Schools are a must for everybody. We learn so much there, not just theorical issues but we create our own personality and we interact with peers who possess similiar interests. We diversify our knowledge by studying different fields and, when we are young, we store information in a much easier way as our brain is still " clean". That's why if we pay close attention to what we are taught we will learn for life. Now of course there are negative aspects such as bullying and even subjects some students underperform such as maths. However, in most cases schools are a must for society and we should invest in good training and teaching since this improves the creation of knowledge, innovation, planning and development.

I am part of a program that sends graduate students to secondary (middle/high) schools for outreach purposes, and I can see what you are talking about in rgards to negative aspects. I have seen two fundamental problems in schools, with one being insurmountable in public schools as they currently exist, the other being correctible through programs like the one I participate in. As far as the social issue goes, we have a large homeschool population in my area, and those students are consistently better behaved and often more outgoing.

The first issue, is that a school operates on the assumption that all students in the classroom/school district want to learn the same topics at the same rate, and to the same depth that the curriculum specifies. I have found this to be problematic because I may spend a few weeks building student interest in a topic, only to later be forced to abandon that topic because the curriculum dictates it. This is especially troubling when students want to go deeper on a topic but time is not permitted, and the problem is exacerbated in under-resourced schools that cannot pay for multiple teachers to cover different "levels" of students; in my school the honors students and special ed are in the same class because the school can only afford one science teacher per period. I think this is fundamental to schools as we know them, so outside of a fundamental change I don't see this issue ever going away.

The second issue is something I call the "passion gap." You will know what I am talking about if you have ever taken a class where the professor has done work in the subject he is teaching, along with one who has not. The typical science teachers I have talked to have never done any research. Most literature teachers in secondary school do not spend a lot of time reading classic books or going to book clubs. History teachers do not spend a lot of time learning about history outside of school. In this way, the teacher sees his class as a job, not as a chance to share what he is passionate about. Students are well aware of this and as such do not see the subject matter as important. This issue could be remedied, but again there would need to be some changes, like paying some teachers better + giving them more freedom.

The bottom line is, any time we talk about "good" and "bad" with education, we need to define the terms. In my case, I see learning as the building of interest in learning about a topic, instead of merely memorizing facts for a test. Further, by "education" I am looking at primary and secondary education. The two issues I mentioned tend to kill student interest, but do not directly affect standardized testing, and as such will likely remain unaddressed, and it may not be possible to address them under schooling as we know it.

Premature aging of students is taking place in high-tech schools. I and my colleagues have talked several years in various mobile learning conferences about this health and addiction -related risk:

http://tinyurl.com/mlearn2012a

Current pulsed microwave technologies in education have actually a detrimental effect on brain, memory, concentration and ... learning. Especially, if exposure is chronic:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/08/15/digital-dementia-memory-problem-plaguing-teens-and-young-adults/

http://tinyurl.com/EMF-Alzheimer

Regarding the missed childhood, heavy exposure causes oxidative stress in cells which seems to have a link to pre-mature aging:

http://www.scopemed.org/?mno=154583

In that sense, your question Hashwini was very relevant.

Given the speed at which education is changing and education systems are seeking to cut cost by pawning students off to online resources, this is a very valid and relevant discussion.

Pedro Simão, while I appreciate your view on "interact with peers who possess similar interests" in higher education and adult learning, I dare to question it in younger years where the only similar interest of the peer group seems to be "not to be in school".

I wonder whether the premature ageing is a function of "high tech schools" or a function of how electronic media appear to be catering to our children's naturally short attention span and by doing so generate what I heard referred to as "pseudo ADD".

A problem I am struggling to get my head around is "if society is changing towards a facebook generation, sms messages rather than talk, google rather than reflect in dialog, should the education system then leverage such channels to gain access to the audience, or should modern education "fight" the trend and embark on the uphill battle against unstoppable societal trends. If we chose to fight this battle.....where do we stop? Online learning? E-books? Multiple choice tests? Calculators?

To answer your question....I would think the role of schools is "to enable and facilitate the learning process"....

