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

[A'isha]

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

Did you miss the part where those quotes are talking about the history of the New York City schools before the Maclay Act of 1842 that abolished the Public School Society precisely because of Catholic complaints about it? And that the book goes on to describe the efforts to address Catholic complaints about the NYC school system which culminated in the Maclay Act, and that it describes Bishop Hughes' rejection of the new system because he wanted Catholic Schools, not merely secular schools with the Protestant features that they were complaining about removed?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Did you miss the part where those quotes are talking about the history of the New York City schools before the Maclay Act of 1842 that abolished the Public School Society precisely because of Catholic complaints about it? And that the book goes on to describe the efforts to address Catholic complaints about the NYC school system which culminated in the Maclay Act, and that it describes Bishop Hughes' rejection of the new system because he wanted Catholic Schools, not merely secular schools with the Protestant features that they were complaining about removed?

No, I did not miss that. The Ravitch quote indicates that before the government of New York City gave to the (Quaker) Free School Society an exclusive position in receipt of education tax subsidies, these subsidies went to Church-operated schools of various denominations. Protestant reaction to a surge of immigration upset that system. The US "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. OF COURSE the people who promoted the restrictive policy proclaimed the most benign intentions.

 

[A'isha]

No, I did not miss that. The Ravitch quote indicates that before the government of New York City gave to the (Quaker) Free School Society an exclusive position in receipt of education tax subsidies, these subsidies went to Church-operated schools of various denominations. Protestant reaction to a surge of immigration upset that system.

No, it didn't. As the quote from the book that you yourself posted shows, the end of subsidies to Church-operated schools took place long before the waves of Catholic immigration took place.

And that end was caused (back in 1822) not because of subsidies to Catholic schools, but because of a controversy regarding a Protestant Baptist church school which resulted from complaints made by members of the Free School Society.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... I have read the entire thread ...

With Randfan's characteristic (limited) reading comprehension.

... 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.

Depends. I have quoted several studies (Roland Meighan, Clive Haber, E. G. West, Darling-Hammond, Hyman and Penroe, Brockenbough, Cornell, and Loper, Mendez and Knoff), to the effect that compulsory attendance harms some children. In addition, if the education industry is an unlikely candidate for State operation or subsidy, then most children are harmed, relative to the situation that would prevail in a competitive market in education services. This, however, requires a definition of "harm" that counts opportunity costs (comparison with the imaginary world in which society had chosen differently since the imposition of compulsory attendance). The "empirical data" here would compare other countries and other industries to permit an assessment of the effects of State intrusion generally.

... I'm against his claims that state run compulsory schools exist to give work to union thugs.

Randfan will not find that assertion in any of my comments on this forum. I have said that the purpose of the US "public" school system is to provide jobs for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

... That's nonsense. Do you believe that?

Randfan's characterization is "nonsense".

 

[A'isha]

"I never said that state run compulsory schools exist to give work to union thugs, I said that the purpose of the US 'public' school system is to provide jobs for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel" has to be the funniest post in this entire thread.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"I never said that state run compulsory schools exist to give work to union thugs, I said that the purpose of the US 'public' school system is to provide jobs for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel" has to be the funniest post in this entire thread.

I accurately report what has occurred in this discussion (unlike Randfan). See here, here, here, and here.

 

[Border Reiver]

And since the vast majorityof students in the US public school system come out of said system with an education desired by employers they have recieved something from those cartel members. If the sole purpose of the public education system was to provide employment for members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME unions then there would be no requirement for them to actually provide the services they were contracted for.

 

[Mister Earl]

Did Malcom ever get around to answering whether or not he thinks non-regulated, non-standardized home schooling is a better bet than a public education system?

Also, is this guy a creationist or something? I'm getting serious politico-evangelical vibes from this guy.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And since the vast majorityof students in the US public school system come out of said system with an education desired by employers¹ they have recieved something from those cartel members. If the sole purpose of the public education system was to provide employment for members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME unions then there would be no requirement for them to actually provide the services they were contracted for².

1. With very little search effort one finds numerous complaints from employers.
2. The system provides just enough of that "something" to keep the divided and confused voters (in)effectively divided.

 

[A'isha]

1. With very little search effort one finds numerous complaints from employers.

Examples?

2. The system provides just enough of that "something" to keep the divided and confused voters (in)effectively divided.

You can read these voters' minds, can you?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Did Malcom ever get around to answering whether or not he thinks non-regulated, non-standardized home schooling is a better bet than a public education system?

This is a decent question. The short answer is "yes". A somewhat longer answer involves a discussion of the validity of whatever operational definition of "education" determines "better". Search this thread for Joel Fried and contemplate the significance of "An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct ..." This is my answer to Ant's observation that high performance countries which subsidize education options have centrally-determined curricula. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education", but then this definition binds students, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers.

