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

[Garrison]

Because by 1870 upper-class busybodies took from poor parents the power to determine for their own children how their children would be educated.

Or to put it another way; people realized that leaving education to parents of distinctly variable, means, opportunity, and inclination was no use whatsoever in an industrial society. That even if many of the poorer parents wanted to get their child an education it was impossible until rules were put in place that regulated child labour and made education a requirement. That anyone could find guaranteeing children the opportunity for an education a bad thing is nigh on to incredible.

 

[jimbob]

it is worth pointing out that in the age of sail, grammar schools, whilst not for the elite, were still for the prosperous "yeoman" class and similar. The grammar school I went to owed its origins to this, as the local "public" i.e. "private" school had become for the elite, as opposed to the initial charitable aims for educating the sons of traders.

Here: ...

The evidence also shows that working parents were purchasing increasing amounts of education for their children as their incomes were rising from 1818 onwards, and this, to repeat, at a time before education was “free” and compulsory by statute. Compulsion came in 1880, and state schooling did not become free until 1891.

The key phrase in the above quote is, "as their incomes were rising..."

Not the poor.

 

[jimbob]

it is worth pointing out that in the age of sail, grammar schools, whilst not for the elite, were still for the prosperous "yeoman" class and similar. The grammar school I went to owed its origins to this, as the local "public" i.e. "private" school had become for the elite, as opposed to the initial charitable aims for educating the sons of traders.

Here: ...

The evidence also shows that working parents were purchasing increasing amounts of education for their children as their incomes were rising from 1818 onwards, and this, to repeat, at a time before education was “free” and compulsory by statute. Compulsion came in 1880, and state schooling did not become free until 1891.

The key phrase in the above quote is, "as their incomes were rising..."

Not the poor. Secondary education is also different to primary education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In other words, officer class by the early nineteenth century.

Nobody calls an e-4 Engineman ("petty officer third class") an officer. That's an Army buck sergeant.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The key phrase in the above quote is, "as their incomes were rising..."

Not the poor. Secondary education is also different to primary education.

Yes, the poor. Everybody's incomes were rising. At one time not two long ago, most people had two sets of clothes (Sunday clothes and M-Sat. clothes) at most. Today "poor" people have air conditioning and internet connections. With some digging I can find a cite that references a contemporary study that found most poor children getting some instruction in reading.

Please explain how the secondary/elementary difference makes a difference.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... That anyone could find guaranteeing children the opportunity for an education a bad thing is nigh on to incredible.

We agree here. That's why putting the on-the-job training out of bounds is "a bad thing". School and employment differ in that (a) children in school are not paid and (b) employment is voluntary.

Please read this.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.

 

[RandFan]

Either form indicates a socialist mindset.

It just shows the ability to feel empathy.

No one can say what someone else will have for breakfast next week, what style of shoes they will wear, or what arrangements they will make for their own children's education.

One can say how someone will afford food if one doesn't have a job in a modern democracy. One can say how a parent can send his children to school in a modern liberal democracy. You cannot say how poor people would educate their children under your system because in the end it costs a lot of money to hire people to educate children. More money than poor people can afford. The math is pretty simple and you simply cannot explain it so you hand wave it away. Under your system I would not have been educated and let's be honest, you could not care less. If poor children are forced to work in factories what do you care? Your ideas have never been shown to create and sustain a middle class. Never. Ever.

Every modern liberal democracy has social programs not because they can afford them but because they are critical to the health and well being of society. You can call me a socialist until your face turns blue but I have science on my side and you have pseudo-science.

Free markets leave people free to make their own arrangements.

Free markets don't ensure that people can feed their children much less pay for education. Until you explain "how" people can pay for education under your system then you are actually just saying "scrape 'em off".

 

[RandFan]

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.

Home schooling is slavery. Parochial school is slavery. Every time a parent compels his child to do something it's slavery without providing remuneration. Child rearing is slavery. The definition is so broad as to be useless.

 

[jimbob]

In other words, officer class by the early nineteenth century.

Nobody calls an e-4 Engineman ("petty officer third class") an officer. That's an Army buck sergeant.

I did not say "officer", I said officer class. The seaman rank had died out and they were apprentice officers. As they hadn't yet received their commission, OF COURSE they had a non-commissioned rank.

 

[Doubt]

Nobody calls an e-4 Engineman ("petty officer third class") an officer. That's an Army buck sergeant.

No. E-4 in the army is either a specialist or corporal. E-5 is a buck sergeant.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You still have not explained how poor children would be educated. ...

Please drop the "you" stuff. How 'bout "How would poor children be educated?" Either form indicates a socialist mindset. No one can say what someone else will have for breakfast next week, what style of shoes they will wear, or what arrangements they will make for their own children's education. Free markets leave people free to make their own arrangements.

It just shows the ability to feel empathy.

