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

Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
4,046
Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

Yes, and slaves, being wealth, were surrendered by the owners of that particular personal property after being so mandated by the State. It was a huge tax increase for all those slaveowners in the South.
We agree. It was also a huge decrease in taxes on the slaves.
Your equating of compulsory education for children with actual slavery would be insulting if it weren't so laughable.
Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. What's your definition? In most US States, children between age 6 and age 18 labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that people call "the public school system". Your indifference to the brutal subordination that this system inflicts would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.
 
Last edited:
We agree. It was also a huge decrease in taxes on the slaves.

Property doesn't pay taxes.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.

Yes, and education does not fit in that definition.

In most US States, children between age 6 and age 18 labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that people call "the public school system".

Yes, we've already been over this "theory" of yours.

Your indifference to the brutal subordination that this system inflicts would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.

"Brutal subordination" of the public school system...

:dl:
 
Property doesn't pay taxes.1Yes, and education does not fit in that definition.2Yes, we've already been over this "theory" of yours.3"Brutal subordination" of the public school system...4
1. People pay taxes. Slaves are people.
2. Correct. Compulsory attendance at school does.
3. Correct. One day you'll see the light. Or not.
4. 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.
Roland Meighan
"Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications"
Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995
The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher, Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992) was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of schooled children of such poor quality?
The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated children are more mature and better socialized than those attending school.
So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized mental health problem.
Hyman and Penroe
Journal of School Psychology
Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988; Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children, especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United States....
In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in a school violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner city high school students was conducted. When asked why they misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they wanted to get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or showed disrespect for them, their families, or their culture....
...schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this behavior might affect student misbehavior....
...Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman, Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992).
As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990).
Karen Brockenbrough, Dewey G. Cornell, Ann B. Loper
"Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence at School"
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 25, #3, Aug., 2002
Violence at school is a prevalent problem. According to a national survey of school proncipals (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998), over 200,000 serious fights or physical attacks occurred in public schools during the 1996-1997 school year. Serious violent crimes occurred in approximately 12% of middle schools and 13% of high schools. Student surveys (Kann et al, 1995) indicate even higher rates of aggressive behavior. Approximately 16.2% of high school students nationwide reported involvement in a physical fight at school during a 30-day period, and 11.8% reported carrying a weapon on school property (Kann et al, 1995). Research on victims of violence at school suggests that repeated victimization has detrimental effects on a child's emotional and social development (Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Hoover, Oliver, & Thomson, 1993; Olweus, 1993). Victims exhibit higher
levels of anxiety and depression, and lower self-esteem than non-victims (eg., Besag, 1989; Gilmartin, 1987; Greenbaum, 1987; Olweus, 1993).
Clive Harber
"Schooling as Violence"
Educatioinal Review p. 10, V. 54, #1
"...It is almost certainly more damaging for children to be in school than to out of it. Children whose days are spent herding animals rather than sitting in a classroom at least develop skills of problem solving and independence while the supposedly luckier ones in school are stunted in their mental, physical, and emotional development by being rendered pasive, and by having to spend hours each day in a crowded classroom under the control of an adult who punishes them for any normal level of activity such as moving or speaking."
Clive Harber
"Schooling as Violence"
Educatioinal Review, p. 9 V. 54, #1.
Furthermore, according to a report for UNESCO, cited in Esteve (2000), the increasing level of pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil violence in classrooms is directly connected with compulsory schooling. The report argues that institutional violence against pupils who are obliged to attend daily at an educational centre until 16 or 18 years of age increases the frustration of these students to a level where they externalise it.
H.L. Mencken
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.
 
We agree. It was also a huge decrease in taxes on the slaves.

Property doesn't pay taxes.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.

Yes, and education does not fit in that definition.

In most US States, children between age 6 and age 18 labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that people call "the public school system".

Yes, we've already been over this "theory" of yours.

Your indifference to the brutal subordination that this system inflicts would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.