Remote bureaucratic control of industry will inevitably generate an unsatisfactory product when performance depends on local knowledge of inputs which vary as much as individual children's interests and abilities and desired outputs vary as much as the possible career paths available in a modern society. Why not assign to political processes the determination of the size and style of shoes children in each yearly age cohort must wear? How 'bout a nationwide vote on how many times I should chew my next bite of toast?

Also, is this guy a creationist or something? I'm getting serious politico-evangelical vibes from this guy.

It's a long thread so you are excused for asking. I was raised in no church. Distill this reading list and you'll approximate my orientation: Charles Darwin, G.G. Simpson, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, W. V. O. Quine, Bertrand Russell, and Daniel Dennett. Classical liberal (i.e., free marketer), materialist, with a dash of environmental values (ZPG).

 

[Mister Earl]

This is a decent question. The short answer is "yes". A somewhat longer answer involves a discussion of the validity of whatever operational definition of "education" determines "better". Search this thread for Joel Fried and contemplate the significance of "An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct ..." This is my answer to Ant's observation that high performance countries which subsidize education options have centrally-determined curricula. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education", but then this definition binds students, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers.

So in your eyes, random people teaching literally anything without supervision or standards is better than the public education system?

Remote bureaucratic control of industry will inevitably generate an unsatisfactory product when performance depends on local knowledge of inputs which vary as much as individual children's interests and abilities and desired outputs vary as much as the possible career paths available in a modern society. Why not assign to political processes the determination of the size and style of shoes children in each yearly age cohort must wear? How 'bout a nationwide vote on how many times I should chew my next bite of toast?It's a long thread so you are excused for asking. I was raised in no church. Distill this reading list and you'll approximate my orientation: Charles Darwin, G.G. Simpson, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, W. V. O. Quine, Bertrand Russell, and Daniel Dennett. Classical liberal (i.e., free marketer), materialist, with a dash of environmental values (ZPG).

That's a stupid line of argument. Color or size of shoe would be arbitrary. The public education system is not. It's not there "just because" as you assert. It serves a vital function; It's there to prepare the next generations to compete effectively in the global workforce. I note that your suggested replacement, homeschooling without standards, would fail utterly to meet that need.

We're the sole remaining superpower on the planet. Our production and quality of life has never been higher. How is it this "unsatisfactory product" is at the top of that metaphorical pile?

And also, you dodged my question. Do you think creationist homeschooling is as good or better than the public education system?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So in your eyes, random people teaching literally anything without supervision or standards is better than the public education system?

Why suppose that outcome would result? I expect that a minimally-regulated market in education services would generate outcomes to match demand, same as markets for shoes, wrist watches, and haircuts.

That's a stupid line of argument.

Keep it civil or "stupid" yourself.

Color or size of shoe would be arbitrary. The public education system is not. It's not there "just because" as you assert.

a) The curriculum looks pretty arbitrary to me. Why 12 years of Social Studies and two years of shop instead of 12 years of shop and two years of Social Studies? Why 12 years of Language Arts instead a Chinese menu (say, three novels from a list of 300, four plays from a list of two hundred, 500 lines of poetry from a list to 1000 poems) of literature that the student could read at his/her own pace?
(b)To what assertion do you refer? Link = ___?

It serves a vital function; It's there to prepare the next generations to compete effectively in the global workforce.

"To" is a statement of intention. If "the public education system" is not an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded construction, supplies, and consulting contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination, why cannot any student take, at any age, an exit exam (the GED or A-levels will do) and apply the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy toward post-secondary tuition or toward a wage subsidy at any qualified (say, has filed W-2 forms on at least three adults each year over the last four years) private sector employer? If it is fraud for a mechanic to charge for the repair of a functional motor and if it is fraud for a physician to charge for the treatment of a healthy patient, then it is fraud for a teacher, school, school district, or government to charge taxpayers for the instruction of a student who does not need our help.

I note that your suggested replacement, homeschooling without standards, would fail utterly to meet that need.

a) That's not my recommendation.
(b) Why suppose that parent control would generate this result?

We're the sole remaining superpower on the planet. Our production and quality of life has never been higher. How is it this "unsatisfactory product" is at the top of that metaphorical pile?

Education contributes less than does the legal environment within which commercial activity occurs. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. The Wright brothers didn't finish high school. Bill Gates didn't finish college.

And also, you dodged my question. Do you think creationist homeschooling is as good or better than the public education system?

Where did you ask this question? Link = ___?

 

[Belz...]

1. With very little search effort one finds numerous complaints from employers.

Yeah, primarily due to the standards of education being lowered. Guess why they get lowered.

Keep it civil or "stupid" yourself.

Nah, your arguments here have been pretty stupid.

 

[A'isha]

"To" is a statement of intention.

And yet you seem to have no difficulties divining the intention of voters.

