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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. As I explained, the argument is a bit like saying that the NBA makes people tall. Granting for sake of argument your assertion, the studies typically deal with motivated parents. That said, I don't accept your premise without a great deal of caveats.

Too vague. To what argument does "the argument" apply? Which assertion? That voucher-subsidized markets outperform State-monopoly systems? That's an empirical result as well as the prediction of generalized economic reasoning applied to the education industry.

(see #1)

See the response to #1. Furthermore, how does "the argument is a bit like saying that the NBA makes people tall. Granting for sake of argument your assertion, the studies typically deal with motivated parents. That said, I don't accept your premise without a great deal of caveats" justify discrimination against parochial schools?

I want an educated citizenry. Everyday poor people go into the dollar store or some other discount store and buy worthless crap that will, in the end, cost them more than good quality items. Like can openers for instance. Manufacturers and service providers have discovered that there is a lot of money to be made by selling worthless junk to poor people. Competition for whatever money poor people have has resulted in the poor getting screwed. Of course we can always blame poor people. But is that really going to help their children? Why wouldn't marketers create sub par schools for poor people? The poor (and many in the middle class) are far more interested in the cost of an item and not the quality. Besides, good marketing can make a worthless piece of plastic look like gold on a TV Advertisement. Just look at all of the worthless junk being sold via infomercials.

Why imagine that State actors enjoy exemption from the above argument? The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. State employment does not confer superior intelligence, altruism, or capacity (except to the extent that access to the tools of organized violence enhances capacity. Government is not God.

... the state can take control or shut the school down.

How often does this happen in practice? Interest group politics and the concentrated interest of insiders means that political feedback mechanisms are less effective than market feedback mechanisms in the education industry.

It's been explained to you already. It's the diploma mill problem that churns out idiots like Kent Hovind who, before he was in prison, traveled the world telling people he was a PHD. If you know anything about the skills necessary to write a thesis for an institute of higher education then all you need do is read his thesis.

I read Dr. Don Nugent's Doctoral thesis (UH College of Ed.). High school science fair contestants do better. I read Dr. (Gov.) Neil Abercrombie's PhD thesis (UH), "Mumford, Mailer, and the Machine". It's a 50-page book review. Nothing gives State agencies immunity to the problem of worthless credentials.

I agree with your premise but I hardly think the concept of diminishing returns as it applies to such a varied species like human beings is at all controversial.

Please elaborate. How does "diminishing returns" apply and contradict anything I said?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In accounting, the cost of land and buildings are "fixed costs". IOW: A fixed cost is one that will not fluctuate for the coming fiscal year due to increased or decreased business.

One year may define "fixed cost" for government accounting purposes. In reality, reducing requirements for facilities and land in the long term is a real savings, regardless of the definition in the accountant's manual. Governments routinely assess long-term costs of durable goods with useful lifespan over 20 years (bridges, etc). If a government closes a road and bridge, costs (maintenance) immediately fall. Long-term costs (replacement) also fall. That's a saving to taxpayers.

 

[RandFan]

1. You said "If voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services raise performance and lower costs (they do)" That argument. That assertion.
2. Public funds should not be used to further religion.
3. This claim about govt and interpersonal violence has no meaning to me. State actors are fired all of the time for incompetence. That's not to say we cannot do better but turning the store over to the religious to run is counter to the constitution. Thomas Jefferson explained in his letter to the Danbury Baptists as to what the purpose of freedom of religion meant, he said, "... Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
4. I've no idea, it should perhaps happen more. It damn sure won't happen if education relies solely on market forces. One only need to look around at the mountains of worthless products anxiously wanted by people to know that competition doesn't ensure the best product. It usually means that poor people have really shoddy products. Bad homes. Bad cars. Bad appliances. All of these things are high in maintenance and have low service life. They might be cheap up front but they are very expensive down the road.
5. How many Nobel prize winners or high achievers have graduated from diploma mills?
6. I've made it as clear as I could. You even commented saying "There's an interesting discussion to be had here". Parents who currently home school their children are more likely to be parents who are motivated to home school their children. People who take the time to apply for vouchers and find good schools for their children are likely to be parents who are motivated to help their children. IOW: Such parents are exceptions. Once you expect everyone to do that, many will simply go with the course of least resistance. Humans are varied because of genetics and environment. To claim that competition and increased parental involvement will result in a better outcomes is to assume that people are by and large the same. Which is why I favor more options for parents. State run compulsory schooling forces everyone into the same pigeon hole. I want more options. But I want those options to meet minimum requirements. I don't want poor people buying the equivalent of the $.99 (that's ninety nine cents) can opener that will break after a few uses.

