Should school be compulsory?

[SleepyWitch]

Hey guys,
for those who don't know my background: I'm currently training to be a secondary school teacher in the UK.
The other day, I had a conversation with my tutor and he said that maybe one day school won't even be compulsory anymore. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to ask him what he meant. There are two possible scenarios:
1. school is not compulsory, but if young people decide against school, they have to do some sort of training or apprenticeship.
2. no form of education or training is compulsory, if young people opt against school, they are not obliged to take training and can stay at home.

I must admit, I rather liked the idea of school not being compulsory, because so many pupils (and parents) don't care about education at all and disrupt the lessons, making it difficult for everyone else to learn. If school was not compulsory, only the ones who do care would show up, which would create a much more stress-free learning environment for both pupils and teachers.
But what would happen to those who don't go to school (especially in scenario 2)? I suspect that these would mainly be the pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those whose parents consciously opt to receive welfare rather than look for work. I.e. especially those pupils for whose benefit compulsory, free, state schooling was invented would suffer from the abolition of compulsory education. But on the other hand, it seems to be mainly middle class people who care about equal opportunities etc, wile many of those who are intended to benefit from such schemes do not make use of the opportunities offered to them. Generally speaking, I've come to conclude that people eventually solve their own problems if left to their own devices. Whereas if there is no incentive/ no negative consequences, they will just waste their opportunities. So maybe, if compulsory schooling was abolished, those parents would finally realize that their children need an education and would encourage them to go to school. On the other hand, it would probably take a few years, if not decades, for people from such backgrounds to realize this and meanwhile the children would suffer because of their parents' unwise decisions and attitudes. So I'm not sure whether it would be socially responsible to abolish compulsory schooling altogether, because children are not mature enough to decide to go to school anyway and irresponsible parents would make the decision for them.
What do you think? Can you think of any alternative models that would give everyone equal opportunities?
(Mods, please don't move this to the teachers' forum, because I want to get replies from members from all walks of life)

[Lote-Tree]

Hey guys,
for those who don't know my background: I'm currently training to be a secondary school teacher in the UK.


Witchy you still around?

And here in the UK to be a teacher?

Sweetlord!

Can you possibly teach the chav generation here?

Good luck!

And yes school needs to be compulsory! how else would you keep the chavs off the streets? ;-)

[TheFifthElement]

School isn't compulsory in UK, though education is compulsory. We've very seriously considered home schooling for my son and in my county (Lancashire) home schooling has increased by a third in the last three years.

I think there should be more options than a purely academic education for 13+ year olds. By that age you can probably make a good judgement whether academia is right for that person or not. I also think some social change is needed - for some reason a person's measure of intelligence is based on academic achievement but that's just rubbish. People are intelligent in different ways and it is time the educational system reflected that and worked to help children make the best of their abilities rather than trying to shoehorn every child into one thin set of parameters.

I'd be inclined to go with your option 1 that some form of education is compulsory to the age of 16 but that the educational form is not set by the curriculum. That way it opens the doors to apprenticeship or other training which suits the child's educational needs but isn't necessarily academically based. Of course measures would have to be taken to protect children from being exploited as free labour or to ensure that children aren't forced into apprenticeship to support the family income but I'm sure steps could be taken to achieve that.

[Paulclem]

Hi Fifth.

I think schools are a one stop shop, and as such don't fit a significant number of kid's needs.

I think there's got to be change in the school model - use technology better - target kid's interests - better motivation - more involvement of parents at Secondary school.

[SleepyWitch]

I think there should be more options than a purely academic education for 13+ year olds. By that age you can probably make a good judgement whether academia is right for that person or not. I also think some social change is needed - for some reason a person's measure of intelligence is based on academic achievement but that's just rubbish. People are intelligent in different ways and it is time the educational system reflected that and worked to help children make the best of their abilities rather than trying to shoehorn every child into one thin set of parameters.

I'd be inclined to go with your option 1 that some form of education is compulsory to the age of 16 but that the educational form is not set by the curriculum. That way it opens the doors to apprenticeship or other training which suits the child's educational needs but isn't necessarily academically based. Of course measures would have to be taken to protect children from being exploited as free labour or to ensure that children aren't forced into apprenticeship to support the family income but I'm sure steps could be taken to achieve that.
Interesting. Who would make that decision, though? The parents? The children? The school? I spent a week a a comprehensive school where they have 2 pathways. In Year 9, the pupils' end of year reports decide which pathway they can go on: academic (GCSE), mixed (BTEC) and vocational (diploma). They do asks the parents' and pupils' preferences, but ultimately it's the grades that decide about the pathway. What bugged me about this is a) that those on the vocational pathway can only study a limited range of subjects, e.g. they can't study foreign languages, because there are not enough places available. b) anyone who does not have good enough grades for the academic or mixed pathway is assumed to have a talent for vocational training or crafts and trades or whatever you call them. That means that the vocational pathway is still seen as inferior, because it is the default option for anyone who doesn't get the grades for the other two pathways. Plus, how can you tell that these kids have a real talent for this pathway? I mean, maybe they had Design and Technology before, but what other subjects have they studied in which they've had a chance to show that they are really good at these? Conversely, because before this selection there are not many subjects that could be relevant for any vocation, that also means that the 'high achieving' pupils never get a chance to try out whether they might not be interested in vocational training rather than academic studies.
What's more, the grades for the diploma are given as GCSE equivalents, G to D or something. So even if a pupil achieves 100% in his plumbing course, he can never get an A. The best he can get is a D, because it's compared to GCSE. So in other words, his report will only indirectly say whether he is a good or bad plumber. I asked the pathways coordinator whether this isn't frustrating for the kids and she said, it's for children who would never stand a chance of even getting a D in GCSEs. :confused::mad:

[SleepyWitch]

Witchy you still around?

And here in the UK to be a teacher?

Sweetlord!

Can you possibly teach the chav generation here?

Good luck!

And yes school needs to be compulsory! how else would you keep the chavs off the streets? ;-)

Hi Lote, how are you? Nice to see you are still around, too.
Well, I work in a Catholic grammar school for boys, so I don't get many chavs. I mainly have trouble with childish, immature middle class babies: MISS MISS MISS, there's a sixth former outside! MISS, MISS, MISS, such and such is kicking me. MISS, he's raping my food! MISS, he farted. :)

[TheFifthElement]

Hi Fifth.

I think schools are a one stop shop, and as such don't fit a significant number of kid's needs.

I think there's got to be change in the school model - use technology better - target kid's interests - better motivation - more involvement of parents at Secondary school.

I agree Paul. I think we all need to acknowledge that school, as it stands, doesn't work for a lot of kids. Perhaps school needs to have two sides to it - the supply of teaching for children who choose the academic path and the facilitation of education/skills for children who choose the non-academic path. Both should carry equal merit.


Interesting. Who would make that decision, though? The parents? The children? The school?
Ultimately I think it is the child who should decide, though that decision making process should be supported by parents and the school - i.e. the child should have access to some objective counselling/support system to help them to make the decision. 13 is not an unrealistic age to expect them to start taking responsibility for their own choices - certainly that was the way when I was a kid anyway. We all talk about wanting children to take responsibility for themselves, but balk at actually letting them. Plus after two years in secondary school they should have been able to form an opinion about whether an academic or vocational route is best for them (assuming both are taught in the first two years), and allowing them to choose for themselves is likely to increase engagement in the education that follows.


What's more, the grades for the BTEC are given as GCSE equivalents, G to C or something. So even if a pupil achieves 100% in his plumbing course, he can never get an A. The best he can get is a C, because it's compared to GCSE. So in other words, his report will only indirectly say whether he is a good or bad plumber. I asked the pathways coordinator whether this isn't frustrating for the kids and she said, it's for children who would never stand a chance of even getting a D in GCSEs. :confused::mad:
That's absolutely terrible. Imagine how much better it would be both for the child, in terms of gaining self esteem, for perception of vocational roles which are very skilled and absolutely necessary to the functioning of society, and for the consumer if there were actually qualifications which helped you measure how good a plumber someone is, or builder, or dressmaker, or baker, or farmer or whatever? It'd certainly cut down on the grief with cowboy tradesmen if the consumer could factor in their tradesman's qualifications.

[kilted exile]

Yes I believe school should be compulsory (and also team sports for every child under 16) whilst children could be home-schooled etc I think school has the added benefit of teaching children how to interact with others who may have a differing opinion etc.

[papayahed]

what if you decide you made a wrong choice can you switch learning tracks? It seems so monumental to make a kid decide on their life's work at such a young age.

[TheFifthElement]

what if you decide you made a wrong choice can you switch learning tracks? It seems so monumental to make a kid decide on their life's work at such a young age.

I wouldn't consider this any more 'set' than the current approach, rather that it gives children more opportunity to pursue non-academic forms of study within the educational system. I can only speak for UK but how it works (worked, I'm a little out of date) is that children attend secondary school from the age of 11-16. From 11-13 they study a general curriculum but at 13 they are required to select their 'options' which are the subjects they choose to study for examination purposes. Some options are set, such as maths and English, but of the others they have a choice and generally they will sit 10 exams. I'd propose that vocational options are included in this, perhaps linking with local industries to facilitate real life experience of the work involved. Children would actually be given greater choice, and their work paths will be no more or less set than they are now. It is likely that most children would choose a mixture of vocational/academic subjects. In the present system there is no such choice, children are set on a path of academic study which may be of limited use to them if they wish to enter into farming or plumbing or electrical engineering or whatever.

Just one qualification, I would still advocate both maths and english being compulsory subjects for all children regardless of whether they chose a vocational or an academic pathway, or a mixture of the two. And I still think it is critically important that vocational studies acquire the same status as academic studies.

