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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It's not cracking if it never existed - again, please show the jurisdictions where the public option is legally the only option available. In those areas you would have a monopoly by the state, and only there.

From the taxpayers' point of view, laws and policies which limit the government's options for purchases of education services to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel give the cartel a monopoly position (sole provider) of education services to the State. Several State-level Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of interpretations of State constitutions (and mis-applied the "establishment" provision of the US Constitution's First Amendment) that protect the cartel's exclusive position.

 

[A'isha]

From the taxpayers' point of view

No, from your point of view.

 

[RandFan]

1. I don't see how that's slapping down the attempt to have the discussion.
2. No. I analogized State-run schooling and collective farming. Is this really so hard to grasp? This is hard for devout socialists to understand, even with mountains of evidence, but many industries do not exhibit the economies of scale that make them likely candidates for nationalization. To oppose collectivized agriculture is NOT to endorse starvation. To oppose the State-monopoly school system is NOT to endorse ignorance.
3. I don't accept this as "fact". School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap.
4. (a) See #3.
(b) Why does not on-the-job training qualify as "education"?
(c) Does Randfan here mix the "poor" and "negligent" objections together?
5. I don't accept as "fact" the implication that a State role in the education industry enhances either overall system performance or the education services available to poor families.
6. That many poor children do not get a decent education from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools is demonstrably true.
7. Readers may assess. I analogized collective farming and State-run schools and markets in food to markets in education services. See "analogy".

1. I asked if you would consider a more polite discussion and you responded by calling me a shill. There is no other interpretation.
2. A.) I'm not a socialist. B.) So, you are simply saying you don't know. Hardly a reason to get rid of state run compulsory schools, especially when they provide so much to poor people like myself.
3. A.) What is this cheap education? How would you have forced my father to have me educated, cheaply or otherwise. How many poor children and their parents will take advantage of this claimed "cheap education"? I know, I know, you DON'T know.
4. How does a guy that worked on the farm his whole life get a job programming? I was a consultant to UCLA for 15 years. That is not possible without a degree and certification, it just isn't. Call a head hunter right now and tell them you want a job programming and tell them that you don't have a degree and you are not certified. Tell them you've never owned a computer and don't know anything about programming and then listen to the rep hang up on you or laugh. Most good jobs don't have on the job training if you don't have at least a high school degree. I've posted many times the facts about lacking a degree. So tell me, how do would I have gotten this "on the job training"? (hint, unless you know someone it's a pretty rare thing).
5. Yet you can't tell us how poor people would be educated. That's telling.
6. Cartel? {sigh} So make all poor people suffer?
7. It's a poor analogy but I'll admit I misunderstood you. Though, let's be clear for those readers, you would still prefer that I have spent my life working menial jobs. And my friends also.

It really burns you that I got that education. You don't give 2 cents about poor people. Not only do you not care but you would happily take from them the one opportunity they have to better themselves based solely on your ignorance. You said that you "don't know". Yeah, screw the poor. Maybe they will get an education and maybe they want. Their the poor what do you care?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A)... I'm not a socialist.¹ B.) So, you are simply saying you don't know. Hardly a reason to get rid of state run compulsory schools², especially when they provide so much to poor people like myself³.
A.) What is this cheap education? How would you have forced my father to have me educated, cheaply or otherwise. How many poor children and their parents will take advantage of this claimed "cheap education"? I know, I know, you DON'T know.⁴How does a guy that worked on the farm his whole life get a job programming?⁵ I was a consultant to UCLA for 15 years. That is not possible without a degree and certification it just isn't. Call a head hunter right now and tell them you want a job programming but you don't have a degree and you are not certified. Tell them you've never owned a computer and don't know anything about programming and then listen to the guy hang up on your laugh. Many jobs don't have on the job training if you don't have at least a high school degree. I've posted many times the facts about lacking a degree. So tell me, how do would I have gotten this on the job training? (hint, unless you know someone it's a pretty rare thing.
Yet you can't tell us how poor people would be educated. That's telling.⁶Cartel? {sigh} So make all poor people suffer?⁷It's a poor analogy but I'll admit I misunderstood you. Though, let's be clear for those readers, you would still prefer that I have spent my life working menial jobs. And my friends also.⁸It really burns you that I got that education. You don't give 2 cents about poor people. Not only do you not care but you would happily take from them the one opportunity they have to better themselves based solely on your ignorance. You said that you "don't know". Yeah, screw the poor. Maybe they will get an education and maybe they want. Their the poor what do you care?⁹

