Roger Sipher Is Not the Answer! All Students Deserve an Education
Introduction
Education is one of the pillars of society on which the future of nations and people depends. In his controversial article “So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Do Not Want To,” Roger Sipher proposes a radical solution to what he perceives as a crisis in American education, such as the deletion of ‘compulsory-attendance’ laws. Thus, despite the persuasiveness of Sipher’s argument, which suggests the correct approach to burning issues of the educational system, the offered solution needs to be revised to simplify the challenges and does not cope with the identification of causes of academic failure while potentially deepening the existing gaps in Sipher has proposed a strategy of approaching games in this manner; this essay will therefore analyze Sipher’s proposal critically, posit that his approach is flawed and will lead to disastrous outcomes at an individual and societal level. Thus, when the author eliminates all his critical issues and reveals the fallacies peculiar to his approach, we will explain why universal education is still a worthy right and obligation in any democracy. According to Horace Mann, the founder of the American public education system, “Education, then beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery” (Mann 87). Sipher’s proposal undermines this sacralized concept and should be investigated more closely.
Article Summary
In his highly influential piece, Roger Sipher boldly suggests that America’s education system is in trouble and that declining scores in standard tests prove this. He attributes this mainly to the efficiency laws that compel learners not interested in attending classes, thus acting as leverage to all those who wish to learn. Sipher proposes a seemingly simple solution: “Remove and expunge compulsory schooling laws and permit only learners who wish to be educated to attend” (Sipher 1). He said such an option would not extinguish public education but enhance it by eliminating destructive components. Sipher affirms that private schools, for instance, can expel undesirable students, putting them in a better stead than formal institutions. He contends that doing away with the laws would have several advantages, such as enhanced seriousness in learning, better focus on the part of teachers, more realistic grades, enhanced public appreciation of schools, and lesser expenses on enforcement of attendance laws. Thus, Sipher draws a logical conclusion, claiming that in their attempts to be all things to all people, schools have lost their way and should get back to the business of being schools. Throughout his article, Sipher continuously draws his readers’ attention to the fact that mandatory attendance is a ‘barbarous’ approach that complicates the process of learning.
Flaw 1: Oversimplification of Educational Challenges
The problem with Sipher’s argument is that it paints skewed and half-baked pictures of the pertinent issues concerning the American education system. When he says that learning has massively deteriorated over time due to students being compelled to go to school, he overlooks numerous other crucial issues. For example, the education researcher Linda Darling-Hammond notes that education quality directly correlates with teachers, their knowledge, and concerns in practice (Darling-Hammond 294). Issues like lack of adequate funds, overcrowded classes, old syllabi, and lack of proper preparatory training among instructors are some of the causes of education difficulties. Siphers’ failure to see anything beyond the attendance laws also shows his failure concerning the complexity of education.
Moreover, even in this case, the proposal needs to explain how eliminating compulsory attendance would enhance all the other essential aspects of education. Instead of focusing only on excluding the ”poor’ students, Sipher denies the possibilities of educational change that would positively affect all students and their attitudes toward education. Such oversimplification results in an ineffective response that does not effectively address the problem but instead accelerates negative processes, most likely worsening the educational inequality already present in the context in question.
Flaw 2: Disregard for Societal Implications
The most obvious logical fallacy present in Sipher’s reasoning is his complete overlook of the broader social impacts of removing compulsory education. Schooling is a process of knowledge acquisition and a critical process of socialization, citizenship, and economic envisioning. In the same way, another educational philosopher named John Dewey once said, “Education is not the preparation for the future; it is the preparation for the present” (Dewey 239). Thus, paying attention only to the students’ motives when entering classes, Sipher overlooks the potential of education in changing them and making them interested in their learning process. However, he failed to address effects such as heightened social inequality and perceived economic inequality that his proposal would cause. Some of the socio-economic factors may affect the motivation of the students who come from disadvantageous categories in the first place, and hence, they will be severely affected by such a policy. This could lead to more poverty and lack of opportunity, thereby going against one of the critical ideals of education, which is the advancement from one class to another. Sipher never looks at the downstream effects of having a large portion of the population with no education, limited vote, a crime rate going up, and a weaker workforce. The primary concern of achieving good grades in the current school system is an irresponsible way of viewing the purpose of education in shaping a society’s worthy function.
Flaw 3: False Dichotomy and Lack of Alternative Solutions
Based on the issues Sipher raised regarding the current state of compulsory education and attendance laws, he is either ignorant of the general knowledge of education or is proposing a black-and-white extreme solution to the problem of poor students’ performance in school by completely doing away with the laws on compulsory attendance. It excludes numerous other possibilities for enhancing the learning process, which can be considered its major drawback. As Sir Ken Robinson, hence the educational reformer known all over the world, says, “It is not the process of trying to make education standard, but it is better to make it personalized, where each achievement depends on identifying the potential of each child and putting them in a situation where they have no other choice but to learn and follow their passion and interests “(Robinson 238). Instead of talking about the possibility of introducing new teaching methods, changes in curricula, or improving assistance to weak students, Sipher comes up with the obvious conclusion that learners who do not have a passion for learning should be completely expelled from the system. They fail to consider the possibility of going to school and developing educational techniques that would work on a student whose attitude is initially all, ‘I do not want to learn; ain’t gonna happen.’
Moreover, Sipher’s reasoning cannot explain why some students technically may be disengaged: the subject studied is boring, there are no materials to learn, or there are personal troubles in the student’s life. Thus, instead of giving desired students a better educational environment, Sipher needs to include the more complex but effectual task of changing these students’ systematically disadvantageous educational settings. His inability to propose other ways of envisaging the approach shows an originality deficit and an outright dismissal of the possibility of educational development to solve the issues he raised.
Conclusion
Hence, not only is Roger Sipher’s recommendation for eliminating compulsory attendance laws a no solution to the issues affecting American education, but it also poses a danger. He distorts several complications about education, does not perceive the social consequences of education for all, and offers a black-and-white approach, which does not leave any room for views other than his own. It is in this light that one of America’s premier education writers and civil rights advocates, Jonathan Kozol, warns that adequate food for all humanity is the first essential element of social justice, saying that food is the moral right of all who are born into this world (Kozol 174). Applying the same reasoning to education, it is a right that must be preserved and enhanced, not eroded. Instead of putting students who experience difficulties within the existing learning environment to loss, we should create an environment where every learner will want to attend classes and achieve success. To achieve this, there is a need to tackle institutional funding disparities, find ways to prepare better and develop teachers and instructional coaches, revamp outdated, uninspiring curricula, and provide essential materials to school and students’ needs. Had the current crop of lawmakers accepted Sipher’s flawed idea and not concentrated on a viable, fair, and hegemonic model of education reform, it would be possible to fashion out a system that would enhance education as a truly leveler in society.
Works Cited
Darling-Hammond, Linda. “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 8, no. 1, 2000, p. 1.
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. Free Press, 1966.
Kozol, Jonathan. Rachel and Her Children: Homeless Families in America. Crown, 1988.
Mann, Horace. Annual Reports on Education. Lee and Shepard, 1872.
Robinson, Ken. The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. Penguin, 2009.
Sipher, Roger. “So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Do not Want To.”