[Paulclem]

Just one qualification, I would still advocate both maths and english being compulsory subjects for all children regardless of whether they chose a vocational or an academic pathway, or a mixture of the two. And I still think it is critically important that vocational studies acquire the same status as academic studies.

I agree with that.

It puts alot of pressure on kids who don't really realise that they don't have to finally choose anything until they are ready. I went to Uni late - 24, and it did me the world of good to have done all the socialising and realise that I did want something more than the kind of work I did. It's no bad thing to work and try out different things, and then to decide that further study is what is wanted. It's a much more rounded education.

One of the problems is that the teachers - probably predominantly middle class with a particular academic bent are not going to promote this kind of education. A narrow view I think.

[SleepyWitch]

One of the problems is that the teachers - probably predominantly middle class with a particular academic bent are not going to promote this kind of education. A narrow view I think.
I wouldn't generalize that. At that school I described above (the one with the vocational pathway), the teachers were not that narrow-minded and certainly didn't treat the vocational pathway as inferior.
Besides, the government doesn't care about teachers opinions anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem :)

[Paulclem]

I wouldn't generalize that. At that school I described above (the one with the vocational pathway), the teachers were not that narrow-minded and certainly didn't treat the vocational pathway as inferior.
Besides, the government doesn't care about teachers opinions anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem :)

You may be right - mere speculation on my part based on former experience. :D

[applepie]

Yes I believe school should be compulsory (and also team sports for every child under 16) whilst children could be home-schooled etc I think school has the added benefit of teaching children how to interact with others who may have a differing opinion etc.

I have to agree with you Kilted. School should be mandatory, and I'm very torn when I say this. I could very likely provide each of my children with a better education at home while shielding them from all the emotional hurts they'll get at school, but I think that they need the interaction of other children and the unique social situations that you find at school.

[Paulclem]

I have to agree with you Kilted. School should be mandatory, and I'm very torn when I say this. I could very likely provide each of my children with a better education at home while shielding them from all the emotional hurts they'll get at school, but I think that they need the interaction of other children and the unique social situations that you find at school.

Agreed. It was the one thing we thought most useful. Unforunately the experience was much more negative than positive. It's a hard thing to judge from outside.

I think school should be compulsory but it is basically the same kind of setup as it was 100 years ago whilst serving a very different world. Whee's the innovation and vision afforded by research and technology?

[applepie]

Agreed. It was the one thing we thought most useful. Unforunately the experience was much more negative than positive. It's a hard thing to judge from outside.

I think school should be compulsory but it is basically the same kind of setup as it was 100 years ago whilst serving a very different world. Whee's the innovation and vision afforded by research and technology?

My experience in school was very negative. I spent my entire high school period ostracized. I had entire days where I spoke to nobody in school, and it sucked in more ways than I can count. I don't wish the same on my kids, but it helped make me into the person that I am. Good or bad, I think it is necessary.

[Virgil]

Hi Fifth.

I think schools are a one stop shop, and as such don't fit a significant number of kid's needs.

I think there's got to be change in the school model - use technology better - target kid's interests - better motivation - more involvement of parents at Secondary school.

Exactly Paul. You remember that school thread where all the teachers ganged up on me for wanting to break the school monopoly? They will never allow change, at least not in the US. I hope some other country can provide an example of real school choices for families, and then perhaps maybe it will spur the people in my country to enact it. That is why home schooling is really rising here.

I agree with those that said, education should be mandatory, but school should not.

[BienvenuJDC]

Exactly Paul. You remember that school thread where all the teachers ganged up on me for wanting to break the school monopoly? They will never allow change, at least not in the US. I hope some other country can provide an example of real school choices for families, and then perhaps maybe it will spur the people in my country to enact it. That is why home schooling is really rising here.

I agree with those that said, education should be mandatory, but school should not.

I agree with you both. Education must be compulsory, however, how does one define 'education'? While one person may be able to open law books and explain the impact and application of any particular law that is on the books, they are completely clueless as to why their car won't start. There are many scholars that have no idea why the light comes on when the switch is flipped. Academics have failed many students who learn by tinkering. I could lecture one pupil on the design of the diesel engine and give a written test over the parts of the engine. I could also give an engine to another pupil with some brief instructions and say..."Have at it!" Due to learning styles and aptitudes that differ, it is possible that the second scenario results in the better learned student...and eventually a master mechanic.

[Virgil]

Excellent points Bien. I certainly don't have answers to your questions. There needs to be a diversity of learning experiences for children to find what they love.

[BienvenuJDC]

The teacher should conform to the student as much as the student is expected to conform to the teacher.

[applepie]

Excellent points Bien. I certainly don't have answers to your questions. There needs to be a diversity of learning experiences for children to find what they love.

This is something that I've thought to argue against within my son's school. In only the first grade, he is bored an already hates things. It has little to do with school being much too difficult, and it has everything to do with they repeat the same things over and over again.

