|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Confucius - "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."
Requiring school attendance, or the application of pre-approved education outside of school, is by definition involuntary servitude.
"Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs."
The children labour to pass exams for the benefit of the state, under coercion of the potential arrest of their parents.
And usually the people in favour of compulsory schooling are the ones also in favour of child-labour laws. Clearly their love for the children doesn't extend to at least giving them the choice of whether they want to participate in the state's propaganda institutes, without compensation.
Well, I homeschool so it's me personally forcing my children into slave labor. I also force them to clean their rooms, take baths and -in general- not to be feral.
I don't pay them a dime.
I am such a horrible person. I feel they don't get any damn say whatsoever until they are adults and living in their OWN house.
Do you even have children?
As guardian over your children you have the right to educate them, but according to the state, you do not have the right not to educate them, which is an aggression against you as well as the child.
No, it is protection against child abuse and neglect.
You have a very odd idea of aggression.
You've gone back on yourself now. You want the right to educate your child but you don't want the right to not educate them? Be selfish, claim all of your rights.
I don't have the right to deny my children education any more than I have the right to deny them food. You are arguing for legal child neglect and it's wrong.
Yes you do! Individuals have the right to life, liberty and justly owned property. Since children cannot exercise those rights, the parents take it upon themselves to do it, in the form of giving them food and shelter.
Education cannot be a right to a child nor an adult because that necessarily requires somebody provide it for them. It is why healthcare and housing cannot be rights either.
Children do not have the right of consent, it belongs to their parents, and their parents by a truly enormously vast majority believe and voted that education should be compulsory, thus it has full consent to the extent that democratic governance extends it, so schooling is slavery in the same way that the legal system is assault (as no one ever explicitly consented to be tried or jailed if guilty).
Of course it doesn't even meet your definition of slavery as schooling is for the benefit of the child not of someone else.
So let me get this straight: no matter what happens in a country, if it has been decided upon by the majority, we have all consented to it? Say rape is legalised tomorrow, are all the victims of subsequent rapes consenting to them? This is what is called magical thinking, Josak. Violence is still violence, even if the majority has sanctioned it.
But if schooling is such a benefit to children, why enforce it? People don't need coercing into so obviously fabulous things. Clearly the burden of proof lies on you to prove that schooling benefits children because the existence of the law proves in itself that numerous people would not participate in it otherwise.
Nope clearly the burden of proof lies on you.
The laws have been decided and you may not like them but you do have to obey them. You could start the "Make our children stupid" movement if you like. Don't think it will get too far.
But you don't explain why it does lie on me. If the education system is so great, why the need to enforce it?
If you've been paying attention, you'd know that I'm not against education, I am against aggression.
Because while most would have their children educated many would simply seek to exploit them, use them as free labor or make them work for others to keep the money, which is precisely what happened before compulsory education and precisely why it was made compulsory.
But then this is equally an argument for keeping people's children away from their parents at all times. If these parents are so bad, why are you neglecting these kids? Take them away from their parents all day instead of just for those 7 hours or so. They can just as well exploit them at night time.
I think you're well off the mark in what you think the purpose of compulsory education is. As a general rule, when things are free but compulsory, you better be worried.
So the government then would take on the burden of feeding and housing those children, but NOT educate them? That makes no sense. What would they have them do for those 7 hours?
I think you're getting confused. To clear it up: I'm an anarchist.
Confused? No. YOU might be an anarchist, and that's good for you. On your own island somewhere where there is anarchy, you may thrive. But in any non-anarchist regime, there are going to be laws that need to be followed.
No, no, no. The Rothbardian anarchist is not an anarchist for fun - we believe aggressive laws such as compulsory education are immoral. It's not just because we don't like them.
But morality is not the sole basis for laws. In fact, there are plenty of things that I can do that are perfectly legal yet are immoral, and vice versa.
We do that too sometimes, there are different levels of exploitation and if parents are harming or exploiting their child in other ways they can be taken from them but this is not always necessary in the case of people who would simply use them for profit.
