Talk:Compulsory education

message: A quick research in the web shows the following data:
Compulsory education was introduced in Parts of Prussia on the 28.Oktober 1717 by Friedrich Wilhelm I and extendet to whole Prussia by Friedrich II 12. August 1763. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.128.117 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but a quick search of the web also shows a number of sources which specify 1819 or even "the 1820s."  It would be nice to have something more authoritative. -- Visviva 10:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An authority on the subject is James van Horn Melton, who wrote 'Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins of Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria' in 1988. He says Frederick the Great's decrees of 1763-5 was the beginning of a mass system of compulsory education. In Austria, it happened in 1774. 91.109.143.207 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Prussia

message: Might mention controversy (mainly among students) over concept.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some considerations about it and linked to truancy. --TuukkaH 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be nice if the controversy section was dramatically edited down and the benefits section made more than a few uncited lines. This article is incredibly biased against compulsory education, the controversy section is several orders of magnitude larger than the benefits section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.123.220 (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I deleted the section about schools in Scotland from 1616. If you read the pertinent section footnoted in the W article on education in Scotland, you will find that it does not say that these schools were mandatory. In fact, it says they exerted "moral pressure" to try and get the local inhabitants to attend.  That's not compulsory education.  (6Darentig - talk) 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact about the Education Act of 1496 does seem to be compulsory, but could hardly be referred to as "modernity". Nevertheless, the "1616 Scottish Privy Council" part is still non-compulsory.  (6Darentig - talk) 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moral pressure" by government is compulsion. Ramorum (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it's not, particularly in 1496.  You're talking about a government that had no compunction about having its citizens grusomely tortured and killed for what passed for "sedition".  If they had wanted to make not attending school illegal, they would have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiago (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole section about the UK ignores the Scottish system now as a result. Something should be mentioned given the importance of the seperate education system in Scotland. Quiksilver4Eyes (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland 

message: Compulsory education starts from 6 and ends at 15.  When someone turns 16, which means that person is no longer required to go to school.    (69.117.20.128 - talk)
:That's a matter of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.16.108 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again (at least in my country), no it's not.  You turn 16, you're not compelled to attend school.  End of story.  There's tens of thousands of people who do it every year (most of them wind up in the trades) and last I checked, no-one has tried to put them in concentration camps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiago (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Compulsory education]] 

message: Whatever the merits or non-merits of compulsory education it is largely popular around the world so it is strange that this article is  5% history and 95% criticism. I'm not sure how to integrate it but including some support might be a good idea, maybe as part of the history and in there much of the criticism could also be located. Then you could also have an effects section or something of the like which contains facts, praise and criticism about the effects of compulsory education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some conflation (see below) going on here and an absence of citation - who can say that compulsion is 'largely popular around the world' when it is so rarely discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.16.108 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Benefits section is small because all of the supposed "benefits" have no explanation of how or why compulsory education brings them about. Perhaps if someone could show how compulsory education has these benefits, it wouldn't look like something out of a grade-school persuasive essay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.153.130 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefits section is small because, just that the benefits of compulsory education are small. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with the benefits section being small - it already covers most of what is "good". Compulsory systems are usually unquestioned, and the criticisms are relatively unknown. 91.109.143.207 (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[A little support might be nice]] 

message: There seems to be a lot of conflation (confusion of related issues) going on here, on both pages, and beyond - perhaps reflecting the relative youth of the institution in this culture. 
Are those who sing the praises of 'compulsory education' applauding the enforcement of the universal right to education, the compulsion itself, or the education which happens to result? These are important distinctions, for there is clearly a difference between education itself, which is a right, and the compulsion, seen by some as essential, and by others as an infringement of civil liberties. 
No-one denies that some parents and guardians unfairly deny children the right to education where it is not enforced, but this is quite different from a general acceptance that universal compulsion is therefore an inevitable summum bonum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.16.108 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the righ to education is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, amongst others, and in international law the realisation of the irght to education does not mean compulsory education. I have taken the re-direct for right to education out. I think the two are linked, as many countries have thought to realise the right to education of every child by implementing compulsory education, but its not the same. So the right to education should really ahve its own article. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the confusion comes from the use of the words education and attendance as though they were synonyms.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks to a right to an education, not to the power of the state to compel school attendance where students may or may not learn anything useful.  ````freeourminds  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeourminds (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conflation]] 

