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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Children are not widgets.

That's the argument against standardized schooling.

That's the fatal flaw to your argument. I've pointed out time and again that poor people often purchase cheap products that actually cost more in the long run. You've not explained how the market for education would not be the same as it is for can openers. Expensive junk for poor people and quality and value for the rich.

State bureaucrats foist expensive junk onto poor parents and their children. The most effective accountability mechanism humans have yet devised is a policy that lets unhappy customers take their business elsewhere.

 

[RandFan]

The most effective accountability mechanism humans have yet devised is a policy that lets unhappy customers take their business elsewhere.

Doesn't work so well for poor people. That's why there are dollar stores across America selling cheap crap that costs lots of money in the long run. Let the buyer beware. I'm happy to let poor people suffer the consequences of poor decision making. I'm not happy to force children to lose any possibility of a future because their parents made poor choices.

Will you ever address this argument?

 

[A'isha]

No participant in this discussion was around in 1644, 1820, 1837, or 1844.

That's a laughable non sequitur.

I recommend Joel Spring The American School, Sol Cohen, American Education, A Documentary History, and Benjamin Wist's history of education in Hawaii.

Why do you think the history of American schools is in any way indicative, much less determinative when it comes to the reasons for the establishment of compulsory education? Why do you think Singapore, for example, has instituted compulsory education?

 

[Border Reiver]

State bureaucrats foist expensive junk onto poor parents and their children.

Explain then why the average cost per student per year in Canada is lower at the provincially run boards of education schools than it is at private schools?

 

[A'isha]

Abundant evidence supports policies that shift power from State bureaucracies to parents.

Not according to your own sources.

 

[Border Reiver]

For those wondering, the average cost per student per year can be found here and is fairly consistent across the provinces (about $11K per student per year) - the three northern territories with their much lower population, population density, spend much more.

Average costs for private, day schools seem to run from $13k to $19K per year.

 

[RandFan]

For those wondering, the average cost per student per year can be found here and is fairly consistent across the provinces (about $11K per student per year) - the three northern territories with their much lower population, population density, spend much more.

Average costs for private, day schools seem to run from $13k to $19K per year.

Thanks, I think it important to point out that most if not all nations that score high on the Index of Economic Freedom as per The Heritage Foundation and published in the Wall Street Journal provide public education (state funded and state run). Canada, that liberal bastion, ranks 6th. The reason is quite simple. It's very effective. Note that such nations also rank high in HDI and per capita GDP.

 

[Agatha]

For each sub-adult child, somebody or some body will determine how that child spends the time between age zero and age 18.

It's not that simple. A child's activities between the ages of 0 and 18¹ are chiefly directed by their parents or guardians (within the law that restricts the amount of time they can engage in paid work, and within the law that specifies that they must receive an education). The most the 'bureaucrats' can do is offer education options in the form of publicly funded schools between the ages of the school starting² and leaving age³ for something like 6.5 hours a day during the school terms, and within that offer of public schooling they have to take into account the wishes of the communities as to how they want public education to be funded and directed. That's democracy.

The public policy alternatives are not between flawed parents, on the one hand, and intelligent, informed, altruistic bureaucrats, on the other, but between flawed humans on both hands. Some parents will waste the human potential of their children. Some bureaucrats will waste the human potential of thousands of children and millions in taxpayers' money. Abundant evidence supports policies that shift power from State bureaucracies to parents.

Again, it's not that simple. Just as you accept that some parents and some bureaucrats are 'flawed' by which I guess that you mean they do not put the child's interests first, so the majority of parents and educators (teachers and policymakers) are 'intelligent, informed and altruistic'. They do put the child's interest first - their interest to receive a rounded education tailored to their needs and ability, and giving the children in their charge a safe environment in which to develop their full potential.

If the majority of teachers and educators are not intelligent, informed and altruistic in the USA school system, the answer is to hire people who are all of those things. If the public school system, which will always be educating the majority of children in every modern democracy, cannot offer that rounded education, tailored to the range of needs and abilities of children and providing them with that safe environment, the answer which makes economic sense both for the present and the future is to improve that public school system.

The choice to opt out of the public education system is still there for parents who can afford private schooling (here in the UK, around half of children in independent schools receive some sort of grant or bursary from the schools to help with fees and equipment which can cover just a portion or the entire cost), and the choice to homeschool should still be there for those parents who wish to do that.