As for the second paragraph I KNOW you are off the mark I know exactly why education is free and compulsory because most people voted for it and they did not do it for some shady purpose or to indoctrinate the youth they did it because they wanted their children to know how to read to be able to achieve a better station than they had to not be simply peasants or factory workers and because they wanted that for the other children in their country too.
Which is the very same reason that I would fight tooth and nail to keep it compulsory and free, because a stupid populace benefits no one except those who exploit stupidity.
That may be your wish, but your idea of compulsory schooling comes from the reasons given after the fact, to justify it, rather than the true reasons. There are in fact numerous reasons statists of the past have made schooling compulsory, only a small percentage of which was for the real benefit of child.
A famous early proponent of compulsory education was Plato, as part of his grand utopia that also included the abolishment of private property, the lying state and complete obedience to it.
Martin Luther put forward the idea of compulsory schooling to heads of states to ensure that all children received proper Lutherian education, train them for a "war against the devil". Calvinists were heavily influenced, and agitated for compulsory schooling in France.
The first national system of compulsory education was seen in despotic Prussia, where children learned about their allegiance to the King. It expanded to a point where gradual examination needed to be passed in order to be granted entry into learned professions, effectively granting the state the power over a generation of scholars and professionals.
In the United States, compulsory education was first put in place by New England Calvinist-Puritans, keen to raise the children on their faith and suppress dissent, and compulsory education after the revolutionary war was simply a hangover from this. Calvin E. Stowe, one of America's leading educators of the time, praised the Prussian system of compulsory schooling.
I shouldn't have to point out the crucial role of compulsory education in the indoctrination of youth in Fascist and Communist regimes.
Considering compulsory schooling's less than attractive history, why are we now expected to believe it is benevolent? The declining education standards do not indicate a strong benefit for the children, so to who's benefit are they being forced?
You can't define something to make it something it is not. If people choose or accept the education system as it is, it can not by definition be compulsory. This narrative that the alleged compulsory schooling can be nothing but some statists indoctrination program completely ignores the bazillions of people (students, administrators, parents) who democratically participate in the creation, monitoring, adaptation, development, etc. of the public school system. You can't just wipe away that democratic effort in order to satisfy your desired narrative of a freely chosen system equalling slavery.
You also can't then, in your attempt to demonize freely chosen education, use a pile of examples of education that wasn't necessarily freely chosen. Pointing out a few instances were 'education' was coerced does not somehow disparage the mass of humanity who have freely chosen to partake in public education systems and have ended up the better for it.
Your only real metric seems to be freedom. So even if people don't end up the better for it, as long as it's freely chosen, I don't see what argument you have against it. If people want to be zombies to the state that's their free choice. You say you are for freedom but the only freedom you seem to accept is when people choose the same ideological framework as you, which is not freedom at all.
When people freely choose to live in a Democratic system, they freely accept that a state will exist, that that state will have some power, and that sometimes that power might interfere with people's free choices. All things in life have a cost and a benefit. People accept the cost of the Democratic state because the greater benefits are worth it. You are arguing against a system by focusing solely on the cost of the system while completely ignoring its benefits. It isn't fair. Simultaneously, you extol the value of your great and glorious Anarchism/Libertarianism as an idealized utopia. In practice I guarantee their are some costs associated with that system. That isn't to say you shouldn't choose it, but that choice has to be weighed by examining the costs compared to the benefits (exactly like people who choose Democracy have done).
That is precisely why god legal systems enforce time periods for reading, consideration and implementation before passing laws, so that people can leave and avoid them, but they do not have the right to make it impossible to live under the laws the majority wish to have by their disagreement.
That simply begs the question: if the majority agreed to have no time for reading, consideration and implementation, in other words a bad legal system, should this be considered 'consent' too? Using your axiom that anything agreed upon in a democracy is consented by all, you can justify anything and everything.
This is exactly why the state must be opposed.
No that is exactly why democracy has to be tempered with a constitution.
I think what the United State of America proves more than anything is that a piece of paper is no protection against democracy. Democracy can amend the constitution, if not distort it, if not completely ignore it.
