I think not all actions against bullying should be dealt with by the schools. People often like to push this responsibility onto schools. Kelly Wickham, an assistant principal/guidance dean, wrote on article on shine.yahoo.com and in it states, "If it is off school grounds, it's not a school issue. It becomes the school's issue when the bullying is carried over and fallout from it affects the learning environment. Kids are bullying each other online, through text messages, and by way of using many apps. Those issues make it harder for us to dole out consequences when they are happening in the evening and on weekends. That's not the school's domain, so we don't have jurisdiction. I've gotten myself in plenty of hot water trying to discipline a child for something they did while in the care of their parents. When it occurs and detrimentally affects the academic achievement of students and disrupts classroom instruction, then schools can get involved. Schools are responsible for responding to issues that take place in the classroom and at school-related events (sports, concerts, etc…) but not for things that take place on social media or off school grounds if the problems don't follow students to school." I believe that hearing from a school employee exactly what the school can and can not do makes a difference when deciding what actions should be taken when confronting this issue.

According to community.ally.com paying kids to do better in school can have various results depending on how the money is distributed. Roland Fryer, a Harvard economist who conducted a 2010 study, concluded that just paying students money for good grades might not work because they may not know how to go about getting good grades but rather should pay students for doing things they can control like turning in their work and reading would be a be a better alternative. This article also states that we don't know the long-term impact of using money as an incentive. "It may be difficult for children to recognize the long-term impact of a good performance in school when they're only anticipating their next 'paycheck.'" Will students grades fall once they stop getting paid to do well? Are students able to understand the importance of doing well just because they should if they're getting paid? These are a few questions that are commonly asked.

I can actually see both sides of this argument but I decided to defend the idea of keeping homework because I think it can still be constructive. www.ascd.org stated that if a district or school discards homework altogether it will be throwing away a powerful instructional tool. In the article I read it talked about how homework can still be an effective form of learning if teachers are assigning it appropriately and using it to see what students might need more help without the student having to ask for it. There are lots of negatives to homework such as stress, exhaustion, and possible loss of interest in learning but only when given in excessive amount with little value. "Perhaps the most important advantage of homework is that it can enhance achievement by extending learning beyond the school day. This characteristic is important because U.S. students spend much less time studying academic content than students in other countries do. A 1994 report examined the amount of time U.S. students spend studying core academic subjects compared with students in other countries that typically outperform the United States academically, such as Japan, Germany, and France." I'd agree that homework can add extra stress to students' lives but later when they have jobs they will also have to deal with the stress of the tasks assigned with the job. Homework has been a endless debate for decades.