Many feel that students should be required to attend full-time classes until the age of 18. In my opinion, when economically viable
mandate is advisable.
The reason why the practice has to come along with economic security is that there are many rural areas in which households do not have enough money to sustain themselves, let alone send their children to school.
, in many rural villages in South Asia, even the young must lend a hand working to raise crops and livestock at a very early age,
it is unfair to compel these families to education. A more feasible approach is to go to school part-time so that there would be time during the day for work. Unless the government provide support,
an adjustment in the policy would be needed to aid those with difficult financial background.
, I believe in most cases, children under 18 spending most of the time in schools is beneficial for not only them but
the country's economy. In most cities nowadays, young people are expected to receive proper education and become intellectual employees, so that their work condition and salary would be improved compared to those who only do manual jobs, which most ill-educated people would end up with.
, companies would receive a highly skilled labour force with specialised competence, namely engineers or doctors, who certainly are able to generate more values. The practice, all in all, come with a large advantage, especially for developing countries where a specialised workforce is in great demand.
In conclusion, despite the valid reasons that exist in rural communities to de-emphasize education, it is worthwhile to enforce mandatory schooling for all minors.
is now more important, both for the life of modern people and the society at large.