message: This article contains a palpable, perhaps chauvinistic US bias. It refers to 'public schools' (a term which can mean something quite different in the Commonwealth) and to 'the principles of personal liberty that this country was founded on.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.16.108 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the above editor will do it, not just complain. --Zeamays (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the anonymous editor only had time to identify the problem, and you only had time to give a snotty response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[US bias]] 

message: These two wikipedia articles mention compulsory education in Judea from ~60 C.E:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_education
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: This article with the huge criticism rant section looks like as if being written by a survivalist wacko living up the hills in a wooden shed sleeping with a loaded gun out of constant fear of FBI agents coming to nab him. The author who composed this article is obviously paranoid and should get treatment. He is so afraid of the state, the state of his mind lost balance!
It is a matter of fact that compulsory schooling makes a country successful. Look at Japan and Germany, world class industrial powers due to their skilled labour. Even the USSR made a great progress from the misery of tsarist Russia after implementing the ten year schooling system. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, who's lost the "balance" of his mind now? Sounds like you, buddy. Ramorum (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That 82.131.210.162 guy sounds like a communist sympathizer to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.109.119 (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now, folks. 82.131.210.162 is entitled to his irrelevant fascist opinion. Let's wish our comrade a safe journey to the labor camps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.211.17 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Americans.64.138.208.217 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please curb the lot of mental rant in the article! 

message: I removed a good chunk of the "Benefits" section, for several reasons. The whole section was riddled with false dichotomies and misleading verbage.
* Higher percentage of literate people in the population
* It prepares people for the schedule and effort that jobs demand.
* An alternative to compulsory education is homeschooling, in which parents teach their children at home. Many parents are not familair with the subject material, so they cannot teach it. The children end up with no education.
* Compulsory education is a babysitting service too. This allows parents time to go to their jobs, where they cannot take their children.
* Though homeschooling might increase quality of education among some individuals, it reduces the quantity of people educated.
Most of these "benefits" present a false dichotomy. The picture painted is one in which there are two options for every child: either attend compulsory government schooling or have no education. Alternatively, be homeschooled (which one of the "benefits" mentions but others overlook). This is simply not an accurate picture of schooling. Many students attend private educational institutions and would do so even if doing so were not made compulsory by government. Homeschooling does not "reduce the quantity of people educated" -- what a ridiculous claim -- if they students who are not homeschooled attend some other school -- public or private. If parents desire a school as a babysitting service, they can achieve this by voluntarily enrolling their children in school in a system without compulsory schooling. Every one of the points above is addressed by a free (as in liberty, freedom, free will, voluntary, speech; not beer) system of education.
These arguments and others could probably also apply to the three "benefits" I didn't (yet) remove. Probably the section should be written to include some of the common benefits which people or governments claim, with citations, and clarifying that they are perceived or claimed benefits, not benefits. Also, contrary views should be presented in such a case. Any benefits of a general high level of education or literacy should be left out, since they are not benefits of compulsory education, as mentioned above.
Ramorum (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gatto simply isn't that influential.  There's no need for a blushing 4 paragraph rant on his work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartyMan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Benefits" 

message: I removed the "citation needed" tag next to the part where it says that compulsory education takes up a great deal of an individual's time. This is obvious, and no citation is needed. If you do insist on citing someone, cite me. 131.151.211.17 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. It may or may not take up so much time in some countries or to some people. Windfarmer1799 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, It Takes Up A Lot Of Time 

message: The UDHR ( at the UN Site: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx ) doesn't necessarily talk about the cumpulsion of people to attend manadatory education.  The French and Spanish versions make a distinction between the terms "education" and "teaching", which the English version does not; it simply uses the word "education" in all parts of Article 26.  From the French and Spanish, it appears to me (not having a French or Spanish cultural referent from the 1940's) that what is cumpulsory is the state's obligation to teach "elementary and fundamental" things.  The French and Spanish versions, as delivered in 1948, don't even use the word "primary", which is the preferred term for the roughly 6-12 year old K-6th grade level of education (again, this may be my lack of a 1940's cultural referent for French or Spanish).  I am inclined to remove the references to the UDHR and start a section that disambiguates the idea of "cumpulsory education" -- the achievement of state required learning objectives and the UDHR issue of the state's obligation to provide for the teaching of certain basic skills. June1969 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

message: * The article fails to present the current situation in major parts of the world. It does not even mention Germany, which is a notable exception to the rule that western industrialized countries allow home schooling. 
* The article presents the topic in a decidedly POV way. Section critisism makes for 3/5 of the article, while benefits is a mere five ite, list. This clearly puts undue weight to the arguments of the opposers.
-----<(kaimartin)>--- (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patchy and heavily slanted 