"Brutal subordination" of the public school system...

:dl:

Malcolm, do you accept the idea of economic power?

A lot of your posts seem to suggest that you don't like the State intervening because they are ultimately backed up by the threat of physical force (sounds a bit like Mao's view
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.")

but you seem to see no problem with slum landlords, factory owners paying in company scrip, or child labour - which I would say are all results of unfair use of economic power over the poor.
 
We agree. It was also a huge decrease in taxes on the slaves.Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. What's your definition? In most US States, children between age 6 and age 18 labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that people call "the public school system". Your indifference to the brutal subordination that this system inflicts would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.
Only if you redefine the word "tax"to mean something else. Changing the meaning of common terms to match a set of beliefs is not effective argument.
 
Redefining things, like "tax = theft" and "school = slavery" doesn't really help the discussion, Malcolm. We all know what the words mean, so there's no point in trying to show us that they mean something else entirely.
Why the quotation marks? I did not write " 'tax' = 'theft' ", I wrote "a tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth". Money does not have to pass through the treasury to qualify as a tax; corvee labor is a tax. I did not write " 'school'='slavery' ", I wrote "compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery". That's a plain definition, not a redefinition. Compulsory school attendance is (a) compulsory and (b) a surrender of time. Just like compulsory plantation labor.
There's no redefinition involved here.
 
1. People pay taxes. Slaves are people.

Property doesn't pay taxes. Slaves are property.

And it was the "free market" slave trade that made them slaves.

4. Albert Einstein
"Force and Fear Have No Place in Education"Roland Meighan
"Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications"
Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995Hyman and Penroe
Journal of School PsychologyKaren Brockenbrough, Dewey G. Cornell, Ann B. Loper
"Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence at School"
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 25, #3, Aug., 2002Clive Harber
"Schooling as Violence"
Educatioinal Review p. 10, V. 54, #1Clive Harber
"Schooling as Violence"
Educatioinal Review, p. 9 V. 54, #1.H.L. Mencken

Yes, you tried this argumentum ad copypastum before. Education still isn't slavery. Public compulsory education, which even countries that formerly did not have compulsory education like Singapore are now implementing, is also not slavery, and not a single one of your quotes supports your statement.

Your statement that compulsory education is just like slavery is, in fact, nothing more than emotional hyperbole, and has no connection to either the quotes you've posted, or to reality.
 
Why the quotation marks? I did not write " 'tax' = 'theft' ", I wrote "a tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth". Money does not have to pass through the treasury to qualify as a tax; corvee labor is a tax. I did not write " 'school'='slavery' ", I wrote "compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery". That's a plain definition, not a redefinition. Compulsory school attendance is (a) compulsory and (b) a surrender of time. Just like compulsory plantation labor.
There's no redefinition involved here.
If you believe that a private individual stealing a person's time is the same as a tax, then you are, for sure, inventing a new definition for "tax," even if you are unwilling to admit it or incapable of understanding what words mean. It's wrong even by your own statements, since slavery was allowed by many states but never mandated.
 
If you believe that a private individual stealing a person's time is the same as a tax, then you are, for sure, inventing a new definition for "tax," even if you are unwilling to admit it or incapable of understanding what words mean. It's wrong even by your own statements, since slavery was allowed by many states but never mandated.
If the law allows A to enslave B, then the State has imposed a tax on B. Those laws that "allowed" slavery enforced slavery with all sorts of penalties (e.g., fugitive slave laws). If State agents take 10% of your crop, that's a tax. If the law (in practice) allows some group (friends of the Chief of Police, say) to enter your land and steal your crops, that's a tax.
 
...Your statement that compulsory education is just like slavery is, in fact, nothing more than emotional hyperbole, and has no connection to either the quotes you've posted, or to reality.
Define "slavery", then. Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. That's my definition. What's yours?
 
Neither was the typical Alabama cotton farm, c. 1840, Dachau.
I'm assuming you've never worked on a farm, am I right?