Even in publicly funded boarding schools (there are some in the UK), the parents or guardians still have much more influence over the child and how they want that child to be educated, simply by virtue of the fact that for the years prior to them starting school and during the holidays the parents are in charge, and they choose the school they want their children to attend.

Investigoogling has not helped me understand whether parents have a choice about which publicly funded school they can send their child to in the USA. If they do not, then that is another area which could be considered in order to improve the public school system.

Over here in the UK, parents can apply to any school they wish, although they may not get a place depending on their priority.⁴ State schools are in competition with each other for pupils and the funding (which follows the child), and different schools will have different ways of teaching within the National Curriculum, different policies on teaching children up or down out of their age group, streaming by ability, the way they help children with special needs, and whether they emphasise science or the arts just to name a few.

1. Age of majority may vary by country
2. School starting age may vary by country
3. School leaving age may vary by country
4. Priorities for places depend on many factors, whether the child is in the care system, how far away they live from the school, whether they have a sibling already at the school, just to name a few. If a child does not get a place at their preferred school, there is an appeals system.

 

[Agatha]

As Milton Friedman observed, you have to compare something to something.

I hope he observed that you have to compare something with something.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not according to your own sources.

Yes, according to my sources. Voucher policies outperform policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education money to schools operated by government employees (Lassibile and Gomez, Angrist, et. al. Jay Greene has a roundup of US voucher studies). Independent and parochial schools outperform government schools (Tooley, The Beautiful Tree, Lockheed and Jiminez, Coleman, Herman Brutsaert). Charter school policies outperform policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to schools operated by direct government employees (Ant has seen the Jay Greene roundup of charter school studies). US States with numerous small school districts outperform States which consign a large fraction of total enrollment to a few large districts (NCES, Hoxby). US States which compel attendance at age 7 0r 8 outperform States which compel attendance at 5 or 6 (NCES). Homeschoolers outperform conventionally schooled children.

 

[A'isha]

Yes, according to my sources. Voucher policies outperform policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education money to schools operated by government employees (Lassibile and Gomez,

Lassibile and Gomez also state quite explicitly that nationally centralized education systems are more efficient, and therefore more effective, than decentralized ones.

Independent and parochial schools outperform government schools (Tooley, The Beautiful Tree, Lockheed and Jiminez, Coleman, Herman Brutsaert). Charter school policies outperform policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to schools operated by direct government employees (Ant has seen the Jay Greene roundup of charter school studies).

I've already pointed out the flaws in Greene's roundup, as well as the fact that the CREDO studies that he mis-cites show that charter schools have a 2/3 chance of either being no better than public schools, or worse than public schools.

And for almost two decades, TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, compulsory schooling, and centralized teacher certification vastly outperform students in countries that don't.

 

[RandFan]

I've already pointed out the flaws in Greene's roundup, as well as the fact that the CREDO studies that he mis-cites show that charter schools have a 2/3 chance of either being no better than public schools, or worse than public schools.

And of course, these schools are selected by parents who care. Force everyone into a charter school and then see what happens.

That point gets ignored time and time again.

 

[A'isha]

And of course, these schools are selected by parents who care. Force everyone into a charter school and then see what happens.

That point gets ignored time and time again.

Not to mention the fact that the count of "high performing" charter schools is skewed by the fact that the poorest-performing charter schools get closed - the CREDO report itself notes that some charter schools examined in their first study had been shut down when they went back to do their follow-ups, while it was the same public schools in both studies.

Not only is it easier for charter schools to make themselves look better by stacking the deck in a way that public schools, by their very nature, cannot, even when they "cheated" like this they still could only manage to have about a third of charters that outperformed public schools, while a third showed no measurable difference and a further third were actually worse than public schools.

Certainly doesn't say much for the overall effectiveness of charter schools...

 

[Niche Geek]

For those wondering, the average cost per student per year can be found here and is fairly consistent across the provinces (about $11K per student per year) - the three northern territories with their much lower population, population density, spend much more.

Average costs for private, day schools seem to run from $13k to $19K per year.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick,

Do you have Border Reiver on ignore? You've repeatedly asserted that private options are more cost effective than public for various theoretical reasons yet have not addressed the only actual dollar figures in the thread.