message: The reason the criticizm section is so bloated compared to the benefits section is that the benefits section just lists ideas, but the criticism section lists sources and then goes on to explain all the ideas each source has ever said. (Presumably because people keep reading the article, thinking "ooh, I have one!" and then adding their favorite authors to the stack.) The result is redundant (points get repeated), not to mention mismatched both to the benefits section and to other well-sourced Wikipedia articles. The criticism section needs to be a list of arguments against compulsory education, with a little citation (or citations) after each statement. Ideally, arguments in the criticism and benefits sections should be explained in the exact same level of detail. Then the two sections will be similar enough that readers will stop yelling "bias" and start taking the presented arguments seriously.
I would do it myself if I had that much time, and access to a good number of the books listed in the article so that I could make sure not to misrepresent them. Especially the bit about the time. Sorry. Still, I thought I'd add this because somehow, nobody seems to have thought of it yet, and it's a lot more practical than just saying "you should prune some stuff from this section because I don't like it." This way, there's no need to cut out entire authors or arguments for the sake of making the criticism section look the same size as the understandably tiny benefits section. 
Though I do suggest cutting out entire authors because what they have to say is too specific to America. A rewrite is also needed just to get rid of all the parts that imply only Americans are reading this article. After the cleanup, readers might feel it's worth their time to add information from their own contries. 67.110.213.167 (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  less TV Tropes, more topics 

message: Some parents choose not to school thier children at all, believing that the desire to learn will surface on it's own, should this be mentioned? The snare (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I believe that's a fringe theory.  Billions of children world-wide go through the compulsory education children in their respective countries.  In comparison to that, I believe that the number of children who are educated via the "unschooling" method would be inconsequential and not worthy of note in this article.  However, I agree that this topic could be addressed in one of the other articles that specifically address anti-schooling arguments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiago (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What about unschooling?

message: I have done some cleaning up of this article. The 'By Country' section was a mess of history and current legislation, and the 'History' section was small and not particularly informative. I have added a couple of references to dates and tidied up the history section. Much more could be added but I felt a general historical overview was important. 91.109.143.207 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is confusing in a number of different ways and talks about education when it really means schooling. For example, in the UK, while education is compulsory, school attendance is not - you would not grasp this important difference from this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: There appears to be some conflict within the "Modern Era" subsection of the History. It currently reads:
:"Compulsory education on this model gradually spread to other countries, reaching the American State of Massachusetts in 1852..."
and then goes on to say:
:"Massachusetts had originally enacted the first compulsory education law in the American colonies in 1647."
Why the 200-year difference? Then the next paragraph begins:
:"Compulsory education had not been part of early American society..."
So which is it? When did compulsory education get introduced to America and at what point was it widespread? Nosecohn (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts in history section 

message: Mass education was a major historical development in education and should be kept as a separate page on Wikipedia, rather than being merged into compulsory education. Yes, mass education has a modern context, i.e. the current education system as we know it, but this change in education from "education for the elite" to "education for everyone", largely driven by the industrial age(?), really is a major development in education and should be kept as a separate page, with a focus on history or mass education as a movement, i.e. when it occurred, who developed it, why it occured, and perhaps with a final section on the current education system and where mass education is today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.151.233 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass education is a separate topic 

message: I have grave doubts about the assertions of this article as to Prussia being the first country to introduce compulsory education. It certainly does not chime in with the article in the German wikipedia.
But leaving that aside, even more questionable is the unsourced comment according to which Prussia intended to have more obedient soldiers and serfs due to compulsory education.
Not only would the instrument defeat the purpose as everyone has to see that more education certainly does not mean more obedience, there are also other more likely reasons for the introduction of compulsory education.
I would recommend deleting it, until a quote from a reputable source is provided. I stress reputable, because in the course of googling the topic, I have become aware that there are certain interest groups that seem to make up their own history with regards to compulsory schooling in Germany and Prussia. 134.2.3.102 (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about Prussia 

message: Compulsory Schooling is a more neutral and more accurate title, since  schooling can take pace outside schools, and not all education is compulsory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 07:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Schooling which takes place outside a school is called homeschooling. "[...] not all education is compulsory" Who said that? The article is about the education that is compulsory.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: The title of the original article was schooling, and should have remained so.
What the state imposes is schooling, at best, but it is more like training to accept the state of society as it is. Proper education would be a child centered process where teachers are trained to externalize the inner capacities and aspirations of every child.
In more formal terms, the best purpose of education would be to help each individual learn to think for her-/him-self. This promotes adaptive self organization of citizens and, thereby, orderly social evolution. Janosabel (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education versus Schooling 

