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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Reposting those same quotes ad nauseam isn't an argument ...

Ignoring the argument ad nauseum isn't a rebuttal. We differ, fundamentally, on our estimates of the contribution that organized violence (the State) can make to the education industry. The quotes relate to the malign effects of compulsion on student motivation (Einstein, Mencken) and the malign effects that access to compulsory means has on instructional methods (Minsky).

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

It's not common enough. The cartel's exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy and the measurement (and funding) of education based on units of time create strong incentives to waste students' time and taxpayers' money.

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.

All these arguments hold, so long as schools assemble their clientele at gunpoint and so long as the legal environment in which they operate immunizes them from consumer (parent, student) feedback (compulsory attendance laws, tax funding). Freedom and compulsion are matters of degree. Freedom (e.g., expanded curricular options, school choice, etc.) mitigates the malign effects of compulsion.

 

[Border Reiver]

All these arguments hold, so long as schools assemble their clientele at gunpoint and so long as the legal environment in which they operate immunizes them from consumer (parent, student) feedback (compulsory attendance laws, tax funding). Freedom and compulsion are matters of degree. Freedom (e.g., expanded curricular options, school choice, etc.) mitigates the malign effects of compulsion.

Given the realities that alternates to the public school system exist, that students are not "assembled at gunpoint", and that the curriculum in the public school is as responsive to external pressure as those that exist in a "pay as you go" environment the degree of compulsion is likely equal as far as students are concerned regardless of venue (public, private, home, or work placement).

 

[Garrison]

So basically Malcolm's position is that anyone who feels like it should be able to set up a school and anyone who feels like it should be able to act as a teacher without any regulations, standards, or set curriculum?

 

[jimbob]

So basically Malcolm's position is that anyone who feels like it should be able to set up a school and anyone who feels like it should be able to act as a teacher without any regulations, standards, or set curriculum?

As I understand it, that is a subset of his views.

He also thinks that children should also be allowed to work without any regulation beyond that provided by the labour market.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Given the realities that alternates to the public school system exist¹, that students are not "assembled at gunpoint"², and that the curriculum in the public school is as responsive to external pressure as those that exist in a "pay as you go" environment³ the degree of compulsion is likely equal as far as students are concerned regardless of venue (public, private, home, or work placement).

Do you intend to suggest that compulsory attendance statutes, educational neglect laws, and tax subsidization have no impact?

1. "Alternatives" exist for those who can afford them. NCES reported that support for vouchers is higher among black parents than among white parents and that support for vouchers is negatively related to family income. Poor people want out of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools.

2. A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone. Fail to enroll your kids and the State will take them from you. Resist effectively and the police will shoot you. Yes, students are assembled at gunpoint.

3. Flat false. Compare the uniform curricula of the Common Core with the variety of ethnic restaurants available in any large city. I recommend Chubb and Moe, Politics, Markets, and America's Schools, and Diane Ravitch, Left Back, A Century of Failed School Reforms. It's much easier to escape a poor performing institution in a competitive market than to reform an entrenched, rule-bound State-monopoly enterprise.

Firms in a competitive market must operate within the law. Rule-bound State (government, generally) bureaucracies must operate according to the law, and internal rules have the force of law.

 

[A'isha]

and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone.

...what?!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So basically Malcolm's position is that anyone who feels like it should be able to set up a school and anyone who feels like it should be able to act as a teacher without any regulations, standards, or set curriculum?

The standard that would generate the best result is the parent standard: "Do I want my child in that school?" The same laws that govern other contractual arrangements (lawn maintenance services, auto repair shops) would apply to the institutions that parents engage.

 

[A'isha]

The standard that would generate the best result is the parent standard: "Do I want my child in that school?"

As Louisiana shows, that is a terrible idea.

The same laws that govern other contractual arrangements (lawn maintenance services, auto repair shops) would apply to the institutions that parents engage.

Parents already have options. You even gave us an anecdote about one.

 

[Border Reiver]

2. A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone. Fail to enroll your kids and the State will take them from you. Resist effectively and the police will shoot you. Yes, students are assembled at gunpoint.

Ah, we've seen this before. Same reductio absurdio as before.

Same logic that school is slavery.

3. Flat false. Compare the uniform curricula of the Common Core with the variety of ethnic restaurants available in any large city.

