Compulsory education

[thunderstruck]

Hi.

As I said in the welcome topic, I'm new here. And I signed up to discuss the viewpoint of whether or not school should be mandatory or not.

As teachers, I'm sure you've experienced annoyance at students. Certainly, the job is to teach, and therein lies the passion. However, in my time I've heard many teachers complain about the unruly nature of students. It is, eventually, decided that it's either "just a phase", or the fact that teenagers are just like that anyway. Whatever the result, many teachers agree that teenagers have very little to complain about.

Particularly, when the students fail. The students must simply try harder, say the teachers. We must encourage them to get better marks, say the teachers.

Now, the teachers are not responsible for those who are forced to attend school. The teachers are not the ones who keep them there, the law is what keeps them there.

We've all concocted theories so as to "improve" the educational system as it stands. However, I believe the problem in school is the fact that the student has no choice in their attendance. They MUST go, under fear of persecution under the law. Under the name of "education", this sickens me.

This is also the reason that some people don't do well in school. They would much rather be doing something else, doing something that they're interested in, but they have to do the school's work. They then get uninterested, don't do the work, and fail their classes. It has nothing to do with being "troubled" or "defiant".

I had more I wanted to say, but that will do, I think, for now.

[Want2Teach]

Compulsory education would be much more successful if compulsory parenting were also required.

I believe that every child has the right to an education, but by the same token no child has the right to disrupt or otherwise diminish another child's ability to take advantage of the educational opportunities being offered.

If the government is going to require those students who are uninterested in learning, those who do attend but their greatest accomplishment is the disruption they cause and those who refuse to follow the rules of the school or classroom to attend, they should require the parents of those children to act as parents. This would require the parent to see that the children are prepared for class, are not disruptive to others and are not disrespectful or violent to the teachers.

Compulsory education, compulsory parenting....it might work.

[Clix]

What would happen to the children - sayyy... those between 6-8 years of age - who decide they do not want to go to school? I know of very, VERY few kids who do not at SOME point or other have that feeling.

[smithmt]

I'm a big fan of four new policy changes

All US citizens MUST be a substitute teacher for one (1) year before being allowed to procreate;
If you receive a zero (0) on any one (1) assignment in any one (1) class, you are expelled from your current institution;
If you do not have a high school diploma/GED, you do not qualify for social services;
If your son/daughter is removed from school (K-12) by expulsion OR dropping out, you become disqualified for social services.


With this list, the US of A would be a perfect place... or at least education would be.

(by the way, this is mostly joke... it would be nice, but mostly joke)

[MissTeach]

I believe the problem in America is that many do not hold knowledge as an important part of their life. We are more concerned with our children receiving good grades than we are about them receiving knowledge. Other countries hold knowledge as a top priority. I don't know how to change this problem, but I wish I did!!!

[thunderstruck]

I find the process of continually typing in "quote" to be very long, so I'll just answer by quoting what you said in quotation marks. It's not to be condescending.

"This would require the parent to see that the children are prepared for class, are not disruptive to others and are not disrespectful or violent to the teachers."

Yes, but what about the student? Nobody ever asks the students, I feel, and therein lies a major problem. No one ever asks if they're happy at school. They just send them there and give them hell if they get a bad report card.

"What would happen to the children - sayyy... those between 6-8 years of age - who decide they do not want to go to school? I know of very, VERY few kids who do not at SOME point or other have that feeling."

I know that the argument to this is often "you can't always get what you want in life", but I'm going to say it anyway: maybe school isn't such a great place to be, under the way it is? I've been in debates with some people, and brought up the notion that school shouldn't be mandatory, and they always assume that the end result of this, the ideal result, is that the child goes to school. Which defeats my point in the first place. I think school can be a potentially good thing, but not if you're forced to go.

Also, another argument is that the children won't know what's best for them. Apart from the fact that many adults don't know what's best for them, they can discover it as they develop. The child doesn't really develop in school. I feel mandatory education teaches a child to follow authority, no matter what the situation. I'm not saying that school is a deliberate form of brainwashing (although the system the Prussians introduced certainly was, to benefit the labor force), but the fact is that it's made more difficult to improve a personality at school, due to the restrictions. Nobody is asking you to make life changing decisions between 6-8, anyway.

"We are more concerned with our children receiving good grades than we are about them receiving knowledge"

And this I agree with. The student, believe it or not, has absolutely no power in schools. This explains why many of them are so miserable. It doesn't matter if somebody believes that they would be better off learning under another environment: if they do not go to school, they will be escorted there by truancy officers. If this is in the name of "education"... I feel sorry for the situation at hand.

[Clix]

Sorry... I read your reply, but I didn't see where you actually answered my question (although you did respond to it).

What happens to children who choose not to go to school but do not have a stay-at-home guardian?