But this premise proves that you believe that some things cannot be considered 'consent' no matter how many people agree with it. Where then do you draw the line?
The libertarian says that the only line you can draw is between aggressive and non-aggressive actions. Aggressive actions are not consented to, even if the majority agrees that it should happen.
I believe democratic consent is preponderant on the values that were established as part of that system, particularly in the idea of allowing those who wish to, to leave and giving them time to do so without punishment or being subject to new laws.
But yes I am very familiar with the anarchist/libertarian lines, it's why I was an anarchist in my youth and why that system though fading rapidly still has some support despite it's blatant impracticability, because it appeals to the simple mind (as mine was when I was young) because it teaches us there are firm lines that cannot be crossed and does not allow itself to be tempered by what is practical or best for people it simply rigidly sticks to it's dogma. There is an appeal in that for those who dont like thinking too deeply about moral questions, simple unbreakable rules are nice to have to cling to despite the horror of their consequences.
It is the rule ethics of ideologies and the product of thinking that dates back to before Phyrro of Elis and Socrates who postulated that there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute morality.
If the democracy has the ability to change the constitution, it does not avoid that central moral hazard, and does not grant the mystical power of 'consent' to aggressive acts.
Your second point is veering off into a different debate and may even contradict what you were originally trying to argue, but I think it's getting to the crux of the issue anyhow.
We're supposed to be debating whether presence on a piece of land governed by a constitutional democracy indicates consent to all laws within it. Libertarianism is based upon the fundamental belief that it is immoral to commit aggressive acts. You say that since certain acts that libertarians object to, such as taxation and compulsory schooling, were decided upon by the majority, they are not aggressive, but consented to. They would therefore not violate the NAP.
However, you believe the state is justified because no moral axiom should be held to absolutely, leading me to believe you know the state is aggressive. You simply believe aggression is justified in particular cases.
So you're either making the first point: that governments do not violate NAP, or the second: that governments do violate NAP but that's okay.
Which do you truly believe?
You're also committing ad-hominem - "simple mind"? Really? You've resorted to calling anarchists stupid, and don't think you're getting away with it because you include yourself in that too. I think I was completely wrong when I was tickled by the ideas of Resource Based Economies when I was younger, but I wouldn't say I had a "simple mind", I would say I lacked understanding, as I say to about the socialists. I don't resort to the cheap tactics of the right in my criticism of socialism, like "they're just moochers who don't want to work hard". Read the works of Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block and tell me they have simple minds.
Absolutely everything has a moral hazard and ultimately in any system the majority rules as soon as it is willing to impose it's will, all human existence as a civilized society is preponderant on people being fundamentally good in the majority, if that is ever not the case we are completely screwed no matter what system we have or how strong our constitution is.
Also absolutely all governance walks a fine line between morality and immorality indeed in by the rule ethic many aspects of any governance are wrong, even the legal system is force without consent which is why I am a utilitarian and most people embrace to a certain extent a modicum of moral practicality that allows for what is best rather than what fits certain rules to be what is done.
Firstly simple minded is not being used in the sense you think it is, I have read Hans-Hermann Hoppe and I have read Man Economy, and State and I got the same impression from both, they are not dumb they just favor simple answers, (hence simple minded) they look for easy solutions to complex moral and economic questions by drawing black and white lines, it's satisfying if childish and simplistic but it has no place in the real world, complex as it is. Which is why the system has failed so totally.
Obviously you don't understand what "child labor" means.
By definition, child labor is work performed by a child below the age for finishing compulsory schooling that impedes his or her ability to complete their education. The reason child labor is a problem is because it hinders the child's education, which prevents them from getting a good-paying job later in life, and destines their children to a future where they, in turn, will have to work to support their family. This vicious cycle is known as a poverty trap.
The way out of this poverty trap is education.
Education is more than a right. It is a responsibility. It is the responsibility of every member of a democratic society to become educated so that they can make informed decisions about social, political, personal, and financial matters. It is the responsibility of every parent in this society to ensure that their children are educated, either through the public school system or an equivalent home curriculum.