If "the public education system" is not an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded construction, supplies, and consulting contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination, why cannot any student take, at any age, an exit exam (the GED or A-levels will do) and apply the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy toward post-secondary tuition or toward a wage subsidy at any qualified (say, has filed W-2 forms on at least three adults each year over the last four years) private sector employer?

Because the same restrictions apply to students that aren't in the public education system.

Or are Catholic schools merely an employment program for dues-paying members of the Church?

Why suppose that parent control would generate this result?

Because we can watch that very thing happen in real time in places where parents are given that control.

Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. The Wright brothers didn't finish high school. Bill Gates didn't finish college.

Focusing the entire education system on the rare prodigy at the expense of literally every other student is a galactically stupid idea.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And yet you seem to have no difficulties divining the intention of voters.

People respond to incentives. The purpose of any institution is a function of the purposes (intentions) of the people who maintain that institution.

Because the same restrictions apply to students that aren't in the public education system.

Yes and no. Many States do not subsidize independent and parochial schools. They are not bound to hire members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Like the cartel's schools, their clientele enrolls in response to compulsory attendance statutes.

Or are Catholic schools merely an employment program for dues-paying members of the Church?

Catholics pay dues? A former President of Punahou (President Obama's plush private school) once said that the job of the public schools was to make the private schools look good.

Because we can watch that very thing happen in real time in places where parents are given that control.

Exceptions prove that a rule is not a tautology. Some students emerge from the cartel's schools illiterate and angry. Some students will fall through the cracks in any system. Further, Ant answered that point below...

Focusing the entire education system on the rare prodigy at the expense of literally every other student is a galactically stupid idea.

Just so. The same argument applies to cases of extreme failure. You have to compare something to something. However, as Minsky suggests, those prodigies might not be so rare if the cartel didn't institutionally lobotomize so many of them. They might not be so rare if the education system better accommodated prodigies of auto mechanics, culinary arts, and animal training. The State enforces a stripped-down definition of academic performance (reading comprehension, mathematical literacy, scientific literacy), and does a poor job of that.

 

[A'isha]

People respond to incentives. The purpose of any institution is a function of the purposes (intentions) of the people who maintain that institution.

So why does this only apply to your own particular interpretation of the "purposes (intentions) of the people who maintain that institution"?

Many States do not subsidize independent and parochial schools. They are not bound to hire members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Neither are public schools.

Catholics pay dues?

Yes.

However, as Minsky suggests, those prodigies might not be so rare if the cartel didn't institutionally lobotomize so many of them.

"The cartel" does no such thing.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Focusing the entire education system on the rare prodigy at the expense of literally every other student is a galactically stupid idea.

However, as Minsky suggests, those prodigies might not be so rare if the cartel didn't institutionally lobotomize so many of them. They might not be so rare if the education system better accommodated prodigies of auto mechanics, culinary arts, and animal training.

"The cartel" does no such thing.

Albert Einstein
"Force and Fear Have No Place in Education"

To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. . . It is comparatively simple to keep the school free from this worst of all evils. Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.

Albert Einstein
"Autobiographical Notes"
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, (Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19)

It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.

Marvin Minsky
Interview
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery

... 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.

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common decency." --H.L. Mencken

"Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery."-- Benjamin Disraeli (1874)

Richard Rhodes
Why they Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist

Criminal violence emerges from social experience, most commonly brutal social experience visited upon vulnerable children, who suffer for our neglect of their welfare and return in vengeful wrath to plague us. If violence is a choice they make, and there- fore their personal responsibility, as (Sociologist Lonnie) Athens demonstrates it is, our failure to protect them from having to confront such a choice is a choice we make, just as a disease epidemic would be implicitly our choice if we failed to provide vaccines and antibiotics. Such a choice-to tolerate the brutalization of children as we continue to do-is equally violent and equally evil, and we reap what we sow.

 

[A'isha]

Reposting those same quotes ad nauseam isn't an argument, and it certainly isn't responsive to the part of my post that you quoted. Why you think you the subjective anecdotes of Albert Einstein, who attended schools in an entirely different country from the US more than a hundred years ago has any bearing whatsoever on modern American public schools is a perplexing mystery.

And Marvin Minsky has apparently never heard of the common practice of promoting students up or holding them back.

 

[Border Reiver]

With respect - we've dealt with Mr. Einstein's comments before. Al was educated in 19th Century Bavaria, where the teaching methods were just a little bit different from what they are today. Using Einstein to critque modern education is akin to using Dickens to make decisions on factory conditions in the present.

Minsky's argument that if we keep to our age group, all we do is learn to act like our age group might hold, if it wasn't for all the time that students spend with family and friends outside of their own age group.

Mr. Rhodes's comments are not directed at students brutalized at school, they are directed at those children who suffer abuse and brutalizing treatment at home.