Home - Vermonters for Better Education Home - David Kirkpatrick's pages Index

 
        In any debate, those who set the terms have a definite advantage. So, too, with education. It's almost universal for people, whether the establishment, reformers, or the average citizen, to use the terms "school" or "schooling," and "education" as if they are interchangeable, which they are not.

         It's a truism that one can be educated without being schooled, as was Theodore Roosevelt.  Sickly as a child, "Teedie" as he was known to the family, was taught by an aunt, and educated through reading and travel, and didn't attend a formal school until he entered Harvard.

         One can also be "schooled" without being educated, as is too common.

         One misuse of the "schooling" and "education" is to speak of "compulsory education." That is a misnomer. There are no laws which require that all children be educated.  Even referring to such laws as "compulsory attendance" laws is incorrect.

         All states do have laws requiring a set school year, typically 180 days. But none require that many days of attendance. If they did then students who miss a day would be violating the law. Some urban schools find 25% or more of the student body absent each day, thus missing at least 45 days, or attending 135 days, per year.

         The same is true of many other state requirements such as five instructional hours per day at the elementary level and 5.5 hours per day at the secondary level. That adds up to 900 and 990 instructional hours per year respectively -- the requirements in Pennsylvania. These are mandates for the system, not for students. Whether students are present any minimum amount of time and whether they learn anything varies greatly.

         Similarly, schools and school districts are mandated by law to keep certain public records or documents. But, even allowing for exceptions such as personnel records, let the public or reporters try to get access to them and you discover they aren't quite that public after all.

         Not that there isn't some true compulsion on individuals. Indeed there is.

         Parents are compelled to send their children to schools in the district in which they live, unless they are among the fortunate ones who can provide some legally acceptable alternative. They may even be compelled to send their child to a specific school, to a specific teacher or teachers, in specific classrooms, utilizing specific textbooks, specific teaching methods, under specific conditions over which they have no control, and on and on.

         There have been notorious instances where children were required to have medical exams or undergo other procedures not only without their parents' approval but without their knowledge.

         Those in charge of the public schools often complain that they must accept all children, whatever their background and condition. This is often used as an excuse for why many students cannot be taught, but that is a burden that is self-inflicted.  Try to open up the system, as in higher education, so students can choose the school and the school can choose the student, and see who objects the most.

         Accept for the moment that schools are not responsible for some students not being able to learn because of their background.  To be consistent the schools should disclaim any credit for students who do learn because of their backgrounds.  But, of course, to argue that what students learn is determined by their out of school environment is to say that schools don't make any difference.

         You rarely hear the school establishment suggest that it is parents/students who are the ones under true compulsion. They don't point out that families must accept the school and other offerings to which their children are assigned unless they can afford an alternative, or move -- and most cannot afford even that.

         Finally, not only parents but all citizens are compelled to pay taxes to support government schools. This might be defensible if the schools were successful. Some citizens would object even then, but at least there would be an argument about the public benefit of an effective educational experience. But success has nothing to do with it. Good or bad, helpful or harmful -- attend your children must, and pay you must.

         And some still wonder why the public is unhappy.

# # # # #

         "The paradox of universal, compulsory, state controlled schooling is that so long as we insist upon it, we cannot learn whether we need it, what we need it for, how it does whatever we suppose it does, or what might, if anything, better take its place." -- Laura Hersh Salganik, 1981

# # # # #

Copyright 2007 David W. Kirkpatrick
108 Highland Court,
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518-9240
Phone: (610) 689-0633