 

[RandFan]

One year may define "fixed cost" for government accounting purposes.

I suspect you are referring to GAAP. While there is a government board to establish rules and assumptions for government and non-profit entities, there is also a private, not for profit organization to create standards for private industry.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is a private, not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is to develop generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) within the United States in the public's interest. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) designated the FASB as the organization responsible for setting accounting standards for public companies in the U.S. It was created in 1973, replacing the Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP) and the Accounting Principles Board (APB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

I'm currently studying to re-certify for GAAP in expectation of starting up my career again after three years of disability. I desperately want to go back to work.

In reality, reducing requirements for facilities and land in the long term is a real savings, regardless of the definition in the accountant's manual. Governments routinely assess long-term costs of durable goods with useful lifespan over 20 years (bridges, etc). If a government closes a road and bridge, costs (maintenance) immediately fall. Long-term costs (replacement) also fall. That's a saving to taxpayers.

It's a lot more complicated than that. I started my career writing spreadsheet templates for pro-forma reporting. There are very complex algorithms to help determine when increased investments are needed. I'll be honest, the code for those algorithms were written by my boss. A former systems analyst for a defense contractor.

Such decisions are often not at all black and white.

 

[Nick Terry]

Nothing gives State agencies immunity to the problem of worthless credentials.

LOL. Aren't the Ivies and god knows who else in the tertiary sector private universities?



Higher education accreditation is done privately in the US, it's not even done by government. It is a matter of self-regulation and quality assurance. Diploma mills haven't bothered to get quality assurance. Accordingly their products (diplomas) are not reliable and not recognised where it matters.

 

[Belz...]

I don't treat friends and enemies the same. Do you? Jimbob and I are almost at the "du" stage.

Enemies ? What exactly do you think is happening, here, except a civil discussion about opinions ?

By the way, thanks for admitting that your using the third person is not because you want to be polite with RandFan. So you lied.

 

[bruto]

Thanks for this non-accusatory and thoughtful expression of the issues. Not("good to have" = "good for government to supply or subsidize"). The "public goods" argument makes sense and may yield decent policy conclusions when the "good" is easy to define, broad consensus can be reached on the wisdom of subsidization (or direct provision), and performance of producers is easy to monitor. National defense, roads, crime control, and environmental protection come to mind. Neither "easy to define" nor "easy to monitor" characterize the education industry. What is "education"? How much does any teacher contribute to any particular student's performance? Cartel defenders are always reminding us that schools have to deal with the children of abusive and/or neglectful and/or retarded parents.

I don't recall using "fair" in this discussion. More materialistically, policies that restrict tax subsidies to institutions operated by government employees yield less benefit to students and society at large than would policies that empower parents to determine for their own children which institution (if any) shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. When a good or service is as vaguely defined as "education" and policy restricts subsidies to one supplier of education services, regulatory capture and corruption are inevitable. See Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Hirschliefer, "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (Journal of Political Economy), and Prendergast, "The Market for Yes Men" (American Economic Review).

I do not believe that society as a whole benefits from a State (government, generally) role in the education industry beyond the role that it plays in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry: an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law where non-State actors may resolve contract disputes. The current legal environment in which the education industry operates is far from that. Society has a large investment in the current institutional structure. Revolutionary change imposes large costs in lost information. Incremental change makes more sense than revolutionary change. Within the current framework of tax support of schools, government operation of schools, accreditation of schools by quasi-independent accreditation agencies, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and compulsory attendance laws, I support most expansions of educational options for children and parents: vouchers, subsidized homeschooling, charter schools (with any accredited post-secondary institution authorized to create a charter school), "virtual" enrollment in on-line accredited schools, mandatory (for government school districts) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation, and (my preference) Parent Performance Contracting.

Well, it's a partial answer at least, but leaves a couple of things out. It does not appear to me that you really answer the question of why parents should have a choice on whom they fund but non-parents apparently do not. It does not appear that you have really answered why there is a difference between approval of educational policy and that of other state policies, what constitutes a broad enough consensus, nor why opening up the process to all manner of alternatives makes the job simpler and less vague, nor how even the most minimal standards can be enforced if you deny the legitimacy of the state as enforcer. As a taxpayer supporting schools which do not directly benefit me, but which, I hope, benefit society as a whole, I for one do not think that I should subsidize home schools or on the job training to the detriment of public school funding. If public schools are failing, then by all means one should fix them, but I am not convinced this means they should be abolished. I acknowledge the right of parents, unfortunate though it may be in some ways, to teach their children as they see fit even when other reasonable people consider the teaching to be false and harmful, but I do not acknowledge that any taxpayers should pay for it.