1.Randfan advocated State assumption of responsibility for the provision of medical services. Randfan advocated the extension of the legal definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples (from which expansion of the category of tax-funded spousal benefits follows). Randfan defends the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Socialism is a matter of degree. but that's a lot more "socialist" than the average American.
2. I don't know where __X__ (pick some person at random from the Hamburg, Germany telephone book) will eat lunch next week Thursday. Freedom gives people a range of options from which they will make selections that strangers cannot predict.
3. State-operated schools exacerbate social inequality. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests FALL when school is NOT in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma FALL when school is NOT in session. I recommend James Tooley's The Beautiful Tree and Herman Brutsaert's study comparing parochial schools and government schools in Belgium. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically-adept parents. We may be arguing at cross-purposes here since Randfan has endorsed a wider range of educational options and we may agree more than appears from this discussion.
4. Again:...

In abstract: competition among providers improves goods and services and lowers per-unit costs. Raising the returns to school will increase the opportunity cost of indifference to neglectful parents. Without any threat from the state, this functions like a fine for educational neglect.

5. How did Lincoln become a lawyer or Srinivasa Ramanujan become a mathematician?
6. It's telling that RandFan demonstrates absolutely no familiarity with the arguments for competitive markets and considers the lack of predictability "telling". It's much easier to predict what color clothing the average North Korean will wear than what color the average South Korean will wear.
7. That's the result of the cartel's exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy.
Hyman and Penroe
Journal of School Psychology

Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988; Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children, especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United States ....
In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in a school violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner city high school students was conducted. When asked why they misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they wanted to get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or showed disrespect for them, their families, or their culture. ...
... schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this behavior might affect student misbehavior. ...
... Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman, Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992). ...
As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990).

Karen Brockenbrough, Dewey G. Cornell, Ann B. Loper
"Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence at School"
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 25, #3, Aug., 2002

Violence at school is a prevalent problem. According to a national survey of school proncipals (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998), over 200,000 serious fights or physical attacks occurred in public schools during the 1996-1997 school year. Serious violent crimes occurred in approximately 12% of middle schools and 13% of high schools. Student surveys (Kann et al, 1995) indicate even higher rates of aggressive behavior. Approximately 16.2% of high school students nationwide reported involvement in a physical fight at school during a 30-day period, and 11.8% reported carrying a weapon on school property (Kann et al, 1995). Research on victims of violence at school suggests that repeated victimization has detrimental effects on a child's emotional and social development (Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Hoover, Oliver, & Thomson, 1993; Olweus, 1993). Victims exhibit higher levels of anxiety and depression, and lower self-esteem than non-victims (eg., Besag, 1989; Gilmartin, 1987; Greenbaum, 1987; Olweus, 1993).

Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Howard M. Knoff
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 26, #1, Feb. 2003

Results showed that the over-representation of Black males that has been cited consistently in the literature begins at the elementary school level and continues through high school. Black females also were suspended at a much higher rate than White or Hispanic females at all three school levels.

8. Why not accept that we have different expectations about the outcome of a competitive market in education services?
9. Also, this is contrary to the qualifications I make explicit in Parent Performance Contracting (to which I have linked several times in discussions in which RandFan has participated).

2. A child is eligible if:
2.1 S/he is at or above age-level expectations on standardized tests of reading vocabulary, reading comprehension (any language) and math as of August 15, the start of the contract year ...

 

[Border Reiver]

From the taxpayers' point of view, laws and policies which limit the government's options for purchases of education services to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel give the cartel a monopoly position (sole provider) of education services to the State. Several State-level Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of interpretations of State constitutions (and mis-applied the "establishment" provision of the US Constitution's First Amendment) that protect the cartel's exclusive position.

You are confusing a unionized workplace with a cartel.

Monopolies control the commodity (in this case an education). If the various teachers' unions were a cartel controlling education, then the only way you could get an education would be through a school where they taught. Since that is not the case, your name calling is inaccurate in addition to insulting.

May as well say the United Autoworkers Union is a cartel controlling the automotive industry as say the teachers' unions set education policy. Influence, yes - control, no.

 

[RandFan]

1.Randfan advocated State assumption of responsibility for the provision of medical services. Randfan advocated the extension of the legal definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples (from which expansion of the category of tax-funded spousal benefits follows). Randfan defends the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Socialism is a matter of degree. but that's a lot more "socialist" than the average American.

