> I thought that it was generally accepted by now that homework in the volumes that it is being assigned in the modern day was not found to be beneficial in any significant way in the first place?

Citation needed? I have no clue where you got this from. I hadn't even heard of it as a conjecture, let alone as something anyone accepted, let alone as gene rally accepted...

How do you expect students to learn anything when:

1. They don't do any homework.

2. All the in-class time is split between the teacher babysitting and playing social worker to problem students, and lecturing, with little to no opportunity to actually practice what they've learned?

I understand that some students don't have home environments that are conductive to doing homework well. I understand that some students are enrolled in five hours a day of extracurricular university-application-padding activities. I understand that some students have incredibly poor screen discipline and impulse control.

But I don't understand that anyone has magically figured out how to teach complicated things to students, and have it stick without them spending a lot of time practicing what they are learning.

As anyone who has tried to do something hard knows, the first step to being good at something is to spend a lot of time being pretty shit at it.

A student who has written and received feedback on 500,000 written words is going to be way better at writing than that same student who wrote 50,000, just like someone who has put 5,000 hours of focused practice into playing the piano is going to be better than my dumb ass, who has only put 100 hours in.

(If you found the solution to get good at stuff without practicing it, I'd love to get good at piano without putting any homework in on it.)

All play and no work makes for an even more dysfunctional society. Kids need to do their homework, both to train their minds but also to develop integrity and work ethic. Being able to diligently work toward a distant goal is not something you're born with.