[AWOL]

There could be a sort of governmen institution for children who wish not to go to school, they go there if they have shown that they are too immature to stay at home. They don' do school work but they do work that they want to do. If they don't bring work then they are given school work. Simple and effective.

[thunderstruck]

Clix: I did initially respond to your response, because I was answering it in a specific other context.

As for the stay at home parent or guardian thing, yes, that could prove to be an issue, and perhaps school may in those situations be one of the better options. However, better that than mandating school for everybody, I think.

[Want2Teach]

Thunderstruck,

If you have been able to live your entire life only in situations you "enjoy", I'm happy for you. If you've ever had to do something that you'd rather not have to do, then you've been in the same predicament many children find themselves in.

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do what needs to be done, and everyone should learn this lesson. School is a good place to start.

[Clix]

*grin* Maybe if the alternative to school was a forced-labor camp, school wouldn't seem so bad... >;)

I mean, really. I love my job. I do. But if my husband and I were given a choice between working and staying at home and reading or playing on the computer or whatever... well... to put it bluntly, DUH!

[Boxcar]

Okay... Who staffs this instituation for those too young developmentally to be at home? What an unpleasant job: watching a bunch of kids playing video games while you sit and do nothing.

Hey, I'm all for learning through play. However, there still needs to be some sort of structure...

[smithmt]

I think that the problem was well address by Miss teach. Knowledge for it's own sake is not valued. My aunt went to college to better herself and not to get a better job... you could say she went for her MRS degree... but she was thrilled (in the 1950's) to go to a non-teaching college that accepted women as equals (or almost equals) to the men. now, we have kids that only go to college for the frat parties and those that figure it out, graduate.

no student wants to better them self as a person, they believe that mediocrity is not only accepted, but encouraged! they can't express themselves, they can't think for them self, nor can they tell you where they got their view.

AWOL,
It's an interesting idea, but with 70% of the job market requiring a college degree to be employed, the kids not wanting to go to school would quickly overwhelm the workforce... and with an unemployment rate of 5% (5% of all US citizens who are actively looking for work; not to be confused with people are currently out of a job) that number would balloon once you include all the students and those adults that were replaced by students.

A couple of questions:


Where would the funding from this program come from?
(currently, social benefit programs are under-funded and the employees are over-worked.)
Should we garnish their wages until they're the age of dropping out of school to support the program?
How would you address the Republicans fighting your idea because they think it is too "Big Government?"

AWOL, have you every tried to get a summer job? the venues that will hire teens is limited, and if you wait until June to serch, odds are, you won't get a job that summer. I could see this program doing the same thing, but it would be year round.

Also, how would we protect the rights of the youth who are working? because they are no longer in school, their parents' health, and car insurance would have the right to drop the youth from their coverage... if the students are working less than 40 hours a week, the employer is not required to offer them insurance through the company. They would be out of luck, or as my students would text: SOL.

[smithmt]

*grin* Maybe if the alternative to school was a forced-labor camp, school wouldn't seem so bad... >;)

I mean, really. I love my job. I do. But if my husband and I were given a choice between working and staying at home and reading or playing on the computer or whatever... well... to put it bluntly, DUH!

then what? a Nazi style death camp?!? School would totally ROCK by comparison.

at my school we already have a separate campus where students are sent if they break the rules deserving more than ISS. They dress in uniforms and work out of packets and take classes about being a good citizen... it's almost 1984-ish.

"... and he loved Big Brother."

[Boxcar]

There are students that want to better themselves...

[smithmt]

forgive me... I keep forgetting my Guru's words...

All generalizations are dangerous... especially this one.
-Mark Twain

I meant to say that a popular trend in United States education is that children are biding their time until they get out, like it's a prison sentence and they're making tally marks on the walls until time's up. As opposed to wanting to get ahead for the sake of being a better person.

[Boxcar]

I hear what you're saying...

[thunderstruck]

I will reply to some of the other replies later, but for now I want to address the "you can't always get what you want in life" argument. It's used a lot, and clearly here as well.

Sure, being an idealist is often unrealistic in a variety of situations. However, what people tend to forget in this particular situation is that there is middle ground. People in general assume that people who disagree with the school system don't realize that they "can't always get what they want". I think that is a fairly big assumption. Yes, perhaps in those situations idealistic thinking of that order isn't the correct course of action. But still, it's worth it to improve the world, in however ways one can.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that not going to school does not necessarily mean that the person will sit at home all day, playing video games. There are many creative and bright people, making this statement erroneous. Intelligence and creativity does not come solely from school. In fact, the reason that this argument is used is because some teachers see (and indeed some people, I don't want to just narrow it down to teachers) that the kids are not interested in school work. They see this as not being interested in work PERIOD, and so focus on "better and more efficient" ways to get them to school. And school isn't for everyone. It may be for some people, but people by nature are different.