Education is not slavery. If you think education is even remotely like slavery, then you have a very poor understanding of both concepts.
In the same vein, jury duty is a requirement of every able citizen. It may be slow and boring, but it is hardly slavery.
A person gets paid for jury duty so how is that slavery?
Slavery is not defined by what you are given, it is defined by the nature of the action: slavery is aggressive, i.e. the slave did not consent to it. Those who do not consent to jury duty, no matter what they are payed, are slaves.
People can choose to not consent all they want. If they want to sit in a jail cell. That's their right. Nobody is physically forcing anyone on a jury.
The same question applies to what happens if a criminal refuses to go into a cell or face trial, they are violating the laws created by the community they live in (or broader community as it may be) and are thus subject to punishment... by force... in violation of the NAP.
A responsibility is consented to. 'Compulsory' indicates that it must happen if it is consented to or not, and is the important part. Notice that nowhere have I suggested that education is a bad thing, or 'slavery'. 'Compulsory' is the key word. It may be your belief that people should educate themselves for the benefit of society, but it doesn't give you the right to force them under threat of violence.
Confucius in China and a Tiger mom, hehe. Chinese parents are very lenient, I wonder why most did not listen to Confucius.
There are type of school like that, no curriculum, some teachers just observed what they are doing in a classroom and guide them. I remember before I think it is called Sudbury school, something like that. Of course it is more exclusive and expensive. Don't know if it is available in every state.
Ditto what Melissa says. I hope you are playing devil's advocate. Otherwise, please don't reproduce. It will cost your socialist country of GB a lot of money in welfare payments made to your children.
This issue has become something to contemplate. It wasn't always like this. What did Benjamin Franklin have in mind when he advocated public school?
Not what we have today. In the early days, school covered the essentials of education and the kids probably went home around noon or so! Now they are held till three; and with day care, six.
I have seen kids who come to public school at six in the am and leave at six in the pm thanks to public school day-care programs.
Having their kids at school for long hours helps mothers and fathers make a living and afford their homes/etc. and their families. Things have progressed to such a state that, yes, to compare what is going on today in schools to the days before child-labor laws has become totally APPROPRIATE!
Wow , and you are serious ? What , did mommy and daddy make you go to class when you wanted to play video games ?
Reality , American students are so dumbed down today as to rank you at the lower levels world wide ! Now is not the time for nappy -nappy .
Do you think parents have a right to not feed their children?
Yep, it is my right as a parent to starve my child, deny them medical care and withhold education.
We should all be free to abuse our children.
I was thinking of putting spurs on them and sending them against other children.
As children cannot fend for themselves, not-feeding them is aggression. Not educating them is not an aggressive action.
I disagree. Not educating them is an act of aggression. It causes them harm to not prepare them for adulthood.
So you think education is a right, but not healthcare and housing? I sense inconsistency. You can equally make the claim that not providing grown adults with education, healthcare and housing 'harms' them.
Ah divide and conquer
The debate as always is what protections do need to be offered but education is one there is a pretty general consensus on.
But, yet again, consensus does not make a right.
You talk about the right to life, liberty, and property, but that's just consensus based on one specific set of morals. Another equally valid set of morals is that rights are derived only from strength, and if you are beaten in battle then you lose your right to life.
There are no absolutes when it comes to morality, and rights are based off of morals.
The right to life, liberty and property are valid rights even if the majority disagrees with them, and you can figure this out through logical deduction. Whether the society in question recognises this is a completely different matter.
"There are no absolutes" could just as much be an argument for slavery and rape as what you're arguing for here. It's a lazy one.
Ok, then show me the logical reasoning for life being a right.
At some point, you have to declare a value as axiomatic. You will always have an unprovable foundation for your morals. It is ONLY the agreement of the majority that can establish what rights are.
Sorry innersmiff, you can't just pass that off, it's a valid argument. Since no moral framework can be independently rationalized, then all moral frameworks are equally valid, and only depend on the agreement of a society. Like I said, if the moral framework is strength, then there is no problem with slavery or rape. Just because you don't like it doesn't make your framework superior.
