What Schools Should be Like
Introduction
Schools in their current form are terrible. Yet traditional schooling seems to have great public support. Why is this? It is my opinion that people cannot imagine any alternative. I What I am proposing here is such an alternative. While this alternative may seem strange or radical to some people at first, I think that on closer consideration it will seem o be very reasonable.
Many have criticised traditional schooling, but few have provided a good alternative to it. This is what I attempt to do here. I had previously thought that the only solution was to abolish schools altogether, but I do not think that this would be realistic. And besides, there are actually some students who enjoy school, even in their current form. The basic idea here involves limiting compulsory schooling to the first two years of primary school, and also having a different building on the same campus for recreational education and activities, such as socialising, playing card games, watching films, and others. Students could choose not to attend school if they do not want to, or even if they choose to attend school, they could spend the day in the recreational building, engaging in recreational activities. This may sound crazy to some people at first, but I suspect that this is only because it is such a novel idea. Please try to be open to this novel idea, and you be see more value in it.
What is Wrong With the Current School System
There are many things wrong with the current school system. Some critics have compared the current traditional school system to slavery and false imprisonment. It is easy to see why people make this comparison. In traditional schooling, students are forced to attend school without their permission, and often against their will. Further, they are forced to do hard work without payment. Not only is this wrong, but it is harmful to their education and their development.
The material they are forced to study after the first two years of primary school is generally not necessary for everyday life. For this reason alone it is morally wrong to force it upon students. Of course, if they are genuinely interested in studying this material, then they should be given the opportunity to do so.
Forcing students to attend school can discourage them from studying the material they are forced to study even after they leave school. For example, a student who is forced to study geography may well develop a hatred of the subject, because of the unpleasantness of being forced to study it. They may remember this negative experience after they leave school, and so choose not to read books about geography, which they may otherwise have read.
The unpleasant atmosphere created by compulsory schooling can have many other negative effects upon students and teachers alike. Teacher stress is a major problem in many schools, and is caused primarily by compulsory schooling. I f school were not compulsory, then teachers would not be confronted by classes full of unhappy students who do not want to be there, or who want to be there for the wrong reason. I f 3
schools were not compulsory, then this problem would probably not exist, or at least would be far less prevalent.
The thinking behind compulsory schooling laws may have been well intended, but they have terrible. They have created the opposite problem to the one that existed before. In the past, if a child wanted to attend school to learn the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, they could find it impossible to do so. Seeing a problem, well meaning people decided to introduce compulsory schooling as a solution. It has since been gradually increased up until adulthood or close to adulthood. But this has led to the opposite problem for students, and now they they are forced to attend school even if they hate it. Being forced to attend school even if a student hates it can do terrible psychological damage to the student, and can also be very bad for their education.
As a result of compulsory schooling, there tends to be a very high teacher to student ratio in most schools. This greatly reduces the quality of school instruction, as it is difficult for the teacher to make adequate time for each student.
A Model School
So, what should schools be like? I would suggest first of all that compulsory schooling be drastically reduced. Actually, I would prefer if compulsory schooling were abolished altogether. But I do not think that this would be a realistic proposal, and so I am simply suggesting that it be limited to the first two years of primary school. So why limit compulsory schooling to the first two years of primary school? What is it about these first two years that make them special? The first two years of primary or elementary school are when children are studying the absolute basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are studying the alphabet and learning how to count. I think that it is permissible, though not ideal, to force children to study these things. They are of great utility in their everyday lives, and they will not have to wait until adulthood to find them beneficial. Moreover, their younger age makes it less wrong to force them to attend school. This can be contrasted with the absurdity of forcing adolescents to attend school later on.
What students study after the first two years of primary or elementary school becomes ever more unnecessary, and ever more difficult to justify imposing it upon them without their permission. After all, they already have the basics after the first two years of primary school, and so they can use these basic skills to study by themselves, if they wish.
Forcing children to attend school in late childhood and adolescence is not only wrong, but is absurd.
