body to suit Muslims. Taking away this freedom of religious expression can also lead parents to choose private faith schools, limiting integration and the mixing of different cultures.
Very few countries feel the need to put most of their children in school uniforms. Mostly it is a British thing not shared by the rest of the world. Outside Britain, most schools with uniforms are private schools trying to set themselves apart from the state education system. Uniform is almost unknown in European countries, yet their schools often have high standards of behaviour and learning. Until the 1990s uniform was very rare in the USA. Since then some US schools and districts have introduced uniform, but the large majority of schools still do not have it. Some of those which did adopt uniform have since given up on it again.
Uniforms are expensive and can be hard for parents to afford - it is like a tax on sending your child to school. After all, it is not as if children won’t need other clothes too, for evenings, weekends and holidays. Special clothes like uniforms are only produced in small quantities, and so are more costly than normal clothes. Often, they can only be bought from one or two special shops, which also pushes the price up. The cost of uniform often means that parents dislike it and it can lead to a bad relationship between them and the school.
Schools waste a lot of time trying to enforce uniform rules. Because children don’t like wearing uniform, they fight against it in many clever ways (e.g. shortening skirts, wearing non-regulation shoes and hosiery, tying their ties in funny ways, etc.). Schools in the US often allow parents an “opt-out” from uniform, which means teachers have to check what list a child is on at the start of every lesson.
Rather than introduce school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colours, very short skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc
Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working. Only a few jobs require uniforms, and many of these are low-paid service jobs - not what we want our young people to aim for. After all, their main role-models at school - the teachers - don’t have to wear a uniform. Well-paid jobs used to require a suit, but this has been changing in recent years and smart-casual clothes are much more common now. Even if you have to wear a suit, you still have a huge choice of styles, colour and accessories with which to express your personality. This isn’t true of school uniform.
The question of whether children should wear a uniform to school always makes for a lively debate, and not only among students! In some countries school uniform is normal and most schools make their students wear one. Britain is the most obvious example of this, but in many other countries with strong links to Britain uniform often has to be worn to school - examples include Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Africa and many other African countries. Uniform is also required at almost all schools in Japan. In other countries, particularly in continental Europe, the USA and Canada, uniform is very rare in state-funded schools, although private schools may have one.Debates about school uniform have been going on for decades in different countries and districts, but during the 1990s state schools in the USA began to adopt uniforms. At first uniform rules were seen as a way of stopping children dressing in gang colours in troubled urban areas. Later, claims that introducing uniform leads to better discipline and educational results encouraged other school districts and schools to make a change. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have been in favour of school uniforms. Other countries have picked up on this trend - for example, there has been talk of making German children wear uniforms.This topic looks at a very large number of arguments about uniforms. Not all of these will apply in every country or school, so take care only to select the ones that are relevant for your debate. The proposition (affirmative or government) side here is arguing for uniforms to be scrapped, but the case could easily be reversed if your debate is about introducing uniforms instead.
Arguments
Pros
We all have a right to individuality, to make personal choices and to express our personality. This right of free expression includes the way we choose to dress. Making everyone wear the same school uniform infringes on (goes against) our rights and is a misuse of authority. The right to choose what to wear is particularly important for young people, who often have few other ways of expressing their personality or making choices about their lives.
There is no good evidence that links school uniform to improved results. A few schools in the USA reported better test scores after they started having uniform, but most of these made other changes to the running of the school which could have helped instead. Studies looking at lots of schools, with and without uniform, have not found any link between what children wear and school results.
Only a few inner-city schools have had problems with children wearing “gang colours”. Many of these have got rid of the problem not by introducing uniform, but by simply having a dress code which bans such gang clothes and symbols. In fact, uniform boosts a “gang state of mind” by marking children out and dividing students from different schools against each other. This can increase conflict between young people outside school, leading to bullying and violence.
Uniform is often not practical or pleasant to wear. Designs are often old-fashioned and ugly. Clothes that are designed to be worn by all shapes and sizes of student fit no one really well. For cheapness uniform items are often made of polycottons which are hot in warm weather but don’t keep children properly warm in winter. Children in uncomfortable outfits are unlikely to learn much.
There is no proper research that shows that introducing uniform cuts crime in schools. Uniforms can actually lead to more violence, as they make students from rival schools much more obvious in the street or on the bus. “Us-and-them” feelings are made worse by uniform, and bullying and fighting between students from different schools can increase.
Forcing children to wear uniform can ignore their religious and cultural needs. For example, Sikh boys, Orthodox Jews and Islamic girls all express their religious beliefs through the way they dress, and uniform stops them doing this. In particular, school uniforms are often not modest enough in covering the female body to suit Muslims. Taking away this freedom of religious expression can also lead parents to choose private faith schools, limiting integration and the mixing of different cultures.
Very few countries feel the need to put most of their children in school uniforms. Mostly it is a British thing not shared by the rest of the world. Outside Britain, most schools with uniforms are private schools trying to set themselves apart from the state education system. Uniform is almost unknown in European countries, yet their schools often have high standards of behaviour and learning. Until the 1990s uniform was very rare in the USA. Since then some US schools and districts have introduced uniform, but the large majority of schools still do not have it. Some of those which did adopt uniform have since given up on it again.
