Do we really need school?

1. 

Misunderstanding the Thesis

Let’s be clear: I am not arguing that learning or education is unimportant. I am arguing that traditional, compulsory public school systems are not necessary for a functioning society in the modern world. That’s the core of our motion. The opposition’s repeated argument—that “basic education is essential”—actually aligns with me. The disagreement is how that education is best delivered.

2. 

Guaranteeing Basic Education

My opponent asserts that without school, people won’t learn basic math, spelling, or grammar. But this assumes:

• Families won’t educate their children unless forced.
  
• Alternative models are incapable of providing foundational skills.
  

Counterpoint:

• Homeschooling, microschools, and digital platforms can and do teach these fundamentals—often more effectively and more flexibly.
  
• The U.S. Department of Education has reported that homeschooled students consistently outperform public school students in reading, writing, and math.
  
• Countries with minimal to no compulsory schooling laws (like some regions in the Netherlands and Denmark) maintain high literacy and numeracy rates through community-based and parent-driven systems.
  

Public school is one way to deliver education—not the only way, and certainly not the most efficient or equitable in many cases.

3. 

Responsibility of Schools

My opponent reframes school as being only responsible for producing workers—not preparing individuals for life. I reject this narrow view.

Schools are publicly funded institutions. If they are not serving holistic developmental needs—mental health, financial literacy, communication—they are failing at their mandate.

Furthermore, school systems claim to be educating the “whole child.” Their own mission statements and federal funding goals include social-emotional learning. If schools aren’t responsible for preparing people for life, why do we devote nearly $800 billion annually in the U.S. to them?

You don’t get to have it both ways—if public school is “needed,” it must actually be doing what it promises. Right now, it isn’t.

4. 

Mental Health and Environment

The opposition dismisses the mental health crisis as a general adolescent issue—not a systemic flaw in schooling. This is misleading.

Rebuttal:

• CDC data (2023) does in fact confirm: 42% of high school students report persistent sadness and hopelessness. Academic stress, bullying, and lack of autonomy in school environments are among the top self-reported causes.
  
• School is not a neutral space—it actively causes distress for many, especially neurodiverse, LGBTQ+, or low-income students who are disproportionately underserved and punished in traditional systems.
  

A system that damages nearly half its participants while failing to prepare them practically is not “needed”—it’s broken.

“No Alternative” Fallacy

The opposition claims we can’t replace school because some families are too busy or poor. This is a false dilemma.

Counterpoint:

• We can redirect public funding toward flexible models like hybrid schooling, co-ops, and community-led programs.
  
• The technology already exists; what’s lacking is the political will to expand it.
  
• Saying “we need school because not everyone can afford homeschooling” ignores the fact that school itself is already publicly funded. That same money can fund better, decentralized options.
  

And no, I haven’t “forgotten” that Finland has schools. The point is: Finland’s model proves the need isn’t for school as we know it, but for adaptable, learner-centered systems—the opposite of most U.S. public schools.

Final Clarification

• My opponent repeatedly says I didn’t prove school is “unnecessary.” But I did:
  
• We can deliver basic education without compulsory schools.
  
• The current system is failing in cost, results, and humanity.
  
• Better alternatives already exist and are growing fast.
  

To say “we need school because we’ve always had it” is an appeal to tradition, not a compelling defense.