After the first two years of primary school, students are of an age when they should be able to make key decisions about their own lives. I t should be obvious to them that what is studied after the first two years of primary school is unnecessary, and that they will probably never need to use it again after they leave school. Take mathematics, for example. Whereas in the first two years of primary school, the mathematics is very relevant and useful and even interesting to all or most students, after the first two years, it becomes unnecessary. By the third year of primary or elementary school, students are taught various sums which they would never need to use in real life. Indeed, nowadays there are calculators that they could use to perform the same sums, but even before the invention of modern calculators, these sums would be unnecessary, because the sums at this stage are quite simple, and could in most cases be quite easily performed i one's head. And so it is wrong to force students to study these sums.
A similar problem exists with other subjects. By the third year of primary school, the English that is taught becomes unnecessary. This contrasts with the first two years of primary school, where the English taught is very basic, and therefore essential. In the first two years, students study the alphabet, and basic spelling of simple words. By the end of the first two years, students should have basic literacy skills, meaning they can read and write adequately. They may not yet have excellent literacy skills, but that is not important, because they can easily self-learn these skill after they acquire the basic literacy skills. They would probably acquire the basic skills even if they were not forced to do so in schools. but it may still be permissible to force them to study them in the first two years. Of course they should be given the opportunity to go beyond the basic skills if they wish. But to force them to do so is wrong and unnecessary. It is an extreme violation of their rights. It is treating them like slaves.
But what is studies becomes more and more unnecessary and harder to justify with each passing year f school. By the fourth year of primary or elementary school, students are subjected to even more unnecessary studies than in the third year. The sums and grammar become more complex. Spellings become longer and more unnecessary. They may be introduces to completely new subjects, such as a language. Of course, there would ne nothing wrong with this if they wanted to study it, which some of them do. But of course, some of them do not want to study it. Forcing them to do so is likely to make them hate what is being taught. Whereas they may have found what they were studying in the first two years to be relevant and useful immediately after they acquired it, they are far less likely to have a similar experience after the first two years. There is nothing wrong with giving them a chance to study a new subject. But it is unnecessary, and therefore wrong to do so. Not only have the two basic subjects of English, (in the case of English-speaking countries), and Mathematics become unnecessarily complex, but other subjects are also introduced. At this stage, all the subjects are unnecessary.
School Design and Layout
School design and layout should be changed. There should be a separate building on the school campus to accommodate recreational activities, in addition to the building for academic activities. This would be the case in both primary and secondary schools. There would still be curriculum which would be taught in the academic building, but this would not be the case in the recreational building. Students could choose whether or not to attend school after the first two years of primary school, and they could choose whether to attend the recreational building or the academic building. They could also split their day between the academic building and the recreational building if they wish. For example, a student could choose to study French and Mathematics in the morning when they are offered in the curriculum, and then he or she could choose not to follow the curriculum in the afternoon, and instead attend the recreational building to socialise and play table tennis. Alternatively he or she could decide to take a half day. All of this must seem quite radical to some people, but I would ask such people to be open minded, because it is not radical. Imagine how much the student would enjoy their studies if they could choose to attend class of their own free will, and were not surrounded by students who do not want to be there. It would be a much more pleasant nd beneficial experience for them
It would also be a much more pleasant and beneficial experience for the students who go to the recreational building during the same time period. They would be free to socialise and engage in activities like card games and table tennis and other sports. Their natural curiosity would be preserved, and they may eventually want to challenge themselves a bit more. They may well want to try out one or more of the subjects offered on the curriculum in the adjacent academic building.
You may wonder would anyone even attend the academic building. Would it be empty of students? I think that this is most unlikely to transpire. But even if this were the case, then the teacher would be paid for turning up, even if there were no students in attendance. Not all teachers would find this very fulfilling, but they could use the free time to do other activities, and it would perhaps suit some teachers. But there would very likely be at least one student in attendance. And surely a class with no students would be a lot better that a class full of unenthusiastic students who are being forced to attend against their will.
