Education politics
With the beginning of the new legislative season, politicians are, once again, trying to increase the mandatory attendance age from 16 to 18. Some of the local homeschoolers are perplexed by this. They can't understand why anyone would do such a thing. After all, it's expensive, and who wants 17 year olds in school who don't want to be there? Certainly not the teachers.
Those who want to expand the compulsory attendance age do it for the same reason we have compulsory attendance! "It's for the children." It is commonly believed that people won't do things, even things which benefit themselves, without external motivation--whether that's punishment or reward based. For these people, the cost of enforcing such a law is totally irrelevant: "You can't put a price on a good education!" If kids won't attend school on their own, all that's lacking is the proper incentive. "This hurts me more than it hurts you. It's for your own good. You'll thank me someday."
Never mind the fact that lack of desire to attend school is a *symptom* of the problem. Never mind that solving the real problems would eliminate the need for the compulsion. And don't even bother to mention the fact that compelling someone to do something, even something they would do anyway, creates a resistance to that thing, no matter how beneficial that thing is otherwise. Yes, it's even possible to create a resistance to *eating* by compelling someone to eat--whether through rewards or punishments!
It is physically impossible to compel someone to learn. We can mandate attendance, but not knowledge acquisition. They don't know this, and most of them, if you show them the research which proves it to be true, would continue to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is too contrary to their beliefs. It would shake their faith to the core. And, even if you did convince them, they might still argue that education is so incredibly important that it must be compelled anyway.
Those who want to expand the compulsory attendance age do it for the same reason we have compulsory attendance! "It's for the children." It is commonly believed that people won't do things, even things which benefit themselves, without external motivation--whether that's punishment or reward based. For these people, the cost of enforcing such a law is totally irrelevant: "You can't put a price on a good education!" If kids won't attend school on their own, all that's lacking is the proper incentive. "This hurts me more than it hurts you. It's for your own good. You'll thank me someday."
Never mind the fact that lack of desire to attend school is a *symptom* of the problem. Never mind that solving the real problems would eliminate the need for the compulsion. And don't even bother to mention the fact that compelling someone to do something, even something they would do anyway, creates a resistance to that thing, no matter how beneficial that thing is otherwise. Yes, it's even possible to create a resistance to *eating* by compelling someone to eat--whether through rewards or punishments!
It is physically impossible to compel someone to learn. We can mandate attendance, but not knowledge acquisition. They don't know this, and most of them, if you show them the research which proves it to be true, would continue to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is too contrary to their beliefs. It would shake their faith to the core. And, even if you did convince them, they might still argue that education is so incredibly important that it must be compelled anyway.