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

[RandFan]

There's a big difference between "__X__ is valuable" and "Societies benefit when their governments dominate the __X__ industry". Think, "collective farming".

Private industries value education. Not every child gets a good job. Those who get an education however are far more likely to get a higher paying job than those that don't.

That does not at all compare to collective farming. If the children that were forced to go to school didn't get anything of value then private industry wouldn't value it. Got it? How hard is that to understand?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Private industries value education. Not every child gets a good job. Those who get an education however are far more likely to get a higher paying job than those that don't.

That does not at all compare to collective farming. If the children that were forced to go to school didn't get anything of value then private industry wouldn't value it. Got it? How hard is that to understand?

This makes no sense at all. People value some education (don't try sell your English Literature PhD to a masonry contractor). Education is not everywhere and always the best use of time.
At least you dropped the adjective "public" before "education" in "Private industries value education". That's progress.

Government-operated schools are to education what collective farms are to nutrition.

Got it? How hard is that to understand?[/QUOTE]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

And the students get something of critical value.

Some do. Some lose more than they would gain in an unsibsidized market in education services. Across industries subsidized goods are overconsumed and monopolies deliver shoddy goods at high prices.

 

[Dancing David]

What I call "slavery" is compulsory attendance at State-operated schools.The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

Then change the law...

BTW, how is that list of businesses asking to provide OJT coming?

 

[iknownothing]

What I call "slavery" is compulsory attendance at State-operated schools.

Attendance at state-subsidized schools is not compulsory. It is compulsory that parents find some means of providing their children education. That may be public schools, private schools, or (with rules varying from state to state) homeschool.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Attendance at state-subsidized schools is not compulsory. It is compulsory that parents find some means of providing their children education. That may be public schools, private schools, or (with rules varying from state to state) homeschool.

True. Attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers is not compulsory if parents can afford the ransom that independent schools call "tuition" or if parents can sacrifice an income to homeschool.

"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

Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically-adept parents.

 

[Minoosh]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".

Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

And the State is committed, by and large, to the teaching children how to read and understand what they read; coaching them on how to write effectively and providing a grounding in math that will help them from everything from health care jobs to engineering, science, etc. They do this in the name of equal opportunity in education. It's all carried out by credentialed professionals accountable to parents, children, colleges and business for developing those traits.

In return the kids gain a basic knowledge/skill set to compete in industry, with the aim of remedying some structural inequalities in opportunity.

I work at a school run as a business but funded by the state and I believe it does run leaner, with more signal-to-noise ratio, than the average mainstream public school. I'm both for more choice in schools and concerned about the bigger, less nimble districts that have high overhead and a lot of competition from a gaggle of charters.

This has little to do with the "slavery" debate but I wanted to let private-sector purist see how it looks from the point of view of professionals charged with bringing the less-privileged kids up to par in terms of future opportunities. I think what's actually going on is much more interesting than the purest free-market-vs.-slavery argument. Raising more entrepreneurial kids in a framework of a common ground of knowledge matters a lot to the country. I'd rather see improvement in how public and private entities work together for the main goal.

But when I've tried to engage free-market purists on this issue, there is absolutely no give. No sound policy for transforming the system. Nope, just abolish it tomorrow and while kids and the U.S. may suffer in the interim, in the long term the infallible free market will make up for the kids being left behind now.

 

[TjW]

If you believe that a private individual stealing a person's time is the same as a tax, then you are, for sure, inventing a new definition for "tax," even if you are unwilling to admit it or incapable of understanding what words mean. It's wrong even by your own statements, since slavery was allowed by many states but never mandated.

Well, I certainly find Malcolm's posts to be taxing.

 

[RandFan]

True. Attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers is not compulsory if parents can afford the ransom that independent schools call "tuition" or if parents can sacrifice an income to homeschool.

Which is why we have public state funded schools. It's why all modern liberal democracies have such a system. It works. It works so well that it's damn difficult to get a job in the private sector. The private sector places a very high value on education. So long as there is something of value to be obtained from what you call slavery then it can't be slavery.

 

[Mister Earl]

The mere existance of this thread is a great point that a quality public education system is necessary.

 

[jimbob]

Which is why we have public state funded schools. It's why all modern liberal democracies have such a system. It works. It works so well that it's damn difficult to get a job in the private sector without a set of state-recognised qualifications. The private sector places a very high value on education. So long as there is something of value to be obtained from what you call slavery then it can't be slavery.

Highlighted alteration

 

[RandFan]

Highlighted alteration

Thank you. A critical component of all of this. Yes.

 

[Dcdrac]

ignorance is slavery, simple as that.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

All of the things you mentioned are things of value. Seems to be a concession by you that what you call slavery, state subsidized public education, actually has value. Businesses would like to have educated workers. Parent's would like their children educated so they, the children, can get good jobs and have a higher quality of life than one without an education. The state would like productive citizens who can be consumers and pay taxes.
Citizens win. Private enterprise wins. Society wins. Parents win.
I've yet to see a downside. Sure, public education can be improved but state sponsored education is very much a public good valued by parents, students employers and most if not all nations high in economic freedom, GDP and HDI.

This is like saying that since exercise "has value" (better, "people value exercise") forced labor is valuable. Most businesses value some skilled workers. They would value them if those workers received their skills in a government-operated school, a voucher-subsidized school, an unsubsidized school, from OJT with a previous employer, or if workers emerged fully formed from the brow of Zeus. Whether anyone wins with a policy of tax subsidization of school, State (government, generally) operation of school, and compulsory attendance statutes will depend on the opportunity cost of that policy relative to other options.

 

[A'isha]

This is like saying that since exercise "has value" (better, "people value exercise") forced labor is valuable.

In Japan, companies often have mandatory morning calisthenics for their employees.

