RE: Compulsory Schooling is Child Imprisonment, Part 3
I still worry for the children of neglectful parents, and the many children who are in the care of non-family members (or worse, corporations).
Could you imagine what would happen to the children who are homed in centers that could just as easily be funded by a corporation as by the State? Without State controlled compulsory education, these thousands of children could become equivalent to their tens of thousands of adult counterparts in corporatized prisons churning out free labor and still being denied a useful education.
Without some standard of regulation, I feel we would be taking a step backwards in education.
I agree that we need to change the way we educate children, and that you are offering well thought alternatives. Unfortunately we can't enforce compulsory education for the children with no parents or bad parents alongside voluntary programs for those with parents who have their child's best interests at heart.
I'm not seeing why a voluntary education system would provide any worse outcomes for these children, on the whole, than does the compulsory system. The fact is, children of neglectful parents generally suffer and do not generally reach a high level of success in school or in life, regardless of whether they are churned through some conformity camp for 12 years. That these children of neglectful parents exist is no reason to limit the prospects of children whose parents are present, attentive, and involved parents.
Ditto for those children doomed to live in government care facilities or foster homes. The failure rates for these programs are staggering. I don't see why free market solutions would be any worse--at least there would be a greater number of options. Perhaps some of the options would be bad, but I believe it's only reasonable to assume that a greater number would be good. The corporatized prisons you mention are a perfect example of what happens in a monopoly. Don't make the common mistake of thinking that because these prisons are run by for-profit corporations that they are part of the free market. They would not exist in a free market. There'd be no one to pay them per inmate.
That's the thing about monopolies--if they produce a shitty product or service, there's no way out for anyone. A free market might have shitty products or services, but they also invariably have good products and services, and people have a choice which to use, or to use none. Therefore, fewer people will fall victim to them than in a monopoly situation.
Another important question to consider is whether education can be "given", or if it must be pursued. I believe it must be pursued. You can stand in the front of a classroom and teach all year, but if your student has no motivation to learn, he will not learn. Perhaps you can cram the very baseline minimum knowledge into him in an inefficient way; bring him up to a third grade reading level, make sure he knows how to count. But beyond that, learning requires curiosity and freedom of thought. If the student does not have or practice these attributes, then he will not become educated. And the problem is that compulsory schools, far from nurturing these attributes in children, extinguish them through control and regimentation. Even a child of neglectful parents can pursue an education--in a world of unlimited choices, what is to stop him?
While children are naturally curious, I think that at a bare minimum we need to plant the seed of scientific method for un-schooling to be successful.
While free-market schooling (and a free market all together) would solve many problems, oligopolic capitalist systems have all but destroyed the free market by creating huge financial barriers to entry in nearly every market. Pure competition only works in an environment that truly favors a free market.
There is no "we".
Only those industries which are heavily regulated, I think.
Powerful companies create regulation so that they can dominate or control an industry.
The "we" I refer to is society as a whole. If you do not wish to be included in that "we" that's fine.
I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am saying there are obstacles that I don't believe you are considering, and that without looking at the factual opposition to your proposal you weaken your overall argument.
Curiosity alone will not lead to education. Children, and adults must have some guidance in seeking, and inventing, solutions to problems. Academically, the best thing I ever learned was;
This is the basis of Scientific Method. This method encourages critical thinking, free speech, questioning authority, developing ideas, and learning from our peers. If society made this the foundation of education it would be a stronger system.
But just because an industry is heavily dominated by a small number of corporations does not mean that there are no other choices. There are very few places I can think of where you don't have other options for your groceries besides going to SuperCorpMart. I don't see this as oligarchic, and it's certainly not monopolistic, like the current public school system.
In the context of education, a free market system might develop into a similar situation as the grocery retail industry, where a few major players dominate a large market share. But think about what that means. The biggest grocery chains presumably got to be the biggest grocery chains because they offer what the consumers want--in this case good product selection, low prices, pleasant customer experience, and close proximity to their homes. And yet, still, if a person does not want to shop at SuperCorpMart for their groceries, there are other options almost everywhere. There are mom and pop groceries, health food stores, farmers markets, online grocery ordering services, food pantries, and you always have the option of growing your own food. I'm not seeing how it would be a bad thing if the education market looked like the grocery retail market.
What country do you live in? In the United States, cellular service is heavily regulated by the FCC.
Agreed. This is one reason why I'm an anarchist. If there was no vehicle for market compulsion, this would be near impossible to achieve.
I understand that you're referring to society as a whole. My point by saying "there is no we" is to show that, in most cases, and in all economically concerned cases, there is no such thing as "what is best for all of us." You have your opinion--that children should be taught using the scientific method as a foundation. Other people might think that it is best for them to learn an arts-centered curriculum. Others might value bilingual education above all else, and others might consider religious education as the most important foundation. There is no "we" because we don't all want the same things, and trying to convince all of society that your idea is best is going to be a never-ending pissing match. That's why the only thing that can be best for "we" is to let each individual make the choice for themselves.
Ditto!!!
I would like to see more diversity in human thought! I don't think there should be a 'bare minimum' in dogma, doctrine, nor ideology in such a massive number of people... It creates for a very boring society, a monoculture if you will :) Every good ecologist knows that monocultures are deadly for the environment!
I believe that this is actually the main function of compulsory education. Conformity to authority and to 'learn' how to be bored (as that is what is in store for many of the graduates of said system for the vast majority of their lives). I think it is phenomenal at this. I was in the U.S. military for 6 years and the boot camp process of 'breaking down and building up' is modelled near identically in nature to our educational systems. They are meant to create obedience, not educated citizens. Just offering another angle towards the massive issues surrounding our indoctrination camps :)
I'm loving reading and getting into all your thoughts (that sounded a bit creepy...) Haha!