Take today as an example. My boy brought home yet another page today with yet another ruler to "practice" measuring things. He learned the exact same thing only a month or two ago, and now he is being forced to learn it again.

Is it any wonder that it is all to often the intelligent and naturally bright children that are falling through the cracks? I don't really think that there is a failing for the typical child, and there are more programs than I can count for children with learning disabilities. With budget cuts it was the program for the brightest that was reduced. The general thought seems to be that these children will be fine with normal teaching because they're naturally intelligent. Afterall, they are easily meeting the minimum standard so they don't NEED additional attention. It makes it difficult as a parent to keep your child interested in learning without making them that much more bored at school.

[Gladys]

Is it any wonder that it is all too often the intelligent and naturally bright children that are falling through the cracks? I don't really think that there is a failing for the typical child...

Is there a 'typical child'? Many children, not so bright, have acquired skills far beyond the median in certain areas. Some children, interested in words and given opportunity, are reading adult classics in grade 1. How can a grade 1 teacher challenge these children, as well as the huge spectrum of lesser reading abilities, when faced with a class of 30-odd kids? Teachers typically devote 10 seconds of attention per child per day!

Boredom is endemic to mass education, where most children spend half the day killing time. Education worked better in the days of the governess, but today we seek to educate more than just the rich.

[Niamh]

Vocational Education is just as important over here as academic and has been since the 60s. My Dad went to a tech back in the 50s to learn trade as most people who wanted to learn trade had to if they didnt get apprenticeships. We have Institutes of Technology all over the country (they were originally called Regional Tecnical colleges when first set up). When they were originally set up they mainly focused on Trades. People went to them to obtain certs and diplomas in Construction, carpentry, metalwork etc. Now they are some of the most important colleges in Ireland for Science, IT studies, Business finance and accounting, and some of them even specialise in Nursing, Art and Humanities Subjects aswell as construction etc. ITs are applied for in same way and at the same time as Universities and National Colleges and are under the same points bases, more demand for the subject, the higher the points. A lot of the Secondary schools over here offer technical drawing, graphic drawing, woodwork, metalwork and maybe one or two other classes that can lead a student into trade. Most secondary schools offer a six month trial of all classes for first year students to get a feel of subjects before selecting their classes so that they know which they would like instead of selecting classes and making bad choices. Technical ed is promoted just as much as academic ed in schools that provide the subjects and students are encouraged to go on to do trade and technical 3rd level ed if they show the interest too.
I think its very important for all education systems to promote and encourage both feilds as not everyone is academic.
I too think school should be compulsory, but i think that variety and choice is definitely needed.

[applepie]

Is there a 'typical child'?

Certainly I think that there is. Some children are gifted in some areas, some are gifted in all, and some children are simply average. Part of the reason that education levels are set where they are is that majority of children fall within the scope of that learning pattern. It is the outliers that are not being tended to, and while there are programs to help those who are at the lower end of the spectrum achieve, the children who are outside of the norm for the better are often ignored.


How can a grade 1 teacher challenge these children, as well as the huge spectrum of lesser reading abilities, when faced with a class of 30-odd kids? Teachers typically devote 10 seconds of attention per child per day!

I don't believe that it should be left to each individual teacher to set policies or to challenge these children. Programs that offer these children a challenge should be in place and further expanded. It is a failing in the schooling system and not necessarily one within the teachers.


Boredom is endemic to mass education, where most children spend half the day killing time. Education worked better in the days of the governess, but today we seek to educate more than just the rich.

I'm certain education worked better in the days of the governess, but then since they were also allowed to whip a child with a stick for not paying attention I find I've no longing for those days ;). I also have no desire for education to be available simply to the rich. If you can afford a tuition of $12,000 per year then you can send you child to a top notch private school that will see to much of what I would demand from public schooling. I instead argue that a true education should be available to all children regardless of income and that that education should meet their abilities. Children should not be forced into boredom simply because their parents can not afford private schooling and the educational system lacks the inclination to offer specialized course work to children with exception instead of remedial abilities.

Trust me, I know I'm on a soap box here, but I lived it. While I fully believe that public schooling is necessary to achieve the necessary social interactions that children need I do not approve of the general educational set up. I know the life that my children will face in school, and I still think the benefits of social normalization they would not otherwise get if I were to educate them myself or hire someone to do so for me. The education that I can provide them would be far superior to what they're receiving, but I tend to think that the most important lessons learned in school are of a social nature and not those actually taught by teachers.

[Paulclem]

Exactly Paul. You remember that school thread where all the teachers ganged up on me for wanting to break the school monopoly? They will never allow change, at least not in the US. I hope some other country can provide an example of real school choices for families, and then perhaps maybe it will spur the people in my country to enact it. That is why home schooling is really rising here.

I agree with those that said, education should be mandatory, but school should not.

I remember. I think there's a systemic problem often. teachers easily feel threatened, not without cause over here, as education is always a hot political potato with accusations of trendy lefty teaching flying around etc.

I was a teacher in a Primary school - 4-11 yr olds. looking back there were so many things that i could have done better, and a lot of the time there was a pervasive feeling that it wasn't being done properly - not individual lessons so much, but the overarching organisation and setup.

I used to moan that we had 6 weeks holiday and then tried to teach, meet, improve, develop resources, organise stuff, report to parents, do the exams, blah blah blah, when all i really should have been doing was teaching the kids, asessing the lesson, assessing the kids and moving them on and giving them a great educational experience through the whole gamut of what was available. Instead you end up too knackered to do much but tread water and get through it.

Don't get me wrong - I like holidays, but it was a burden. change wil take time.

[Paulclem]

Certainly I think that there is. Some children are gifted in some areas, some are gifted in all, and some children are simply average. Part of the reason that education levels are set where they are is that majority of children fall within the scope of that learning pattern. It is the outliers that are not being tended to, and while there are programs to help those who are at the lower end of the spectrum achieve, the children who are outside of the norm for the better are often ignored.

I felt sorry for the kids who fell outside the norm. School was never going to be for them, as there wasn't time to give them what they needed to nurture them on. From my own school days i remember ill fitting kids - who often were outsiders for social reasons rather than anything else. Sad really.

If your kid has good mates, then that will help with the school stuff. Despite what I've been saying, individuals often cope better than us anxious parents think they will. My son has always been a bit unworldly, but he learned some good lessons on who to have as a mate etc. He coped when we worried about him not, and he was in a particularly difficult year in his school. :D

[Virgil]

You sound like a great teacher Paul. Many kudos to you. :cheers2:

[Gladys]

Some children are gifted in some areas, some are gifted in all, and some children are simply average.


I felt sorry for the kids who fell outside the norm. School was never going to be for them, as there wasn't time to give them what they needed to nurture them on. From my own school days I remember ill fitting kids - who often were outsiders for social reasons rather than anything else. Sad really.

Most gifted children hail from the educated elite: children who want to learn, are given ample opportunity, and are rewarded for their efforts. What about all the keen children who, early in life, are educationally hamstrung and mocked for their ignorance and inabilities? Sad indeed.

Gifted generally means little more than nurtured, privileged (at least educationally) and, of course, blessed with a love of learning. Notwithstanding, one underprivileged child in a thousand somehow rises above manifold handicaps to earn the label gifted!

Interesting that, in life, the genius and the high achiever are under-represented among the gifted.

[applepie]

Most gifted children hail from the educated elite: children who want to learn, are given ample opportunity, and are rewarded for their efforts. What about all the keen children who, early in life, are educationally hamstrung and mocked for their ignorance and inabilities? Sad indeed.

Gifted generally means little more than nurtured, privileged (at least educationally) and, of course, blessed with a love of learning. Notwithstanding, one underprivileged child in a thousand somehow rises above manifold handicaps to earn the label gifted!

Interesting that, in life, the genius and the high achiever is under-represented among the gifted.

I don't discount the high achiever. Hard work can certainly pay off, but there is a difference between working hard for an education and having it come naturally. The two require different things when it comes to teaching. There are courses here that combine the two groups, but it doesn't often end well.

I'll make an example which I don't mean as anything more than to prove a point: I slept through advanced chemistry in high school. It provided me with a 2 hour nap, and I was working 40 hour weeks. Anyway, I did the bare minimum on homework (only something that was graded, so this amounted to a news article submitted each week), and the only time my book was really open was when I used it as a pillow. Many of the other students worked hard in class and they put in two hours of homework for that class as well as additional all nighters studying for tests. We both had an "A" in the course, but when it came to the final testing that granted college credit, I scored an entire grade higher than her. I was a social outcast and a "freak". She just worked hard and was considered a good student.

My point is only that there is a big difference between hard work and being truly "gifted". I found that part of the whole "gifted" package was that I didn't really need to work at anything to learn it. Learning simply came naturally. From the group of us at my school we all came from different backgrounds, but none of us were particularly privileged genetically or educationally. None of us had overly bright parents. They weren't lacking for intelligence or anything, but they were all pretty typical. The schools we attended were mediocre at best, and many of us did not have any place in the advanced programs because there was only funding for a very small number of children.

Regardless, the way that we learned was vastly different than the way that other children learned. They had to work to retain knowledge, and all of us just sort of absorbed it. We heard it and we knew it. I don't really know a better way to explain, but it is just a different process. It isn't something that is learned or unlearned, it just is. Actually on a light note, it is darn inconvenient at times. Ever try to unlearn, or brain dump something you don't really need to know, and you simply can't? I have a theory that eventually my head will fill up and I'll not be able to learn anything new :D

[blazeofglory]

In fact I am never supportive of a formal school. I love the very tradition of Gurukula in which there is no limitation of what one can learn and it binds both the Guru and the Pupil by a bond of understanding.

But today it is not possible or almost unthinkable to find a school of that sort. Today we live with different values and therefore today we want schools that help us meet those values.

