The compulsory schooling section starting at age three is not problematic when it comes to funding as funding is already in place for ages 3-5 in the form of childcare places (Paull and Valle, 2018).  This system will use existing institutions which means there will no extra building costs to facilitate learning. However, the compulsory schooling section of the alternative system being so inclusive means that there would need to increase the number of teaching and support staff to supervise activities which would cost too much money (Farrel, 2007). So, the compulsory schooling section of the alternative system could not replace the current education system as there would not be enough funding for all the teaching and support staff required. Since this education system will rely on public funding and provision it is important to consider the implications of a system which is this inclusive, since there have been significant cuts to the current education system it is likely taxes would need to be increased to fund this system. 

Outdoor learning could be used alongside the current education system as it aims to make education an active process that all children can enjoy (O’Brien, 2009).  The very nature of outdoor of education suggests that not all learning has to occur in schooling and shows the two are not mutually exclusive. This makes sure that all children with different learning styles have a way to learn which suits them (Pashler et al. 2008) and creates an inclusive system. However, while outdoor education is more inclusive for children with ADHD and those on the Autistic spectrum, it is less inclusive for those with physical difficulties (Jeffs and Ord, 2018).  As well as not being inclusive for all forest schools are extremely expensive to attend. At the moment they are used ad hoc and mainly in private schools, if the system is hoping to use them for every child can attend fortnightly there may not be the resources to do that (O’Brien, 2009). This means that like all forms of education forest schooling has drawbacks and could not replace the current education system.   

The secondary section incorporates a large amount of democracy which the current education system does not do. Giving students a democratic right allows them to understand the society that we live in (Neill, 1967).  Being able to exercise their democratic right allows them to understand the process of voting and fully appreciate the value of voting.  Voting is a public good and society views those who vote as model citizens (Marcus and MacKuen, 2013). Introducing democracy into the education system would encourage the students to be excited about exercising their rights (Marcus and MacKuen, 2013). The Summerhill School is a private school and therefore has fewer pupils than a typical school and the democracy provided in this Summerhill may not translate well into bigger public schools. Democracy has another downfall, 14-16-year olds are not seen as mature enough to vote in society so there is little evidence to say they will be mature enough to do so in this alternative system. There is much debate around the lowering of the voting age however as the students will be only 14 Chan and Clayton (2006) would argue they are still too immature to vote. This means that on a whole democracy as a subject could not replace part of the education system.  

Assessment being carried out from ages 3-14 through covert observation and peer assessment is the main part of the primary section that could replace the current education system. Banks and Smyth (2015) found that assessment being carried out in this way reduces stress on young children which was major part of the system’s aims to promote health and wellbeing and reduce the class advantages in education. Class advantages related to assessment because parents who can afford tutoring can train children to pass SATs (Brantlinger, 2003). Carmichael (2015) argued that results from both teacher’s observations and exam results correlated so it highlights that observations could be an effective way of assessing younger children. However, Carmichael (2015) also found that the only group of students with large discrepancies in observation and grade were children with special education needs (SEN). This system will try to avoid falling into a trap of underestimating those with SEN and avoid putting them into a box due to exams. Chapman and West-Burnham (2010) feel that every child has their own needs and therefore no one has special educational needs, this system takes this into account unlike the current education system. This research from Carmichael (2015) could cause real problems for the alternative system because if teachers continue to underestimate with special educational needs then it undermines the whole inclusivity area of the system.  

Institutions will remain at the core of this alternative system which provides a practical approach to safeguarding children. Every child will be in the same place from 9 am to 3pm Monday to Friday so we can account for every child in the country. While it is not entirely the school’s responsibility to safeguard children it plays a vital role (Cleaver et al. 2009). However, this does raise practicality issues as most parents work these hours so may be unable to drop off children at school, but these issues are no different than with the current system. Home-schooling will not be permitted in this alternative system because it causes safeguarding issues and some students fall under the radar (Lubienski, 2000). It also creates a grey area where no one knows who is responsible for the child (Lubienski, 2000).  Despite not using home-schooling this system will fully encourage parental involvement as it increases the chance of student success, schools will somewhat become a form of surveillance over families and means less children fall through the cracks, while this research was based on incarcerated individuals schools can be used to ensure children are being properly cared for (Haskins and Jacobsen, 2017). 

This compulsory schooling system could work; the main limitation is resources, particularly financial. However, the current education system is heavily based on accountability which in this system is entirely done within the school; this would mean the taxpayer may not immediately be able to see the benefit of their extra money but would see the higher levels of wellbeing as the children grow. The current education system finds accountability to be of high importance which this alternative does not, this system puts the children before accountability and grades. This alternative system would likely be rejected by the public and parliament because it is too expensive and the extra money does not justify the relatively small changes which have been made, although these changes could improve inclusivity, democratic education and could individualise the education system, while improving wellbeing. Realistically, in the current financial climate spending needs to be reduced rather than increased and for this reason this compulsory schooling section will not be able to replace the current system, but investment in young children could pay off in the future.