Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your evidence was "only" anecdotal.

"Evidence for what? I have supplied a lot of evidence for numerous assertions. Much of that evidence was statistical (juvenile arrest rates, test scores correlated with district size and with age of compulsory attendance (start), school choice).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The free market values public education.
Humans are born incapable of taking care of themselves.
It's the parents responsibility to prepare their child for adulthood. This requires that they compel their children to work and learn. This includes teaching them hygiene, safety, and as much about reality and how to think as possible (public education).

We agree.
Fact: Homeschooled children and students in parochial schools are as much the "public" as are students in WEB DuBois High.
Fact: Homeschooling parents and teachers in in parochial schools are as much "the public" as are teachers in Franklin Roosevelt elementary school.
Fact: On-the-job training is as much "education" as are junior-year British and American Literature.
Fact: NOT(attendance at tax-subsidized, State-operated, State-worshipful indoctrination facilities = public education).

 

[RandFan]

"Evidence for what? I have supplied a lot of evidence for numerous assertions. Much of that evidence was statistical (juvenile arrest rates, test scores correlated with district size and with age of compulsory attendance (start), school choice).

Oh for crying in the dark. You have a long debate anecdotal evidence and NOW you want to know what evidence was anecdotal? I don't care. My only point was that anecdotal data as opposed to statistically significant sample size is problematic. Do you now understand now why anecdotal evidence compared to statistical data is typically not reliable?

 

[RandFan]

We agree.
Fact: Homeschooled children and students in parochial schools are as much the "public" as are students in WEB DuBois High.
Fact: Homeschooling parents and teachers in in parochial schools are as much "the public" as are teachers in Franklin Roosevelt elementary school.
Fact: On-the-job training is as much "education" as are junior-year British and American Literature.
Fact: NOT(attendance at tax-subsidized, State-operated, State-worshipful indoctrination facilities = public education).

Facts:

1. Not every parent is competent and capable or has the time and resources to home school children (many are criminals and/or pathological).
2. Nations highest in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, have compulsory education because it works.
3. Voters in nations that are high in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, etc., choose politicians that will support state subsidized public education because it works.

When you can show me a list of nations that are excelling because they did away with state subsidized public education then you might have something. That won't happen because leaving poor people without resources to properly educate their children hurts society for the reasons laid out in the emony article.

It is undisputed that lacking a high school diploma can hurt a worker in terms of the salary that he can earn over his lifetime. Not having a high school diploma affects not only the individual, but also the wider community since the individual generates less revenue in taxes because he has a lower-paying job. He also has less money to spend at local businesses than if he had a job with a higher salary, which affects the economy.

At the end of the day you only have far fetched hypothesis that cannot begin to compete with the pragmatic and easily demonstrable realities. You pick the nations that you think are the best based on wealth or economic freedom or whatever and tell me which ones don't have compulsory education?

 

[A'isha]

So the distinction between "employers" and "schools" breaks down.

You're redefining terms so that you can claim that this is so by pointing to the convergence of your chosen definitions as "proof", but that's all just sophistry. You aren't actually making a case that this is so in reality at all.

 

[RandFan]

One more inconvenient fact Malcolm,

In America, no child is forced to go to state publicized school. Any parent can home school or send their children to parochial school. That fact alone belies the notion that children are forced to go to state publicized school. No, they are forced to get an education. If the parents can't or won't provide it then the state will.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

When you have a statistically significant sample size you no longer simply have an anecdote.

Obviously. An anecdote is one observation. A datum. "Data" is the plural. Your references below are idiotic. Why is it a useless anecdote to compare a specimen to a natural object and a datum to lay that specimen next to a ruler or on a pan balance?

Anecdotes vs statistics

The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data

 

[A'isha]

Obviously. An anecdote is one observation. A datum. "Data" is the plural.

The plural of anecdote is still not data.

 

[Minoosh]

Um, no. Calibration may or may not be arbitrary, but prey organisms vs. predator organisms ratios is a metric

"In nature"? What do you think the human brain is? Unnatural?

My point was satirical. I would trace the exchange with Malcolm, but life is too short.

