Chanku pointed me to this thread, and I thought I'd take a few moments to join the forums and respond with my thoughts.
Chanku, one does need a high school diploma for anything in the US. Even a GED is a substitute for a high school diploma that most employers look down on.
That's simply not true. There are are some types of work that
don't require a diploma, GED, or even college.
There are a range of both skilled and unskilled jobs that are more focused on what you can do, and perhaps actual job experience, than formal credentials. Skilled fields like web design, video editing, and writing can be done on a freelance basis, where one's portfolio of work, recommendations, and ability to complete the work clients want can get a person paid.
Many unskilled jobs, likewise, don't require a diploma or GED. A fair number of people who
do have those credentials, or even college degrees, work jobs that don't necessarily require those credentials.
College is a whole discussion itself, especially since quite a few jobs
do require a college degree. But, saying you need a particular credential for "anything" is patently false.
Even when it comes to colleges, some accept applicants without a diploma or GED... see
Can't Complete High School? Go Right to College, for example.
And as others have said, school is for socialization mainly.
Is it for socialization mainly, getting a credential mainly, or for learning things, mainly? Or... is the purpose of school to get into college... or preparing students for work in factories?
In practice, these days, the purpose for many in high school, at least, does seem to be "to get into college."
As for socialization:
It's entirely possible to have a place to go to where socialization is possible, without the grades-and-classrooms structure of so-called "factory model schooling." Likewise, it's possible for people, even without school, to meet others and socialize (groups, events, locations like cafes or libraries, stand-alone classes, maker spaces.)
When else will you have easy and continuous contact with people your age? Even if you're an introvert, you can make your small group of friends, and if you don't want to party all the time after school, and just spend nights at home playing video games or reading, socialization is good. Being sociable and talking to people is the best fight against depression, anxiety and other psychological problems, which arise from not being sociable.
First of all, the happy vision you have in your mind contrasts starkly with the on-the-ground reality many people experience in school. Some people like their school environment, but a lot of others are miserable there, for a range of reasons, from boring and irrelevant instruction, to a hyper-focus on grades, to bullying, to simply being disconnected from things that matter to them.
Why is "continuous contact" with people your own age the pinnacle of "socialization?" There are benefits from interacting with people of a range of ages. And, there are more ways to connect with people, whether of one's own age, or people in general, than school, especially in the particular form it currently takes.
I think school should be compulsory for all ages
All ages? Up to...? What if people want to do education in a different way than their local school happens to work?
As it happens, in the US, a
lot of people do some form of homeschooling or unschooling, and there's a trend toward people experimenting with different types of schools (some more learner-centric, some more hyper-factory-model.) So, more than just arguing whether school should be compulsory or not, maybe the bigger question is how should education work?
And, the answer may differ for different people, depending on their needs... even if there are some common elements all people should be exposed to in some form.
however, I do not agree with the current curriculum. Standardized testing is stupid, so are standardized systems. You shouldn't give students a rigorous schedule and place them in a system with no flexibility. In my mind students should be taught from early on to follow what they are best at and to do it as much as possible.
Here's where we agree. The question is then how to do this, in the context of a current model of school based on a "one size fits all" conception of education developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
If you haven't seen it, Ken Robinson's RSA Animate talk is one of the best summaries of this dilemma:
Good in art? Great! Let's give you art lessons, place you in higher levels of art classes, teach you physical and digital art. Find you somewhere where you can always do it. It doesn't matter if you only do it as a hobby, if you like it and have a 9-5 job while also painting and doing something you enjoy, great! If you can sell your art, be it paintings, 3D models, animations, statues, photographs, any art form and enjoy it and can make a living out of it, even better.
Good at math? Awesome! We can give you tutoring and let you jump into a higher level math class. Maybe you'll be an economist or mathematician or scientist. Or maybe you just like doing math and have ease understanding it. It doesn't matter. The problem with today's system is that we don't reward enough and let people do stuff they enjoy.
I totally agree with this. The problem is that school-as-usual, with single-subject teachers managing classrooms of single-age students, it's very hard for anyone to focus on their particular interests and learning styles. So, this "factory model" approach to education that most people in developed countries have as compulsory, contrasts starkly with the way education
could and
should work.
This is ultimately a major reason why many, including (I imagine) Chanku, are so opposed to the notion of "compulsory" schooling.
I'm not great at math, but I like solving problems and all the concepts, so I tried hard enough and bumped myself from Math Studies to IB Math SL, and though I'm getting a C-/C average, the school lets me because I like it there, and in Math Studies I was bored out of my mind, we were doing topics from two years before. I also like art and would like to pursue a career in animation or film making, but I still concentrate on my other studies because I like learning, which brings me to my other point, which has been stated before by others.