It's not always simple, but here's a logical deduction that proves it: since only the individual has domain over their own bodies and minds, no other can lay claim to it. For who else has the right to your body, and in turn, your life? If anybody else has the right to your body, any action that you make of your own accord would be to violate their right, and also begs the question, who has the right to their body?
The amount of people that agree and disagree with this have no bearing on its truth value.
If you're talking purely about practicality, then yes, there does need to be consensus for it to be enforced in any way. The consensus might state that 2 + 2 = 5, but they'd be wrong. The consensus might make caveats concerning the NAP, such as 'there is a right to education', but they'd be wrong. It's irrational and inconsistent, and cannot be considered valid no matter how many people believe in it.
Do you need consensus to tell you that rape and slavery are wrong?
No but a rapist and a slave owner do. That's why there are laws.
"If you're talking purely about practicality, then yes, there does need to be consensus for it to be enforced in any way."
But if you're talking about what we know to be true, we don't need consensus.
Premise: Only the individual has domain over their own body and mind
Ok, prove that premise sound through logical deduction.
See where this is going? You cannot justify a moral framework as logically sound. You will ALWAYS have to agree on an axiomatic basis without being able to prove it.
No, I think not educating your children demonstrably causes them harm.
Children are under the care of the parents, the parents have the responsibility to keep them from harm. Neglecting their education is harmful, as is neglecting their physical or pyschological health.
But are you in favour of compulsory vaccination? And forcing parents to give their children psychotropic drugs?
There is 'harm' and then there is 'aggression'. They are completely different things.
I'm in favor of laws that keep children from harm. Not feeding a child is no more aggressive than not educating a child. Both are omissions that cause harm.
And yes, I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination when the proven side affects of the vaccination are far outweighed by the proven damages of not vaccinating.
The risks/rewards with vaccination are far less clear than the risks/rewards of education. The two cannot be realistically compared.
Neither Healthcare, defined as one person providing a medical service for another, Education, defined as one person providing education for another or Housing, defined as one person providing a home for another are rights. If you have to, by force, take from one person to give to another then it is not a right. You have a right to life. You have a right to protect yourself. You have a right to PURSUE happiness (not a guarantee of happiness). If you having something requires your neighbor be mandated to pay for it, it is not a right, as it requires some sort of servitude.
Providing housing for your children is a requirement. We aren't talking about adults here.
Jaxon, I was referring to the claim, made somewhere above in this interwoven chain of answers to answers to answers, that these three things are rights. You do have a duty, as a parent, to provide shelter, however defined. But, you as an individual do not have a right to a house. Sorry for the confusion.
I think common sense should apply here. Education should be viewed as a right that enables a higher quality of life for a person, and definitely not as a form of slavery.
A right that the individual (or their guardian) has the choice of whether or not they want to exercise.
It needs to be enforced because if not, there would be a lot of people left out due to discrimination, for one.
if there were no enforcement, we'd still have segregated schools. do you honestly believe that minorities and low-income individuals would all have equal access to the same education if there were no enforcement? come on now.
Schools that are forced to segregate by the government are wrong. The federal government shouldn't be in the education business per the 10th Amendment. There is a difference between government mandated segregation and private industry's segregation. The government used to enforce segregation, and that was wrong. But, if a school wants to only hire and teach Americans of African decent...or only women...or only bald headed, one legged midget, then that should be there right as a private business.
A child can be forced in to attending school, no one can force them to learn.
How much resources are spent on obstinate children that do not or will not participate?
How many more resources would have to be used up by NOT educating most because of a few? Those resources will end up spent on prisons and other "correctional" facilities.
Or programs allowing the children to learn what they choose. I would rather have my son play with car motors than continuously having issues in a school of conformity.
Conformity to what? I don't believe schools should be teaching conformity to any particular idealogy, and they don't.
Think of all the problems you personally have with the school you went to, or the school your children go to, and I bet all of them could be solved, or at least addressed better, by making school voluntary.
For example, take the issue of what to teach children: creationism or evolution, or both?