2. I don't know where __X__ (pick some person at random from the Hamburg, Germany telephone book) will eat lunch next week Thursday. Freedom gives people a range of options from which they will make selections that strangers cannot predict.
3. State-operated schools exacerbate social inequality. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests FALL when school is NOT in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma FALL when school is NOT in session. I recommend James Tooley's The Beautiful Tree and Herman Brutsaert's study comparing parochial schools and government schools in Belgium. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically-adept parents. We may be arguing at cross-purposes here since Randfan has endorsed a wider range of educational options and we may agree more than appears from this discussion.
4. Again:...5. How did Lincoln become a lawyer or Srinivasa Ramanujan become a mathematician?
6. It's telling that RandFan demonstrates absolutely no familiarity with the arguments for competitive markets and considers the lack of predictability "telling". It's much easier to predict what color clothing the average North Korean will wear than what color the average South Korean will wear.
7. That's the result of the cartel's exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy.
Hyman and Penroe
Journal of School PsychologyKaren Brockenbrough, Dewey G. Cornell, Ann B. Loper
"Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence at School"
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 25, #3, Aug., 2002Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Howard M. Knoff
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 26, #1, Feb. 20038. Why not accept that we have different expectations about the outcome of a competitive market in education services?
9. Also, this is contrary to the qualifications I make explicit in Parent Performance Contracting (to which I have linked several times in discussions in which RandFan has participated).

1. Reffering to me in the 3rd person is patronizing. I don't mind that you use the term socialism, though most conservatives on this forum would tell you to open a dictionary sometime (see below). But an intellectually honest person would readily admit that such a label really does not fit me. I believe in and champion capitalism. I can't think of anything more disastrous for our nation that to nationalize businesses. My user name is in deference to Ayn Rand. Capitalism is the greatest engine for "social" good the world has ever known. It's just not capable of solving many of our social ills. Nations highest in economic freedom and HDI all offer some significant social benefits. Most have UHC. Most provide state funded education.Whatever label you want to put on me is fine. You call me a socialist and I will call you an anarcho-capitalist. You are far more anarcho-capitalist than the vast majority of Americans.
2. That's simply unacceptable. If you don't know whether or not your ides will lead to skyrocketing illiteracy then what good are your ideas?
3. On the contrary, it's the one thing a child raised in a poor and/or neglectful household will get to have a real shot at making it. Without the resources it's just far too beyond the reach of poor people.
4. They were prodigies. They were exceptions. Wait, this has been explained to you before. Your anecdote only proves that prodigies can be educated outside of a formal education. We are not all prodigies. I struggled to learn computer programming.
5. Competitive markets won't make everything affordable.
6. Wait, no it's not.
7. That would be the result of people without resources and/or neglectful.

At the end of the day Malcolm can only appeal to his ignorance. Hardly compelling. It's not my fault Malcolm is ignorant of the consequences of Malcolm's ideas. If Malcolm does not know what the end result of his ideas will be then why is Malcolm trying to sell them to us? Malcolm's ideas will ensure that most poor people will be illiterate. Only the rich will be able to go to school. Malcolm doesn't give a damn about the poor so why should Malcolm care if children raised in poverty can't get the education that will lead them out of poverty. Malcolm hears no evil. Malcom sees no evil. But make no mistake about it. Malcom would sell the poor down the river with not a clue how poor people would be educated.

I'm just an anecdote but I falsify Malcolm's thesis. In fact, millions of lower class children falsify Malcolm's thesis. Malcolm does not know how poor children would be educated so Malcolm wants to gamble with the future of poor children on no evidence.

That's right. No evidence. Malcolm, after pages of me asking him a simple question, Malcolm begrudgingly admits that Malcolm doesn't know how poor children would be educated. If he had evidence then Malcolm would know. So, basically Malcolm's plan is simple. Malcolm doesn't know. Makes you all warm inside doesn't it.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1]

Malcolm, FYI, I'm against that.

 

[RandFan]

operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel

You are confusing a unionized workplace with a cartel.

Emotive rhetoric. As an anarcho-capitalist/ fiscally libertarian, Malcolm would prefer that we become Somalia.



By Malcom's logic the military is socialism. The police and fire department are socialism (scary). Workers are to be exploited by rich people. Keep 'em dumb and compliant. Accuse them of not being patriotic if they attempt to bargain collectively (damn cartels). Oddly anarcho-capitalists and libertarians simply don't give a damn if companies make record profits and the employees see ever decreasing wealth.

The conservative message is go to school, get an education and get a job. They have no idea how the hell a poor person would get educated but hey, competion will solve everything. Remember, it was Jonas Salk who developed the flu vaccine so he could make a profit....