It's good that you were able to make a change to not be bored out of your mind, and that you find motivation and enjoyment in your other studies. The problem is, many people are bored out of their minds in
most of their classes, and
don't have many options for making changes. Many people struggle to get good grades, or don't see the point of their assignments, and/or dislike school for other reasons (bullies, being forced to sit in desks and move to new ones every hour, parents treating report card grades as the most important thing in the world, and so on.)
That's where compulsory education goes from being an apparent social good, to a living nightmare -- or at least a barren, unhappy existence -- for a substantial number of students.
Gallup did a survey not long ago, for example that shows many students are disengaged, and the High School Survey of Student Engagement has repeatedly found that many students are bored and unhappy in school.
See, for example:
http://thegallupblog.gallup.com/2013/01/the-school-cliff-student-engagement.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/1308-students-bored-school.htmlFactory-model schools have had issues since the beginning, but in the 21st century, with so many learning resources and forms of stimulation provided by the Internet, their typical configuration is out of place for, most likely, a growing number of students.
We need to teach children to recognize the greatness of knowledge from an early age. Though it contradicts my first point, I think that for the early stages of a kids life, standardization is key. Every child, by the age of 11 (end of 5th grade/year 6) should know a set number of facts in history and science and math, know proper grammar and how to write and read quickly and communicate efficiently and clearly. They should also be taught a simple instrument, like the recorder (and if they excel then start teaching them a bigger and more important one), and have almost daily art classes. There is also the matter of a physical standard. No matter what anyone says, a physical standard should be set, because there is no such thing as healthy overweight or healthy skinny, and every child (excluding very severe medical conditions) should be at the physical standard for their age.
I agree there are basic set of things everyone should learn, assuming they're intellectually capable and all that. How to define that minimum set is another question. There's also the question of how many hours of mandatory instruction and assessment that minimum set needs to take up. It could vary between people, but it very likely wouldn't be as many hours as people are currently required to attend school over many years.
And, I agree that many of these super-basics can be learned during the elementary school years. That raises the question of the role of school for those in middle school and high school ages, basically teens. This is the group that tends to be more disengaged and unhappy in school... and they're at a time in their life where figuring out their interests and passions, and obtaining more specialized knowledge, probably makes sense.
So, how do you make all that compulsory? Probably in a different way than current per-subject, limited coverage schooling tends to do. Quite a few people have a vision of education that's based more on teachers as mentors and guides, who get to know particular students, their interests, their cognitive styles, and their plans for the future.
But, if more control over education is handed to the students, is the term "compulsory" so fitting? Which parts should actually be compulsory?
If children are taught to appreciate art and music and appreciate knowledge, in the form of facts, and languages, in the form of communication and stories, and physical well-being, from an early age, they will take more to the idea of continuous studies
Arguably, children in stimulating environments naturally love learning and pursue knowledge. There's often a role for parents, mentors, and others in general to introduce people to knew forms of knowledge, but is it really true that children need to be forced to learn?
However, they will only continue studying throughout their teenage years if they are kept within school. Let's face it, teenagers don't want to do anything, but they have to continue to learn, and the only proper way is in a safe and stable environment, as every school should be seen.
This is patently false in the case of many teenagers, who love to learn. In the case of those who apparently don't, there's the question of "why not?"
Many young people report school crushes their interest in learning out of them, along with their creativity. The limited subjects school tends to cover, and limited ways in which they're taught, often clash with what and how teens prefer to learn. When compulsory school has limited interest in people's individual learning styles and preferred areas of learning, it leads to an uncomfortable, stifling, de-motivating environment for many. That may be why, in your experience, teenagers "don't want to do anything."
In fact, I am really shocked by your claim that teens "don't want to do anything." Really? I can think of so many counterexamples. Where did you come to that conclusion?
Also, even
with school-as-it-is, many young people
don't learn as they're expected to. And even if you say schools should be "seen" as safe and stable environments, they aren't for many learners... and just being safe and stable, without being stimulating and providing variety and freedom to explore and experiment, doesn't necessarily make for an effective learning environment.
Overall, it seems like your perspective follows from (1) basically liking school yourself, and (2) having a quite negative view of young people as natural learners. You might look at things differently if you learn more about the negative experiences many have in school, and the positive experiences many people have with alternatives to school-as-usual, including unschooling and more learner-centric forms of education in general.
What do you think?