Make schooling voluntary, and then schools will have to compete with each other for students. Parents who want a Christian teaching will send their children to schools that teach creationism, parents who wish for a more scientific teaching will send them to schools that teach evolution, and those progressive new-agey type parents will send them to a school that teaches both. We won't have the problem of ""A school curriculum"" that dictates what all children should learn, and therefore no debate at all.
I'm sure many parents would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of other children being taught something they don't like, rather than being forced to have it taught to their own children.
In your ideal society, government makes education compulsory, even if people home-school. If they are requiring this, they can just as well make the claim that they can tell parents what they can or cannot teach. The government may well decide that creationism is not 'education', and forbid it. Even now there are some laws dictating how exactly they are to be taught. Most states, as far as I know, don't think an 'education' of just South Park and Call of Duty counts.
For homeschooling to be worth it it needs to be voluntary.
No, in my ideal society, educating children would be compulsory, because not educating them would be extremely harmful.
Yes I know, and I'm saying that, in this scenario, home-schooling doesn't solve the problem of disagreement over curriculum.
Lol, I misread it.
I don't care about curriculum, government curriculum is pathetically minimal at best, it really has no application to what I'll teach, other than my children will have no problem passing government tests.
Government-enforced tests that may or may not include content that you take issue with?
Yes it does. There is no enforced curriculum.
And if you really don't want to teach your kids, there is a version that is legal called unschooling.
I was under the impression that home-schoolers in the US had to, at least, report to local school authorities or education supervisors to ensure that the children are being educated. This is still compulsory education, even if it is not a strictly enforced curriculum.
In most states, a letter is necessary.
Not sure if I consider writing a letter a major violation of any parental rights or a violence upon my or my children.
My letter was about as long as the post so far.
My kids aren't required to do governmental testing either.
If I want to I can send my child to a private school to learn a Christian teaching.
But regardless, first and foremost I will take it upon myself to teach my children to think for themselves and question everything.
People have a right to transfer power to a state in order to prevent educating stupidity.
I can use the same argument when you say people have a right to life.
Really? You seem to prefer the argument "does everyone agree?".
Why wouldn't we have the right to life? The individual is the sole initiator of their thought and therefore action over their own body. To attempt to act over another's body would be to violate their will. If we said that everybody belonged to everybody, any action of an individual's own accord would be a violation of that right, and would have to include thinking. We have a right to life because there can be no other way without conflict.
On the other hand, we don't have the right to transfer other people's power over to another set of people because that doesn't make logical sense. What people? And who gets to decide? You can't enforce it without violating people's rights, and therefore has to be considered worthless.
As ever in any system, yes even an anarchist one, people get to decide by their majority what is wrong or right and use force to back that belief whether it be from believing rape is wrong to believing denying your child an education is wrong people will always have to make arbitrary moral choices (as all moral choices are ultimately arbitrary) and enact them by force.
Libertarians do not have anything against force, that is obviously necessary for the enforcement of any law, we are against aggression. There is legitimate force and there is illegitimate force.
Yes, really. The point is, anybody can say 'People have the right to X'. It proves nothing.
"It violates their will" isn't a valid argument either. My will is to have a free house. Means nothing.
Tell you what, let's make this interesting. You think you can logically deduce that people have the right to life? Ok, I challenge you to put it into syllogistic format.
If we "must" have a compulsory education system that is funded by confiscatory taxes, then their should be a free market of competing schools. These schools would compete in the free market to "earn" your child and the money attached to each student. The parents would choose where to send their child based on the criteria of each school. The better schools would attract more students and the failing schools would have to either shape up or go out of business.
What would the world be like if parents took it upon themselves to educate their children without any governmental intervention?
It is an interesting thought.
I am thinking...
I'll be back.
Developmental psychology (whereby humans developed mentally and psychologically in general patterns) is the basis for the structured and curriculum based education provided by the public and private sector. There is a trend towards a different approach in looking at psychology of development because some other children mature faster.
The old and first universities were created so that religion or philosophy can be propagated and this is true with Christianity or other philosophies i.e, Greek period/era, Medieval and so on.