Having grown up on a farm I can tell you confidently that School isn't the typical Alabama cotton farm either. I didn't love school by any stretch of the imagination but it was much preferable to picking weeds, bucking hay, moving pipe, setting irrigation gates, topping onions, docking and castrating sheep, etc., etc.. BTW, farm work is very often an all day job, sun up to sun down. As a child there were many times I got up before the sun and didn't finish work until after it went down.

I'm curious though, are you against parents giving their children chores? Is that slavery? In fact, it would seem to me that it follows from your logic that having children and then giving those children any rules for their behavior is de facto slavery, isn't that right?
 
A challenge:

Get a job working on a farm and then tell me that it's roughly the equivalent of going to school. Not wanting to do something like going to the doctor or exercising does not magically turn those actions into slavery, so long as those in charge of your long term well-being (parents and legal guardians) determine it's in your best interest (so long as society doesn't determine that going to the doctor and/or exercise is not in your best interest).

The idea that there should be no supervision or decisions made by parents that contravenes the short term interests of a child is absurd. Expecting children to follow the instructions of the parents to get educated for their (the children's) long term benefit even if the children don't want to go to school is no more slavery than a parent forcing a child to go to the doctor. Children are not born with the necessary cognitive abilities to make decisions that are in their long term interests. Human children require adult supervision and education be it formal or informal.
 
Last edited:
If the law allows A to enslave B, then the State has imposed a tax on B. Those laws that "allowed" slavery enforced slavery with all sorts of penalties (e.g., fugitive slave laws). If State agents take 10% of your crop, that's a tax. If the law (in practice) allows some group (friends of the Chief of Police, say) to enter your land and steal your crops, that's a tax.
By your definition anything the law allows or reinforces is a tax if anyone ends up paying anything to anybody. Nonsense. It may be something, and it may even be wrong, but it's not a tax. Of course if you include your conclusions in the definition of everything it's not hard to use your language to reinforce your conclusions, but have you noticed a funny thing? The result is utterly unconvincing to everyone else. It doesn't actually work, you know.
 
I'm assuming you've never worked on a farm, am I right?
I spent a summer in the pineapple fields on Lanai. What's your point? How does it relate to my characterization of compulsory school attendance as slavery or to my objection to Ant's mischaracterization of my position of school as Dachau?
Having grown up on a farm I can tell you...(deleted)...
I'm curious though, are you against parents giving their children chores? Is that slavery? In fact, it would seem to me that it follows from your logic that having children and then giving those children any rules for their behavior is de facto slavery...
The model universe of basic economic theory consists of rational economic actors and property. This is analogous to the geometry of Euclidean one-space (the line), a very simplified universe. Individuals are represented as endowments (the property to which they have title) and preferences (an ordering of possible endowments). Theorists expand this universe to accommodate real-world complications (e.g., common property, limited rationality). Children occupy an anomalous position, as we do not suppose that they have title to property and they are incompletely rational. This does not prevent economic theory from making predictions about behavior of children, or slaves, or animals (or about teachers or union bosses to whom current laws give control of children's time, six hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years). Some rationality is assumed. Children, slaves, and animals respond to rewards (or there's no point to rewards or punishment).
Someone will control children's time. The abstract policy issue of sub-adult education depends on the effects of different assignments of responsibility (title, in effect) for (to) children and children's time. Gandhi said that parents are the natural teachers of children. I would like to see a shift to a legal/institutional environment that assigns control over children and their time to their parents unless parents demonstrate their incapacity. And I'd set that bar (proof of incapacity) very high. We don't take fawns from wild deer.
 
By your definition anything the law allows or reinforces is a tax if anyone ends up paying anything to anybody. Nonsense. It may be something, and it may even be wrong, but it's not a tax.
The test of a theory is whether it predicts.
Of course if you include your conclusions in the definition of everything it's not hard to use your language to reinforce your conclusions, but have you noticed a funny thing? The result is utterly unconvincing to everyone else. It doesn't actually work, you know.
Twelve (or 16, or 20) years of State-worshipful indoctrination can have that effect. I haven't yet converted any of the Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door, either.
 