I still do not see how your ideal does not broaden the idea of "education" so greatly, and disempower the state so completely, that a person could not fit your criteria by training illiterate machine operators or teaching that the earth is flat or that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Enemies ? What exactly do you think is happening, here, except a civil discussion about opinions ?

By the way, thanks for admitting that your using the third person is not because you want to be polite with RandFan. So you lied.

I said I used the third person to create distance. So you lied.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... I for one do not think that I should subsidize home schools or on the job training to the detriment of public school funding. If public schools are failing, then by all means one should fix them, but I am not convinced this means they should be abolished.

School is a means, not an end in itself (unless one is a construction contractor with friends in the Department of Public Works or a system employee). Why fund "public schools" if some other process generates higher performance for less money?

... I still do not see how your ideal does not broaden the idea of "education" so greatly, and disempower the state so completely, that a person could not fit your criteria by training illiterate machine operators or teaching that the earth is flat or that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.

Why trust government employees more than parents? Government is not God.
Sorry. To devout socialists, it is.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Public funds should not be used to further religion.

The problem here is "to". If voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services generate more of what legislators (voters' ostensible "representatives") claim they are trying to buy with taxpayer money (mathematical and scientific literacy, reading comprehension, vocational preparation) than the State-monopoly school system delivers, then if parents also get values education compatible with their religious views, that's gravy.

Neither can the State discriminate against religion. The so-called "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[Border Reiver]

School is a means, not an end in itself (unless one is a construction contractor with friends in the Department of Public Works or a system employee). Why fund "public schools" if some other process generates higher performance for less money?Why trust government employees more than parents? Government is not God.
Sorry. To devout socialists, it is.

So, the figures I provided you that showed that private option cost more?

 

[RandFan]

The problem here is "to". If voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services generate more of what legislators (voters' ostensible "representatives") claim they are trying to buy with taxpayer money (mathematical and scientific literacy, reading comprehension, vocational preparation) than the State-monopoly school system delivers, then if parents also get values education compatible with their religious views, that's gravy.

I have explained clearly as to why I'm not at all impressed with that speculation. I utterly reject the premise for all of the reasons that I've enumerated. Reasons that have simply been ignored. You have never demonstrated a monopoly. There is no state that I know of that proscribes parochial school. I'm all for increased options but giving public money to further the establishment of a religions is counter the constitution.

Neither can the State discriminate against religion. The so-called "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry.

True, there must be a wall of separation between government and ALL religions.

Religion is a personal thing. Government ought not tell you who you can worship or how you can worship outside of government. Religion ought not receive public funds to further their establishment of religion.

 

[RandFan]

I don't treat friends and enemies the same. Do you? Jimbob and I are almost at the "du" stage.

I don't regard anyone here as my enemy.

Malcolm, please take some time to read: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

 

[A'isha]

The so-called "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry.

No, it didn't.

 

[Amazer]

No, it didn't.

Time for a bingo card? It seems that arguments are getting recycled on a regular basis.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

True, there must be a wall of separation between government and ALL religions.
...
Religion is a personal thing. Government ought not tell you who you can worship or how you can worship outside of government. Religion ought not receive public funds to further their establishment of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. Seems to me a policy that subsidizes producers of some good or service (e.g., reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy) unless the producers believe in some god or other "respect(s) (concerns, refers to) an establishment of religion" and "prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof". Specific exclusion of church-operated schools from a general education subsidy violates the First Amendment.
2. Students can take tax support (subsidized student loans, the GI bill) to Notre Dame or PLU. It's a strange principle that allows tax subsidization of church-operated daycare and post-secondary institutions but excludes K-12.
3. Some universities operated by government employees have Religion departments and grant degrees in Religious Studies. It's a strange principle that allows tax subsidization of post-secondary religious instruction by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel but disqualifies from tax subsidization Math or Literature instruction by employees of (say) the Methodist Church.

 

[RandFan]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. Seems to me a policy that subsidizes producers of some good or service (e.g., reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy) unless the producers believe in some god or other "respect(s) (concerns, refers to) an establishment of religion" and "prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof". Specific exclusion of church-operated schools from a general education subsidy violates the First Amendment.
2. Students can take tax support (subsidized student loans, the GI bill) to Notre Dame or PLU. It's a strange principle that allows tax subsidization of church-operated daycare and post-secondary institutions but excludes K-12.
3. Some universities operated by government employees have Religion departments and grant degrees in Religious Studies. It's a strange principle that allows tax subsidization of post-secondary religious instruction by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel but disqualifies from tax subsidization Math or Literature instruction by employees of (say) the Methodist Church.