message: I have reorganized the section "History of Education" quite significantly, sticking to the chronology of events as much as I could, removing a number of repetitions, and avoiding the "my-country-is-better-than-yours" syndrome. It would be great if people who know when education became compulsory in Russia and China could add a paragraph or two. Likewise, the paragraph about Japan deserves to be expanded.
Due to its complex history and past editorial wars, this article was marred by out-of-scope, politically-laden material about homeschooling, youth rights, libertarianism, etc. I deleted all of it, except in section "Criticism" where it is kept to a strict minimum. I also rephrased several sentences using a more neutral tone. There is now one (and only one) link to homeschooling in a prominent space (article head); any further details about the merits of homeschooling belong in the article "Homeschooling", not this one. If you think that I deleted something important, please add it to the article "Homeschooling". J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Education 

message: :"in countries with a republican system of government, being educated is necessary and important for every citizen."
This statement seems to be obviously false, as the two have nothing to do with each other. Could someone more experienced please flag this statement in the correct way for such an issue? MMany thanks. EditorPerson53 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement in "Purpose" section 

message: I suggest adding this part to the section on countries without compulsory education
'''
=== Compulsory primary and secondary education ===
'''
Whether they are material, cultural or financial, the obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to education primarily affect girls. Enshrining a defined number of years of compulsory and free-of-charge schooling ensures that each child is entitled to a minimum of instruction and allows them to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills that will enable them to develop to their full potential.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris.
71% of all countries fully guarantee 9+ years of compulsory primary and secondary education in their legislation. 8% do not.
Europe and North America have the highest proportion of countries enshrining nine years of compulsory education, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean, while Africa has the highest proportion of countries that do not enshrine compulsory education.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris. However, it is encouraging that 80% of countries in Africa have some years of compulsory education (figure A).
Countries guaranteeing nine or more years of compulsory education show the lowest average proportion of out-of-school children, almost three times lower than countries that have not legally enshrined compulsory education. Moreover, regardless of the number of years of compulsory education, girls and female adolescents represent high proportions of out-of-school populations, suggesting that they are significantly impacted by limited legal protections to ensure their right to education.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris. With stronger legal guarantee of compulsory education, the gap between girls and boys in the ratio of out-of-school children and adolescents reduces (figure B).
 Lisa Rechelle (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information 

message: '''
Whether they are material, cultural or financial, the obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to education primarily affect girls. Enshrining a defined number of years of compulsory and free-of-charge schooling ensures that each child is entitled to a minimum of instruction and allows them to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills that will enable them to develop to their full potential.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris.
71% of all countries fully guarantee 9+ years of compulsory primary and secondary education in their legislation. 8% do not.
Europe and North America have the highest proportion of countries enshrining nine years of compulsory education, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean, while Africa has the highest proportion of countries that do not enshrine compulsory education.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris. However, it is encouraging that 80% of countries in Africa have some years of compulsory education (figure A).
Countries guaranteeing nine or more years of compulsory education show the lowest average proportion of out-of-school children, almost three times lower than countries that have not legally enshrined compulsory education. Moreover, regardless of the number of years of compulsory education, girls and female adolescents represent high proportions of out-of-school populations, suggesting that they are significantly impacted by limited legal protections to ensure their right to education.UNESO 2022: Protect her rights, strengthen your laws. Her Atlas: status report on girls’ and women’s right to education, Paris. With stronger legal guarantee of compulsory education, the gap between girls and boys in the ratio of out-of-school children and adolescents reduces (figure B).
 Lisa Rechelle (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compulsory primary and secondary education 

message: Especially the intro paragraph. 62.197.243.9 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purpose" section is needlessly US centric  

message: Taiwan is now running 12-year compulsory education since 2019, so the map will need to be updated. 2402:7500:568:4616:ED7E:54E3:278A:8172 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Taiwan’s compulsory education system began from 1910 - back then it was six years. This needs to be added to timeline. 2402:7500:568:4616:ED7E:54E3:278A:8172 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000113535_eng THER2023 (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand  

message: Vietnam only has 5 years of compulsory and free education. Some provinces, such as Hải Phòng and Thừa Thiên - Huế, have nine years of free education, but it’s not compulsory. 2405:4802:1D2E:2D20:E0E0:66B:1165:B782 (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam