By Travis
It is September and for most families, that means school. I can imagine the thousands of children who have their backpacks filled with pencils, paper, and folders. Going back to school was a high point of the year for me.
But this raises the question: Should we have compulsory education? Should a state force children who do not want to go to school, to go to school? In Massachusetts, it became law to do so in 1852.
Now, I understand that this topic may just be too crazy for polite conversation. However, I urge you to consider what compulsory education does to schools. In essence, it turns schools into jails. There are cells; a warden or two; guards; and a schedule.
If only students who wanted to learn, who wanted to further their skills for those better paying jobs and greater appreciation of life, came to school, those would be classes. Take out the trouble makers. They don't want to be there anyway and by being there, ruin it for the rest.
Eventually, the school would pull more students in as they realize how little their preparation for life is. Parents will now become more involved, encouraging their student to go to school, going to great lengths to get them there (whether it is for a better life, or a need to get them out of the house at least the parent is more involved).
But what if it doesn't? What if very few students showed up at school because they did not have to and their iPods and games and friends were more enticing? Would these students loose out on an education and we would have a several generations of ignorant, unproductive citizens?
Then again, would that be so bad? I could hire low wage workers paint my fence or sweep my sidewalk.
But what effect will this situation have on the children of the low wage workers?
In theory, I don't think that school should be compulsory, yet I do not have a better way to apply this in the real world. There is not a practical application.
from Facebook: “Eek, I’m sure the idea may sound good to many teachers. I want to ask what role do school have. Unfortunately, it has expanded to be mental/health care, meal provider, social norms educator, etc…. It provides so many services that help the underclass. And of course, it is one that provides one doorway to changing social standing.
Yes, it would probably help the learning environment, but this country is so lacking in alternatives. Until its people take responsibility for its actions, the public school system unheroically provides needed services and is one of the few gateways for the economically oppressed.
Plus, I am afraid “school for those who want it” could be one more step closer to a “school for those who can afford it”. I think of the current health care system.
I agree w/ a commentator. Perhaps it is the delivery that makes it seem a prison. Why do schools have to be broccoli (my favorite)? Why can’t it be chocolate?”
Hold on. All the problems of kids not wanting to be in school could be solved if we truly reformed public schools – see all the “5 ways to improve education” posts! Ungraded, unscheduled movement through learning standards, using Technology (yes, ‘mobile learning devices’), flexiblility based on individual students…
I’ve seen too many benefits of coming together to learn, and can’t support making it optional. Education needs to be compulsory. It just should not look the way it does now.
I firmly believe that we need to offer an avenue of vocational training after the 8th grade. I think many of those kids that truly don’t fit in to the model of education in our country today would excel in a hands-on program that builds skills that they can take directly into the work place.
Travis, just as your children enjoy broccoli and brush their teeth happily, so do many children love school. I see it in my classroom, I see it in the older children of my friends. We can’t generalize and say that because school is required, all children feel like they are in jail. Not all do.
I think the problematic areas for voluntary education are the parents who ignore their child’s education entirely, and the children who don’t have the long-term vision necessary to make good choices – or, like your children, the obvious good guidance and attention. If school were voluntary and students tested to show skill, what would your plan be for those two tricky areas?
Bob – it’s “vein.”
Topic of interest, yes, well said, Travis. In that vane (or is it vain?), what do teachers and admins do today to unration learning in today’s required classrooms? I thought I saw an “is” question included in your post, not just a “should.”
My kids eat broccoli because they like the taste. My kids brush their teeth (mostly without asking). The point of me bringing this up is that they have ownership of their actions. I can guide them, help them think through things, but if I constantly tell them what to do and how to do it, they will never have made the decisions for themselves.
It saddens me to think that school is something that I have to force someone to do in the hopes that someday they will look back and say that it was a useful experience. For a good number it is. For an equal number it is a terrible experience but they imagine that it has made them stronger. For a portion, it was a hoop that maybe they did not even make through.
Having said all of this. This post is a conversation that I want to have with other people. This is a topic of interest, not a personal crusade.
Excellent post Travis.
It reminds me of something I recall from when I taught in Ethiopia. There, students who leave school and then return later do return to the grade they were in when they left. The mayor of the village where I lived was the mayor because he had been an important political figure and fighter among the resistance during the revolution. To do so he had had to leave school in 7th grade. During the day, he sat in the mayor’s office. In the evenings, he sat on a chair with dozens of 13-year-old 8th graders in night school.
It also makes me think, as Mark did, that maybe a resurgence of vocational, non-college prep education would be a good thing. Most of the high school students I teach now would opt for that if it existed.