I'm sure most of those who are in support of compulsory education would fight it if certain subjects were commanded to be taught.
School is not servitude. Here in America one can legally home school their own children. How is slavery as aspect of school? Many students of all grades and ages love school. They find it interesting and enjoy the challenges. What is the point of this discussion, again?
As a substitute teacher, I tell the kids who seem to not like school, that they can always get their parents to home-school them. Very few will hear of this option! They say they come to be with their friends. They would rather come to school for the social life even though they are not motivated to earn good grades. The students who don't thrive in school usually have problems at home.
The problem is not "school." The problem is not enough free choice and self-directed learning IN school. The problem is in not allowing, fostering and encouraging i n t e r e s t !
Fish have fins. Humans have brains. We need to allow brains to be developed...by the student... for the benefit of the his/her life. Teachers need to be more behind the scenes and less in front.
What are the students motivated by? What would they enjoy learning? Would they like to learn about developing their own business? would they like to learn how to build motors? would they like to learn how to do science experiments, write magazine articles, produce music? be in plays? write scripts? design clothes, learn to paint, sing, draw, computer program? repair? Schools don't have to places which Force students to learn. They could be places where students are willing go to learn for the benefit of their lives.
People would submit to the herd, no different than sheep in the pasture. What they support is not education; it is societal decision which they cling to, no more than a series of lies. So is the nature of groupthink.
Well, you have my full respect. You stated a point long due, and you defended it till the end. Perhaps some day people can distinguish the difference between education and schooling, because that is quite the grand line. I suppose most of these contenders do not realize the origin of our current system in America, as well as a number of other countries, at least by structure. Horace Mann, was no less than the "Father" of American education. He and his own accomplices had a distinct goal in mind for the state of their 'education', revolving around a rule in fear and punishment, disigned to invoke immaculate obedience and unquestioning trust in the authority placed above the students. This was the system created in Prussia by King Frederick Williams I in 1716, and later carried on to World War II Germany. The explicit purpose was to instill absolute loyalty to its King, and was done so by providing a mandated, public education- with the very same structure as seen in many modern countries, particularly America.
Well, we no doubt went wrong. We mandated something truly horrific, and then we renamed it, covering it with the title 'education'. And you know why so many people support this monstrosity? Because it is the very thing which raised them- which indoctrinated them. What fool would honestly ever think that learning was no more than an intrinsic quality? Education absolutely can -never- be forced, else it is no more than indoctrination. There is a fine solution to the problem, yet these people insist of overlooking the elephant in the room.
When schooling is no longer mandatory, greater options of actual education will open up, as the state no longer has a fine monoply over the industry. And for once, competition for the most quality service shall open up. But aside from simply that, the freedom is the spark for the children- the ability to enjoy learning for what it is, not for its compulsory attendance, dictated by the state.
Schools provide an important function. They educate in formal subjects, they socialize children and prepare them for the work world. They provide vocational training if they choose that path instead of an intellectual one such as university and colleges.
I work with students now as a tutor and the system does have it's drawbacks but where would we be if we(society) left the decisions to the children to get a formal education?
I see many children who are at home and receiving no education at all.
Many home school groups do a wonderful job and have formed associations to help one another.
The way technology is evolving makes me wonder if children will receive their education at home using state owned computer programs.
I don't care for common core which leaves many parents, teachers, and students feeling like robots. Big corporations poured money into shaping their minds and that is robbing all involved of their freedom of choice. The debate will surely go on for many years...
Stevie McSteve wrote: (I numbered his very pertinent points.)
"Horace Mann, was no less than the 'Father' of American education. He and his own accomplices had a distinct goal in mind for the state of their 'education':
1.) revolving around a rule in fear and punishment,
2.) designed to invoke:
A. immaculate obedience
B. unquestioning trust in the authority placed above the students.
This was the system created in Prussia by King Frederick Williams I in 1716, and later carried on to World War II Germany.
The explicit purpose was to
1.) Instill absolute loyalty to its King.
2.) Provide mandated public education.
with the very same structure as seen in many modern countries, particularly America.
