Forced Schooling in America

[Anniee]

Ah yes...thanks Leopard :) I do indeed read the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education - invaluable stuff! I think Richard Maybury (who makes the subject matter of Austrian/monetarist economics as well as commonlaw accessible to kids as young as 12 or so) should be required curriculum in government schools Imagine youth educated to actually understand economics...REAL economics...wow.

[Drift]Did you take the "Are You an Austrian?" quiz? Maybe we should start a thread on that, I've been hoping someone would discuss it with me sometime.[/drift]

[m5lange1]

Leopard,

Good answers. Actually we are close to agreeing on many points. I too believe life is an education, therefore continues with or without any form of school (home or otherwise).

I too agree that any family that wants to home school their children should be allowed to. As I have said time and again I have nothing but respect for home schoolers.

When you say you believe I mean "formal" education I guess that depends on what you mean by "formal". For the sake of our discussion (so that we do not get bogged down in hair splitting) let us streamline it to literacy, since that was one of the first concerns of this topic. That is less apt to be learned just by living.


Therefore you are correct that my main concern with home schooling (NOT AS AN OPTION BUT AS THE ONLY RECOURSE) is many of the poor.
Not all of the poor, as you say. The vast majority of those care for their children and may well be better equipped to teach them than ANY other source.
But even the vast majority does not account for millions who's parents will shrug it off.

This is an area we may just agree to disagree. I cannot prove that there will be neglected and undetected children out there whith no method of checking since it is all speculation. But based on my expeiance of 25 years I have seen abusive situations discoverd at school that have gone undetcted in the years they have just lived at home with their parent(s).

Most people believe that there is always someone willing to help a family unable to teach thier children. I hold the belief that there are families who will never seek that help and,in fact, be hostile to it if it is offered.

Are they hostile to the schools that now exist? Most of the ones I am referring to are. The illiterate cannot teach literacy. Not even badly.

I totally agree with your point of phasing out. It is what I have advocated all along. In spite of the fact that many here seem to think I want to maintain government schools. It is even moving slower than I would like, which forms most of the basis of my wanting to support what we have in the interum.

Regarding my other point about demoralization.....
You may believe it is a good debate move to request examples of this "bashing" as I call it but when I was on the debate team in collage that was called the "Lions in Africa" ruse.

Question: Do lions in Africa eat Zebras?

Answer: Yes

Question: Can you give examples?

Answer: Well er.. how about this vidio of one being eaten?

Question: Do you really believe that one instance makes a universal truth?

Think about it. What would I have to do? Write down names and dates? I gave three examples (Probly in my deleted post) from this thread and was criticized for my lack of accuracy (quotes be damned) or begging the question when I failed to bring down the (lazy) quote. The point is not worth pages of:
so and so said ______ on _______.
Just to convince JB is not worth the work.
I believe it is one of those things that has become so common that people do not notice it anymore. But when you work with people who are on the reciving end it jumps out. If you care, as you listen to the news or read the paper start listening for it. You may be surprised.

Seeing the effect it has in the workplace is enough proof for me. If you are unconvinced... OK.

Anyway Leopard I think you and I are at least making some headway toward each other. You have constructive things to say.

I may even agree with you that LB is a good debater if I could see him provide some positive statement about something. In formal debate he would be required to support a proposal (affirmative) or some constructive alternative (negative (although this one usually defends the status quo)).

Since I am sort of under a microscope here I will clarify. While the negative postion usually defends the status quo there is a method called the affirmative negative where the negative team makes a couner proposal to the affirmiative instead of defending the status quo. In any case, in debate you have to support something, not just take shots. Note this is one of the biggest criticicms of the politicl debates.

He would lose points for spending so much of his time railing against logic and methodology of his opponents (a single mention of it to make the point then move on would be the way) while he should be making his own case.

When asked simply to state what would be your view of what would work, Leopard, you simpy resonded with what you believed would work.

LB said it was unfair if I requested that it be done without attacking another system. That would not win any debates. That says one is unable to make a proposal without building it on the wreckage of something else.

He obviously has a wonderful vocabulary. He is also an experienced critic. I will reserve my judgement of his debating ability when I see him defend something.

[Anniee]

There are a lot of problems with that. I think literacy is fine as a basis, so I'll go with that. How long do people think it takes to get a literate person? Not bloody long. About 100 hours of devoted instruction (with someone who is actually ready - say ten or even 12) and you are going to have someone who can read, write and calculate. If your goal is actually literacy, you can shitcan the schools as they are, let each kid get their one-half year of training (if their parents can't or won't do it any other way, as an optional thing) and be done with it. You want to quadruple that time, because you don't believe that's possible, fine. Make it two years. Give them access to a good library too. And instead of 20% illiterate we'll have nearly 100% literacy just like we used to before mandatory government schooling.