Government money should not be used for anything that inherently favors any theology. If Parochial schools want to also offer religious courses then those courses should not be mandatory and the funds to pay for those courses should not be co mingled with other funds.

I agree with you that the policies are strange. That's not an argument for the status quo though. It's an argument to stop these strange policies that violate the constitution.

Most conservatives would not want public money going to mosques to educate Muslims. That's also strange and constitutes an establishment of religion. Christian good, Islam bad.

I have some ideas, keep religious indoctrination in churches, homes and the public square. Make schools a place for learning where the only religious classes are broad based Religious History, Comparative Religion and broad base Religious Philosophy (aka theology) including aesthetics and ethics. These of course overlap and could and perhaps should be taught in a single course. There should not be any preference of any religion or deference shown to any religion in such a course.

Otherwise, get religion out of schools. The subject of god is polemic and not all empirical. Government should not be in the proselytizing and religious indoctrination business. Everyone should be free to excercise their conscience be they Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist.

Equal treatment under the law means that we as individuals get to choose which metaphysical concepts to believe or reject without big brother using religion to silence, oppress and/or subjugate.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, it's a partial answer at least, but leaves a couple of things out. It does not appear to me that you really answer the question of why parents should have a choice on whom they fund but non-parents apparently do not.

"The best is the enemy of the good". Taxpayers do not have a choice now. PPC does not change that. A policy that allowed taxpayers to deduct contributions to independent schools from taxes owed would give them that choice. I would not have a problem with that.

... It does not appear that you have really answered why there is a difference between approval of educational policy and that of other state policies...

I did. Likely candidates for State operation or subsidization are industries with significant economies of scale (natural monopolies) that produce services or goods with simple inputs and simple outputs about which citizens can achieve near -unanimity of opinion (defend the country or not, connect town A on one side of the river to town B on the other, or not, save some endangered species or not), and in which monitoring producers is simple. None of this characterizes the education industry.
Beyond a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates, inputs (individual students' interests and abilities) vary enormously, and outputs (the paths that people will follow post-graduation I a free society) vary enormously.

... what constitutes a broad enough consensus...

That's the point of reduction of the definition of "education" too Reading and Math. Whatever else people might want, those get most support.

...nor why opening up the process to all manner of alternatives makes the job simpler and less vague, nor how even the most minimal standards can be enforced if you deny the legitimacy of the state as enforcer.

Policies that give power to parents make parents the taxpayers' agents and enforcers. The most effective accountability mechanism that humans have yet devised is a policy that gives to unhappy customers the power to take their business elsewhere. For each child, somebody or some body will determine how that child spends the time between birth and adulthood. Since the class {parents} more closely resembles the class {taxpayers} or {citizens} than does the class {government employees}, parents will more effectively represent taxpayers' or citizens' interests.

As a taxpayer supporting schools which do not directly benefit me, but which, I hope, benefit society as a whole, I for one do not think that I should subsidize home schools or on the job training to the detriment of public school funding.

Under PPC, students remain enrolled in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools. PPC does not cut funding of those schools. PPC directs some of that funding to a demonstrably more effective class of contractors.

If public schools are failing, then by all means one should fix them, but I am not convinced this means they should be abolished. I acknowledge the right of parents, unfortunate though it may be in some ways, to teach their children as they see fit even when other reasonable people consider the teaching to be false and harmful, but I do not acknowledge that any taxpayers should pay for it.

The fix for the cartel's wretched schools is competition. Internal accountability mechanisms will fail, through regulatory capture and the evolution of cooperation between recipients of funding and State-employed monitors.

I still do not see how your ideal does not broaden the idea of "education" so greatly, and disempower the state so completely, that a person could not fit your criteria by training illiterate machine operators or teaching that the earth is flat or that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.

Why suppose that aggregation of decision-making authority in the education industry will generate a result superior to the result of an unaggregated process? By analogy, why suppose that a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoe all children in each one-year age cohort must wear will produce a better fit than will a process that leaves this choice to individual parents?

 

[RandFan]

By analogy, why suppose that a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoe all children in each one-year age cohort must wear will produce a better fit than will a process that leaves this choice to individual parents?

Why suppose that a nationwide one size fits all military organization is better than letting individuals decide how to spend their military contributions?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why suppose that a nationwide one size fits all military organization is better than letting individuals decide how to spend their military contributions?

Because the nation is one entity. "Education" has as many definitions as possible career paths. Still, the people who wrote the Constitution opposed standing armies and expected that armed citizens (the "militia") would provide the primary defense.