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

[bruto]

There is abundant empirical evidence for the proposition that political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents. I will provide some if ANT will take the trouble to support the contrary position. As Ant says: "citation needed".

It might help if you explained what you mean by the term "politically adept," as I suspect your version might differ from others'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Is he STILL whining about this?

Good grief Charlie Brown.

 

[Border Reiver]

We're edging closer in our definitions. However, "owned" and "property" imply a rather advanced legal environment. Slavery predates that.

The earliest records that we have of slavery date back to Mesopotamia and the earliest legal codes.

In addition many illiterate societies practised slavery - the Celts of Europe and most First Nations practised slavery. The institution of slavery requires that people have a societal framework for recognizing property, and that is about as basic as we get in a legal system.

Reason right there to suppose that slavery pre-dated written legal codes. Thanks for your support.

Not so fast my friend. Preliterate legal codes run the gambut from fairly basic such as those of various nomadic first nations, to the extremely sophisticated ones of the Iroquois, Zulu or various Celtic legal systems. Slavery likely dates back to the beginnings of permanent settlements, and the Neolithic Revolution, as a surplus of foodstuffs is seen as prerequisite to the implementation of slavery. Which is to say that concepts of property do not need to be "advanced" in order to accomodate the practice of slavery.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In the entirety of this thread you've yet to address the fact that there are no laws that prevent parents of any age from home schooling, or sending their children to alternate schools, other than the limitation of whatever happens to be available locally, and the relative wealth of the parents.

It's a long thread, so you are excused this incorrect statement-as-to-fact. We have discussed this. Laws vary from State to State. Whether parents have the option of "sending their children to alternate schools" depends, as you observe, on "the limitation of whatever happens to be available locally, and the relative wealth of the parents."
"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

We are all public citizens and private individuals. Students in St. Andrews Priory are as much "the public" as are students in Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School. Teachers in The Academy of the Sacred Heart are as much "the public" as are teachers in W.E.B. du Bois High School. The policy of restricting parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 schooling subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel has produced a crowding-out effect, undermining institutions that do not qualify for the subsidy.

The public education system currently in place in the US and Canada is not a monopoly.

Unions, even "public sector" unions, are private 501(c)5 corporations. The cartel's schools occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 schooling subsidy in many US States. They qualify as a monopoly.

Yes, several people were able to be homeshcooled and accomplish great things. The vast majority of persons without the benefit of a publically subsidized education system lived and died in poverty unable to do more than to "make your mark" if asked to sign their name or acknowledge a debt.

For most of human history, the vast majority of people lived in what we today would call poverty. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors. The system of private property (title) and contract law allows everyone to use his/her local knowledge and assets to improve his/her situation. Government control of education suffers from the defects of other "industrial policy" (State control of investment). Local knowledge is destroyed and the incentives to insiders are perverse. When governments in Britain and the US entered the education business they "leaped onto the back of a galloping horse" (E.G. West?). Parents will typically invest in education. As society gets wealthier, people will invest more. There's no reason to attribute either increased wealth OR increased literacy to nationalization of the education industry. This is like Pharaoh taking credit for sunrise. Because the education industry is ill-suited for centralized control, State intrusion, if anything, likely slowed progress.

It's hard to take you seriously when you misrepresent so many aspects of the public education system.

 

[Minoosh]

For lack of a perfect term I'll use "libertarian" to refer to some of what Malcolm says. Now I need a term for those who back, roughly, the current education system. For this limited purpose I'll use the term "collectivists" - common funding for common schools. And I'm going to simplify and pretend we are on a spectrum. In my rules it's no fair for collectivists to cede an inch in sticking up for mandatory schooling in a state-run monopoly. And it's no fair for libertarians to speak of vouchers or any other system that uses tax dollars or mandates attendance in any way.

The collectivists are "conservative," in the sense that they wish to conserve the structure that they believe works best for meeting America's mandate for equal opportunity in education. The libertarians are "radical" in that they see mandatory public school and taxation not just as inefficient, but morally wrong on a par with slavery. For purposes of this illustration, no shades of gray are allowed. Emancipation of slaves should be immediate, and the collection of tax dollars for public school should immediately stop.

In this structure, collectivists/conservatives can say it's not slavery, and it's the fairest system we can devise. They believe they are sticking up for everybody. There are working models all over the place. Libertarian/radicals want to pull the plug and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that with no taxes and no mandate people will be better off, because markets will kick in, with competition providing myriad choices for education, or no schooling at all if that's what parents want.