Ant's mischaracterization of my position of school as Dachau?

You can't even get that right.

The model universe of basic economic theory consists of rational economic actors and property.

Economic theorists are remarkably poor predictors of human behavior.

Gandhi said that parents are the natural teachers of children.

Gandhi also wasn't dealing with the modernized highly-developed industrial and informational states of the 21st Century.

The governments of places like Singapore recognize this.

I would like to see a shift to a legal/institutional environment that assigns control over children and their time to their parents unless parents demonstrate their incapacity. And I'd set that bar (proof of incapacity) very high.

High enough to prevent this sort of nonsense? "Jindal also said he has no problem with creationism being taught in public schools as long as a local school board OK's it."
 
Last edited:
Malcolm try this definition:

slav·er·y/ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ Show Spelled [sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree] Show IPA
noun
1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4. severe toil; drudgery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1545–55; slave + -ery

Related forms
pre·slav·er·y, adjective, noun


Synonyms
1. thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude. 4. moil, labor.

Ref: Dictionary.com
 
I spent a summer in the pineapple fields on Lanai. What's your point?
My point is that your comparison is absurd. You cannot equate slavery to compulsory education anymore than you can equate home chores to slavery. I note how you dodged my argument.

How does it relate to my characterization of compulsory school attendance as slavery or to my objection to Ant's mischaracterization of my position of school as Dachau?
Is it slavery for parents to give their children compulsory rules Yes or no?


The model universe of basic economic theory consists of rational economic actors and property. This is analogous to the geometry of Euclidean one-space (the line), a very simplified universe. Individuals are represented as endowments (the property to which they have title) and preferences (an ordering of possible endowments). Theorists expand this universe to accommodate real-world complications (e.g., common property, limited rationality). Children occupy an anomalous position, as we do not suppose that they have title to property and they are incompletely rational. This does not prevent economic theory from making predictions about behavior of children, or slaves, or animals (or about teachers or union bosses to whom current laws give control of children's time, six hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years). Some rationality is assumed. Children, slaves, and animals respond to rewards (or there's no point to rewards or punishment).
Someone will control children's time. The abstract policy issue of sub-adult education depends on the effects of different assignments of responsibility (title, in effect) for (to) children and children's time. Gandhi said that parents are the natural teachers of children. I would like to see a shift to a legal/institutional environment that assigns control over children and their time to their parents unless parents demonstrate their incapacity. And I'd set that bar (proof of incapacity) very high. We don't take fawns from wild deer.
Dodge. Either it's slavery for a parent to have control over the life of its child or not. Which is it Malcolm?
 
Most property does not. Slaves do. How do you define "tax"? It's not much of a stretch from a reasonable definition of "tax" to the conclusion that slaves are taxed 100% of their income.
Now cows pay taxes, yes it is a stretch and an unreasonable one.
The problem with ad hoc explanations is that they are not often thought out very well and tend to lead to absurdities.

Yes, by his logic cows pay taxes. :)

However, what you don't understand is that if one can ad hoc try to save a thesis then one can also special plead. Expect that next.
 
My point is that your comparison is absurd. You cannot equate slavery to compulsory education anymore than you can equate home chores to slavery. I note how you dodged...
Try civility,
... my argument.
Aside from saying "nonsense", you did not make an argument. Compulsory unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Laws compel attendance at school. Overseers (teachers) threaten to blight children's lives with unattractive transcripts unless those children jump through the hoops that teachers present. Classwork and homework are "work". This work is compulsory and (for many students) unpaid.
Is it slavery for parents to give their children compulsory rules Yes or no?
Sometimes. As I wrote, children occupy an anomalous position in economic theory; halfway between property and rational economic actor. Parents compensate children with benign attention. Children, especially very young children, will work for love, which parents will more reliably supply than will strangers. As children mature, thet will, if given freedom to follow their own benign interests, self-reward.
... Dodge. ...
Try civility,
... Either it's slavery for a parent to have control over the life of its child or not. Which is it Malcolm?
You speak English, right? Verstehen sie "anomalous"? Is a workbench a table? How many grains of sand make a heap? When does a mound become a mountain?
 
