You don't "say" it. The idea that school is the only way a childhood can be is so deeply ingrained in your argument you can't even perceive it. It's such a given that you consider it a logical axiom, and you end up arguing circularly without even realizing it, you and about half the other posters in this discussion.
Your last sentence would seem to me to reinforce the point. Maybe school can be "improved", but the idea that it is potentially fundamentally flawed doesn't seem to be thinkable. Mind you, I'm not saying that you (and others) think the idea, then reject it (which if done properly would be perfectly valid); people don't seem to be even capable of thinking the idea.
Your picture of maturity is shaped by the system under question.
Again, I'm not actually attacking or defending the schools here. It's the logic I'm talking about. You can't justify the current system by using the current system; it's circular.
Where did I argue that! Your putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that, speaking from where I am now, at 15 I wasnt equipped to face the world. School was a good place for me.
This stuff has sod all to do with the schools; it's simple logic about maturity. Have you bothered to read the studies posted elsewhere about brain development??
The education system is broken: but that doesnt means it's a bad idea. If we dont impart our knowledge then you end up with a problem. It could, ofc, be taught better than it is now.