No. Schools are not restaurants. An established curriculum needs resource materials, prepared lessons, teaching aids, etc. changing one takes time and a lot more effort than turning the page in the recipe book, and getting a supplier for different ingredients.

 

[Border Reiver]

The standard that would generate the best result is the parent standard: "Do I want my child in that school?" The same laws that govern other contractual arrangements (lawn maintenance services, auto repair shops) would apply to the institutions that parents engage.

The effect of a poor education would be a lot harder to overcome than say one where the lawn wasn't mowed properly.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The standard that would generate the best result is the parent standard: "Do I want my child in that school?" The same laws that govern other contractual arrangements (lawn maintenance services, auto repair shops) would apply to the institutions that parents engage.

As Louisiana shows, that is a terrible idea.

As standardized test score results from the cartel's big city schools show, government operation of schools is a terrible idea.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Ah, we've seen this before. Same reductio absurdio as before. Same logic that school is slavery.

Reiver calls it absurd. What does s/he dispute? Cops carry guns. They will beat you into submission if you resist arrest. They will shoot you if you start to win the fight. Rape and HIV are real risks in prison.

No. Schools are not restaurants. An established curriculum needs resource materials, prepared lessons, teaching aids, etc. changing one takes time and a lot more effort than turning the page in the recipe book, and getting a supplier for different ingredients.

All true. Because schools are rule-bound government bureaucracies. It might be difficult to get McDonald's to change its menu, but if I don't like it I can go to Wendy's or Pho Mai. I'm not assigned by district.

 

[A'isha]

As standardized test score results from the cartel's big city schools show, government operation of schools is a terrible idea.

Poor standardized test scores from schools that have disadvantages (which result in those scores) that are completely unrelated to your complaints about them do not make "government operation of schools" a terrible idea. I note you don't point to well-performing suburban schools as an example of why the entire public education system needs to be dismantled.

EDIT: And just how well do you suppose that those Louisiana students who are taught that algebra is Satanic, science is a lie, and the Trail of Tears was about bringing Christ to the Indians are going to do on those standardized tests, hmm?

 

[Border Reiver]

Reiver calls it absurd. What does s/he dispute? Cops carry guns. They will beat you into submission if you resist arrest. They will shoot you if you start to win the fight. Rape and HIV are real risks in prison.

Failure to register children for school (which here in Ontario is not necessary if you indicate that you intend to home school) is at worst a minor regulatory offense with a nominal fine. Anyone that pushes it to the point of either getting shot by the police or getting raped in a peneteniary (sexual assaults being very uncommon in provincial jails in Canada, but more prevalent in federal oeneteniaries where offenders are in for at least 2 years and are a more serious sort of criminal), you're far more likely to be in that state for something other than failure to register someone for school.

All true. Because schools are rule-bound government bureaucracies. It might be difficult to get McDonald's to change its menu, but if I don't like it I can go to Wendy's or Pho Mai. I'm not assigned by district.

But you are limited by what is available. Like most specialized services, there are quite likely only a few options outside of major population centers. While there may be a Scrawny Ronnie's, a Burger King, a Pho Mai, and an Olive Garden in a larger population centre, but there may only be a greasy spoon in rural where ever.

 

[Vermonter]

Poor standardized test scores from schools that have disadvantages (which result in those scores) that are completely unrelated to your complaints about them do not make "government operation of schools" a terrible idea. I note you don't point to well-performing suburban schools as an example of why the entire public education system needs to be dismantled.

EDIT: And just how well do you suppose that those Louisiana students who are taught that algebra is Satanic, science is a lie, and the Trail of Tears was about bringing Christ to the Indians are going to do on those standardized tests, hmm?

My personal, unqualified opinion is similar to ANTPogo's. Schools that do poorer on testing (and generally have worse standards) are typically in states that have some private agenda for students. Who knows, maybe the parishes or counties would rather squander their resources on that dang'o'bang'o' futbaawwwwl rather than, you know, academics. Or maybe they just make classes like "Jesus and Math: Which one is YOUR savior?" This is one of those cases where I feel that the states often don't really know what's best for their students, or have conflicting views. So we get some states that do really well and produce intelligent, learned graduates, and other states that produce teen parents. (Note: I'm in an incredibly cynical mood right now, so don't mind me.)

