reforming school presents an ethical dilemma between the values of current freedom and future welfare. school is currently constituted as a suspension of basic human rights of children for the benefit of future society. in particular, mandatory schooling eliminates the right to freedom of movement. mandatory curricula eliminate the right to self-determination and thus eliminate the possibility of self-actualization.

this is justified secondmost as a necessary evil: we need an educated populace for the benefit of themselves and others. childhood and adolescence are critical points of brain development, the acquisition and retention of information, that cannot be replicated in adulthood. therefore, to properly educate the populace, children must be educated.

but when it is brought up that many students would not choose to be educated or schooled in the manner they are currently (e.g. they do not like what or how they are taught, or how school is structured), it is retorted that “children don't know what's best for them.” this is the base justification of the suspension of rights of children.

behind this assertion is the question, “why don't they know?” and the answers are often due to lack of maturity and lack of education. those without fully developed brains (prior to the age of 25) lack the ability to properly conceptualize long-term consequences and thus make proper long-term decisions. and less education means more unknown unknowns - subjects and information that a student doesn't know they don't know.

acknowledging these weaknesses of children, i concur that there must be mandatory schooling. there should also be a mandatory curriculum, but it should strictly adhere to serving two goals. the first is to teach fundamental useful information (arithmetic, literacy, basic scientific principles, and civics). no one should graduate school without knowing how to multiply or how to participate in society.

the second goal is to empower students to investigate the subjects of their interest. the teacher, with greater knowledge of the world, should introduce basic concepts of various more specific or more advanced subjects. this allows students to learn their current interests as well as to have a springboard for the possible introduction of future interests not yet known.

it is not entirely true that children do not know what's best for them. children are individuals: they have likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, interests and disinterests. they are persons, and although people are fluid, they also have a certain level of constancy innate to their character. an individual's elementary school interests are connected to their adult interests because that individual, although developed, is constant. therefore, the child at present is a crystal ball that informs us of their later interests (a double entendre - interests, as in preference as well as in “what is best for them”).

thus, an element of school must be self-determination; simultaneously, another element of school must be mandatory learning. but herein lies a problem: if the child is self-interested in learning these topics, making it mandatory will stomp the internal motivation out of them. curiosity is only developed by freedom, mandatoryness develops the child into an automaton. the challenge is nurturing the interest in these basic subjects in those who have it, and forcing instruction to those who don't. to nurture internal motivation, the learning must be non-mandatory, which means that instruction cannot be forced to those who lack the interest in such subjects.

ideally, even basic curricula must be voluntary, but strived to be taught to all. this may seem contradictory, but it simply is the establishment of the principle that in order to teach, the student must want to learn - as established prior, this principle is beneficial both on a practical level and on an ethical level. we must then consider it not a difference but rather a defect to not find interest in learning basic information. the defect lies either in the instruction or in the child more holistically. in such cases, evaluation of the cause is required, and this may reveal a need for intervention.

however, this model comes with the inherent possibility that a student will not be taught basic information. but such students would be those who struggle academically and psychologically in our current educational system, but with the root causes of motivation masked instead of addressed.

once this self-motivation is nurtured in the basic learning, older students will learn necessary knowledge on their own, albeit with the guidance (not instruction) of their teachers. if it is necessary, a student will seek to learn it, for their own benefit.