Oh wait, he didn't patent his vaccine.

How Much Money Did Jonas Salk Potentially Forfeit By Not Patenting The Polio Vaccine? Hint, he lost $7 billion. Can you imagine giving up $7 billion to make the world a better place? Malcolm sure can't.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Reffering to me in the 3rd person is patronizing.

Mind reading, again.

I don't mind that you use the term socialism, though most conservatives on this forum would tell you to open a dictionary sometime (see below). But an intellectually honest person would readily admit that such a label really does not fit me.

Let's see: Socialized medicine: Check. Socialized education: Check. Advocacy of expanded State intrusion into social relations (gay marriage): Check.

I believe in and champion capitalism. I can't think of anything more disastrous for our nation that to nationalize businesses.

Except this is not the case: education and medical services.

My user name is in deference to Ayn Rand. Capitalism is the greatest engine for "social" good the world has ever known. It's just not capable of solving many of our social ills. Nations highest in economic freedom and HDI all offer some significant social benefits. Most have UHC. Most provide state funded education.Whatever label you want to put on me is fine. You call me a socialist and I will call you an anarcho-capitalist. You are far more anarcho-capitalist than the vast majority of Americans.

"Classical (19th century liberal" fits best. I would add some environmental protection and qualify support for "roads" and "fire protection" with the observation that these are matters of degree.

That's simply unacceptable. If you don't know whether or not your ides will lead to skyrocketing illiteracy then what good are your ideas?

Randfan did not ask whether the level of education (however defined) would rise or fall; s/he asked how parents would accomplish this in the absence of compulsion. To a free marketeer, this makes as much sense as asking what flavor of jam some stranger will put on his toast next week.

That's simply unacceptable. If you don't know whether or not your ides will lead to skyrocketing illiteracy then what good are your ideas?

Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

Joel Fried
"Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission"

Government’s Principal – Agent Problem
The principal-agent problem for the private sector is well known: the owner/principal delegates to a manager/agent the responsibility to provide some services for the principal.
The problem is one of structuring contracts and institutions to insure that, in carrying out her duties, the agent acts in the principal’s interest rather than her own.
Citizens of a country also face a principal – agent problem. Citizens “own” the machinery of government and employ bureaucrats to act as their agents in running this machinery. To reduce the costs of monitoring, the principals choose a legislature/board of directors to oversee the agents. Monitoring mechanisms are similar to those in the private sector: there are financial accounting standards that are met for each budgetary unit, and an external auditor checks these internal accounts. Transparency is maintained, in part, through freedom of information regulations. Compliance with procedures and other regulations are met both through internal monitoring and checks by units external to the bureau. Finally, contracts are structured, at least in a limited manner, to align the incentives for agents with those of the principals.
There is, however, an additional problem in the public sector that does not exist for private firms. The firm has a well defined objective function – the maximization of profits – whereas the apparent objective for the government is the maximization of some index of a (weighted) level of welfare of the electorate. An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct and, in its absence, monitoring the public sector is further complicated because data is generally lacking on whether or not the objective was actually approached and/or achieved and what the costs are that are linked to any specific objective. In effect, because of distribution issues and public goods, the cash flows measured with traditional accounting procedures will be, at best, only superficially correlated with that objective. Thus, looking at cash flows will provide the principals an extremely poor method of monitoring their public sector agents.

E.G. West
"Education Without the State"

What is needed is choice in education. School choice has not and will not lead to more productive education because the obsolete technology called ʺschool” is inherently inelastic. As long as ʺschoolʺ refers to the traditional structure of buildings and grounds with services delivered in boxes called classrooms to which customers must be transported by car or bus, ʺschool choiceʺ will be unable to meaningfully alter the quality or efficiency of education.

There are fundamentally two welfare-economic arguments for a State role in any industry: natural monopoly (with the downside so large and monitoring costs so high that the most effective option is regulation through bureaucratic rules on employees) and "public goods". The education industry is not a natural monopoly and the public goods argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry. Furthermore, corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, State assumption of responsibility for the direct provision or even subsidization of "public goods" transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

On the contrary, it's the one thing a child raised in a poor and/or neglectful household will get to have a real shot at making it. Without the resources it's just far too beyond the reach of poor people.

School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap.

They were prodigies. They were exceptions. Wait, this has been explained to you before. Your anecdote only proves that prodigies can be educated outside of a formal education. We are not all prodigies. I struggled to learn computer programming.