I think besides all the things said above, one quite important role of schools is to condition children to function in society. They learn to be more or less disciplined, sit w/o moving, concentrate and listen for 45/60/90 min. depending on the system they are in. For example, I find it always very interesting to realize how conditioned my students are when we engage in a discussion in the seminars and a situation comes up where a student wants to say something and no one else talks. They still raise their hands to "ask for speaking permission", even though there is no need for it at all. In the end, it is not that surprising given the long time they have undergone schooling.

Florian Hertel, I find your comment very interesting. Probably you are talking about students in Germany,right? In other countries this that you describe may be what we are looking for when it comes to casual discussions because people may not show that they respect the other speakers when they interrupt them. So it seems that in other societies this happens in such an extension that it may be weird or put a researcher in thoughts. I really thank you for your comment.

Dear Dimitra, it is true my own experience comes from Germany, but I guess the conditioning/socialization effect is in fact rather general if there is a rationalized, compulsory school system. The idea itself doesn't come from me (of course) but is borrowed by Foucault who writes about the introduction of the (french) school system as a means to prepare children for work in the factory and Bowles/Gintis writing on schooling in the U.S. On similar lines, Bourdieu speaks about habitus formation in the elite schools in France.

Another example is - definetly German - the way of addressing teachers/students in the schooling context. Students do adress teachers in the first 2 years of primary school with the last name (formal) but use informal personal pronouns - maybe the only time in any German interactional context in which this combination of last name/informal personal pronouns is used - of course because students have never used formal personal pronouns before, thus do not have yet the language capabilities. Only after two years they are taught to switch to formal personal pronouns, thus at this point the children learn how to politely adress strangers. On the contrary, teachers use always informal personal pronouns until pupils reach age 18 or 11./12.grade - one could interpret that as indicating the (power) assymetry between teachers and students which changes at an age when children reach maturity, hence can for example legitimize school absence themselves. I have never thought much about this or read anything about it but I think this may be a useful example for how schools teach children something very important (respectable "good" behavior) which in fact has nothing to do with "enabling and facilitating the learning process".

One last personal note. That interruption is a sign of disrespect is also not a universal feature. In Italy, I find myself being often interrupted and frequently interrupt others so that communication is in fact rather a constant flux in which speakers compliment each other performatively. In Germany, however, I let others speak and only answer after they have finished as is expected in a respectful conversation. These are of course only impressions on my side but the way I see it they could be used to exemplify that (German) schools also teach children the usage of formal/informal communication in connection to state backed authority strucutres, hence a socialization mechanism.

Thank you very much for all your enlightening details!

I am in thoughts about how schools help students improve their overall behavior outside the school and if they can be creative listeners and speakers.

For example it is not rare at all to see politicians and professors on the Tv screen arguing in a way that has nothing to do with respect and to days students will be the future politicians and professors etc so I am really eager to know how students behave in other countries-

do they know when to stop and mainly do we know that the most important thing when it comes to a discussion is not to agree but to respectfully present our reasons for having this particular opinion?

Do we really improve our lives through schooling after all?

I think that the function of schools is all of the above. That schools have a socialisation process is not necessarily intentional, it is just a function of the gathering of people into institutional settings and the power asymmetry mentioned earlier. The stated function of school, is of course learning, but learning what? Thinking Content, social skills, empathy, All of them is the answer, whatever is needed to help a person transitionfrom childhood to adulthood in a complex, interdependent society.

Speaking of power as symmetry, In Australia, this is becoming less clear cut. Certainly at my school, The balance is not clear cut. students still use our surnames, or increasingly 'pet' names, such as Mr G. instead of Mr Gould, however they do not consistently regard me as a power figure. To my younger students ( 15 years old), I am partly parent, partly uncle. To my more serious older students, I am more servant, with overtones of uncle. This latter view of teacher as servant is promulgated by our government, and exacerbated by the impact of helicopter parenting.

In Summary, the Social side of schooling is complex, and it is part of the school's function to help students develop suitable social skills and attitudes for effective social roles in the future, as well as the academic side,

I just remembered that our syllabi explicitly state some social understandings to be developed, such as intercultural understanding and indigenous recognition.