I said that online education shouldn't be the primary educational method, not that it can't be helpful. It's a good way to learn about concepts and cultures that you have no interaction with. Teamwork is also to learn to listen to others, to discuss, to understand the different ways people think and communicate, exchange ideas. Sports teams, bands, scout troops certainly develop teamwork ability but it's of a different kind. You might have hated it, but now you have the skills to apply it, if needed, or at least know how other people are used to teamwork, even if you find this flawed. In any case, it gives you a perspective.
I guarantee I didn't learn how to work on a team at school. I don't see how teamwork in scouts, etc. differs from teamwork elsewhere. The goals and methods are different, but the idea of working together, communicating, being aware of differences, etc. still applies. Moreover, ability or desire to work on a team is just another one of those differences which should be respected, like the others. Online education can be primary if school attendance is a problem, supplemented by in-person instruction in critical areas, e.g. speaking a foreign language. With Skype, though, even this can be online. I have a friend who gives music lessons via skype to students too far away to meet in person.
I didn't have the impression that anyone was responsible for me at school. Quite the opposite. Teachers give homework and set expectations, nobody has the physical possibility or need to direct students' every thought. May be in the US is different. Compared to home schooling or online, interaction in regular schools is rather natural (or at least as natural as it gets in society) and not always pleasant, which encourages kids to learn how to deal with it, and to assert themselves as well as to tolerate differences.
Then your school was quite different, and you were lucky. In my town, elementary school students are not allowed to walk home from school on their own. 7 or 8 year olds are not allowed to walk from the bus to their homes, but must be met by a parent. Teachers don't try to direct the student's every thought, but they certainly try to direct his or her every action. 16 or 17 year olds, who in much of the world would be working or even responsible for a child of their own, are treated much the same as those 7 or 8 year olds, when they should be treated more like a young employee at a worksite. Schools in some other nations do this, for instance by allowing older students to come and go during the day as long as they attend classes and complete required work.
As for school interaction being "natural", perhaps in paralleling the lord-of-the-flies-like law of the jungle. I have found, though, that the environment and interaction in school was unlike that in any other environment in which I have found myself, which includes a variety of jobs, volunteer activities, church activities, and the military. It thus prepares students poorly for those environments. I cannot help but think it also contributes to the fact that employers in my area report difficulty in finding entry level employees who can do simple things like show up to work on time, interact professionally, etc.
If you think school is not giving opportunities for discipline and responsibility, how does home environment where the role of a parent and a tutor mingle, provide a decent way to acquire and test these skills? What about the families that fail to teach their kids in such qualities?
In the home environment, parents can give a child as much responsibility as he or she can handle based on demonstrated behavior, independent of actual age. A school does not bother to individualize like this, and imposes least-common-denominator policies on everyone. A student who consistently demonstrates mature and responsible behavior is not rewarded by being given more responsibility and autonomy, but rather is still forced to live under the same restrictions as the irresponsible students. This actually teaches that personal behavior and character don't matter, because you will be treated the same anyway. It also undercuts the efforts of parents who are trying to teach the opposite by encouraging and rewarding increased signs of maturity in their kids. As for families that fail in this, schools will never be able to compensate for inadequate family support, at least not conventional schools that students attend 6-7 hours of the day.
It depends what your final goal is. I suspect, without being an expert, that such narrow way of developing skills in a controlled environment, would lead to a narrow way of thinking and understanding the world. People are so prone to biases that I can't imagine this working properly without the right training, which school has the potential to provide. You release these people in society and see them clash on a regular basis, because everybody pulls their own end of the thread, not understanding that the opposition they meet isn't trying to destroy them, but is merely addressing their weaknesses.
So you think it is better for everyone to learn everything, than to focus on what they are good at, and work with others who have complementary strengths? I have yet to be in a workgroup - paid or volunteer - that operates that way.