 

[RandFan]

My point was satirical. I would trace the exchange with Malcolm, but life is too short.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One more inconvenient fact Malcolm¹ In America, no child is forced to go to state publicized² school. Any parent can home school³ or send their children to parochial school⁴. That fact⁵ alone belies the notion that children are forced to go to state publicized⁶ school. No, they are forced to get an education⁷. If the parents can't or won't provide it then the state will.⁸

1. Try civility,
2. Huh? Please rephrase.
3. Flat false. Some States require that homeschooling parents have a teacher's certification.
4. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France
For many parents the choices are as follows:
a) send your child to a government-operated school or
b) pay a ransom (tuition) to an accredited independent school or
c) face prosecution for educational neglect, with the certainty of legal costs and, potentially, fines and ultimately court-ordered loss of position as guardians of your children.
Defenders of the State-monopoly schools system may add options to the list (e.g., move out of State, default on your mortgage and live on the street while mortgage payments instead go toward an independent school tuition), but that only underlines the (for some) prohibitive costs of NOT sending your children to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

5. RandFan's "facts" aren't.
6. Huh? Please rephrase.
7. That's not possible. The human and canine IQ curves overlap. Furthermore, tax subsidization and State-operation of school degrade overall education system performance (that's what this discussion is all about. RandFan assumes the conclusion).
8. The problem is that the tools available to State (government, generally) actors are ill-suited to the education industry. Brains and aspirations are more variable than feet. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State cannot operate schools without a definition of "school". The bureaucracy that provides oversight of State funds or State operations will define "education" through the exercise of its oversight function. This guarantees for many children a poor fit between the State-mandated curriculum and the individual child's aptitudes and interests.
Numerous lines of evidence support the following generalizations:
1. As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction overall system performance falls.
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politicaly-adept parents.

Who gets the wretched schools on the US mailnald? Blacks and Hispanics. Who's overrepresented in prison? Blacks and Hispanics. Who gets the wretched schools in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans. Who's overrepresented in prison in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans.

 

[A'isha]

Who gets the wretched schools on the US mailnald? Blacks and Hispanics. Who's overrepresented in prison? Blacks and Hispanics. Who gets the wretched schools in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans. Who's overrepresented in prison in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans.

That's not a cause and an effect, both of those are the effect of the same cause.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's not a cause and an effect, both of those are the effect of the same cause.

We agree. That cause is government intrusion into the education industry.

 

[RandFan]

1. Try civility,
2. Huh? Please rephrase.
3. Flat false. Some States require that homeschooling parents have a teacher's certification.
4. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France
For many parents the choices are as follows:
a) send your child to a government-operated school or
b) pay a ransom (tuition) to an accredited independent school or
c) face prosecution for educational neglect, with the certainty of legal costs and, potentially, fines and ultimately court-ordered loss of position as guardians of your children.
Defenders of the State-monopoly schools system may add options to the list (e.g., move out of State, default on your mortgage and live on the street while mortgage payments instead go toward an independent school tuition), but that only underlines the (for some) prohibitive costs of NOT sending your children to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools).

5. RandFan's "facts" aren't.
6. Huh? Please rephrase.
7. That's not possible. The human and canine IQ curves overlap. Furthermore, tax subsidization and State-operation of school degrade overall education system performance (that's what this discussion is all about. RandFan assumes the conclusion).
8. The problem is that the tools available to State (government, generally) actors are ill-suited to the education industry. Brains and aspirations are more variable than feet. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State cannot operate schools without a definition of "school". The bureaucracy that provides oversight of State funds or State operations will define "education" through the exercise of its oversight function. This guarantees for many children a poor fit between the State-mandated curriculum and the individual child's aptitudes and interests.
Numerous lines of evidence support the following generalizations:

Stating that they aren't facts is neither an argument not a rebuttal. Each and everyone of them is a fact and you haven't dealt with them.

1. Not every parent is competent and capable or has the time and resources to home school children (many are criminals and/or pathological). (still a fact)
2. Nations highest in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, have compulsory education because it works.(still a fact)
3. Voters in nations that are high in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, etc., choose politicians that will support state subsidized public education because it works. (still a fact)

Like the creationists you simply engage in a negative argument. As if there are deficiencies then your hypothesis is correct. No. If there are problems with state "subsidized" education then fix those problems. You don't have a viable alternative. If some states have more difficult standards for home schooling and you don't like it then work to change the law. Using that fact to attack state "subsidized" education is absurd.

 

[RandFan]

Malcolm, a couple more things, 1.) I've been as civil to you as you have been to me. 2.) No one gives a damn about your canine and human IQ curves overlapping. It does not rebut anything and does not advance the discussion. How you ever thought it had any importance to any discussion is beyond me.

 

[A'isha]

We agree. That cause is government intrusion into the education industry.

The cause has nothing whatsoever to do with that. If it was, then it wouldn't be just minorities listed in your example there.

 

[elbe]

No one gives a damn about your canine and human IQ curves overlapping. It does not rebut anything and does not advance the discussion. How you ever thought it had any importance to any discussion is beyond me.