Within the recreational building of the school campus, there could be a canteen which could also be used by students of the academic building during lunch period. There would be a large social room, with plenty of tables and chairs and benches for students to gather and socialise. It would have to be of ample size, and have amble table and chairs and benches to mke sure that all students find a place there. It is important that students have tables there to place their belongings on, and also to facilitate social interaction by acting as a focal point for the group around the table. Students would be facing each other in this situation, which would facilitate social interaction, unlike in many classrooms, where they are not facing each other. Having their own table would make them feel secure. The seats would also have to be comfortable and strong. There would also be benches to facilitate students who may feel uncomfortable facing other students. Again, these would have to be comfortable and strong. There could also be smaller rooms in the recreational building. These rooms would accommodate things like card games, video games, a television for watching television or videos, table tennis and other activities. The recreational building could include an indoor sports area. There would be recreational teachers or supervisors for the recreational building just as there would be academic teachers for the academic building. These teachers or supervisors would need to be able to be good at supervising the students, and would need to be good at making sure that students behave themselves appropriately. They would not have to be highly qualified, but would have to be capable of disciplining students and would have to be good at reporting students who are unruly and perhaps have them suspended or expelled. They would have to be tough of misbehaviour. But because students are unlikely to be unhappy i this system, they would be less likely to encounter misbehaviour than in traditional schools. In very small schools, the academic teacher could also function as a supervisor of the recreational building. There would need to be a separate recreational building because it is likely to be noisy an chaotic, which would be undesirable in an academic building.
The academic building of the school campus would consist of the usual rooms of a traditional school, but would also accommodate a very large and well stocked library. Of course, some traditional schools have a large library also, but this facility would be universal in this system. Because school would not be compulsory after the first two years of primary or elementary school, students could be in the school library any time they want, for as long as they want. They could potentially spend the whole day in the library. There would of course be academic books available in the library, but also other types of books. There would be plenty of desks and seats to accommodate students who wish to spend a long time in the library. These desks would be fitted with good lighting, which is essential for reading, and for protecting eyesight against damage. This would encourage autodidactism or self learning, in students. It could help provide an alternative form of academic education to students who feel uncomfortable with both traditional schooling and social activities, which would be available to students in other parts of the campus. It could also have computers and internet access. It would therefore probably be quite popular. Unlike some other school libraries students would be allowed to use the internet for purely recreational purposes. In some cases, the school library could perhaps also be used by the community generally.
Parents and Guardians and the Law
While school would be compulsory for the first two years of primary or elementary school, it would not be legal for parents or guardians to be given terms of imprisonment for their children failing to attend school. This is a barbaric and unjust practice, and does not belong in any civilized society. It is absurd that a parent or guardian should be imprisoned for their child not attending school, for whatever duration. It is treating them like common criminals when this is clearly not the case.
If a parent or guardian does not allow their child to attend school after the first two years of primary or elementary school, even though the child wants to attend, then this would be a criminal offence which would be dealt with like any other form of child abuse. This would be very rare, and should not be an argument against this system of limiting compulsory schooling to the first two years of primary or elemental school. It would be permissible for parents or guardians to coerce their child into attending school after they leave compulsory schooling, but this would be strongly discouraged.
Possible Need for Less Teachers
There may be a need for less teachers in this system than in traditional schooling. However, teachers employed at the time of transition to this system from traditional schooling would be able to keep their jobs. When they retire voluntarily they would perhaps not be replaced, and this way the number of teachers could be gradually reduced. However it is not certain that there would be a need for less teachers. Even if there were, schools would probably employ an equal number of staff as do traditional schools, because they would also employ recreational teachers or supervisors as well as academic teachers.
Appearance and Attire
In this system of schooling, schools would not have draconian rules concerning personal appearance and attire, as many traditional schools have. As a general rule, if the student's attire would be acceptable in public, then it would be acceptable in school. School uniforms and dress codes, and rules concerning appearance, such as hairstyles, tattoos and piercings, would be illegal in publicly funded schools, and would be strongly discouraged in private schools. The main reason for this is that these rules are a violation of the student's right to make all their own decisions about their personal appearance and attire. There would also be practical benefits to this, such as the students being happier because they are to have the look they prefer. There could be an optional school outfit in place of a school uniform. This outfit would be designed by the students themselves, and may therefore be very popular among students. This would be in some ways similar to a school uniform, but would not be compulsory. There would be no rules regarding the design of this outfit which students would have to follow when designing it. Alternatively students could simply choose a school outfit they agree on which is already designed.
