Compulsory Education

"We should banish the idea," writes Alfred North Whitehead, "of a mythical, far-off end of education."

We require our children to go to school, not just for their own good, but, ostensibly, so that they will be prepared for the rights and responsibilities of being citizens in a self-governing society.

At least that's the theory. Polling finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor compulsory education for children between the ages of six and eighteen. But if education is so important, why does it only apply to children?

What if, instead of declaring childhood the "end of education," we required all of us to continue going to school? I mean, if it's good for the kids, and good for democracy, then why not make it mandatory for everyone?

I can already hear some people saying, "Screw that! I don't need the government telling me what to do." Fair enough. Governmental overreach is one of the reasons we fought our Revolutionary War. But if we accept that argument (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), then why do we overwhelmingly believe that every child must spend their formative years under the yoke of compulsory schooling? 

Just as a thought experiment, what if every citizen was required to take a four-week (or six-month) paid educational leave every five years. Let's imagine for the sake of this thought experiment that employers were on board, holding your position for your return and that entrepreneurs would be paid a fair stipend. Let's also make it clear that this isn't mere professional development and there would be no fixed curriculum, but rather an open-ended opportunity to learn about whatever interests you. And you would continue to be obliged to do this even in retirement.

At 30 you might study constitutional history, ceramics, ecology or statistics. At 45, philosophy, child development, artificial intelligence or music. At 65, geology, poetry, evolutionary biology or local government. Some portion could involve gathering with people unlike yourself to discuss genuinely difficult public questions. 

We currently devote our compulsory education and resources almost entirely to the people with the least political power. Children can't vote. They can't sit on juries. They can't run corporations. They can't legislate. They can't serve on school boards. They can't even legally own property. Meanwhile, the people actually exercising all those powers have no corresponding obligation whatsoever to continue learning. It's not a reach to wonder if this stands at the heart of much of our political dysfunction.

We commonly justify compulsory childhood schooling by saying something like, Children don't yet know enough to know what they need to know. But surely that remains true of us at 40, 60 and 80. Indeed, one of the things education ideally teaches us is just how enormous the territory of our ignorance is.

The idea of compulsory schooling sounds somewhat reasonable when we talk about children, but quite authoritarian when applied to adults. What does this tell us about our attitudes toward both children and education?

The objection most of us would have, I think, is that we don't want our government mandating our own education, but let's try flipping it around. What if society was compelled to provide the conditions for lifelong education? Your employer couldn't say you're too busy. Lack of money would not exclude you. Childcare couldn't make participation impossible. Education would become something society owed you, not just in childhood, but throughout life.

And here's the key to this thought experiment. What if we made it radically free: you must learn, but nobody gets to tell you what to learn?

Here are libraries, universities, workshops, museums, laboratories, studios, teachers, craftspeople, naturalists, historians, artists, scientists, and communities available to you. Your job is to spend this month learning something. What that is would be up to you.

Suddenly, "compulsory education" doesn't sound quite so much like coercion. It starts sounding like a right that is so important that society insists you exercise it. And, to my ear at least, it begins to sound like an opportunity more than an obligation. The compulsion has subtly shifted from the learner to society.

Of course, the devil is always in the details, but so is god. 

And it raises the question: why can't our children's education be like this? Our current educational system is fully compulsory. We tell children what they must learn, when they must learn it, how long they have to learn it, and how they must demonstrate that they've learned it. 

If I proposed giving every adult a month (or 6 months) every five years in which they were required to pursue an education of their own choosing, would we experience that as an infringement on our liberty? Or would we see it as an astonishing expansion of it?

Speaking for myself, I'd answer the latter. I don't think I would be alone in welcoming the idea of periodically setting everything aside to fully exercise my curiosity, to expand my knowledge and skills, not for monetary gain, but for the joy of it. The fact that it would make me a better citizen is a wonderful side-effect. 

And it makes me wonder if perhaps the problem with compulsory childhood education isn't that it's compulsory, but rather it's what we've made compulsory.

******

Books have a way of transforming us unlike any other media out there. Be it fiction or non-fiction, a books has the power to fully immerse us into a world in ways that makes us come out the other side a changed -- and better -- person. I've put together this list of 16 books that have done that for me. They are intentionally not early childhood books, although each one has, in one way or another, profoundly transformed my work with young children. Maybe you'll find a few new ones here that will do the same for you. To download the list, click here.

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!