Mandatory schooling is more about keeping people OUT of the job market than it is putting people INTO it. If schools were about training, they'd look more like universities (and if universities were about advanced training, they'd look more like business environments).

How many kids study to pass the test? How many teachers teach to get the kids to pass the test? And thereafter they forget everything. I see grown-ass adults who can't calculate a simple 20% tip on paper, and more who can't do it in their heads, and that's an EASY one. People, working in industry, who don't know that the US has 50 states. I've seen programmers with computer science degrees counting on their fingers to add numbers.

Again, you can't teach something to someone who doesn't want to learn, and you can't prevent someone from learning who does want to. Schools get the credit for education, but they're just present. The mandatory aspect did nothing.

> mandatory schooling is most definitely a good thing for society.

[citation needed]

...and on the other hand putting smart kids _willing_ to learn in an uninspiring and oppressive environment. (Bad for their learning and devastating for their still developing personality.)

IMHO it's hard to find a worse crime against natural curiosity and willingness than _forcing_ people to do something.

> We make it mandatory because otherwise the kids of the disadvantaged, the uneducated or the just-plain-disorganised wouldn't get a decent start in life.

For most of the "disadvantaged, the uneducated or the just-plain-disorganised", as you put it, mandatory school attendance does nothing to solve their problems anyway, as the people you are thinking of have many systemic things running against them in addition any personal issues in their lives.

> There's some argument to be had about what age it should be mandatory until, sure, but mandatory schooling is most definitely a good thing for society.

Mandatory school isn't the same thing as doing something positive for communities. Some communities will find the policy beneficial, others will find it destructive (esp. when some kids are forced into school systems are that literal prisons, complete with metal detectors, cell phone lockers you pay out of pocket for, and frequent searches of all student belongings).

The problem with ability based groupings across age groups is that doesn't take into account learning velocity, ie the speed at which people learn new things. For example, a second grader that is at a fourth grade math level is likely to learn much faster than a fifth grader at a fourth grade math level. And you don't want to put advanced 8 year olds in a class with slow 11 year olds. That in itself is an invitation to bullying.

Ability based learning within age groups makes perfect sense, but assumes a sample size large enough to make meaningful groupings at the high and low ends.

I would say both that how "ability" is measured, as well as that a 5-year-old's ability is nowhere near an indicator of their future ability.

I doubt anyone could argue against things like AP classes, etc. in high school, but 5-year-olds?

Me too. Until my family moved to an area, the schools in which didn't recognize ability as an appropriate differentiator. It was not good times for me.

This doesn't mean that ability as a differentiator is bad--I think that it's a great idea. What it does mean is that consistency is absolutely crucial when such an idea is implemented; I was in an environment where excellence was encouraged, and that led to a lot of self-motivation. Not all children are going to be in the same situation, and that could be disasterous.

"The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin tackles the concept of the environment which best facilitates learning and personal growth, and touches on the idea of ability-based classes as well. It's a great read for anyone interested in such.

>Erm, what scares you about ability-based classes?

The fascist premise of "let's separate the most able from the riff-raff".

As if society should be a hierarchical pyramid of top dogs and underdogs.

I think its pretty common that when students are divided by "ability", especially later on in middle or high school, it can weigh pretty heavily on the students in the "lower ability" classes. Its essentially saying "we don't expect much but you need to be here."

This system works out very well for bright, academically inclined students, sure. But it sets a structure of expectations that don't motivate what could possibly be great talent, but we wouldn't know because they didn't bubble in the right answer.

The idea that bullies are never academically talented is a false dichotomy. The idea that bullies only attack "smart," kids is ludicrous. Thus, ability-based classes would not end bullying in any way.