A Teacher Questions Compulsory Schooling
by Jim Strickland
 You can
barely open a newspaper these days without being inundated with cries for
various reforms and innovations aimed at curing what ails our public education
system. There are obviously many passionately committed souls out there who care
deeply about children and who are willing to do whatever it takes to provide the
nurture and support they need to grow up into good human beings and lifelong
learners.
But what is
it that actually “ails” public education, and what is it that children really
need from us? In all the discussions about vouchers, charter schools and higher
standards, I never hear anything about what I have come to believe is the one
proposal that would do the most to improve the quality, integrity, effectiveness
and democratic character of our current system.
Can one
change really make that much of a difference? In the book The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It's Too Late, psychologist and educator Seymour Sarason
invites readers to imagine a situation where we are empowered to initiate one
change, and only one, in a school system. The only restriction is that the
change cannot cost discernibly more money than is now available. “On what basis
should your decision rest? Obviously, you will seek that change which, if
appropriately implemented, (quite an assumption!) will have over time desirable
percolating effects on other problems in other parts of the system. The
important point is that you do not choose a change because it addresses an
important problem – of which there are many – but because what you seek to
change is so embedded in a system of interacting parts that if it is changed,
then changes elsewhere are likely to occur.”
|
"Rescinding compulsory school attendance laws would bring
our public education system in line with the fundamental democratic
notion that institutions are created to serve people rather than
people to serve institutions." |
The proposal I am making is one that meets Sarason’s criteria of
having a long-term and far-reaching percolating effect at no additional cost.
Imagine what would happen if our current compulsory school attendance laws were
simply rescinded? This legal change would leave our public provision of free and
appropriate education intact, while placing the burden of service on our schools
rather than on the families and individuals who would then be free to choose
when, how or even whether or not to use them. It would bring our public
education system in line with the fundamental democratic notion that
institutions are created to serve people rather than people to serve
institutions. Existing anti-discrimination laws would keep schools from denying
anyone access to publicly-funded learning opportunities, while making these
programs and classes completely optional.
Compulsory attendance laws undermine learning by creating an atmosphere of
coercion, mistrust and manipulation. They do this by their very existence as the
faint (or not-so faint) hum in the background of each potentially joyful moment
in every classroom. We all know the best way to make anyone hate doing something
is to force their compliance under threat of punishment. Learning that is
meaningful, lasting and real can only take place with the consent and willing
participation of the learner. One cannot teach the values of freedom and
democracy using a totalitarian pedagogy. The medium is the message.
Compulsory attendance laws also exist under the questionable assumption that our
system of mass schooling is capable of meeting the unique learning needs of all
young people – why would we force anyone to attend if we did not believe we had
what they needed? But if learning theory tells us anything, it is that there is
no such thing as a “one-size-fits-all” education. While the majority of students
seem to do reasonably well in our current system, there is a sizable minority
who are destined for humiliation and failure through no fault of their own.
These children are exceptional in one way or another and have learning styles
that cannot be adequately served by mass methods. Compelling them to continue
beating their heads against an unyielding brick wall is both cruel and
eventually devastating. Why not empower these young people and their families to
take charge of their own learning and their lives? They may find our support and
guidance easier to accept when we remove our guns from their heads, and
compulsory service laws would require us to do everything in our power to
provide learning opportunities that work for them.
So what is it that we are really afraid of? A world full of passionate, curious,
thoughtful, self-directed individuals whose creativity and confidence have not
been undermined by an oppressive and controlling system? I suppose a democracy
could do worse!
Finally, compulsory attendance laws are just plain unnecessary. In an age when
access to virtually unlimited knowledge is easier and less expensive than ever
before, do we really think that spending most of their waking hours behind the
walls of often less-than-inspirational institutions with hordes of same-age
peers is the best way for children to grow up in our world? And just imagine the
unlimited possibilities for creative learning opportunities that would arise
given the demand for them! The walls dividing our schools from our communities
and the rest of life would crumble and learning would become an integrated
experience of joyful growth that complements human nature and feeds the human
spirit.
Jim Strickland is a community-based educator in Marysville, Washington. He says
that if he could focus all of his energy on one issue that he believes would
have the greatest long-term impact on moving our world in the right direction,
it would be to abolish compulsory schooling. He invites response from readers
who are interested in raising public awareness and inviting political action. He
can be reached by email at
livedemocracy@hotmail.com.
| 
