Roger Sipher Education

Roger Sipher explains that education is in trouble in “So that Nobody Has to Go to School if They Don't Want To.” The purpose of Sipher’s essay is to inform readers about the problem American education is facing and elaborate on a solution. He proposes that a simple solution to the problem is abolishing attendance laws and uses several points to make his case for getting rid of these laws. Sipher states that education is made for those who want to learn. He also explains that without compulsory attendance public schools would be as free as private schools. Lastly, the author makes the point that you can’t force an education on anyone. Sipher’s idea to resolve the problem of American education can be accepted, while some of his reasoning and

supporting ideas are likely to be rejected.
Sipher argues that education is for those who want to learn. Although this statement is true, is not realistic when it comes to child education, because children are not always aware of what’s best for them. They might say they don’t want to attend school, but only because they don’t realize what the outcome and consequences could be years from now without that education. It is not that the children don’t want to learn, they just aren't interested in learning what they’re being taught. Children are the future, so what would our future be like if we just gave up on them? That’s exactly what we’d be doing if we got rid of the mandatory attendance laws. If our teachers haven’t given up on these kids yet and they’re the ones that have the most encounters with them, we shouldn’t. It’s obvious that teachers don’t get into the field of child education for the money, because they don’t get paid that much. All teachers ultimately want to do is make a difference in the students’ lives. They want to teach the students, reach them, and just get them engaged in learning.
Sipher states that without compulsory attendance, public schools would be as free as private schools.

He says that “compulsory attendance hampers the ability of public school officials to enforce legitimate educational and disciplinary policies and thereby make the education a good one.” Basically, Sipher is arguing that with this law, public schools could get rid of students whose personal or academic behavior disobeyes the mission of the school. This isn’t a strong point, because a child’s personal and academic behavior isn’t always their fault and just because they aren’t doing as well as others doesn’t mean just get rid of them. Many kids are struggling with situations in their homes which causes them to act out, or maybe stress at home causes grades to drop. Another reason children could be regretting to perform up to standards is pressure, because some kids just don’t have the same opportunities and abilities as other kids. These could all be reasons for the “decline in standardized test scores” also. Basically, we can’t just assume that they don’t want to learn because of these

things.
Sipher states that you can't force an education on anyone. He uses the well known homily, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.” This argument is completely true, because you can’t force someone to do or participate in something they don’t want to. However, although you might not be able to make someone do something they don't want to, you can make it interesting and more pleasurable for them which ultimately makes them want to do it. If we use this concept with child education, there won’t be the problem of “recalcitrant students.” It is true that some students are not motivated to learn. However, it is also a well known fact that children are more likely to engage in learning if they are interested in what’s being taught. We see a perfect example of this with college education. In college, you decide a major and choose classes that interests you, because you have better chances of learning something you actually care about than being made to take any old boring class. Therefore, instead of just giving up on students, we should make it more enjoyable for them to go to school and get an education. Not every student wants or really needs to learn calculus or chemistry. Some would be better off if they were trained in different fields of interest.
Although Sipher had several interesting points, his “simple solution” of getting rid of compulsory-attendance laws is not very favorable.

Although it might solve the problem of education, it can cause bigger problems for children in the future. They won’t have the basic skills such as reading and writing and might also have social problems. An alternative solution would just be to work on getting child education to the point where students actually enjoy learning. No matter what the case, school is a very important part of almost everyone’s life and your education and experience in your youngers years is what set your paths for the future. Considering the fact that children are the future, we must not give up on them and work with them. If not, who knows what’s in store for the years to

come.