And for so many explicit and implicit reasons that I support such educational institutions.

[Paulclem]

I watched half an interesting debate the other night on education - you know looming election and all that.

One of the points made by a professor - refuted by another admittedly - was that in answer to the question "What are schools for", he said one of their functions is as state funded childcare that is supporting the workers who contribute to the economy.

There is no doubt that this is partly the case, as the recent snow school closures and the resultant hoo hah about schools shutting and parents missing work to look after children testifies.

Of course it's not the only purpose, but it is an important one. perhaps that's why the govt is so supportive in funding education - or is that a vote winner? (Probably the vote winner).

It's just another complexity in the whole complex conundrum that is a school, it's kids, the teachers, the unions, the govt policy, the educational research, the theoretical bias in teaching style at the time, the parents, the geography of the school etc. etc. etc.

But I think it is a key question. One succesful Headteacher made the point that there are things schools can do, and there are things schools haven't a hope in achieving.

They really haven't a hope of solving poverty in the short term in the backgroung, education and circumstance of children. That's social work.

They haven't a hope of helping children with psychological problems - major, (yes I've seen them in an ordinary classroom), and minor. That's psychology.

A school can't possibly solve locally poor literacy and numeracy attainment in parents which affects the attainment of the kids. That's for adult Educators.

Yet all these are potentially disruptve to the progress a school and it's children can make. There's loads of other issues too as well.

Perhaps when schools are free from some of these concerns then they could get on and work on what they really are for, and develop some new thinking.

[Gladys]

I found that part of the whole "gifted" package was that I didn't really need to work at anything to learn it. Learning simply came naturally.

Certainly, the gifted intuitively understand how to learn. But how to learn can be taught, albeit with difficulty.


Perhaps when schools are free from some of these concerns then they could get on and work on what they really are for, and develop some new thinking.

Exactly. The unmet demands on a teacher for childcare, social work, psychology, bullying control, crowd control, and the provision of food leave little time for formal education. There's only so much schools can do, so that parental involvement is usually vital.

If schools were voluntary, needy children would be more likely to miss out, though most get little from school anyway. Nevertheless a substantial minority of the needy do benefit greatly. A sacrifice of the many for the benefit of the few?

With less needy children, the classroom would be a more congenial place. But what would replace compulsory education; how might these education savings be reallocated?

[Paulclem]

Certainly, the gifted intuitively understand how to learn. But how to learn can be taught, albeit with difficulty.



Exactly. The unmet demands on a teacher for childcare, social work, psychology, bullying control, crowd control, and the provision of food leave little time for formal education. There's only so much schools can do, so that parental involvement is usually vital.

If schools were voluntary, needy children would be more likely to miss out, though most get little from school anyway. Nevertheless a substantial minority of the needy do benefit greatly. A sacrifice of the many for the benefit of the few?

With less needy children, the classroom would be a more congenial place. But what would replace compulsory education; how might these education savings be reallocated?

I'm for compulsory education - no doubt about that - but as to the form it takes. There might be the room for creative thinking.

School is economically conveniant -pooled experience, resources, you know where they all are or should be etc.

On the other hand we seem to be in accord that it is a one stop misery for some, and it doesn't do what it is set up to do for a significant minority.

We do have different forms of school here - faith, state, grammar, special, private, and there are the home tutored and units set up for those who have been excluded, or have a specific difficulty like a hearing impairment.

Perhaps on way of coping with the current system might be to have stringent assesments of current and likely sources of pupil problems, and take them out to another unit where they can have costly but targeted teaching/ councilling with a view to a supported return to mainstream in the future.

It might not work with the child in question, or be only partly successful, but the benefits to the school would be enormous. At least they'd get better teaching time.

What was the figure ?% of the kids take up ?% of the school's time?

[The Atheist]

Hey guys,
for those who don't know my background: I'm currently training to be a secondary school teacher in the UK.

Well, very good idea for a thread - we've actually been kicking around similar stuff in The Man's Thread.


Yes I believe school should be compulsory (and also team sports for every child under 16) whilst children could be home-schooled etc I think school has the added benefit of teaching children how to interact with others who may have a differing opinion etc.

Going by the experience of myself and my children at schools for the past 45 years, I found the main thing learned about difference of opinions is that the strongest person's opinion just about always wins.

I'm not sure that the social interaction lessons at school reach the right audience and I certainly doubt that they achieve the right result.

I have a son who was bullied at school so severely that we took him out of school for six months and then started him at a new school.

He was five.

I'm not saying he's typical by any means, but every time I see a kid commit suicide through bullying at school, I stop and ask myself again if it's worth it.


That is why home schooling is really rising here.

Are you sure it's that and not just a reflection of the creationist and white separatist movements - both of which have realised in recent years that homeschooling is a much better way of indoctrination?


I remember. I think there's a systemic problem often. teachers easily feel threatened, not without cause over here, as education is always a hot political potato with accusations of trendy lefty teaching flying around etc.