But literacy isn't the issue is it? The problem is abuse and neglect now. The actual need you are expressing is not a need for literacy, but a need to make sure all kids are out of their homes and under the care and supervision of others to be sure that they are not being neglected or abused. The actual need you are expressing is not a need for literacy, but a need to provide all-day day care for those who don't wish to take care of their own children. The need for education can clearly be met in other (cheaper, easier) ways. So can the need to be sure people are not abusing or neglecting their children. (Not without a significant cost to freedom, but it can still be met without a model whereby children are mandated to spend all day 9 months per year in a school building under the guise that they're being "schooled.") Considering that both of the first expressed needs can easily and MUCH more efficiently be met, we're left with the real reason. We must have all day day care for those who don't or don't want to take care of their own children.

I guess I can't help with that. Why the hell not just have a day care available for the people who HONESTLY WANT to foist their kids off on others every day, all day, but don't have the money to pay for it? There's STILL no need for mandatory all-day schooling. Those who are not genuinely poor can just pay for their own kids to be taken care of except for when they're getting their literacy.

I hope it's becoming clearer what I mean by MODEL. The MODEL of 13 years 6 hours a day of mandatory supervision by the state for ALL CHILDREN is simply not required to meet the need for literacy, education, or the spurious "detecting abuse/neglect." If you had to design the worst possible way to accomplish those goals, you might come up with this model. When pressed it is abundantly clear people stop pretending it is for education and start bringing all these other unrelated things into it, but that's good as it only goes to prove the original point in spades - this system was not designed or conceived to EDUCATE. There are a thousand REAL REASONS for it, but education isn't it.

I'm glad that has come out.

[m5lange1]

Anniee,

I get the impression you are looking for ways to argue with me. We are not all that far apart but you seem to misunderstand me. Are you angry with me for my opinions?

I am going to break this up because I think you may be missing some of what I say in my long paragraphs (I know I have a tendncey to skim that as well).

You get no argument from me that school takes way to long to achieve too little. I agree.

I think anyone who CHOOSES to home school their children should be allowed to do so since I think the expressed desire to do so precludes the population I am concerned with.

My referrence to abused children being detected in schools is only mentioned to make my point that some families do need a check system of some kind. I am not trying to make it a major point. If those references bother you, ignore them.

As I mentioned above, we have to agree to disagree. I believe there are children out there who are being reached (taught to read) that would not be if left to the devices of dysfunctional families.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And instead of 20% illiterate we'll have nearly 100% literacy just like we used to before mandatory government schooling. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Please understand. I have read this and not ignored it. It does not convince me we have ever had nearly 100% litteracy in this country. The time frame alone of pre-government schooling calls to question the accurate gathering of statistics. Reading a set of numbers collected from that time period simply does not convince me that the black, native american, remote agraculterall families were taken into account.

I tend to study the gathering methods, sampling distribution, number of "n" etc. for any set of statistics that I find suspicious. Are these even available for that data?

Also even if that is totally true the home schooling was not forced on a population that has been dependant on another system for generations.

If I am wrong, ok. But I get the impression you are angry with me for that opinion. Or think me stupid because I do not swallow it all hook line and sinker.

Hoping you understand I believe what I believe from an inside view of some very difficult cultures that I care enough about to dedicate my professional life to it. Try to look at the areas where we agree. I cant help but feel you are doing some selective reading of what I am typing.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I understand your dilema - as I see it, you two have misconstrued and perhaps misunderstood each other and it has gone past the point of logical debate. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Naturally I take issue with this claim, given that it is quite clearly false. Yes, as I have demonstrated, m5 has indeed twisted and avoided what I have clearly stated, but I have been quite careful to use her own words and statements so as to avoid the same difficulty. I understand that you may be trying to make peace, which is itself of course admirable, but to do so at the expense of truth is of course never admirable.

As for being a good debater, actually I am quite a poor one. The object of debators is to "win" over another, to convince others to swing to your own side. I have kept the same goal: truth, which means that if a sound argument is offered by another, I will immediately take it to heart and abandon the opposing position. As I tried in vain to get across previously, this is NOT a matter of personalities, or one person "winning" over another, it is about accurate reflection of reality and understanding truth.