Randfan has seen this rebuttal before: ...
Marvin Minsky
Interview
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1994-July

Minsky: ... many of our foremost achievers developed under conditions that are not much like those of present-day mass education. Robert Lawler just showed me a paper by Harold Macurdy on the child pattern of genius. Macurdy reviews the early education of many eminent people from the last couple of centuries and concludes (1) that most of them had an enormous amount of attention paid to them by one or both parents and (2) that generally they were relatively isolated from other children. This is very different from what most people today consider an ideal school. It seems to me that much of what we call education is really socialization. Consider what we do to our kids. Is it really a good idea to send your 6-year-old into a room full of 6-year-olds, and then, the next year, to put your 7-year-old in with 7-year-olds, and so on? A simple recursive argument suggests this exposes them to a real danger of all growing up with the minds of 6-year-olds. And, so far as I can see, that's exactly what happens.
Our present culture may be largely shaped by this strange idea of isolating children's thought from adult thought. Perhaps the way our culture educates its children better explains why most of us come out as dumb as they do, than it explains how some of us come out as smart as they do

There are a lot more "prodigies" out there, in marketable talents that schools do not accommodate.

At the end of the day Malcolm can only appeal to his ignorance. Hardly compelling. It's not my fault Malcolm is ignorant of the consequences of Malcolm's ideas. If Malcolm does not know what the end result of his ideas will be then why is Malcolm trying to sell them to us? Malcolm's ideas will ensure that most poor people will be illiterate. Only the rich will be able to go to school. Malcolm doesn't give a damn about the poor so why should Malcolm care if children raised in poverty can't get the education that will lead them out of poverty. Malcolm hears no evil. Malcom sees no evil. But make no mistake about it. Malcom would sell the poor down the river with not a clue how poor people would be educated.

Randfan pretends to read minds. For one who claims to support "capitalism", s/he demonstrates an amazing lack of familiarity with the basic arguments in favor of markets. I suspect moby.

I'm just an anecdote but I falsify Malcolm's thesis. In fact, millions of lower class children falsify Malcolm's thesis. Malcolm does not know how poor children would be educated so Malcolm wants to gamble with the future of poor children on no evidence.

What thesis does Randfan's existence falsify?

That's right. No evidence. Malcolm, after pages of me asking him a simple question, Malcolm begrudgingly admits that Malcolm doesn't know how poor children would be educated. If he had evidence then Malcolm would know. So, basically Malcolm's plan is simple. Malcolm doesn't know. Makes you all warm inside doesn't it. Malcolm, FYI, I'm against that.

Also, I don't know what my neighbors will have for dinner. Robert Heilbroner observed that you can walk quickest through a crowd if you can get everyone else to stand in an orderly array. Central planning is wonderful, for the planners.

 

[RandFan]

¹Mind reading, again.Let's see: Socialized medicine: Check. Socialized education: Check.

²Advocacy of expanded State intrusion into social relations (gay marriage): Check.

³Except this is not the case: education and medical services."Classical (19th century liberal" fits best. I would add some environmental protection and qualify support for "roads" and "fire protection" with the observation that these are matters of degree.

⁴Randfan did not ask whether the level of education (however defined) would rise or fall; s/he asked how parents would accomplish this in the absence of compulsion. To a free marketeer, this makes as much sense as asking what flavor of jam some stranger will put on his toast next week.

1. This is not about your intent. Though I strongly suspect you intent is to patronize. The point is that it is patronizing regardless of your intent. No mind reading necessary.
2. And? It does not make me a socialist. But I said you could call me what you wanted.
3. By this logic ever nation listed in the Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage foundation and published in the Wall Street Journal are socialist. By that logic if you support National Defense then you are a socialist. Check.
4. And here we might have some honesty. Free marketers don't give a damn about the poor. **** 'em if they can't get a job.

I'm not going to respond further to your post. This argues for my position better than anything I could say. The nonsense about whether education would rise or fall is meaningless if you can't explain how the poor would be educated. Given history and the fact that the absence of state run compulsory education always leads to illiteracy there is no question that it would fall. Look around you. Tell me which group of poor people who have no state run schools have higher literacy rates than the nations who are highest in economic freedom. You know, the ones that have state run compulsory education. All of your hand waving is meaningless when you look at the empirical facts.

