Abolish compulsory education?

2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education

There are some interesting arguments from those in favour.
Why not give people the choice as to how they educate their kids, there could be more options such as private tuition that would come down in price, more different practical qualifications offered also? People may well take a different attitude to education that wasn't forced on them, and learn better if they had more choice over their future.

Reply 1

Sebastian Flyte

Perhaps it is arguable that state, compusory education is a Socialist value - everyone should go to school regardless. However we are talking about people not yet aduls, and it might be argued negligent to not make provisions for our children.

Also, if we did not provide education (state), what s to say every parent would be able to organise appropriate education for their child?

I think it is good to have compulsory education as it gives every child an equal starting point (everyone is expected to go to school) and then there is room for change some will do good; some will not et cetera).

Reply 2

Dream_Catcher

1

Everyone needs education or we'd have a nation of idiots...

Only downside I can see of compulsory education is in the time wasters/ class disrupters in high school.

Reply 3

73337

18

Dream_Catcher

Everyone needs education or we'd have a nation of idiots...

Only downside I can see of compulsory education is in the time wasters/ class disrupters in high school.

Einstein was quite disruptive.

Reply 4

Catsmeat

13

naivesincerity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education

There are some interesting arguments from those in favour.
Why not give people the choice as to how they educate their kids, there could be more options such as private tuition that would come down in price, more different practical qualifications offered also? People may well take a different attitude to education that wasn't forced on them, and learn better if they had more choice over their future.

The issue with this is primarily one of differentials in funding; the wealthy will be able to select elite, exclusive fee-paying schools that will, in turn, attract the best teaching staff and investment.

Secondly there is the issue of the parent's relative involvment in the child's education; if a parent does not display an interest in their child's education, and if the factor of finances prevents them from providing a tutor, the child will potentially be 'left to their own devices', not because they are any less able but due to access and parental apathy.

More choice within the current education system (localised curriculums and flexibility) are a laudable proposition, yet the removal of institutionalised education or formalised education will potentially exclude a large amount of students from the benefits of a free secondary education. With private institutions you also run the risk of 'ideological teaching' rather than more open forms of education (such as curriculums that favour, for example, evolutionism within the natural sciences whilst ignoring other paradigms). The child should have their natural curisoty provided for with compulsory education, be it home schooling (assuming the parent is capable) or within an education institution. However, I am strongly against overly prescriptive methodologies in teaching and also against strict curriculums that do not favour the teacher's personal interests and expertise; I would propose a system of compulsory education coupled with greater flexibility.

Reply 5

simon-uk

Sebastian Flyte

Also, if we did not provide education (state), what s to say every parent would be able to organise appropriate education for their child?

How successful has the state been in organising appropriate education for each child?

Reply 6

CommunistHamster

Pretty effective. Sure, there are some delinquents who just won't learn and drop out, and there are people who breeze through school who would benefit from a higher level of education than their classmates, but overall I'd say the current UK education system, for all its flaws, is pretty good at what it sets out to do. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Reply 7

username141550

2

Very successful.

Personally, I think all private schools should be abolished and taken into the public sector.

Reply 8

Sebastian Flyte

Simon Rigelsford

How successful has the state been in organising appropriate education for each child?

Well there's nothing wrong in the model (state education) i dare say it's a contribution of factors: not enough power to teachers; not enough money involved; family problems at home.

I happen to know many people at Uni with me who went to state schools and have turned out to be bright and well mannered individuals.

And the alternative: taking the state out of the picture, would be catastrophic i suspect.

Reply 9

short stuff

are nation is full of idiots if we removed the enforced schooling till 16 then some parents would not send their child to school therefore creating even less educated people. these people would then vote and maybe run the country, i would be worried if they were in control.

Reply 10

Sebastian Flyte

Dan-IW

Very successful.

Personally, I think all private schools should be abolished and taken into the public sector.

Why do you believe that? Independent school generally far outstrip their public counterparts. What is wrong with private education? And remember most of these schools do a lot of charity work to afford their status - also offering many bursaries to children from lower income familes.