Perhaps you are correct and none of this has anything to do with truth at all, or reason, or critical thought, and instead it is mere emoting and opininig without any grounds, but I take any and all statements purporting to describe reality at face value and seek out understanding, confirmation, and objective evaluation of them. For this, some choose to lash out and make false accusations. Fear is a powerful emotion, but it is completely unnecessary in this situation.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As I mentioned above, we have to agree to disagree. I believe there are children out there who are being reached (taught to read) that would not be if left to the devices of dysfunctional families.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

so I see two points within:
(1) that you consider it a 'good' thing to teach as many children as possible, without regard to cost, to become 'literate' (however you might define literacy)

(2) And this 'good' is so important that it should be backed up with force (governmental force through the public education system and compulsary education laws) to be used aainst dysfunctional(arbitrary) families.

am I correct? or did I add a few of my own embelishments there?

michael

Lightbearer: yes indeed, my claim may well be false - I am operating with limited access to data here and extrapolating to a conclusion which is not necessarily the only possible interpretation

[m5lange1]

Just for the record...
I am a he not a she.

m5, I apologize for the misuse of pronouns. I was under the belief that you stated you were a woman. I stand corrected.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Think about it. What would I have to do? Write down names and dates? I gave three examples <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

To be accurate you would have to admit that in fact you gave NO examples of this at all. You repeated your conclusion, which obviously cannot count as evidence for itself, and you cited two instances where I noted the ACTUAL FAILURES of the currect system. No where did you offer anything that anyone could reasonably call "bashing."

BTW in response to your dismissal of the request for some sort of support for your rather unlikely claims, a dismissal you dubbed the "lions in africa," perhaps we ought to stick to the common ground available and accessible to us all: reason. The appeal to "common knowledge" is itself a logical fallacy. Consider that it was once "common knowledge" that the earth was flat, but that did not make the earth flat.

Offering evidence for your claims, especially when they are as unlikely as those you have offered, is not a matter of merely convincing one individual, it is a matter of offering a reasoned argument. It also allows you to get past preconceived positions that may be in error. Anytime you simply assume your position to be true, without the advantage of connection to reality or sound reasoning, you run the risk of holding false beliefs, and certainly do hold unfounded beliefs.

Now since you are asserting that these unfounded beliefs are necesssary truths, so much in fact that you have avoided and ignored ALL refutations, problems have arisen: you have chosen to employ personal attacks rather than examine the facts and the issues, for but one example.

Anytime you find that reality does not match your ideas, issues, desires, beliefs, etc, it is always your ideas, issues, desires, beliefs, that are mistaken, not reality.

I have cited several possibilities, so your false claim that I have offered nothing positive is absurd and naught but another ad hominem. If you had not jumped to the emotional reaction and instead read what was posted you would have noted this.



</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
He would lose points for spending so much of his time railing against logic and methodology of his opponents (a single mention of it to make the point then move on would be the way) while he should be making his own case.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And herein lay one of the differences: I care about truth and reason, not trivial debating objectives. I do not care what some government school coach tells me will "score points" instead I am treating you as a worthwhile individual with something to offer, rather than as an opponent to beat. If only you have offered a similar respect and had the similar goal of truth... .

BTW I did not speak to your methodology at all. As for a single mention regarding the logical fallacies, in each instance I did but make a single mention, then you employed more logical fallacies and personal attacks. Do you expect a different result from the same actions taken repeatedly?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
LB said it was unfair if I requested that it be done without attacking another system. That would not win any debates.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Again we see the difference between us, I could not possibly care less about meaningless games, rather I choose truth as the goal.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I will reserve my judgement of his debating ability when I see him defend something.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And here we hit upon the problem: you refuse to see what has been right in front of you the entire time. But then I have already conceded that I do not give a whit about debating, but rather about truth and understanding. Debating games simply distract from important and meaningful goals.

[Anniee]

"We are not all that far apart"

We're oceans apart.

"but you seem to misunderstand me."

No, really I don't, but you either misunderstand me or are purposely mischaracterizing and leaving out the most important substance.

"Are you angry with me for my opinions?"

No, though I'm getting a bit annoyed with the dodgeball and the bait-and-switch.

"I am going to break this up because I think you may be missing some of what I say in my long paragraphs (I know I have a tendncey to skim that as well)."

I haven't missed anything due to skimming. I've been known to read entire books, even. With paragraphs. No need to condescend me by breaking it up as though I were a child. However your own tendency to skim (and the fact that I am imparting whole, unfragmented, global ideas as opposed to piecemeal bits - and oddly enough fragmentation is the method schools use to teach....) may be the reason that every time you do answer me you leave out the actual SUBSTANCE and what I've actually SAID and instead focus only on the tangential and start up the violins. Or you simply ignore it, like the concrete examples of indoctrination I brought up. Don't bother at this point.

"You get no argument from me that school takes way to long to achieve too little. I agree."

