14 DAY TRIAL // This is Part II of my editorial on the nature of the education system, and whether or not it represents a form of oppression for either students or parents. Please see Part I before reading further.
Advantages of mandatory education
Despite of what I believe about the nature of mass education, I am the first to admit that there are numerous benefits as well. Now, I cannot honestly say that I oppose or favor compulsory education, I think I'm on the fence on this one. What I find to be its biggest advantage is the equality of chances that people have when it comes to accessing education. The school system is no longer a mystical place reserved to the financial, political or the religious elites, but a common good accessible to the masses.
At the same time, public schooling provides a way for low-income families to change their socioeconomic status. Just decades ago, many parents would have opted to send their children to work instead of to school, just because they would have seen no gain from being educated. Now the playing field has been evened out, and everyone can afford at least basic education.
This naturally leads to a better-educated population, capable of making smarter financial decisions that ultimately boost the economy, and therefore living standards for all. (That is not to say I favor the trickle-down wealth redistribution system which Republicans appear to favor. I think this is easily one of the stupidest ideas ever to pass through the mind of man).
In addition, children who are destitute or in very poor financial conditions gain access to nutrition and basic health coverage through schools. Most of the latter feature hot lunch programs, or similar initiatives, as well as regular health screenings that poor families simply cannot afford. While some may consider this type of safety net to be a socialist measure, I call it basic human decency.
Another very significant advantage of mass education is that it introduces kids from all walks of life to technologies and ways of thinking (i.e. the scientific method) that they would otherwise have no way of coming in contact with. In turn, these concepts provide mental discipline, a trait that is in higher demand on the job market – therefore in the real world – than a useless college degree.
Though this can also be construed as a disadvantage, kids learn to follow rules while in school. Some may argue that this is the government trying to teach them to be obedient at an early age, and they could be right. However, I find it important for kids to learn as early on as possible that you can't simply do whatever you want all the time. The same goes for learning to meet deadlines.
The icing on the cake is social skills. Parents who opt to homeschool their children are almost always incapable of teaching proper social skills to their children. This basically happens because the young ones do not get the chance to interact with other kids of their age. They are deprived of the environment in which children usually test boundaries with their peers. The importance of children growing up in a social environment where they are exposed to multiple types of interactions cannot be overstated.
In the end, what you end up with is an educated population, capable of making rational decisions if it really comes down to it. People learn to do basic things such as sign official documents with letters, rather than with blood or spit as was customary less than a century ago. Everyone is able to learn how to make basic connections between abstract concepts, a trait that is relatively new to our species, evolutionarily speaking, and needs to be encouraged as much as possible, in my opinion.
Criticism
Educator John Holt is one of the many who argue that mandatory schooling encroaches on the rights of children. He argues that, if given the opportunity, kids would themselves start learning when they are ready, and according to their natural interests and desires. The responsibility for parents in this case would be to provide the little ones with a “rich and stimulating learning environment” that would promote an interest in learning.
Holt argues that coercion is not the way to instill a passion for knowledge and understanding. While I agree in part to this statement, I would make a note of the fact that a dedicated science teacher, for example, could instill the love for science in children in a way that the kids themselves could never hope to accomplish on their own. Like in many areas of life, there is no substitute for experience here.
Other opponents of mass schooling say that this encroaches on the rights of parents, by asking them to support school systems through taxes. The fact that the federal government spends billions on public education yearly is undeniable. The question then becomes, should everyone pay for everyone's education? In a word, the answer is yes, they should. What I cannot understand is the US mentality that somehow everyone should fend for themselves, without help from others.
This is one of my old quarrels with capitalism and market economy, which I will not dive into here. But what I can say is that the government should ensure equality of opportunity for its citizens, to prevent abuse. This equality also involves equal access to resources, including learning. The fact that government needs to support this financially follows directly from this line of reasoning.
A critic I can get behind more readily is the argument proposing that mandatory education implicitly teaches authoritarianism. See Part 1 and Part 2 of my Fascism in America editorial. Historically, there have been many examples where the brainwashing of a population has begun in schools. Children are malleable at an early age, and they can be made to believe whatever you want them to. However, the reason why I have my reserves with regards to this argument is that not only schools are indoctrinating kids. Parents do it to, be it with religious, economic or philosophic arguments.
I ask you, when parents teach their children that evolution is false, what right do they have to complain about the school system? Aah, but you see, many fundamentalist Christians are calling for the disappearance of mandatory education, so they can have free reign indoctrinating their kids themselves.
The last critic I will cover is the belief that each child has an individual mental and physical growth pattern that cannot be supported, or otherwise sustained, within the rigidly-imposed framework of the school system. This I whole-heartedly agree with. I also think schools should be about learning, not about preparing the next generation of workers for this or that corporation. But this is another story.
Anti-school activism
The anti-schooling activism movement has emerged as an expression of some parents' will to abolish compulsory schooling laws in multiple states across the US. Supporters argue that teaching is basically a means of politically controlling children, likening it to a form of subversive and oppressive activity.
“For what is meant by saying that a government ought to educate the people? […] What is the education for? Clearly, to fit the people for social life – to make them good citizens. […] It must first form for itself a definite conception of a pattern citizen; and, having done this, must elaborate such system of discipline as seems best calculated to produce citizens after that pattern. […] if it does otherwise, it allows men to become different from what in its judgment they should become, and therefore fails in that duty it is charged to fulfill,” said philosopher Herbert Spencer in the 19th century.
Austrian philosopher Ivan Illich (1926-2002) also had issues with the schooling system, calling for its immediate dismemberment. He argued that the system was set up in such a way that it made confusions between terms very easy. For instance, he said, confusing grades with education, or diplomas with competence are common mistakes, as are mistaking teaching for learning and the process with substance.
Over-education is also a concept usually brought up with anti-school activists. They say that many children tend to feel oppressed or burdened by the massive amount of data they are exposed to everyday during school hours.
As someone who has gone through a Communist-style schooling system, I can tell you that US citizens have nothing to complain about. In my country, pupils study 6 to 8 hours a day, and have anywhere from 12 to 17 subject matters to cover every week. Twelfth-grade math includes advanced concepts such as derivatives, integrals, matrices, and so on. The usual US school schedule has nothing like this.
Discussion
As I've said before, I am on the fence on whether or not public schooling should be allowed to continue. I think it brings a series of incontestable benefits, and I consider anyone who wants to deny them a bit crazy. On the other hand, it does promote conformity, and constitutes an extremely dangerous weapon in the hands of political, economic, religious or financial actors who know how to use it.
Returning to Osmond and his post, he does have a valid point when he says, “when a parent decides to enroll a child in public school, both the parent and child should agree to meet minimum standards of behavior and academic commitment or face real-life consequences such as repeating a class, a grade, or even expulsion.” I think school should be taken a bit more seriously, and teachers allowed to properly substitute parents during school hours. If parents delegate or mandate parts of their attributions to the government anyway (such as for security purposes), why can't the same be true for education?
I would love to hear where you stand on this. Please leave your opinions in the comments section below.