Check Hong Kong
Check Singapore
Check Australia
Check New Zealand
Check Switzerland
Check Canada
Check Chile
Check Mauritius
Check Denmark
Check United States
Check Ireland
Check Bahrain
Check Estonia
Check United Kingdom
Check Luxembourg
Check Finland
Check Netherlands
Check Sweden
Check Germany
Check Taiwan

How about that. Every one of them with the possible exceptions of Bahrain and Taiwan. Taiwan will begin to phase in compulsory education in 2014 and Bahrain does offers free state run public education (I couldn't find anything that said "compulsory").

So, tell us about the utopias that don't have public compulsory education. You know, like Somalia. Tell us which nations without state run compulsory schools have higher literacy rates than the 20 nations highest in economic freedom. Here, let me give you a hand.

Countries That Don't Offer Free Education (you want a free market solution. That's not free).

The success of the education systems in many third-world nations is low. In 2000 the World Bank committed 189 nations to their Education for All goals, promising free primary education to their young citizens. In the last 10 years this measure has decreased the number of nations without free education, but some nations are still unable to afford free education, resulting in high rates of illiteracy and poor economic conditions.

The list includes luminaries such as:

The Democratic Republic of Congo
Nepal
Cote D'Ivorie
Chad
Sudan

You can find the entire list here.

No state run/public free schools = lower literacy rates. That's a fact.

 

[Belz...]

You are confusing a unionized workplace with a cartel.

Why, no ! He's just redefining the word again.

 

[Belz...]

Mind reading, again.

You know, Malcolm, you should really slow down and understand the posts here, because you just appear foolish when you label someone's feelings towards your statements as "mind reading". Of course, RandFan can read his own mind !

 

[RandFan]

Of course, RandFan can read his own mind !

That's presumptuous.

 

[Beth]

1. 
   Tell me which group of poor people who have no state run schools have higher literacy rates than the nations who are highest in economic freedom. You know, the ones that have state run compulsory education....No state run/public free schools = lower literacy rates. That's a fact.

1. 
   
   Hi Randfan,
   
   This is a straw man argument you are knocking down. I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't think Malcolm is suggesting that subsidized education or public schools be eliminated. My understanding of his position is that subsidized education for children should not be limited to state run schools. If I recall correctly, when I read the first page or two of this thread, he supplied a list of countries that do not limit subsidized education of minors to state run schools. I don't think the literacy rates of those countries are any lower than those of countries that only subsidize government run schools.

 

[RandFan]

Hi Randfan,

This is a straw man argument you are knocking down. I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't think Malcolm is suggesting that subsidized education or public schools be eliminated. My understanding of his position is that subsidized education for children should not be limited to state run schools. If I recall correctly, when I read the first page or two of this thread, he supplied a list of countries that do not limit subsidized education of minors to state run schools. I don't think the literacy rates of those countries are any lower than those of countries that only subsidize government run schools.

Thanks Beth.

A.) Malcolm is playing that old game of having multiple positions. He has advocated getting rid of public schools. B.) One of his claims is that free market solutions result in better outcomes. I can find zero evidence for this. Because of that I'm demonstrating to Malcolm that free market solutions do not result in better outcomes. For that reason it is not a straw man. If Malcolm were correct we would see that the nations highest in economic freedom would primarily have free market solutions. That is simply not the case. Every nation but two (in 2014 it will be just 1) have compulsory education.

Beth, please to look at the thread title. His beef is with compulsory education. I have read the entire thread and I can confidently tell you that Malcolm likes to slip and slide from agreeing that a public option is a good one to stating frankly and directly that a public option hurts children. He has no empirical data for this position. He has the opinions of non-experts in the education field (some might be experts in education). Marvin Minsky is not an education expert. Einstein is not an education expert. Now before you accuse me of poisoning the well against experts who are not in education, I'm not saying that they have nothing to offer or that their views should be dismissed out of hand. I'm saying that his appeal to authority is a fallacious one. It's like pointing out all of the times that Einstein believed in god.

Before we consider the opinions of Minsky and Einstein I would like some empirical data. You know, like the data I provided of the top 20 nations from the Index of Economic Freedom.

Let me state for you once again what I've been saying since the start of the thread. I'm not against parochial schools or home schooling. I'm not against finding ways of improving public school. I'm against his claims that state run compulsory schools exist to give work to union thugs. That's nonsense. Do you believe that?

 

[Beth]

Thanks Beth.

A.) Malcolm is playing that old game of having multiple positions. He has advocated getting rid of public schools.

I don't see this as a problem. We all hold multiple positions. Sometimes it due to the complexity of issues like education and thinking about repercussions regarding different aspects. Sometimes it indicates someone in the process of changing their mind. When there is a contradiction, that's when it gets interesting. Pointing it out can lead to either clarification (I didn't understand what they actually meant) or, if the contradiction is part of their thought processes, they may reconsider their opinion.