So, no. The idea that not going to school means that you will not do anything of value is false.

[SS Rocks!]

I understand the statement that school isn't for everyone. I have a handfull of students who really aren't thriving in school. While they aren't doing a great job in school I think that making school attendance optional would be detrimental to them. None of these students have the desire or motivation to continue to better themselves.

I think an option would be to have an alternative to regular school for students like this. Perhaps some form of technical school for pre-high school students. Regardless of whether a student "likes" school or not, it is necessary to help them develop skills that we all need in life. Not just reading, writing and math, but social skills and problem solving.

[Want2Teach]

Perhaps school isn't for everyone. That is why compulsory attendance ends at 18. Surely you don't advocate allowing a 10 year old child to decide whether or not to attend school.

A high school education never hurt anyone. College is optional, and by the time a student graduates high school he should possess the analytical skills to determine whether CONTINUING his education is practical.

[thunderstruck]

"None of these students have the desire or motivation to continue to better themselves."

How do you know that?

"it is necessary to help them develop skills that we all need in life"

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean an institution.

"Perhaps school isn't for everyone. That is why compulsory attendance ends at 18. Surely you don't advocate allowing a 10 year old child to decide whether or not to attend school."

But that still mandates it for everyone up to that age; and, yes, I do.

"A high school education never hurt anyone."

I thought mine was a waste of time. School makes some kids feel depressed, and since they can't get out of it because the law has already decided for them, it just worsens the situation.

"he should possess the analytical skills to determine whether CONTINUING his education is practical."

Yes, but that doesn't mean school is the only way of doing it.

[Clix]

I still want to know what sort of alternative is being suggested for 6-8 year olds who do not want to go to school and do not have stay-at-home parents.

[thunderstruck]

Clix: I did answer that question - I'm not sure on that myself. Perhaps school in those instances is necessary. If there's nobody at home it can be difficult to be self righteous and simply go on about optional schooling.

[thunderstruck]

While I'm on this topic, there's a speech that a university professor did, highlighting the detriments of the school system: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

When I say "detriments", again I want to say that I'm not here to viciously attack the school system, to fulfill the kind of teenager stereotype. I believe that it needs to be changed, but I want to do this respectfully. So, don't get the wrong idea when I say "highlighting the detriments".

[Clix]

Whoops! My bad - I didn't notice that. :)

Thanks for being so up-front!

[MissTeach]

I think an option would be to have an alternative to regular school for students like this. Perhaps some form of technical school for pre-high school students. Regardless of whether a student "likes" school or not, it is necessary to help them develop skills that we all need in life. Not just reading, writing and math, but social skills and problem solving.


I agree that our school systems should offer some type of technical training! We should offer training in computers, culinary arts, mechanics, art, etc. I would have been better off in a technical school when I was in high school!!

[BobManPerson]

I beleive this world would be a better place if there were no school. If instead, people could learn what they wanted to, on their own time, instead of being forced to memorize things that are not relevent to their interests.

[Boxcar]

Okay... I want to recommend a theorist to you. Piaget has a concept called "the little scientist". This means that children up until and through adolescence are learning through thier own devices. They do not need adult support. Perhaps you might want to look into Piaget a little bit...

[SS Rocks!]

"None of these students have the desire or motivation to continue to better themselves."

How do you know that?


I had a select few students in mind when I said this. I think that requiring these students to attend school prevents them from becoming a burden on society. At the same time, I also have a handfull of students that I think really could thrive in an environment where they guide themselves.

thunderstruck, while I don't necessarily agree with educational anarchy, I see where you're coming from. The system we have is flawed but I don't see any type of positive reform in the near future.


I beleive this world would be a better place if there were no school. If instead, people could learn what they wanted to, on their own time, instead of being forced to memorize things that are not relevent to their interests.

It's a shame that all you're exposed to at school is memorization. It's no wonder you're not enjoying your experience.

[Bananas]

I am for some school reform and alternatives, but I do not think that making school an option is too beneficial. Too many would regret their decisions later in life, and it would be much harder to make up for the lost time. Sure, some would explore the areas that interest them, others would not do too much. Who would pay for their attempts to be better educated in life? Would there be a need for benefits for them on taxpayer's money? Our national/state budgets are already bursting at the seam. What would happen to society when too many people have gaps in their skills/education to make it in the work force? Do we have generations lose out with the ability to work under an authority figure having not been shaped within the school environment?

I just do not see telling my own two children that they could choose to go to school or not. As a parent, I was the one responsible to make the decisions. I has more rules in place while they were younger. As they became older, rules changed, and they assumed more responsibility in their eyes with us more as resources.

Choosing such a huge decision as not going to school and thinking you will self-educate or find another means might work for a minority. Many who are not thriving within the school system probably won't find it much different on their own. I would be afraid that it would set up society with even more problems in the long run.