Opinion of the Issue, part 42

[Earth]

You can talk when you can think up a sane and workable alternative.

As opposed to the insane concept of public school being mandatory now? How about make it voluntary? Children should not be made to attend public school, or anything else.

It doesn't surprise me that alleged "liberals" like Democrats support this idea.

[Earth]

How about make it voluntary?

Because not every parent has the time or the money to educate their children themselves. The sort of communal institutions that might once have been able to plug some (and only ever some) of the gap don't really exist anymore and would not magically spring back into existence because they might be needed (things don't work like that, regrettably). You'd end up with generations of people unable to read.

You seem to be misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that masses of children will go without education if education becomes voluntary. I don't believe so. This is to protect those that otherwise would not have anything to do with education, and to protect others. Compulsory education treats all children as one in the same, cut from the same cloth, when it is a vast oversimplification. The onus for change has to be upon the parent, not legislation, nor the institution.

They might have had more freedom as children, but as adults they would be infinitely less free than would have otherwise been the case; they would be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water and have no chance to be anything else. Inevitably, the people who would end up suffering the most would be the poorest (the relationship between class and losing out under such a system would be stark). Of course, that is, tragically, the case under the existing system (everywhere). But not on the same scale, nowhere close.

I think you're hearts in the right place, but you're misdirected. What is to say that those same "wood hewers" would benefit from compulsory, and regimented education, where year after year, manual labor seems to be on the way out, at least pertaining to the American style education system. You're essentially forcing children to undergo education, not for their sake, but for the sake of the market, to gain marketable skills, whether or not it would benefit them, at the expense of their free will. The trouble at the heart of this is the educational system itself, and without vast reforms, compulsory education is a waste.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not exactly a huge fan of existing education systems. I'm not even opposed to the principles that seem to be behind your view. But trying to introduce utopia as public policy is asking for disaster. In order to get away from some degree of compulsion, you would have to change, and change totally, the order of society and the economic system.

Thankfully, I'm not trying to introduce a utopia as public policy, but the autonomy that I believe should be available for everyone. I'm not expecting to change society, nor rid society of the concept of compulsory what-have-you, simply that mandatory education is a farce. A child cannot be forced to learn, nor should a parent face consequences for determining their child's placement within education. I don't for one second believe government to be looking out for the welfare of children in this instance, nor that they should have the ability to decide what is not their domain in the first place.

[Earth]

You seem to be misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that masses of children will go without education if education becomes voluntary. I don't believe so.

The thing is, I can remember being a child pretty well and don't have a particularly idealistic view of childhood and children. I don't think that most children would go to school, or bother to turn up at lessons, if compulsion was removed. Not enough, anyway.

I'd venture to say, at least from experience, a lot of children and their parents don't realize that education is mandatory. It's actually irrelevant to most. Yet that hasn't been the push for children to attend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most parents have neither the time nor the money to educate their children at home.

True, although this says nothing about it being compulsory.

Furthermore, the tragic reality is that the culture of "self-education" has declined along with all other communal and mutual activities in the horrific onslaught of consumerism and mass culture. It would not magically return just because it suddenly became urgently needed; things don't work like that.

I never said it would, but once again, this has little to do with the mandatory nature of modern public education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not quite sure what you're arguing here; is it that manual labour is on the way out (a laughable suggestion, frankly) or the education system acts as though it must be and fails to properly educate children likely to go into manual jobs (a position that I would agree with, actually) or something else?

It's hardly laughable, at least in this country. I'm arguing against the notion that forced attendance is somehow a benefit, when even in a voluntary situation, most children would probably still attend. Force is never a good motivation for learning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give a damn about "the market" (strictly speaking I don't even believe in "it"). What matters to me is that children lean how to read and write, learn about the World that they live in, learn what they need to to become good citizens and learn what they need to to get a decent job at the end of it (or go onto university or whatever) so that they can provide for themselves and their families. I will admit that this sometimes seems almost as utopian as what you're advocating, a fact that is just a little depressing.

You may not, but this is the impetus that public education operates under; capable future workers, not knowledgeable individuals. Reading is prerequisite in our culture, not so that they'll understand literature, or that it'll foster critical thinking.

Once again, I agree with what you write, but it adds nothing to a discuss of mandatory education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My free will as expressed at the age of five should not be holding me back at the age of fifty.

It's not only five year olds that are effected, but parents. That is my point, not that a five year old's want should be given precedence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This may be true (in certain cases it certainly is). But it's not nearly as much a waste as having large numbers of people unable to read a book and unable to write their own names.

Most posters that agree with mandatory education seem to be operating under the notion that somehow children will, en masse, run away from education to never been seen again. I think it's fairly ridiculous. This view essentially treats children as second class citizens, without a mind of their own, justifying coercion for their own "good". I don't believe much would change if education becomes voluntary.

[Earth]

Children don't have full rights, nor should they.

What potential "full rights" are we talking about? This is too vague for me.

Children are by nature at various stages of development. Some may be able to grasp the consequences of skipping school, others may not.

Exactly, so I say leave it up to the parents to decide. If there's one thing that pisses me off is the need to speak for another, as a complete stranger can dictate to another how their child should socialize. Not the place of the government.

I understand your point, but it's still based in the silly idea that voluntary education equates 'mass desertion'. The issue to me, is parents should not have to face legal consequences for their child's absence.

But it would be a mistake to assume that 5-12 year olds (and even some teens) are generally capable of making such major life decisions.

Yes it would, which is why parents should make that decision for them.