"Collectivists" worry about the children who they imagine will fall through the cracks right now if the system is abolished. "Libertarians" say that whatever happens "right now," eventually markets will sort things out for the better.

Both sides see public benefit to their positions, but the "libertarian" is calculating the benefit over some period of time while the "collectivist" is concerned with what's going to happen tomorrow.

If you've read this far, thank you. My question is, does this rough sketch, or caricature, work as a model for what this discussion is about?

 

[Minoosh]

It's hard to take you seriously when you misrepresent so many aspects of the public education system.

Have you spent any time in public schools lately? Does my sketch above reflect your opinion?

Parents will typically invest in education.

Maybe you're right, but I have to ask: Are you basing this on any specific evidence? Or is it more of a general feeling?

 

[Minoosh]

Is he STILL whining about this?

He's not whining. People are still feeding him.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Have you spent any time in public schools lately? Does my sketch above reflect your opinion?

Lately? Not unless "lately" means "in the last 25 years". I attended government-operated schools from age 5 to age 18, attended a government-operated university (BA, Math, PD (fifth year certificated) NOT PhD) Secondary Math Education) and taught in the Hawaii DOE schools between 1982 1nd 1995. Since then I have tutored, for a learning center and independently. I follow education-related news and do my own research on school-related issues.

I agree with many of my libertarian friends on many issues. I dissent on environmental issues, immigration, and population (immigration from the future). The world will come to a Chinese-style population policy, if we're lucky. The alternatives (bio-warfare, ecological collapse) are far worse. Many libertarians pay lip service to evolutionary views of culture but then write as though they believed that rights (especially property rights) poured into our universe through a crack from the 7th, 8th and 9th dimensions or something. I prefer an evolutionary approach to policy as well: smooth, incremental change, if possible. Incremental does not have to mean "slow".

While I am convinced that the US would be wealthier, more equitable, and less violent if compulsory attendance statutes, tax support of schools, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws were repealed nationwide in the next legislative cycle (State and national), that's not at all realistic and hardly my recommendation. I recommend Parent Performance Contracting. I'd happily settle for a law that requires the Hawaii DOE schools to offer credit-by-exam, for a grade, for every course that satisfies a diploma requirement. Even if students have to remain on campus until the end of the school year in which they turn 18, let them run around the track or hang out in the library or the Auto Shop teacher's classroom. Students will work for freedom, and many students want OUT.

Maybe you're right, but I have to ask: Are you basing this on any specific evidence? Or is it more of a general feeling?

Friedman alludes to studies that suggest this. Historical evidence indicates that poor parents scrimped to send children to school. Diane Ravitch (Left Back, A Century of Failed School Reforms) described advocacy by poor black parents that their children receive the same education that white children received, so it was not a matter of indifference to them, obviously.

I suggest that the welfare state (both tax-subsidized, compulsory schooling by a State-monopoly enterprise and income maintenance programs) and inheritance/estate taxes have reduced the incentives to parents to invest in their own children, but not so much that we can no longer rely on it. Gandhi wrote that parents are the natural teachers of children. Certainly some parents are neglectful and/or abusive. So also are some teachers and many bureaucrats. Evolution will deal with neglectful parents, It won't work on bureaucrats anymore that evolution will reduce predation on gazelles by hyenas. As P. J. O'Rourke observed: "Evolution doesn't work on things that don't die".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Why suppose that the largest extortion racket in your neighborhood (the State) has any exceptional expertise in the education business?"
(ANTPogo): " 'The State' is not a stand-alone entity. I expect educators, who make up the faculty and staff of the public schools here, to have expertise in the education business. Which they do.}

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "I have asked numerous times on Education-related threads and healthcare-related threads the following questions:
1. From State (government, generally) operation (or subsidization) of which industries does society as a whole benefit? You may suppose either a dichotomous classification, A={x:x is an unlikely candidate for State operation (or subsidy)} and B={x:x is a likely candidate for State operation (or subsidy} or a continuum...
(Highly unlikely)-1___________._________+1(highly likely)
2. What considerations determine an industry's classification of position on the continuum?"
(ANTPogo): "*snip dumb pseudomath*"
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "ANT stridently ignores the central issue: why suppose that the largest violence dealer in your locality (the State) has any expertise beyond threats, violence, and extortion?"
(ANTPogo): "I didn't 'ignore' it, you snipped out the part of my post where I answered your question."

False. ANT never answered the questions:
1. From State (government, generally) operation (or subsidization) of what industries does society as a whole benefit?
2. What features of these industries make them likely candidates for State operation (or subsidization)?