Improved Quality of Schooling
In this system, there would be a greatly improved quality of schooling. There are several reasons for this. There would be a much smaller teacher to student ratio. This would mean that the teacher would be able to spend much more time with each student. Teachers and students would not be stressed, as is the case in traditional schooling. This is because the classroom would not be full of students who either do not want to be there, or who want to be there for the wrong reason. These students cause stress to teachers and students who want to be there for the right reason because of their misbehaviour. But much of their misbehaviour would not be considered misbehaviour in the recreational building of the school. These students who misbehave in the classroom would be far happier and better off if they could be in the recreational building instead of the academic building when they do not want to be there. Engaging in recreational activities is just a different type of education to academic education. Students would be surrounded by other students who are genuinely interested in the ir studies. This would create a good atmosphere for learning.
Behaviour and Discipline
A major advantage of this system of schooling would be that it would be much easier for schools to suspend or expel students who engage in serious misbehaviour. In traditional compulsory schooling, laws about a child's right to be forced to attend school whether they like it or not make it very difficult to suspend or expel students who misbehave. Because schooling would not be compulsory after the first two years of primary or elementary school in this system of schooling, i would be much easier to suspend or expel students. This would make for a much better experience of school for students.
Bullying is a problem in some traditional schools, but this system of schooling would reduce or eliminate bullying. This is because people tend to be more likely to bully when they are unhappy. Students would be far happier in this system for a number of reasons. Students would not be forced to attend school after the first two years of primary or elementary school, and so they would not be surrounded by people who do not want to be there. Even if they choose to attend school, they would not have to attend the academic building, and could instead attend the recreational building. They are therefore likely to be much happier than they would be in traditional compulsory schooling.
In this system, any potential victims of bullying would be able to evade bullying because they would not have to attend school in the first place, and were they to do so, they could easily go to a different part of the campus to avoid a situation where bullying may arise. But bullying would be far less likely to arise in this system than in traditional compulsory schooling in the first place.
The teachers or supervisors in the recreational building would have to show that they are able to deal adequately with misbehaviour, as would the teachers in the academic building. There would be no point in hiring them if they are not able to handle student misbehaviour. The recreational building supervisors would have to do a training course lasting at least two months in order to qualify for the position.
Children Should Have the Right to Make their Own Decisions
There are those who will argue that children of approximately the ages of six or seven should not be trusted to decide whether or not to attend school, and to decide what to do in school if they choose to go there. I strongly disagree.
Children at that age already make many decisions of their own. They can decide what show to watch on television. They can decide what book they want to read. They can decide what video game they want to play. They can form opinions about things that interest them. And so it follows that they should be allowed to make decisions about school for themselves.
If children are not capable of making these decisions, then what makes us think that adults should instead be the ones who make the decision? It is especially absurd that adults who do not even know the child personally can make this decision for the child. And yet this is currently the case in traditional schooling. It is hardly surprising that most children are enthusiastic about learning the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but them become unenthusiastic about studying less important things. They have the intelligence to know the difference between useful and relevant information, and useless and irrelevant information. This proves that they should be allowed to make key decisions, including the decision of whether or not to attend school.
Conclusion
This system of schooling would have many advantages. I have already outlined the main problems with traditional compulsory schooling. Since I disagree with traditional schooling so strongly, it may seem strange that I have not devoted more of the book to criticising it. The reason I have done this is because it has been done so many times before. Several authors have written books critical of traditional schooling. Indeed, this goes back centuries, with Rousseau's Emile and Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education. I would encourage readers to read one of the many books criticising traditional compulsory schooling. I have instead decide to concentrate more on the solution than the problem.