Bob, I like all three strategies. I especially like the phrase “…plan lessons based on a learning code rather than teaching practices…” That captures the essences of good instructional tactics. I also like the idea of being a “resource librarian.”
I too have seen about 30% of the kids ready to move on by mid-year. While I also modify their targets and activities, it would be nice to be able to move them on entirely. Patience, endurance, being resigned to one’s fate – none of those are fair rewards for a child’s learning. They should be allowed to test out and move on.
I think, Kristin, 2 things can happen now and others later.
Now:
1. Allow students to test out of classes whenever they demonstrate prerequisites skills to do so. Likely (based on bell curve), one third of students in most classrooms could meet the year’s academic performance criteria by December. Pass them on to the next grade’s work. I kept the students in my 5th grade classroom, but gave them 6th grade work (class of 35 – 37 average and slower lower SES students, bilingual, including sped students). Over half of the class completed most 6th grade work by the end of the 5th grade school year and so tested on standardized examines.
2. I think more students with access to mobile learning devices can accelerate even faster through guided nonschool learning and more frequent testing. Or, through direct instruction, that nasty (the largest scale empirically experimentally tested) effective instructional pattern.
Later:
3. Teachers can plan lessons based on a learning code rather than teaching practices in order to accelerate learning dramatically for almost all students in classrooms. Some techers have done this for decades, but without recognition beyond the academic successes of their students. That’s a major change in orientation for teachers, shifting from gatekeeper-to-skills-and-information to more like resource librarians who exploit how people learn.
That’s a once over quickly. What do you think?
Interesting ideas. Makes me think of “academic” high school education versus “vocational” education. There are a lot of people who aren’t great writers but can rebuild an engine or wire a house with their eyes closed and one hand behind their back. I am intrigued by the idea of compulsory ed ending after 8th grade…with guidance toward skilled trades (apprenticeships, trade schools, tech schools) for some kids, perhaps?
Ooooh, I like the idea of compulsory testing but optional classroom time. Kids could live rich, exciting lives (even better than they’d have in my fascinating classroom!) and still prove their academic skills.
Bob, what do you see happening when a child is tested and fails? Tested again? Compulsory tutoring?
In a way, this is what the GED is, right? If kids show they know their stuff, they are free to leave school. The GED doesn’t have the same value as a diploma, though. Mark should weigh in here with his thoughts on the worth of a diploma. I’m starting to think that the GED is actually worth more, since it requires concrete proof of ability. The diploma is threatening to become proof of seat time.
A great, provocative post. You almost indicated that an alternative is emerging to schooling, homeschooling, etc. when you mentioned electronic communication devices.
A real mass market of independent learning exists globally through mobile PCs and devices, including hand held gaming.
Some schools have taken advantage of these devices; the potential exists for reducing schooling to 6 or so academic years with results that exceed today’s AYP.
No one has calculated independent learning, but it has the appearance of dramatically exceeding PK20 learning.
Yes, you introduced a timely, relevant question: should we have compulsory schooling or perhaps compulsory testing (oh, shudder) that’s now required in schools, but does not require attending a building with academic gatekeepers to info available in other ways?
I like thinking about the latter option.
Great topic, Travis.
It would be great if children made their own decisions and made wise ones, but they don’t.
One of the reasons Massachusetts passed the law was to protect children from being forced to work and support their families. I think children would still be pressed into service on behalf of the family, either working in a family business or providing childcare. Making school a requirement protects them from being exploited.
And few children who weren’t forced to go, would. Few children choose to eat broccoli, pick water over soda, or brush their teeth before bed without being encouraged to do so. Couldn’t they then be “encouraged” to attend school? Maybe, but my hunch is that it wouldn’t last, because school is a long-term effort and eating a bite of broccoli is not.
The answer to the problem of kids hating school is to make what happens in school meaningful to them. Some teachers do it well.
How brave of you to take on this topic! It’s a private discussion I’ve had many times, although I would probably still require kids to go to school through sixth or eighth grade… I can’t really decide, not having worked much with kids that age. I think that if we did let them drop out, we would need a way for them to come back without being seventeen and in an eighth-grade class, and that’s where I always get stymied. I don’t think there’s a teacher out there who would argue that it wouldn’t be easier if we only had kids in class who WANT to be there. I’ve always felt that if we let kids go out and try to find jobs, learn how to support themselves, figure out how difficult life can be without an education, that they would eagerly choose to come back and complete at least their high school diploma – provided there was a way they could do it and still save face. Thanks for tackling such a controversial and thought-provoking position!