(ANTPogo): "So, since I answered your question, now you can answer mine: why suppose that the free market has any expertise beyond minimizing expenses, maximizing profit margin, and outselling competitors?"

Isn't that enough? Reducing costs means resources can be used to satisfy other wants. Profit signals to investors where to allocate resources to satisfy human wants. Outselling competitors means doing a better job of satisfying customers.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Taxes are things we pay so that we can have roads, schools, drinking water that comes out of a tap, electricity that comes out of the walls and lights your home . . . .

That's the grade-school version of civics. Rather like the Geometry of Euclidean one-space. Later you learn about rent-seeking, log rolling, election rigging, bid-rigging, payroll padding, bureaucratic bloat, and (graduate school), public choice theory.

I'm on roof catchment.
Hawaiian Electric is a regulated for-profit corporate utility.

... I happen to like paying taxes and don't begrudge paying taxes one bit. Why would I? Our taxes are what stand squarely between us and the Dark Ages.

Corrupt government has brought the Dark Ages to Detroit.

 

[A'isha]

If you want a reply, you can learn to use the quote function properly.

 

[jimbob]

If you want a reply, you can learn to use the quote function properly.

That shows what happens if your formative education includes:
[attending] "government-operated schools from age 5 to age 18"

 

[jimbob]

For lack of a perfect term I'll use "libertarian" to refer to some of what Malcolm says. Now I need a term for those who back, roughly, the current education system. For this limited purpose I'll use the term "collectivists" - common funding for common schools. And I'm going to simplify and pretend we are on a spectrum. In my rules it's no fair for collectivists to cede an inch in sticking up for mandatory schooling in a state-run monopoly. And it's no fair for libertarians to speak of vouchers or any other system that uses tax dollars or mandates attendance in any way.

The collectivists are "conservative," in the sense that they wish to conserve the structure that they believe works best for meeting America's mandate for equal opportunity in education. The libertarians are "radical" in that they see mandatory public school and taxation not just as inefficient, but morally wrong on a par with slavery. For purposes of this illustration, no shades of gray are allowed. Emancipation of slaves should be immediate, and the collection of tax dollars for public school should immediately stop.

In this structure, collectivists/conservatives can say it's not slavery, and it's the fairest system we can devise. They believe they are sticking up for everybody. There are working models all over the place. Libertarian/radicals want to pull the plug and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that with no taxes and no mandate people will be better off, because markets will kick in, with competition providing myriad choices for education, or no schooling at all if that's what parents want.

"Collectivists" worry about the children who they imagine will fall through the cracks right now if the system is abolished. "Libertarians" say that whatever happens "right now," eventually markets will sort things out for the better.

Both sides see public benefit to their positions, but the "libertarian" is calculating the benefit over some period of time while the "collectivist" is concerned with what's going to happen tomorrow.

If you've read this far, thank you. My question is, does this rough sketch, or caricature, work as a model for what this discussion is about?

Not really.

Most people are pointing out that the status quo in the OECD countries means that children receive some form of approved education whether private, public, charity, or even home-schooling.

The other position is that it is an infringement of rights (it is unclear to me whether it is parental or children's) to make children's education mandatory, and that if people think their children should work in a factory, that should be allowed as anything else is a restriction of freedom*.

As far as I can see, the discussion about state provision of education is a separate but related part - which is what you are summarising.


*I think Malcolm would say that if the child wants to go to school but the parent doesn't, then the child's views should take preference.




ETA: You have described the discussion about implementation, whilst there is also discussion about whether *any* system should be implemented.

 

[A'isha]

I, at least, am completely fine with private schools, parochial schools, and even home schools existing alongside public schools. Just as long as all of them are held to the same educational standards and curriculum requirements.

 

[Minoosh]

I, at least, am completely fine with private schools, parochial schools, and even home schools existing alongside public schools. Just as long as all of them are held to the same educational standards and curriculum requirements.

Malcolm above said he is for incremental change, and I'm not sure I've heard him express that view before. He said incremental doesn't have to mean slow, but IMO it does. I don't agree with the basic philosophy - the theft and slavery rhetoric - but charter schools in my area have shown me a form of incremental change. Recently I've tasted the culture of a variety of these public-private hybrids. When they were first introduced in my state I thought of them as a novelty, and couldn't quite believe they would ever threaten mainstream public schools. But now they're draining off significant enrollment and there really is competition - everything from rigorous college prep to experiential coursework where kids work in adjacent businesses for credit. Another model is basically credit recovery for dropouts, working in computerized modules in a large room with all the teachers on the floor.