In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell speculated that socialism originates in a hypertrophied sense of order, like those people who rearrange their socks in the dresser drawer ten times a day, or wash their hands every hour on the hour. Elsewhere (e.g., "Raffles and Mrs. Blandish", "Inside the Whale") he suggests that a preference for authoritarian politics expresses vicarious sadism. In Socialism, von Mises suggested that socialism originates in a primitive revenge fantasy. It looks, to me at least, less like "empathy" than like a self-congratulatory power fantasy: "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it". Taking children from their parents and forcing them to jump through hoops that total strangers invent does not look like "empathy" to me.

One can say how someone will afford food if one doesn't have a job in a modern democracy. One can say how a parent can send his children to school in a modern liberal democracy. You cannot say how poor people would educate their children under your system because in the end it costs a lot of money to hire people to educate children. More money than poor people can afford. The math is pretty simple and you simply cannot explain it so you hand wave it away.

We have trodden this ground flat: (a) School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap. Twelve years of enforced non-participation in the workforce imposes enormous opportunity costs on children and taxpayers. On-the-job training is education, and employers will pay people to participate.
(b) State assumption of responsibility for the provision of the public good of charity (in the form of instruction for children whose parents cannot afford school) transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

Under your system I would not have been educated and let's be honest, you could not care less.

Let's be honest (since we're pretending to read minds) Randfan enjoys the fantasy of forcing entire populations to bow to him.

If poor children are forced to work in factories what do you care? Your ideas have never been shown to create and sustain a middle class. Never. Ever.

Pretty strange coming from someone who posted:...

... 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. ...

Where has it worked? 19th century USA and Great Britain. The longest, greatest expansion of wealth among ordinary people that the world has seen since Paleolithic people fell upon the naïve herbivores of the North American continent.

Every modern liberal democracy has social programs not because they can afford them but because they are critical to the health and well being of society. You can call me a socialist until your face turns blue but I have science on my side and you have pseudo-science.

Calling it "science" does not make it science. Randfan correctly attributes aggregate wealth of a society to economic freedom. Instead of drawing the lesson that the education industry might also benefit from freedom, Randfan concludes that the education industry is an exception to the principle that markets organize information that is inaccessible to planners.

Free markets don't ensure that people can feed their children much less pay for education. Until you explain "how" people can pay for education under your system then you are actually just saying "scrape 'em off".

Neither does government ensure "that people can feed their children (... or ...) pay for education". Until you Randfan explain explains "how" people can pay for education prevent parasitism by system insiders under your his system then you are he is actually just saying "scrape 'em off".
The most effective accountability mechanism that humans have yet devised is a policy that lets unhappy customers take their business elsewhere. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It ensures that all children get a chance at a useful education. Which your alternative system does not do.

No. So long as States maintain the system of assignment by district and some parents have no escape options, the current system consigns some children to wretched schools from the start.

That's an argument for raising standards in those poor schools not shutting them down and throwing parents onto their own resources, which in many of those districts are pretty meagre.

A full response to this would involve a consideration of "standards". I doubt anyone in this discussion has the patience. Almost everyone misuses the term. A standard is a unit of measurement. Redefining "meter" or "foot" will not make children taller. Further, the failure of State schools has far less to do with written job descriptions (which is what Garrison must intend here by "standards") than with the incestuous relation between politicians and other system insiders (administrators and teachers). Absent escape options for parents (vouchers, relaxed restrictions on homeschooling, etc), the evolution of cooperation between the predators upon taxpayers (and students) is inevitable.

It is not; as I'm sure everyone but you understood. I find it interesting that you resent other's misrepresenting your intentions but are quite happy to misrepresent others.

Please expand on this point. Where do we disagree?

...
C'mon. Let's discuss what impact "standards" have on system performance. If Garrison's "raising standards in those poor schools" did not refer to reconfiguring the job descriptions of system employees, to what did it refer? What can "standards" mean in this context?

 

[Amazer]

We have trodden this ground flat: (a) School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap. Twelve years of enforced non-participation in the workforce imposes enormous opportunity costs on children and taxpayers. On-the-job training is education, and employers will pay people to participate.

Malcolm, from what age do you think that on-the-job training would be an acceptable alternative to primary or secondary education?

 

[RandFan]

²In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell speculated that socialism originates in a hypertrophied sense of order, like those people who rearrange their socks in the dresser drawer ten times a day, or wash their hands every hour on the hour. Elsewhere (e.g., "Raffles and Mrs. Blandish", "Inside the Whale") he suggests that a preference for authoritarian politics expresses vicarious sadism. In Socialism, von Mises suggested that socialism originates in a primitive revenge fantasy. It looks, to me at least, less like "empathy" than like a self-congratulatory power fantasy: "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it".

²Taking children from their parents and forcing them to jump through hoops that total strangers invent does not look like "empathy" to me. We have trodden this ground flat: (a) School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap. Twelve years of enforced non-participation in the workforce imposes enormous opportunity costs on children and taxpayers.

³On-the-job training is education, and employers will pay people to participate.

⁴Randfan concludes...

⁵ that the education industry is an exception to the principle that markets organize information that is inaccessible to planners.Neither does government ensure "that people can feed their children (... or ...) pay for education".

⁶The most effective accountability mechanism that humans have yet devised is a policy that lets unhappy customers take their business elsewhere. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors.