The problem with ad hoc explanations is that they are not often thought out very well and tend to lead to absurdities.

Yes, by his logic cows pay taxes. :)

However, what you don't understand is that if one can ad hoc try to save a thesis then one can also special plead. Expect that next.
What Randfan apparently does not understand (unless he's a paid shill who understands just fine and is in this argument to derail it with incivility) is the impact of incivility on considerate discussion. Cows would be slaves if they were human under the law. As I wrote, the stripped-down model universe of basic economic theory contains two categories of object: "rational actors" and "property".
 
Try civility,Aside from saying "nonsense", you did not make an argument. Compulsory unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Laws compel attendance at school. Overseers (teachers) threaten to blight children's lives with unattractive transcripts unless those children jump through the hoops that teachers present. Classwork and homework are "work". This work is compulsory and (for many students) unpaid.Sometimes. As I wrote, children occupy an anomalous position in economic theory; halfway between property and rational economic actor. Parents compensate children with benign attention. Children, especially very young children, will work for love, which parents will more reliably supply than will strangers. As children mature, thet will, if given freedom to follow their own benign interests, self-reward.Try civility,You speak English, right? Verstehen sie "anomalous"? Is a workbench a table? How many grains of sand make a heap? When does a mound become a mountain?
Sorry, that simply will not do. You can't have it both ways. Oh, I agree that there is a gradient between a child and adult as far as responsibility goes. But once you concede that there is a relationship that allows for parents to control the actions of their children then you don't get to special plead to give you rhetorical advantage. If a parent can control the actions of their children then school isn't slavery.

End of story.
 
What Randfan apparently does not understand (unless he's a paid shill who understands just fine and is in this argument to derail it with incivility) is the impact of incivility on considerate discussion. Cows would be slaves if they were human under the law. As I wrote, the stripped-down model universe of basic economic theory contains two categories of object: "rational actors" and "property".
Prior to ending slavery in America, blacks were not "human under the law". This is you again trying to have it both ways. It simply will not work.
 
Try civility

Yes, you should.

Compulsory unpaid labor is slavery (definition).

Slavery involves a lot more than that.

Laws compel attendance at school.

Yes, to prevent crackpot parents from keeping their kids away from such Satanic influences as real math, science, and history.

Overseers (teachers) threaten to blight children's lives with unattractive transcripts unless those children jump through the hoops that teachers present.

No, teachers (who have zero resemblance to slave overseers) grade students based on their knowledge and comprehension of the subjects they are being taught.

Classwork and homework are "work".

No, they aren't. They certainly aren't "labor" in the sense used by economic theorists.

This work is compulsory and (for many students) unpaid.

My parents certainly rewarded me with "benign attention...and love" for doing my homework and performing well in school.

Parents compensate children with benign attention.

So, under your definition, parents who do not do this are slaveholders?
 
As I wrote, children occupy an anomalous position in economic theory; halfway between property and rational economic actor.
Given Loki's paradox, at what point is it slavery for a parent to control his or her child according to your stripped down theory?

BTW: Given that people who graduate from public school are far more likely to get a job than those who drop out, isn't a child and parent both rewarded for a child finishing his or her public education?
 
BTW: Given that people who graduate from public school are far more likely to get a job than those who drop out, isn't a child and parent both rewarded for a child finishing his or her public education?

I guess private-sector employers are all part of the NEA conspiracy to enslave children.
 