The charter system adds choices, it's still funded with tax dollars and attendance in some school is mandatory, so it doesn't meet his anti-theft and anti-slavery stance.

Until relatively recently in most states there really was no bar kids had to meet to graduate high school. No demonstration of accrued knowledge. Then we got the high-stakes standardized tests, which people blame on Bush but had cultural roots in the Clinton administration. BTW I don't think there's any national standard, but states must have some standard test. Some are better than others.

Without having that bar to meet, and with a virtual monopoly I posited, I agree with some of what Malcolm says. But his rhetoric seems to militate against the incremental improvement of any system that mandates attendance, and unpaid "labor." Unless he's willing to endorse theft (or really, armed robbery) - what most of us call taxes - and slavery (mandatory attendance, no pay) he's IMO proposing blowing everything up and starting over.

Thanks for the responses. The purpose for simplifying the argument was to help me understand where different people are coming from. It's a sort of thought experiment for me - I've thought about these issues a lot.

 

[Minoosh]

I agree with many of my libertarian friends on many issues. I dissent on environmental issues, immigration, and population (immigration from the future).

The Economist is banking on this model: Raise everyone up out of poverty through "industrialization" - again, a word I use for convenience - maybe it could be called compassionate capitalism. Reduce infant mortality so you don't have to birth 14 to ensure you'll have one to take care of you in old age. In their model birth rate falls as social and material well-being rise. This stabilizes population circa 2050.

This doesn't happen without planning, and planning on this scale IMO doesn't work without (good) government.

Students will work for freedom, and many students want OUT.

Yeah, I did, so much that I graduated at age 15. However I also got a really good HS education from plain vanilla government teachers. There was compensation.

Friedman alludes to studies that suggest this. Historical evidence indicates that poor parents scrimped to send children to school.

I'm looking for a little better than "Friedman alludes to studies." Obviously some parents will scrimp and save to send children to school. However it takes income above subsistence to be able to scrimp and save. Also, without quantifying the extent to which poor parents scrimp and save, the best we can say is "some" or "many." 90%? 10%? I honestly don't know.

I suggest that the welfare state (both tax-subsidized, compulsory schooling by a State-monopoly enterprise and income maintenance programs) and inheritance/estate taxes have reduced the incentives to parents to invest in their own children, but not so much that we can no longer rely on it.

Which seems like a belief informed by faith rather than evidence (beyond the anecdotal outliers you cite).

Evolution will deal with neglectful parents,

Seriously? This sounds lofty but I have no idea what you're saying. P.J. O'Rourke is a funny guy and that's a nice sound bite.

I think the Net trope would be: Cool sound bite bro.

 

[A'isha]

Malcolm above said he is for incremental change, and I'm not sure I've heard him express that view before.

Malcolm is also against educational standards and a common curriculum. He's perfectly fine with letting private or home schools teach creationism instead of evolution and other blatant falsehoods, even once declaring that "[y]our auto mechanic does not need evolutionary theory" in defense of this (implying that it's perfectly okay to determine early on in a child's life that he or she just doesn't need the same real, full education that more "elite" children will receive).

 

[Doubt]

Corrupt government has brought the Dark Ages to Detroit.

Speaking as a person from the Detroit suburbs I can tell you that you are not well informed or ignoring an awful lot of other factors in your analysis of Detroit. Right up to the point of being laughable.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I, at least, am completely fine with private schools, parochial schools, and even home schools existing alongside public schools. Just as long as all of them are held to the same educational standards and curriculum requirements.

Add access to the same level of tax subsidization, per pupil, and I'd accept that as a decent compromise.

The problem with any legal regime other that complete State indifference is that children are not standard and some political body will define standards for children they don't know personally. Parents roll a bucket of genetic dice when they put their kids together and come kids come up snake-eyes. For every level of performance above "comatose", and for every level of support, there is some child for whom that level of support is insufficient that level of performance. The human and canine IQ curves overlap.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The other position is that it is an infringement of rights (it is unclear to me whether it is parental or children's) to make children's education mandatory, and that if people think their children should work in a factory, that should be allowed as anything else is a restriction of freedom*.

I prefer to avoid the term "rights". It's like "God", heavily emotionally weighted and only vaguely defined.

You have described the discussion about implementation, whilst there is also discussion about whether *any* system should be implemented.

Note the passive voice: "should be implemented". By whom?