That was really not the point whatsoever. Could you please go back and read the whole post?

"I think anyone who CHOOSES to home school their children should be allowed to do so since I think the expressed desire to do so precludes the population I am concerned with."

Yes, we've established you are not anti-homeschooling, no need to keep saying it. Not for me, anyway.

As I said above, with the population you are concerned with you have expressed a need for education/literacy, screening to prevent abuse/neglect, and day care. Every single one of these needs can be met more efficiently without anything remotely approaching the model of Prussian-style day school for K-12.

As to "buying" our prior literacy rates, if you aren't aware of the staggeringly high literacy we (and England) had prior to your current favored institution, I'm sorry. It's common knowledge, but it is also easily verifiable. I suggest reading up on it. What you failed to note is that it wasn't even the point. You skipped right past the entire substance of my post and instead chose to focus on a tangential and minor point.

You have shown yourself very adept at simply shifting your argument to some new plane/sphere the instant I address any of your points, and you've done it in a variety of ways now (bait/switch, ignore substance, deny your prior points, focus on tangent, etc). Frankly I don't see why I would bother with that nonsense anymore. Write it off as whatever you like, pretend I'm angry at your opinions or that you won't "buy my line"; but as far as I'm concerned you've shown yourself either impaired, willfully ignorant, or devious, and whichever it is I have no desire to continue to engage it.

[Anniee]

By the way, I DO love this topic, and if anyone wishes to engage in it honestly and intelligently, I am still interested in doing so. Just for the record, I'm still very much into it. Thanks.

[m5lange1]

Leopard,

Yea you did make some assumptions.

I do firmly believe that it is good for as many children as possible to be taught to read. Aside from just caring about children I think it makes for a stronger society.

I am not sure where the impression

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
without regard to cost<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Maybe because you think the government system too costly? It is. I agree. I would never recommend it if it were not already there. The point I keep trying to make is that I would like to see something (not necessarily a system or a model, just a plan and the preparedness to put that plan into place) there to replace it before we eliminate it. But definately not without regard to cost.

I was really not ready for this one.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And this 'good' is so important that it should be backed up with force (governmental force through the public education system and compulsary education laws) to be used aainst dysfunctional(arbitrary) families.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It seems the population of this thread hate the system so much that they can't read past anyone suggesting it be supported in any way.

SKIMMERS AND DEDICATED RESPONDERS PLEASE READ THIS>>>>
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
M5Lange1 does not think, nor ever has, that government interference in education is necessary. Neither does he believe compulsory attendance in any model or system is necessary, only that it is in effect currently. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I also think saying to be used "against" dysfunctional families is just a negative spin on saying "for" the children of dysfunctional families.

But no I do NOT think compulsary school should be enforced on those families. I would settle for a periodic check whether governmental or private. Whether federal or community based.

All I would ask is some check system and some plan to aid the children who are failing.

I also would disagree with just telling families they are on there own all of a sudden but since you alredy stated that you believed in a phasing period I think we are in agreement there already.

[Anniee]

Checks, eh? Leave me out. We opted out of the whole system when we chose to homeschool. Check someone else :)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But no I do NOT think compulsary school should be enforced on those families. I would settle for a periodic check whether governmental or private. Whether federal or community based. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And here again we hit another crucial point in the discussion. Others are suggesting alternatives, but here you clearly state that some specific top down system must be in place, otherwise NO CHECKS would be possible. Rather than allowing individuals to choose what is important to their own children's education, you are suggesting that some mysterious others, who are presumably omniscient and know what one curriculum serves all children, have the authority to rule over these parents who certainly have the strongest connection to those children.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
Checks, eh? Leave me out. We opted out of the whole system when we chose to homeschool. Check someone else :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Where do you live? Here my children still have to take the same tests that public school children take, even though they homeschool. As a matter of fact, we will have to go to court soon because we haven't been able to afford the $300 proficiency test that we are forced to make our son take in order to keep him homeschooled for another year.

Even though we homeschool, we are still expected to teach the same things they do in public school, we are still held to that curriculum. Fortunately though, we can teach him things beyond that, there are still benefits to homeschooling irregardless. But there are still checks, the school board still dictates what you must teach.

[Leopard]

it is simply immoral, PackRat, that you are forced to jump through those hoops - these are some of the ways that the public school crowd is able to still monopolize the education market - they raise the barriers to entry so that poorer folks HAVE to succumb to the public school or face 'penalties...

where do you live, sir (or ma'am)?