That's part of the problem, but also almost unsolvable. Teachers' unions by their nature attract socialists into positions of loudest wheel, so it's become cyclical and probably impossible to break.


Perhaps when schools are free from some of these concerns then they could get on and work on what they really are for, and develop some new thinking.

Brilliantly put all through that post.



I'm for compulsory education - no doubt about that - but as to the form it takes. There might be the room for creative thinking.

And because creative thinking costs mucho bucks, a system which struggles to stay afloat financially has about as much chance of getting the money to do it as me climbing Everest.

Even worse, you just know that if someone actually threw a billion pounds at the education system to be innovative, it'd be the biggest ####-fight ever to see who got their grubby hands on the dough.

As you say, teachers have gone from simple pedagogues to social workers, nutritionists and psychologists - tasks to which I don't believe many are adequate.

I remain convinced that there isn't a realistic answer and that the only thing we can do is try to find a school which is worth your kids attending and go for it. I have always taken highly active involvement in my kids' education - crikey, I've washed more paintbrushes than Picasso. I've coached rugby and soccer and stand in the freezing rain crossing kids in the afternoons, but you're still pretty helpless in the system.

When I rule the earth I am cloning you, Paul, and installing you as headmaster in every school on the planet.

[Paulclem]

Well, very good idea for a thread - we've actually been kicking around similar stuff in The Man's Thread.



Going by the experience of myself and my children at schools for the past 45 years, I found the main thing learned about difference of opinions is that the strongest person's opinion just about always wins.

I'm not sure that the social interaction lessons at school reach the right audience and I certainly doubt that they achieve the right result.

I have a son who was bullied at school so severely that we took him out of school for six months and then started him at a new school.

He was five.

I'm not saying he's typical by any means, but every time I see a kid commit suicide through bullying at school, I stop and ask myself again if it's worth it.



Are you sure it's that and not just a reflection of the creationist and white separatist movements - both of which have realised in recent years that homeschooling is a much better way of indoctrination?



That's part of the problem, but also almost unsolvable. Teachers' unions by their nature attract socialists into positions of loudest wheel, so it's become cyclical and probably impossible to break.



Brilliantly put all through that post.




And because creative thinking costs mucho bucks, a system which struggles to stay afloat financially has about as much chance of getting the money to do it as me climbing Everest.

Even worse, you just know that if someone actually threw a billion pounds at the education system to be innovative, it'd be the biggest ####-fight ever to see who got their grubby hands on the dough.

As you say, teachers have gone from simple pedagogues to social workers, nutritionists and psychologists - tasks to which I don't believe many are adequate.

I remain convinced that there isn't a realistic answer and that the only thing we can do is try to find a school which is worth your kids attending and go for it. I have always taken highly active involvement in my kids' education - crikey, I've washed more paintbrushes than Picasso. I've coached rugby and soccer and stand in the freezing rain crossing kids in the afternoons, but you're still pretty helpless in the system.

When I rule the earth I am cloning you, Paul, and installing you as headmaster in every school on the planet.

:lol:

My wife would probably want to throw in a reality check on that. :D

I have always taken highly active involvement in my kids' education - crikey, I've washed more paintbrushes than Picasso. I've coached rugby and soccer and stand in the freezing rain crossing kids in the afternoons, but you're still pretty helpless in the system.

This is the same in the UK. If you want to know what's going on, you've got to get in there. It's a pity that all kids aren't supported like this.

[Gladys]

I have a son who was bullied at school so severely that we took him out of school for six months and then started him at a new school.

He was five..

Bullying peaks on entry and exit from Primary School and is one of the worst aspects of compulsory schooling. Children are bullied, become accomplices, or join the voyeuristic bystanders. What's worse, many a school teacher or principal join actively or passively in the assault, inside and outside the classroom. Tragically, most of the bullies are articulate and popular à la 'Lord of the Flies'.

Compulsory schooling teaches bullying if nothing else!

[virginiawang]

Hi Gladys, Though I want to agree with you completely, I do have a slightly different opinion on this issue than yours.
To allow all children in a country to attend school is a perfect idea. If school is not compulsory, chances are that a great deal of children from poor families cannot receive education, though they desire it as much as other children. It is just wonderful as a picture that all kids have to go to school each morning for whatever reasons you know, and they just have to. It speaks of freshness, energy, and all the ideas that are ideal. Do you remember a scene in The Idiot where the prince played around with and involved himself in a group of school kids? I enjoyed the chapter everytime I read it.

[Paulclem]

Bullying peaks on entry and exit from Primary School and is one of the worst aspects of compulsory schooling. Children are bullied, become accomplices, or join the voyeuristic bystanders. What's worse, many a school teacher or principal join actively or passively in the assault, inside and outside the classroom. Tragically, most of the bullies are articulate and popular à la 'Lord of the Flies'.

Compulsory schooling teaches bullying if nothing else!

