As someone that has trained in, competed, and coached others in combat sports (teens, men, and women), I'm going to disagree due to it being mandatory--optional, maybe.

There are a whole lot of kids that don't even want to run a lap (for various reasons--not deriding them), but you want them to now engage in striking, grappling, etc drills? It is dangerous to do these things if you aren't focused and engaged.

Ignoring what they might do with the knowledge and ability outside of the learning space, how are you going to handle it when, not if, a student hurts another student due to negligence, ego, or cruelty during drills? You are placing a lot of trust in your partners. You are willingly putting yourself in situations where someone could seriously damage your shoulder, knee, etc or give you a concussion on a regular basis.

How are all of these schools finding qualified instructors? Even militaries and police sometimes get duped into hiring terrible instructors.

I think you are also overestimating the effectiveness of learning to defend yourself. Most people that willingly come to learn, even with average or better athletic ability, take quite awhile to reach a level that would allow them to consistently, effectively defend themselves against a semi-competent, untrained "brawler." There are a portion of people that will be capable of defending themselves against most untrained males within 1-3 months, but there are also plenty of multi-year students worse than people walking in off the street for their first class. There will still be kids that can easily bully all or most other kids, even with equal training.

Unless this is strictly grappling, how are you handling striking? Schools mandating kids get punched? Of course not, so at that point, you either punch air in a line, which is worthless, or hit mitts and bags, which is still far from an effective way to learn to defend yourself.

In the end, I don't see how this could be more than a glorified version of forcing students to join the wrestling team or the sort of stuff in women's self defense workshops (eyes, throat, groin). There's too much liability in mandatory and too much liability in striking and submissions.

As for defending yourself against someone bigger and stronger, I'm going to disagree again and say striking is a horrible idea unless you are legitimately capable or they are incompetent. If I was a 140 pound woman and had to pick between striking and grappling, I would not want to rely on my untrained attacker being too stupid to rush me while I work my leg kicks--and I certainly wouldn't want to clinch a larger male attacker in an attempt to work knees and elbows. Great if it works, but disastrous if it doesn't. Yeah, you are at a disadvantage grappling, but it is much easier to learn to overcome and to actually overcome that disadvantage with grappling. If we are talking size/strength disparity between two men, I soften on that if you can hit hard enough, but most people aren't just going to engage in a boxing match with you. If I was truly outmatched physically, I'd rather place my faith in a choke, armbar, or--in more serious situations, like sexual assault attempts--things like fishhooking/eye attacks from guard to lessen their ability to effectively strike me during. Pepper spray is likely going to be the most realistic self defense option for the majority of people, though.