I currently reside in Nevada

michael

[RebelWithanAK]

It is immoral to demand a certain level of competency? We shouldn't let them "monopolize the education market"? Either you're advocating willful ignorance or you're touting that education's a luxury, and I don't know which idea's worse.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
it is simply immoral, PackRat, that you are forced to jump through those hoops - these are some of the ways that the public school crowd is able to still monopolize the education market - they raise the barriers to entry so that poorer folks HAVE to succumb to the public school or face 'penalties...

where do you live, sir (or ma'am)?

I currently reside in Nevada

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, the easy part first, I'm a male and I live in Ohio.

In some aspects I don't mind living up to the curriculum, but in some other aspects, I want to teach my children to think critically and question things instead of accept everything as fact blindly. By nature, this would lead to certain difficulties when taking tests on topics that are open to debate in regard to the 'facts' the tests expect to be accepted as facts.

An easy example: Who discovered America? in this school district, anything other than Columbus is not an acceptable answer.

The other issue is of course that we must pay for tests that range in cost from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. This is nothing but a tax to prevent those with few resources from condemning their children to retail job training, which is what public school seems to have become. If the school board wants to test a home schooled child, they should pay for it. If I want to test him, I'll make a test myself or pay for it.

Blah... Anyway... I'm off to look for more lessons to teach today.

[Leopard]

simple: it is immoral to use force on people, steal a portion of their life, who have harmed no one

you are free to demand whatever competenancy level you deem necessary for you and yours, but not to institute such arbitrary 'quotas' on others over and above their own choices.

I take it you do not agree with the phrase 'monopolize the education market' - does it not very clearly describe the effects of various government laws and taxes on the education market?

I am not touting 'willful ignorance' or anything of the sort

Education being a luxury to some is undeniable, education being a 'right' in the respect that others in america term it is... a dishonest use of the word 'right' and presentation of educations place in human society

mostly self-schooled, in spite of the public education system,
michael

[Anniee]

It would be immoral even if the tests were free Leopard. (That was written in response to your first post about the cost of the test...I see your above post and you're absolutely right.)

Packratt, I live in one of the fairly free states, New Jersey. We are surrounded by heavily regulated (in the case of PA, fascist actually) states but have remained so far free. Alaska is a free state. I can't remember now which others are, but I know of some homeschooled kids who actually make it a point to keep maps with the free states highlighted on their walls - heh I thought that was cool when I first heard it. Here there is no mandatory testing, and they are not allowed to monitor us. If they have some reason to believe a family isn't educating, the burden of proving that is on them where it belongs. We are presumed innocent (at least as far as official policy is concerned - plenty of districts try to usurp us) until proven guilty. This is as it should be, and as the Supreme Court has determined with regard to parents and children.

There are so many things wrong with what they're doing to you that they can't be separated, really. First of all most of these standardized tests were never meant to be taken individually per student, like a report card. They were not designed for that. They were designed to have results gathered for statistical purposes. To use them as a bludgeon against students outside government schools is abominable. It not only uses the test for purposes for which they weren't designed, it forces the curriculum. But of course they are already forcing you to do that, which again is abominable. Why on earth would I want to match what they're doing? How dare they try to force me to?

Also, where is the mandatory home/private school for gov't schooled children who fail these tests? You won't find it, presumably. Their own failure is used to justify getting MORE power and MORE money from the rest of us. One of the worst things I can think of is the hours states - those that mandate how many HOURS the kids have to be in "school." That's fine for government school systems, but what does it have to do with us? We may be using completely different methods, and for damn sure we're infinitely more efficient - I know my kids and I breezed through several years worth (according to gov't school) of math in a few months...yet they would require some arbitrary and insane number of hours according to their arbitrary and fragmented schedules? Once again forcing their MODEL of education on us. Not to mention many of us INTEGRATE subjects rather than fragmenting them - teaching whole things like in the real world. How can they possibly judge such a thing when it's nothing like what they do? (This link contains some info on the origins and purposes of the fragmentation I mention: http://www.dvschool.org/psngatto.htm )

However, let me just ask...many districts DO demand much more of homeschoolers than is their legal right within their states - you are a member of HSLDA and make very sure to only give them the absolutely REQUIRED (minimum) things according to the law of your state, right? You aren't giving them more than is absolutely required of you, I mean? Many times people mistakenly think something is required of them just because their superintendent or other official wrote a letter demanding it or drew up a form, and people do it, which makes it harder on the rest of the people who are fighting for homeschool freedom in that state. For $100 a year and a lawyer at your service if you ever need one, HSLDA is an amazing bargain. Plus the information you get in the Court Report is unbeatable.

[Anniee]

Your last line made me think of Thomas Jefferson's assertion, Leopard, that he never let his SCHOOLING get in the way of his EDUCATION. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? :)