One day, back at Pearson College, we were discussing\u00a0literacy during French class. One of my friends suggested, to my absolute disbelief, that it was wrong of society to force children to learn how to read. I argued that this was absurd, since it is almost impossible to be a functioning adult in a modern industrial society without the ability to read. He replied that it was wrong of us to design our cities\u00a0in such a way that this is the case. At the time I thought he was being ridiculous; in fact, I thought he was just making this up for the sake of argument, as if he rejoiced in contrariety.<\/p>\n
Last night, as I remembered this conversation, I realised I was too quick to dismiss my friend’s argument. Education in general is, if anything, a service that the state provides to its citizens. In that case, why should it be compulsory? Presumably it’s because of the assumption that children are unable to make decisions before they reach a certain age, so somehow the responsibility falls on the state to decide what is good for them, or at least good for society.<\/p>\n
But I wonder, how true is this assumption that children can’t make decisions? If you’ve ever talked to a child you should know that they are usually very aware of what they like and dislike. The assumption is\u00a0that the decisions children would make if we allowed them to decide what to do with their lives would have negative consequences later on. That is, we assume that many children would choose not to study, and therefore ruin their chances of becoming doctors or engineers, or even getting a job at all once they become adults. So the only solution appears to be to force them to study, and to decide what they should study based on what we think they will need to know once they grow up.<\/p>\n
I disagree. I think there are better solutions, solutions that avoid many of the problems caused by the current system. I think these problems are best summarised by the following youtube video, based on a TED talk:<\/p>\n