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.

[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.

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.

[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?