Isn't that basically his entire MO? Make inane statement and instead of directly defending it deflect criticism by making more inane statements.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't that basically his entire MO? Make inane statement and instead of directly defending it deflect criticism by making more inane statements.

I had him on ignore when he was purposely running me around in circles with no real purpose and later admitted it. And he even chastised me for taking so long to figure out his ruse. And then he chides me for not being civil when I've been nothing but.

 

[elbe]

I had him on ignore when he was purposely running me around in circles with no real purpose and later admitted it. And he even chastised me for taking so long to figure out his ruse. And then he chides me for not being civil when I've been nothing but.

I've found that you've done a much better job at being civil than I have, but I start getting aggravated by the absurdity of it all.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One more inconvenient fact¹ Malcolm,
In America, no child is forced to go to state publicized² school. Any parent can home school³ or send their children to parochial school⁴. That fact⁵ alone belies the notion that children are forced to go to state publicized⁶ school. No, they are forced to get an education⁷. If the parents can't or won't provide it then the state will⁸.

1. Try civility,
2. Huh? Please rephrase.
3. Flat false. Some States require that homeschooling parents have a teacher's certification.
4. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France
For many parents the choices are as follows:
a) send your child to a government-operated school or
b) pay a ransom (tuition) to an accredited independent school or
c) face prosecution for educational neglect, with the certainty of legal costs and, potentially, fines and ultimately court-ordered loss of position as guardians of your children.
Defenders of the State-monopoly schools system may add options to the list (e.g., move out of State, default on your mortgage and live on the street while mortgage payments instead go toward an independent school tuition), but that only underlines the (for some) prohibitive costs of NOT sending your children to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

5. RandFan's "facts" aren't.
6. Huh? Please rephrase.
7. That's not possible. The human and canine IQ curves overlap. Furthermore, tax subsidization and State-operation of school degrade overall education system performance (that's what this discussion is all about. RandFan assumes the conclusion).
8. The problem is that the tools available to State (government, generally) actors are ill-suited to the education industry. Brains and aspirations are more variable than feet. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State cannot operate schools without a definition of "school". The bureaucracy that provides oversight of State funds or State operations will define "education" through the exercise of its oversight function. This guarantees for many children a poor fit between the State-mandated curriculum and the individual child's aptitudes and interests.
Numerous lines of evidence support the following generalizations:
1. As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction overall system performance falls.
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politicaly-adept parents.

Who gets the wretched schools on the US mailnald? Blacks and Hispanics. Who's overrepresented in prison? Blacks and Hispanics. Who gets the wretched schools in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans. Who's overrepresented in prison in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans.

Stating that they aren't facts is neither an argument not a rebuttal. Each and everyone of them is a fact and you haven't dealt with them.

1. Not every parent is competent and capable or has the time and resources to home school children (many are criminals and/or pathological). (still a fact)
2. Nations highest in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, have compulsory education because it works.(still a fact)
3. Voters in nations that are high in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, etc., choose politicians that will support state subsidized public education because it works. (still a fact)

Like the creationists you simply engage in a negative argument. As if there are deficiencies then your hypothesis is correct. No. If there are problems with state "subsidized" education then fix those problems. You don't have a viable alternative. If some states have more difficult standards for home schooling and you don't like it then work to change the law. Using that fact to attack state "subsidized" education is absurd.

I. Let's see:...
(RandFan): "In America, no child is forced to go to state publicized school. Any parent can home school."
(Malcolm): "Flat false. Some States require that homeschooling parents have a teacher's certification."
(Randfan): "Not every parent is competent and capable or has the time and resources to home school children (many are criminals and/or pathological). (still a fact)"
Okay. So Randfan agrees that States disqualify some parents from homeschooling. We agree. What Randfan calls a "fact" turns out to be more of an imperative: " If some states have more difficult standards for home schooling and you don't like it then work to change the law."
So laws in some States prevent some parents from homeschooling. That makes: ...
(Randfan): "In America ... Any parent can homeschool" ...
contrary-to-fact.
Financial realities make: ...
(Randfan): "In America ... Any parent can ... send their children to parochial school" ...
contrary-to-fact.
II. One observes compulsory schooling in many contemporary countries at all levels of economic deverlopment and in all political systems. Therefore, the (spurious) association of compulsory schooling with economically-advanced democratic systems says nothing about the impact of compulsory schooling on economic or political development. Economically-backward totalitarian States like North Korea compel attendance at school.
III. Yah. State-worshipful indoctrination works, all right. Some people never shake it.