Well, we no doubt went wrong by
3.) Mandating something truly horrific,
4.) Renaming it 'education'.
And you know why so many people support this monstrosity? Because it is the very thing which raised them - which indoctrinated them. What fool would honestly ever think that learning was no more than an intrinsic quality? Education absolutely can -never- be forced, else it is no more than indoctrination. There is a fine solution to the problem, yet these people insist of overlooking the elephant in the
Here is the crux of what Stevie proposes:
"When schooling is no longer mandatory, greater options of actual education will open up, as the state no longer has a fine monoply over the industry. And for once, competition for the most quality service shall open up.
But aside from simply that, the freedom is the spark for the children - the ability to enjoy learning for what it is, not for its compulsory attendance, dictated by the state." SMS
The problem is that if education is not compulsory, (AND "free" due to taxation,) would some parents forgo providing education of any type whatsoever?
Q. Where are we in human evolution??? How much does EVERY parent love their child???
Education in the US has been superior, historically speaking, based on a high regard for freedom, common sense care, respect and love. Love? yes love: as a GIVEN in human societies since Adam and Eve.
What I see in the school district where I work is a loss of respectful treatment of the child.
* W H Y this loss of respect? (The only way I can prove teacher and aide disrespect towards their students is to take videos on my phone, which I plan to do. Will this get me into trouble?)
What I see as far as Common Core is not enough trust and faith in the ability of teachers to teach.
* W H Y this lack of trust?
After all, Public Education in America was really not so bad in past decades: 50's through 90's …
We already have astounding drop-out rates. With the current model of schooling in America, students are already being denied educations. Poor parenting has already assured those drop outs. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot force it to drink. Even if we compel students into schools, we cannot force them to learn. And if anything, poor parenting has reflected this mentality which has found its way into schools. However, this absolutely does not justify the compulsory actions, regardless. The ends absolutely do not justify the means. Instead of forcing individuals into these schools, inspire them to come- give them something worth coming for. Sudbury schools do exactly this. Students actually wish to attend these schools, as they are free, independent people following their own educational pursuit.
In the past, American schools were not horrible, but again, they merely taught students to become obedient workers. They did not teach individuals to become intellectuals, philosophers, or anything exceptional. If one became that, it was because their family guided that passion, or because of an intrinsic passion. Modern schools beat the passion of learning from students. Give them some freedom and model the system for learning and not for merely accepting their inequality in a hierarchy, and students may suddenly be more inclined to come.
"… accepting their inequality in a hierarchy," Actually, students are easily cajoled and prodded today and there is a pretty high graduation rate. The hierarchy thing is no longer.
The problem with school today, in my view, is that it does not teach relevant things.
The kids graduate and are able to apply to USC to do what????
What does the future look like? What are our youths interested in doing?
What jobs will be available and what will the emphasis be, if not manufacturing?
I would say doctors, nurses, and health-field type occupations will always be available.
Also, anything having to do with architecture and the construction trade. Its just a matter of knowing the world one is entering. Its a little confusing when we do not quite know what the future will bring. Usually innovations, modernity, improvement over the old, and grand new constructions of better and better quality and value. The future is always an interesting thing to be involved with. I'm sure teachers know this …
"State officials said the suspension last year of the California High School Exit Exam, a graduation requirement since 2004, may have also contributed to 2015’s graduation rate increase."
FROM https://edsource.org/2016/californias-g … ear/564357
by Bema Self7 years ago
I personally feel that to require children to go to school against their wishes or the wishes of their parents, under penalty of going to jail or losing their children, is involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by...
by alhaji bayoh6 months ago
i would like to know what u think of the above topic
by Madame X8 years ago
Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United...
by DanuckInUSA7 years ago
Is submission the same as slavery?
by brnielsen444 years ago
Do you think an online education should be just as credible as a brick and mortar school education?
by Sophia Angelique5 years ago
I kid you not. Republicans want to ban critical thinking so that children will not question the beliefs imposed by their parents.Read it here...http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/ne … -thinking/In addition,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.