B.) One of his claims is that free market solutions result in better outcomes. I can find zero evidence for this.

Given that you said earlier you were a big supporter of capitalism, I'm surprised you feel this way. At any rate, you have to define whether you are talking about free market solutions in the context of no subsidies for education versus free market solutions via subsidies of whatever schooling the parents choose. My impression is that Malcolm is talking about the latter, not the former.

Because of that I'm demonstrating to Malcolm that free market solutions do not result in better outcomes. For that reason it is not a straw man. If Malcolm were correct we would see that the nations highest in economic freedom would primarily have free market solutions. That is simply not the case. Every nation but two (in 2014 it will be just 1) have compulsory education.

Then your example doesn't make your point. Compulsory education laws do not necessarily forego a free market in education.

Beth, please to look at the thread title. His beef is with compulsory education.

Yes. I'm aware of that position. While I don't agree with it entirely, I do think he has some good points regarding unintended side-effects.

Marvin Minsky is not an education expert.

I would disagree. He is an expert in understanding the mind and how learning takes place. I think that makes him an expert worth listening to on the subject of education.

Before we consider the opinions of Minsky and Einstein I would like some empirical data. You know, like the data I provided of the top 20 nations from the Index of Economic Freedom.

How many of those top 20 nations limit subsidy of education to government schools? That would bolster your contention about the free market not working for education.

Let me state for you once again what I've been saying since the start of the thread. I'm not against parochial schools or home schooling. I'm not against finding ways of improving public school. I'm against his claims that state run compulsory schools exist to give work to union thugs. That's nonsense. Do you believe that?

I don't believe that is the purpose of state run schools, no. I generally support unions and the rights of workers to unionize, so I would take issue with the characterization of union workers as thugs.

 

[A'isha]

This is a straw man argument you are knocking down. I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't think Malcolm is suggesting that subsidized education or public schools be eliminated. My understanding of his position is that subsidized education for children should not be limited to state run schools. If I recall correctly, when I read the first page or two of this thread, he supplied a list of countries that do not limit subsidized education of minors to state run schools. I don't think the literacy rates of those countries are any lower than those of countries that only subsidize government run schools.

However, Malcolm is also against any kind of national curriculum standards or nationally-standardized tests or teacher certification that those non-state-run schools would be held to (he believes that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will induce parents to send their children to good schools and that good old-fashioned capitalist competition will weed out the bad ones). He also wants to end compulsory education, so that parents don't have to send their kids to any kind of school at all if they don't want, not even to homeschool (he's a proponent of self-education of children as well as putting children to work where they will receive "on the job training" in lieu of an actual education).

The list of countries which subsidize private schools that he cites to support this, however, is entirely composed of countries that also have compulsory education, national curriculum standards that private and homeschools have to adhere to, and nationally-standarized tests that all students including private school and homeschooled ones have to take.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

However, Malcolm is also against any kind of national curriculum standards or nationally-standardized tests or teacher certification that those non-state-run schools would be held to (he believes that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will induce parents to send their children to good schools and that good old-fashioned capitalist competition will weed out the bad ones). He also wants to end compulsory education, so that parents don't have to send their kids to any kind of school at all if they don't want, not even to homeschool (he's a proponent of self-education of children as well as putting children to work where they will receive "on the job training" in lieu of an actual education). ...

Also in reply to Randfan's contention that I have adopted multiple positions: ...
Henny Youngman said someone asked him "How's your wife?" and he responded "Compared to what?"
How would you like to have your right leg amputated at the knee?
Depends on the options, doesn't it? If the alternative is to remain healthy and bi-pedal, no, thanks. If the alternative is a slow, painful death from gangrene, slice away.

No single policy necessarily follows from the observation that competitive markets, generally, deliver more goods and services at lower cost than State-monopoly enterprises. No single policy necessarily follows from the propositions that: ...
(a) overall system performance falls as institutions displace parents in educational decision-making and ...
(b) political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

Rationally, we select from (or, for us non-decision makers, advocate for) policies with a reasonable chance of acceptance. So, while I believe that society as a whole (and the children of poor parents, especially) would be better off without tax support of schools, compulsory attendance statutes, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws, that's not my recommendation. I will vote for legislators who support most any expansion of the range of education options available to parents ("school districts" at the school level, charter schools, school vouchers, tuition tax credits, relaxation of restrictions on homeschooling, subsidized homeschooling, or, my preference, Parent Performance Contracting). Mandatory (for State schools) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation would be enough radically to improve the incentive structure that the system presents to students and teachers.
In terms of cost/benefit calculations, where "cost" is measured in changes to the statutory environment within which schools operate and "benefit" is measured in terms of reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy, and (inverse) juvenile crime rates, the last two (Parent Performance Contracting and mandatory credit-by-exam) offer the best options, seems to me. Relaxing homeschooling restrictions is next.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To continue the discussion of the origins of the US "public" (i.e., government-operated) school system: ...