I think there is a lot of bullying, but it is not the aim of compulsory education, and it does need dealing with. It shouldn't stop what is a very positve aspect of the modern world. I think we'd be in a very different and less progressive place without it.

[The Atheist]

I think we'd be in a very different and less progressive place without it.

No question on that one - education is important from an evolutionary perspective.

Without learning from past discoveries, nothing new would ever happen.

[Gladys]

It is just wonderful as a picture that all kids have to go to school each morning...It speaks of freshness, energy, and all the ideas that are ideal. Do you remember a scene in The Idiot where the prince played around with and involved himself in a group of school kids?

In teaching children, I well remember the brutal contrast between the schoolmaster and 'idiotic' Prince Myshkin:


They were the children of the village in which I lived, and they went to the school there--all of them. I did not teach them, oh no; there was a master for that, one Jules Thibaut. I may have taught them some things, but I was among them just as an outsider, and I passed all four years of my life there among them. I wished for nothing better; I used to tell them everything and hid nothing from them. Their fathers and relations were very angry with me, because the children could do nothing without me at last, and used to throng after me at all times. The schoolmaster was my greatest enemy in the end! I had many enemies, and all because of the children.

[virginiawang]

Hi Gladys, Do you have an experience in teaching children? I once tried, but I failed ten out of ten. Everytime I wished to become an English tutor to kill my time, I was dismissed at the first meeting, in a very polite and indirect way after the teaching session, of course. I never had a chance to meet my student for a second time. It is interesting. I don't know why even now. That happened many years agao. After that I know I can never become a teacher.

Back to the topic which is being discussed here, I wonder where all the kids will go each day if they are not pushed to a school, to learn and to spend time with other kids. What will happen if all the kids sleep at home as much as they like, for example for a whole morning, and eat and watch TV till late at night? That can be a real problem.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
Hey guys,
for those who don't know my background: I'm currently training to be a secondary school teacher in the UK.
The other day, I had a conversation with my tutor and he said that maybe one day school won't even be compulsory anymore. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to ask him what he meant. There are two possible scenarios:
1. school is not compulsory, but if young people decide against school, they have to do some sort of training or apprenticeship.
2. no form of education or training is compulsory, if young people opt against school, they are not obliged to take training and can stay at home.

I must admit, I rather liked the idea of school not being compulsory, because so many pupils (and parents) don't care about education at all and disrupt the lessons, making it difficult for everyone else to learn. If school was not compulsory, only the ones who do care would show up, which would create a much more stress-free learning environment for both pupils and teachers.
But what would happen to those who don't go to school (especially in scenario 2)? I suspect that these would mainly be the pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those whose parents consciously opt to receive welfare rather than look for work. I.e. especially those pupils for whose benefit compulsory, free, state schooling was invented would suffer from the abolition of compulsory education. But on the other hand, it seems to be mainly middle class people who care about equal opportunities etc, wile many of those who are intended to benefit from such schemes do not make use of the opportunities offered to them. Generally speaking, I've come to conclude that people eventually solve their own problems if left to their own devices. Whereas if there is no incentive/ no negative consequences, they will just waste their opportunities. So maybe, if compulsory schooling was abolished, those parents would finally realize that their children need an education and would encourage them to go to school. On the other hand, it would probably take a few years, if not decades, for people from such backgrounds to realize this and meanwhile the children would suffer because of their parents' unwise decisions and attitudes. So I'm not sure whether it would be socially responsible to abolish compulsory schooling altogether, because children are not mature enough to decide to go to school anyway and irresponsible parents would make the decision for them.
What do you think? Can you think of any alternative models that would give everyone equal opportunities?
(Mods, please don't move this to the teachers' forum, because I want to get replies from members from all walks of life)

[cacian]

No it should not be because like any institution imposed on use before we are even born it is dictated upon the individual before they even blink.
I consider all institutionalised ideologies dated and will eventually crumble under the pressures that they exercise themselves on the individual.
I am not against learning and the emanciaption of the intellect but I see other better way of encouraging learning and seeking interests.
I feel that schools just like religion politics and marriages all institutions imposed on the individual in that a person is born into them without having a say or a choice on them.

[Monamy]

No it should not be because like any institution imposed on use before we are even born it is dictated upon the individual before they even blink.
I consider all institutionalised ideologies dated and will eventually crumble under the pressures that they exercise themselves on the individual.
I am not against learning and the emanciaption of the intellect but I see other better way of encouraging learning and seeking interests.
I feel that schools just like religion politics and marriages all institutions imposed on the individual in that a person is born into them without having a say or a choice on them.

On many circumstances I seem to agree with you, I have to disagree on this one.

You see, we don't 'realize' the benefit of schooling in our early age. We're curious yes, but curiousity alone will lead us nowhere... or worse, lead us to something bad. Schooling is essential, you can't do without it, you don't realize it until you're done with it. :)

That's how I see schools, and I agree and urge everyone to go through that one-stop-hell before they go on with their lives =P