There are a growing number of people in this country turning to private schools because they don't trust the state to provide education (or perhaps, they don't trust this Government)

Reply 11

username141550

2

Well, I don't believe it very strongly, but I just about do. Reasoning: if the wealthiest have to send their children to state schools, they'll demand good state schools. As the wealthy have the ears of politicians, it would be on the agenda ever more, and more sincerely, than it is now. It might also stop the high concentration of good teachers at private schools, and it'd help break down class barriers. And the final reason is that I'm bitter :>.<:

Reply 12

Catsmeat

13

Sebastian Flyte

Why do you believe that? Independent school generally far outstrip their public counterparts. What is wrong with private education? And remember most of these schools do a lot of charity work to afford their status - also offering many bursaries to children from lower income familes.

There are a growing number of people in this country turning to private schools because they don't trust the state to provide education (or perhaps, they don't trust this Government)

That is reflective of a current social trend, certainly, yet I don't feel that state education should be discredited on that basis alone. The state is, I believe, responsible to provide education and skills training up to a certain age (18), followed by higher education support and aid beyond this. It is, ultimately, the decision of the individual parents and their children if they wish to attend a private school, though state schools (that provide free education as opposed to fee-based) should (and usually do) provide an excellent base of education that is appropriate to ensure that any individual can function efficiently in the post-school environment. I would personally not choose to attend a private school, and I believe that my state education did not hamper me in the slightest. Again, it is a private issue, and as long as an individual is within some form of education/training and if the job 'market' treats individuals based on quality rather than 'background' then the system is functioning as it should.

Reply 13

short stuff

if there wern't class barriers then there would be something else in place to separate people. i think it's in our nature.if you want better teachers then put pressure on the government to train them more and to a higher standard. so we may as well just leave the schooling system how it is.

Reply 14

DrunkHamster

8

Dan-IW

Very successful.

Really? 20% of the population, by the government's own figures, are functionally illiterate. Similarly, a quarter of adults are functionally innumerate. In what way is this a 'very successful' education system?

Reply 15

Sebastian Flyte

short stuff

if there wern't class barriers then there would be something else in place to separate people. i think it's in our nature.if you want better teachers then put pressure on the government to train them more and to a higher standard. so we may as well just leave the schooling system how it is.

Couldn't agree more. Pretending we're all equal (rationally or irrationally) is a little too 'socialist ideology' for me.

Reply 16

username141550

2

That's not great, but you'll always get some who simply won't go to school to learn, you can't physically force kids to learn. And what do you assume those percentages would be if all schools were private? It'd be more than double that.

Edit: Theres no pretending we're equal, we're born equal. Our up bringing may make us unequal, but reducing that can only be a good thing. And I'm certainly no socialist, I'd prefer more grammer schools (with perhaps different selection criteria).

Reply 17

Sebastian Flyte

Dan-IW

Well, I don't believe it very strongly, but I just about do. Reasoning: if the wealthiest have to send their children to state schools, they'll demand good state schools. As the wealthy have the ears of politicians, it would be on the agenda ever more, and more sincerely, than it is now. It might also stop the high concentration of good teachers at private schools, and it'd help break down class barriers. And the final reason is that I'm bitter :>.<:

You cannot punish the rich for the benefit of society at large; and, it's not even the rich who send their children to private schools - it's people who are taking out second and third mortages and surviving on next to nothing, just to pay for their children's fees.

And let's not forget, the rich are, generally speaking, those people who have made their money legitimately, paying tax as we all do. They're not a special category to punish when standards are failing for the poor.

Also i don't think there's anything wrong with class barriers - it's quite instinctive i think to separate ourselves.

As for being bitter, i think that's respectful honesty!! lol :smile:

Reply 18

username141550

2

But thats just it, you're not punishing the rich, else the current system is punishing poor kids. It's not their fault their parents can't afford private education, and it's not to the rich kids credit that their parents can afford private education. But removing the private sector, you level the playing field, they all have an equal chance to succeed.

"it's people who are taking out second and third mortages and surviving on next to nothing, just to pay for their children's fees." Perhaps for 5% kids who go to private school this is the case, but for the other 95%, it's not.

I don't think there is anything instinctive about seperating ourselves, it happens, but that because there are clear differences, not because we look to seperate.

Reply 19

Donald Duck

15

I'm for compulsory education, as it simply creates peopl with skills. Someone with skills (know how to read, do maths, have a sense of logic grown in their brains, etc) works much more efficient and I believe they are happier too, as the difference between the rich (who go to school then) and the poor (who don't know anything) can be easily crossed.

Abolish compulsory education?

Related discussions

Articles for you