 

[Garrison]

The fact that private schools, which are of course called public schools here in the UK, perform better than state schools is largely a matter of financial resources and pupil selection. If anything I suspect the compulsion element is greater for the students; parents will apply far more pressure when they are paying those exorbitant fees...

 

[RandFan]

Malcolm Kirkpatrick,

Do you have Border Reiver on ignore? You've repeatedly asserted that private options are more cost effective than public for various theoretical reasons yet have not addressed the only actual dollar figures in the thread.

Agreed,

I would like to see some empirical data.

 

[A'isha]

"The Wrong Kind of Education Reform. Three new books decimate the case for charter schools and vouchers"

http://slate.com/articles/news_and_...cimating_the_case_for_privatizing_public.html

 

[RandFan]

"The Wrong Kind of Education Reform. Three new books decimate the case for charter schools and vouchers"

http://slate.com/articles/news_and_...cimating_the_case_for_privatizing_public.html

From your link:

But parents, whose opinions are what really matter, see things very differently. Seventy-seven percent currently give their local schools an A or a B—the highest grades in the 45-year history of the Gallup-Phi Delta Kappa annual poll.

Some people, in the guise of giving greater flexibility to parents, would take away many of the parents preferred choice for public schools altogether.

 

[Agatha]

The fact that private schools, which are of course called public schools here in the UK, perform better than state schools is largely a matter of financial resources and pupil selection. If anything I suspect the compulsion element is greater for the students; parents will apply far more pressure when they are paying those exorbitant fees...

To be entirely accurate, only those private, fee paying independent schools which belong to the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference are called public schools in the UK - 252 of them. Many private, fee paying independent schools are not members of the HMC and are just called independent or private schools.

Three of my sons attended an independent school from age 4 which is a public school - a member of the HMC. My eldest also attended another independent school for one year, which is not an HMC member but the fees were the same and the schools were less than 250 yards apart. My youngest also spent one year in two different state schools at his request. The eldest and youngest were also homeschooled for a time.

My daughter attended a Girls' Day School Trust school from 4 to 18 - similar fees but not a public school as the GDST network is not part of the HMC.

I entirely agree that most parents who send their children to schools which charge around of £3.7k a term and more in London (day schools) or £10k a term (boarding schools) will pressure their children to achieve more. However, disinterested parents who don't give a damn about their children's education can be found at these schools too, sadly.

I also agree that by selecting pupils both on academic ability and the parents' ability to pay not just the fees but all the additional costs of extra tuition and activities, independent schools achieve better results in the league tables. If they could not select on academic ability, they would be further down in the league tables.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova,
Yes, I had read the Einstein essays in question.

I'm glad you were able to read the Einstein essay "On Education". Indeed, that's why I posted the link to the essay back in post 961 -- so that you and others interested in the essay could read it in its entirety. I'm glad you've also been able to locate and read a copy of the other Einstein piece from which you posted a deceptive snippet.

But your comment evades the request I made for you to identify the actual sources you used for the snippets you posted.

It seems pretty clear to me that the first Einstein snippet you posted is not something you excerpted yourself from Einstein's essay. If you are claiming that the excerpt you posted is your own work, could you please explain why you chose to dishonestly omit from the quote the same two sentences which nospank.net chose to omit when they posted the snippet and why you erroneously cited the title of the essay as "Force And Fear Have No Place in Education" -- a phrase which does not appear as the title of Einstein's essays nor as as text in Einstein's essay but which does appear as the headline of the nospank.net item in which they originally posted the snippet?

If I tried I could probably come up with some convoluted and improbable way for that to happen. But there's a much simpler explanation which covers all the known facts: you're not quoting something you read in Einstein's essay; you're quoting something you cribbed, either from nospank.net, or from someone who cribbed it from nospank.net, or from someone who cribbed it from someone who cribbed it from nospank.net, or from someone who cribbed it from someone who cribbed it from someone who... cribbed it from nospank.net.

A number of your snippets have been shown to be deceptively-edited. It would be helpful to know which of these you are responsible for and which are things you simply cribbed from other sources.

Unless you are willing to make it clear, when you post evidence, whether you are posting something you have read for yourself and take full responsibility for, or whether you are simply posting something you have cribbed and you are not personally aware whether the material as presented accurately and honestly represents the facts and opinions expressed in the original, then there is little point in taking any evidence you post in support of your opinions seriously.