1. A.) Outdated. B.) Orwell was a socialist. I'm not a socialist. I think the govt is good for the military and education but bad for most industries.
2. No more hoop jumping than parochial school. Not providing for an education is cruel and you have no mechanism for providing poor children with an education.
3. I've explained over and over why this is a problem. Employers will not even hire interns if the intern has no education. When you can show me these programs and how they hire illiterate people I'll consider those.
4. Try civility.
5. I note that no private industry is giving out education for free. Making schools private will not solve the problem of needing to hire expensive personnel.
6. Beggars cannot be choosers. Poor people take what they can get not what they choose.

 

[jimbob]

Nobody calls an e-4 Engineman ("petty officer third class") an officer. That's an Army buck sergeant.

No. E-4 in the army is either a specialist or corporal. E-5 is a buck sergeant.

TBF, that is still a rank without a commission (note my choice of words).

However Malcolm has skated over the part that by the time he was talking bout, in the Royal Navy, Midshipmen were future officers, and thus officer class, as opposed to seamen.

He also seems to think that examples from the early industrial period are remotely relevant to modern life. It is worth pointing out that during this time, most adults in the West did not have the vote.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, from what age do you think that on-the-job training would be an acceptable alternative to primary or secondary education?

That would depend on the job. Seems to me there are two concerns: safety and "education".

People genuinely concerned for children's safety will consider relative hospitalization rates for homeschoolers and conventionally schooled children and for children in school and out of school. In Hawaii, juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma (assault, suicide, etc.) fall in summer, when school is not in session.
In any case, for each child, somebody or some body will determine how that child will spend the time between birth and age 18. Some children will fall through the cracks in any system, so the safety concern will depend on relative rates of accident, etc. between the current system and alternatives. There are also trade-offs.

Definition of "education" will either miss much that people commonly accept falls within the term or will be so broad as to be operationally useless. Again, for each child, somebody or some body will decide what, where, and how that child will learn. Policies that give control to parents place control in the hands of people who have specific local knowledge (of the child's individual interests and abilities) and who are most reliably concerned for their well-being.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Where has it worked? 19th century USA and Great Britain. The longest, greatest expansion of wealth among ordinary people that the world has seen since Paleolithic people fell upon the naïve herbivores of the North American continent. Calling it "science" does not make it science. Randfan correctly attributes aggregate wealth of a society to economic freedom. Instead of drawing the lesson that the education industry might also benefit from freedom, Randfan concludes that the education industry is an exception to the principle that markets organize information that is inaccessible to planners.

...Try civility.

1. How is this uncivil?
2. If YOU (I address RandFan and no other participant to this discussion) prefer, try this formulation: What exempts the education industry from the generalization that markets in goods and services out-perform tax-subsidized State-monopoly enterprise (for reasons that Mises, Hayek, and Friedman, among others, have explained)?
YOU (again, I address RandFan and no other participant to this discussion), as a self-confessed capitalist and Rand fan should have no problem explaining.

 

[jimbob]

Malcolm,

My understanding of the laws in OECD countries is that children need to be provided with an education. Usually, as long as it meets certain standards, (CBA to check if there are exceptions for come countries in the OECD) this can be homeschooling, public, charitable, or private.

How is this slavery? How is it better to remove the main option (public education) from the mix?

 

[A'isha]

People genuinely concerned for children's safety will consider relative hospitalization rates for homeschoolers and conventionally schooled children and for children in school and out of school.

You do realize that this also applies to private-sector free-market schools such as private academies and Catholic (or other religious) schools, right? Unless you're advocating the elimination of all forms of schooling other than homeschooling, the above is entirely a red herring for the purposes of this discussion.

Some children will fall through the cracks in any system

Yes, and compulsory public education, either at state-run schools or at private/homeschools that meet certain educational standards is the method that will result in the fewest children falling through cracks.

Policies that give control to parents place control in the hands of people who have specific local knowledge (of the child's individual interests and abilities) and who are most reliably concerned for their well-being.

For the umpteenth time, the disastrous voucher experiment in Louisiana proves that the above is utterly untrue when put into actual practice.

 

[Amazer]

That would depend on the job. Seems to me there are two concerns: safety and "education".

People genuinely concerned for children's safety will consider relative hospitalization rates for homeschoolers and conventionally schooled children and for children in school and out of school. In Hawaii, juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma (assault, suicide, etc.) fall in summer, when school is not in session.
In any case, for each child, somebody or some body will determine how that child will spend the time between birth and age 18. Some children will fall through the cracks in any system, so the safety concern will depend on relative rates of accident, etc. between the current system and alternatives. There are also trade-offs.

Definition of "education" will either miss much that people commonly accept falls within the term or will be so broad as to be operationally useless. Again, for each child, somebody or some body will decide what, where, and how that child will learn. Policies that give control to parents place control in the hands of people who have specific local knowledge (of the child's individual interests and abilities) and who are most reliably concerned for their well-being.

So if it's a job that's safe to do and which requires little or no prior education, then you would accept that 4 or 5 year old children do this work (with the parents approval)?