 

[bruto]

My personal, unqualified opinion is similar to ANTPogo's. Schools that do poorer on testing (and generally have worse standards) are typically in states that have some private agenda for students. Who knows, maybe the parishes or counties would rather squander their resources on that dang'o'bang'o' futbaawwwwl rather than, you know, academics. Or maybe they just make classes like "Jesus and Math: Which one is YOUR savior?" This is one of those cases where I feel that the states often don't really know what's best for their students, or have conflicting views. So we get some states that do really well and produce intelligent, learned graduates, and other states that produce teen parents. (Note: I'm in an incredibly cynical mood right now, so don't mind me.)

If one reads certain threads, it becomes apparent that there is no such place as Vermont. For the next hundred years, certain posters will probably still be speculating on what might go wrong if Vermont's laws actually existed anywhere.

Sorry for the derail. I think I might be in a somewhat cynical mood too.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Poor standardized test scores from schools that have disadvantages (which result in those scores) that are completely unrelated to your complaints about them do not make "government operation of schools" a terrible idea. I note you don't point to well-performing suburban schools as an example of why the entire public education system needs to be dismantled.

There is a clear and strong (inverse) relation between district size and NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores. There is a clear and strong positive relation between district size and the difference between mean scores of children of high school educated white parents and college-educated white parents. There is a clear and strong positive relation between district size and the difference between mean scores of children of high school-educated black parents and high school-educated white parents. There is a clear and strong positive relation between district size and per pupil budgets.

As districts increase in size, performance falls, inequality of result increases, and per-unit costs rise.

 

[elbe]

...what?!

What, you didn't know that a prison sentence automatically involves prison rape and AIDS?

 

[RandFan]

¹I 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.

2Given 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.

³Then your example doesn't make your point. Compulsory education laws do not necessarily forego a free market in education.

³Yes. 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.

⁴I 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.

⁵How 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.

⁶I 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.

1. Well stated. I agree with you. But that's the point of the dialectic. If Malcolm holds different positions then he should have some cognitive dissonance. Often it is the discussion that brings out the dissonance.
2. People often confuse capitalism and/or laissez-faire capitalism with free market economics. A.) They are not mutually inclusive. In fact, capitalism at it's root is anti-free market. Most businesses seek to buy up the competition so they can corner the market on their goods. B.) Most capitalist do not subscribe to the notion that private enterprise is the best solution to ever social issue. I do not subscribe to the idea that free market solutions are not viable. I subscribe to the notion that without public education (state funded in the least) many poor people would not otherwise be educated.
3. First that is a non-sequitur and straw man. I'm happy to concede your premise but it doesn't alter my point. Malcolm is saying that it would be better for children to not have an education than to be subjected to compulsory education. Aside from being silly and absurd, the claim does not reconcile with the facts. Nations without public education have illiterate civilians. Nations that have compulsory education have high literacy rates. Regardless if the systems are mixed or not. In short, agree with your premise but that has nothing to do with Malcolm's thesis that it would be better for children to have no education as opposed to attending compulsory eduction. FTR, I have said over and over that Malcolm has some valid points. I want that discussion. I have asked Malcolm to have a civil discussion and to get off of his fatuous claims. He responded by calling me a shill for unions.
4. I have books by Minsky. Mind science is a hobby of mine. Minsky has something to offer as it relates to cognitive learning. My favorite book is the Community of Mind. However, he is not an expert when it comes to education.
5. I purposely have never made such a claim. I've said time and again that I support home schooling, parochial and private education. The focus here is whether or not compulsory eduction is worse than no education at all. It's not my dichotomy so I won't apologize. Do you think a mix of state funded compulsory eduction (so long as there are options for home schooling, parochial and private solutions) to be worse than no education?
6. Good.

Thank you Beth. Would it be that others were as reasonable as you.

 

[RandFan]

What, you didn't know that a prison sentence automatically involves prison rape and AIDS?

How he can continue with that is beyond me. The purpose of incarceration is not rape and infection. I'm for improved prison conditions and the reduction (preferably elimination) of rape in prisons. I don't know anyone who is for that. BTW, I believe in a mix of retributive and reparative justice. We should focus on rehabilitation more than retribution (punishment). It's a difficult task and one I'm not educated enough on to speak definitively. However, Malcolm's black and white dismissal of the penal system is simply a caricature typical of fanatics. He has no nuanced response. Most if not all institutions of incarceration are rendered inhuman torture chambers. It would be nice to have a nuanced discussion on the merits, problems and possible solutions to a seemingly intractable problem but instead we are constantly hit over the head with cheap rhetorical device.