Should students be made to go to school till the end of high school

Welcome to debate.org. You have picked a good topic, and I look forward to a spirited debate. There are six reasons why students should not be forced to go to school until the end of high school: 1. Pro did not define "the end of high school." A reasonable definition would be "until a high school diploma is achieved." That means a student could be kept in school for many years. This is unreasonable and impractical, and potentially forever. It is unreasonable because at some point the person is better off getting a job or doing something else. This is impractical because of the cost to the taxpayer. It is immoral because once a person is 18, it constitutes involuntary servitude. Minors can be directed to do things because they are not legally responsible for many of their decisions, but adults should not directed by the state as to how they spend their lives. 2. Pro asserts that subjects are not covered in depth until the 11th and 12th years. The state has a compelling interest in educating students on the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. The compelling interest derives from the importance of having functional citizens. However, there is no compelling interest in forcing students to learn the fine points of literature or history. It's generally a good to learn such things from the viewpoint of individual development, but it doesn't rise to the level of a compelling interest. It's also good to learn to swim or learn to drive a car, but there is no compelling interest of the state that justifies requiring them. 3. Keeping students in school does not compel them to actually learn anything of substance. Students who leave school generally have some sort of problem that makes them unsuited to benefit from classroom teaching. Compelling them to be in the classroom doesn't address the problem that has made them want to leave in the first place. 4. Some students are far better off pursing jobs that do not require so much education. they may be bored to tears by the classroom environment, but eager to pursue jobs in the trades. The may succeed in jobs like construction or various people-oriented service jobs. Holding them in the classroom is a pointless annoyance for the individual and a waste of taxpayer money. We would do better to encourage the development of apprentice systems rather than attempting to keep students in school who do not want to be there. 5. Some of the very best educational systems do not require completion of high school. Japan and Taiwan allow exiting after middle school, before their three-year high schools. A successful education system does not derive from compulsory attendance, but rather from a citizenry who believe in the value of education. "Japan has one of the world's best-educated populations, with 100% enrollment in compulsory grades and zero illiteracy. While not compulsory, high school (koukou) enrollment is over 96% nationwide and nearly 100% in the cities. High school drop out rate is about 2% and has been increasing. About 46% of all high school graduates go on to university or junior college." http://japanese.about.com... The resolution misunderstands the education problem. The problem is to evolve a society that values education more highly. 6. Educational resources are limited and precious. Society is better off spending resources for education beyond the basics on students who want to learn than on students who have little interest and are unlikely to benefit. Not having to carry uninterested students frees teachers and classroom space for a greater range of valuable elective course options and advanced placement courses. For these reasons, the resolution is negated.