Uniforms are expensive and can be hard for parents to afford - it is like a tax on sending your child to school. After all, it is not as if children won’t need other clothes too, for evenings, weekends and holidays. Special clothes like uniforms are only produced in small quantities, and so are more costly than normal clothes. Often, they can only be bought from one or two special shops, which also pushes the price up. The cost of uniform often means that parents dislike it and it can lead to a bad relationship between them and the school.
Schools waste a lot of time trying to enforce uniform rules. Because children don’t like wearing uniform, they fight against it in many clever ways (e.g. shortening skirts, wearing non-regulation shoes and hosiery, tying their ties in funny ways, etc.). Schools in the US often allow parents an “opt-out” from uniform, which means teachers have to check what list a child is on at the start of every lesson.
Rather than introduce school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colours, very short skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc
Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working. Only a few jobs require uniforms, and many of these are low-paid service jobs - not what we want our young people to aim for. After all, their main role-models at school - the teachers - don’t have to wear a uniform. Well-paid jobs used to require a suit, but this has been changing in recent years and smart-casual clothes are much more common now. Even if you have to wear a suit, you still have a huge choice of styles, colour and accessories with which to express your personality. This isn’t true of school uniform.
Cons
Having all the students wearing the same uniform helps to create a sense of belonging and a good school ethos (culture or spirit). By showing that the school expects high standards, expectations are raised and students respond with better behaviour. US schools which introduced school uniform reported improved discipline.
Schools with uniforms obtain better educational results. This is because there is better discipline and so the school setting makes learning easier. Without the distraction of checking out what all the other students are wearing (or how much flesh they are showing), students find it easier to concentrate and do better in tests.
Uniform is a social leveller - it makes all the children at a school equal no matter what their family background or income. If students can choose their own clothes, then the rich kids compete to show off their expensive designer labels and costly sneakers (trainers). Children from poorer families get picked on for not being able to afford lots of pricey outfits.Schools in the USA have used uniform to overcome the problem of students wearing “gang colours” if they were allowed to choose their own clothes. Clothes with particular colours or symbols marked rival groups of students out as linked to street gangs. This often led to fighting inside and outside the classroom. If everyone has to wear the same clothes to school, this problem is removed.
Uniform has practical advantages. Students don’t have to waste time thinking what to wear at the start of each school day. The clothes are designed to be comfortable and safe, with no long trailing sleeves, skirts or hoods to catch on dangerous equipment in workshops or science lessons. It is also very helpful on trips as staff can quickly spot all the students from their school, keeping them out of trouble and making sure no one gets lost.
Introducing uniform can reduce crime in schools, especially violence and theft. Headteachers at several US schools report lower levels of violence and crime after uniforms were introduced. This is partly due to better discipline, but also because students no longer come to school wearing desirable designer clothes or $100 trainers (sneakers).Uniform also helps makes schools safer as it makes intruders much easier to spot. Anyone not in uniform can easily be seen and reported.
School uniform can satisfy religious and cultural needs. In areas with lots of children from different backgrounds (such as British cities) it is common to consult parents and the local community. For example, Muslim girls can be allowed to wear loose long trousers and tops in school colours, instead of the skirts or dresses worn by other female students.
School uniform is a tradition worth keeping. In countries like Britain many schools have had uniforms for over a hundred years. The exact clothes can be updated with the times, but the overall look of the uniform provides a link with the school’s past. Wearing it encourages pride in the school and gives out a good image to outsiders.
Uniform is usually cheaper than letting children choose what they will wear to school. Young people feel pressure to dress in the latest thing and not to wear the same outfit often. This often leads their parents to spend 100s of dollars on clothes each year. With uniform taking away this pressure, there is usually a much smaller overall cost for the parents. Families who are hard-up can often get help with the cost of uniform, or buy it second-hand. For these reason parents often like uniform. At some schools it is parents groups that start campaigns to introduce it.
Students will always kick against the system, whatever that is. If there is a dress code instead of a uniform, they will try to bend those rules instead. For example, how short a skirt is too short? Are crop-tops allowed? What about hats or hoods which hide the student’s face? Most problems of enforcing uniform rules in the USA are because uniform is voluntary, or students are allowed an opt-out from it. If uniform must be worn by everyone there is much less confusion and enforcing the rules is quicker and simpler.
Having a uniform helps students and parents resist peer pressure. In schools with no uniform, children may feel the need to dress in certain ways in order to fit in. This can often mean buying a lot of expensive and fashionable clothes that families cannot really afford. It can also mean girls being pressured into wearing skimpy clothes to try and look sexy at a very young age. It could even include Muslim girls feeling that they must wear a headscarf even though they don’t want to.
Wearing a uniform helps to prepare students for the world of work, where uniforms are often worn. People like nurses, soldiers, shop assistants, the police and railway staff wear uniform as part of their job. Many other workers are expected to wear suits - really just a grown up sort of uniform, with little choice about it. Just like these adults, students should dress in uniform when they are in school, getting on with work. After all, students and adults can both change into their own casual clothes at the end of the working day, when they are “off duty”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