... Mann's reformist program began long before Catholic immigration was ever an issue, and had nothing to do with anti-Catholic bigotry.

Neither of us was there, but this is false, according to Joel Spring (The American School) and Sol Cohen (Education in the United States, A Documentary History).

... New York City's system was established to remove anti-Catholic bigotry.

No, the city established an elected school board and school system separate from the Protestant schools and the Catholic schools, as a deliberate attempt to accede to Catholic complaints about the school system that existed before the Maclay Act reforms.

... you have your cause and effect wrong in any case - Catholic parochial schools were actually established in response to the public education system that was already in place when most of them arrived in America. In New York City, complaints about this pre-existing public school system from the early Irish immigrants resulted in the passage of the Maclay Act, which attempted to appease their religious demands by establishing an elected school board and ensuring that public schools could only provide (and public funds could only be spent on) an entirely secular education. Catholic dissatisfaction about this compromise reform of the pre-existing public school system (mostly due to their unhappiness with the decision to disallow public school funding for parochial schools) is what motivated them to expand their private parochial school system in New York.

... Mann's schools were not secular, they were (ostensibly) non-denominational. Students read the bible in English and interpreted the word for themselves. This was Protestant doctrine: Catholics took their bible in Latin and salvation required the intercession of a priest. Mann rode a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry into a position of control over his very own pet bureaucracy.

Here's Diane Ravitch, The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools

(Bishop) Hughes asserted that Catholics were compelled to support schools which violated their rights of conscience; that these same schools, supported in part by Catholic taxes, circulated insidious attacks on Catholics while quietly inculcating Protestand practices; and that these schools pointedly excluded Catholics by insisting on a daily reading of a Bible forbidden to Catholics. The public schools, he charged, were simultaneously infidel (because they taught no particular religion, sectarian (because of such practices a Bible-reading), and anti-Catholic.
...
The system which the Catholics believed fair was the one which had been customary in the city in the first quarter of the (19th) century, when public funds had been apportioned to church schools to educate the children of their own congregations. The address held that "even the least perfect religion of Christian sectarianism would be better than no religion at all". The abolition of this system was blamed squarely on the Public School Society, which relentlessly pursued aggrandizement of its power until it had achieved a monopoly of public education funds. Class resentment smoldered beneath the Catholic resentment of the Society's trustees, who were the embodiment of upper-class benevolence.

In Hawaii, when a mainland recession in 1837 reduced contributions to overseas missions, Protestant missionaries applied to the Ali'i (hereditary rulers) for State support for their schools, and talked the Ali'i into excluding Catholic schools from the subsidy. On the Mainland US and in Hawaii, the "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry.

The fairy-tale history of "public education" that government schools dispense founders on one obvious flaw: when ever did a surge of culturally-distinct immigrants inspire a benevolent response in the resident majority?

 

[Border Reiver]

To continue the discussion of the origins of the US "public" (i.e., government-operated) school system: ...



Here's Diane Ravitch, The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public SchoolsIn Hawaii, when a mainland recession in 1837 reduced contributions to overseas missions, Protestant missionaries applied to the Ali'i (hereditary rulers) for State support for their schools, and talked the Ali'i into excluding Catholic schools from the subsidy. On the Mainland US and in Hawaii, the "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry.

The fairy-tale history of "public education" that government schools dispense founders on one obvious flaw: when ever did a surge of culturally-distinct immigrants inspire a benevolent response in the resident majority?

And how would the market change that? It is conceivable that the private firms providing education under such a system won't cater to new comers either.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And how would the market change that? It is conceivable that the private firms providing education under such a system won't cater to new comers either.

"Conceivable, but unlikely. This implies that neither entrepreneurial newcomers nor established businessmen will pursue the opportunity to make money off the immigrants. All you have to do is count ethnic restaurants in any big city to see the answer to that objection. Markets are much better at serving politically-disadvantaged groups and at serving niche markets than are State bureaucracies.