I guess private-sector employers are all part of the NEA conspiracy to enslave children.
The notion is so absurd. I'm sure Malcolm would find it neglectful for a parent to not care for young children in a way as to increases their well-being. Yet, according to Malcolm, while it is demonstrable that school increases the overall well-being of children in the long term it is still slavery.

You can make your child wash dishes for love but you can't make your child go to school to increase the likelihood of success later in life for that child.
 
If a parent can control the actions of their children then school isn't slavery.
Why not? Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Currently, in the USA, State laws compel attendance at school. Children labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the zNEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel trhat people call "the public school system".

End of story.[/QUOTE]
 
Why not? Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Currently, in the USA, State laws compel attendance at school. Children labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the zNEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel trhat people call "the public school system".

Repeating a false assertion doesn't actually do anything to make it any less false, you know.
 
Why aren't home chores slavery? Special pleading?

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Currently, in the USA, State laws compel attendance at school. Children labor, unpaid, as windowdressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the zNEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel trhat people call "the public school system".
Yep, special pleading. Do you deny that school provides a benefit for children (increased likelihood of greater salary and job benefits and greater freedom)?

People who do not graduate from school are more likely to suffer from poverty as adults. That's a fact.

Students' chances for success are minimal without high school
 
Not everything that is compulsory is slavery. Were the vast majority of the American soldiers who served in Vietnam and World War II slaves?
And all American soldiers who were drafted during WWII and other wars?
 
... BTW: Given that people who graduate from public school are far more likely to get a job than those who drop out, isn't a child and parent both rewarded for a child finishing his or her public education?
I guess private-sector employers are all part of the NEA conspiracy to enslave children.
"More likely than those who drop out" is like saying that slaves who stayed on the plantation ate better than runaways. Not "more likely to get a job" than children in independent or parochial schools.
Joshua Angrist
"Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education Research"
NBER Reporter, summer, 2003
One of the most controversial innovations highlighted by NCLB is school choice. In a recently published paper,(5) my collaborators and I studied what appears to be the largest school voucher program to date. This program provided over 125,000 pupils from poor neighborhoods in the country of Colombia with vouchers that covered approximately half the cost of private secondary school. Colombia is an especially interesting setting for testing the voucher concept because private secondary schooling in Colombia is a widely available and often inexpensive alternative to crowded public schools. (In Bogota, over half of secondary school students are in private schools.) Moreover, governments in many poor countries are increasingly likely to experiment with demand-side education finance programs, including vouchers.

Although not a randomized trial, a key feature of our Colombia study is the exploitation of voucher lotteries as the basis for a quasi-experimental research design. Because demand for vouchers exceeded supply, the available vouchers were allocated by lottery in large cities. Our study compares voucher applicants who won a voucher in the lottery to those who lost. Since the lotteries used random assignment, losers provide a good control group for winners. A comparison of voucher winners and losers shows that three years after the lotteries were held, winners were 15 percentage points more likely to have attended private school and were about 10 percentage points more likely to have finished eighth grade, primarily because they were less likely to repeat grades. Lottery winners also scored 0.2 standard deviations higher on standardized tests. A follow-up study in progress shows that voucher winners also were more likely to apply to college. On balance, our study provides some of the strongest evidence to date for the possible benefits of demand-side financing of secondary schooling, at least in a developing country setting.
Not compared to homeschoolers.
Marvin Minsky (Interview, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1994-July)
(Minsky): "... the evidence is that many of our foremost achievers developed under conditions that are not much like those of present-day mass education. Robert Lawler just showed me a paper by Harold Macurdy on the child pattern of genius. Macurdy reviews the early education of many eminent people from the last couple of centuries and concludes (1) that most of them had an enormous amount of attention paid to them by one or both parents and (2) that generally they were relatively isolated from other children. This is very different from what most people today consider an ideal school. It seems to me that 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.

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)
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.
Note the comment on the incentive structure that compulsory instruction creates.
 

Back
Top Bottom