Are these workers slaves, Malcolm?

 

[RandFan]

This is like saying that since exercise "has value" (better, "people value exercise") forced labor is valuable. Most businesses value some skilled workers. They would value them if those workers received their skills in a government-operated school, a voucher-subsidized school, an unsubsidized school, from OJT with a previous employer, or if workers emerged fully formed from the brow of Zeus. Whether anyone wins with a policy of tax subsidization of school, State (government, generally) operation of school, and compulsory attendance statutes will depend on the opportunity cost of that policy relative to other options.

The difference between not having an education and having an education is freedom for most of your life. If you have an education you are not a slave to your ignorance. You are not a slave to poverty.

What you call slavery is working to better yourself and to gain freedom.

Most high school dropouts see the result of their decision to leave school most clearly in the slimness of their wallets. The average annual income for a high school dropout in 2005 was
$17,299, compared to $26,933 for a high school graduate, a difference of $9,634 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006). The impact on the country’s economy is less visible, but it is nevertheless
staggering.

In today's dollars that's an extra half a million dollars over 40 years. That's not counting promotions. People who do not graduate high school aren't likely to have a whole lot of promotions. And the freedom to go on vacation, go to the theatre, go to restaurants, freedom from trying to make ends meet. Freedom from living in **** hole apartments. Freedom to have a good car. Freedom to have more choices in life. State run public school (that thing you call slavery) is probably the greatest opportunity most people will ever get in life.

For the love of god, how you can call that slavery is beyond me.

I've been poor and I've also been able to enjoy the benefits of my education. I'd happily go to state funded public schools (that thing you call slavery) to have a chance at a better life. My education made it possible for me to have a pretty good life for 30 years. Without that I would have been in the streets. My parents were dirt poor. Publicly funded state run school gave me a chance to escape poverty. My siblings also went to public school and escaped poverty. That's pretty damn valuable.

So, you can minimize it all you want but it's a key to a better life. And it's pretty much the same as private/parochial schools. You take study, takes tests, learn about the world.

 

[jimbob]

Most schools in the UK* have "exclusion" as the ultimate disciplinary sanction.

An odd sort of "slavery" where the ultimate punishment involves banning "the slave" from the place of said slavery.



*And other places, but I make no claims for elsewhere

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In Japan, companies often have mandatory morning calisthenics for their employees. Are these workers slaves, Malcolm?

No, because no one compels the employee to enter into an employment contract. The job description is part of the contract.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The difference between not having an education and having an education is freedom for most of your life.¹ If you have an education you are not a slave to your ignorance. You are not a slave to poverty. What you call slavery is working to better yourself and to gain freedom.²...
State run public school (that thing you call slavery) is probably the greatest opportunity most people will ever get in life³.

For the love of god, how you can call that slavery is beyond me.⁴...
So, you can minimize it all you want but it's a key to a better life. And it's pretty much the same as private/parochial schools. You take study, takes tests, learn about the world⁵.

1. Not("school"="education"). NOT("attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers"="public education").
2. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Black or white, male or female, young or old. In the US, children work, unpaid, as window dressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that many people call "the public school system".
3. Schools, as they currently operate in the US, are a huge waste of time. It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute.
4. It's compulsory. You cannot eat a transcript. Many normal children do not have academic aspirations.
5. Or not, depending on the district. Support for vouchers is negatively correlated with income (poor parents want out). Support for vouchers is higher among black parents than among white parents. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

And the State is committed, by and large, to the teaching children how to read and understand what they read; coaching them on how to write effectively and providing a grounding in math that will help them from everything from health care jobs to engineering, science, etc. They do this in the name of equal opportunity in education. It's all carried out by credentialed professionals accountable to parents, children, colleges and business for developing those traits.

That's what the system's propagandists want people to believe. If we judge a system by the goals its propagandists proclaim, then North Korea is Heaven on Earth. Those "credentialed professionals" gave us Whole Language methods of Reading instruction, "discovery" methods of Math instruction, block scheduling, portfolio assessment, standards-based education, self-esteem, mastery learning, critical pedagogy, and countless other lunatic fads.

In return the kids gain a basic knowledge/skill set to compete in industry, with the aim of remedying some structural inequalities in opportunity.

Many parents of children consigned to corrupt, abusive inner-city schools would disagree. NAEP scores support those parents.

I work at a school run as a business but funded by the state and I believe it does run leaner, with more signal-to-noise ratio, than the average mainstream public school. I'm both for more choice in schools and concerned about the bigger, less nimble districts that have high overhead and a lot of competition from a gaggle of charters.

The correlation between enrollment and per-pupil cost is negative over the range from 500 (the average North Dakota district) to 1,000,000 (NYC). The correlation (NAEP score, enrollment) is negative. Costs rise and performance falls as districts increase in size. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates.

This has little to do with the "slavery" debate but I wanted to let private-sector purist see how it looks from the point of view of professionals charged with bringing the less-privileged kids up to par in terms of future opportunities.

I worked at Campbell High School for eight years and Waianae High School for a year. I have tutored children of immigrant parents.

I think what's actually going on is much more interesting than the purest free-market-vs.-slavery argument. Raising more entrepreneurial kids in a framework of a common ground of knowledge matters a lot to the country.

Mandatory lessons in self-improvement? That's like yelling "QUIET!" (i.e., self-contradictory).

I'd rather see improvement in how public and private entities work together for the main goal.

"Rather" is a comparative (rath, rather, rathest). To what?

But when I've tried to engage free-market purists on this issue, there is absolutely no give. No sound policy for transforming the system. Nope, just abolish it tomorrow and while kids and the U.S. may suffer in the interim, in the long term the infallible free market will make up for the kids being left behind now.

Do you have an example of someone who takes this position?