This is a great post with lots of interesting points to ponder. It’s also extremely timely for me, as I just had a conversation with my dad the other day about needs vs wants vs ___ (something I’ll get to in a minute)
I will admit, education is not my forte when it comes to policy (though it does interest me and I do have opinions about it, unlike immigration where I don’t have a clue 😛). I agree that our model in (in the US at least) is outdated and geared more towards preparing future assembly line workers. There should be more flexibility in the classroom and less compulsory curriculum for the student, but I don’t think it can drop to zero. I agree that every child does indeed want to learn, although they vary wildly in what they want to learn about. I think the solution is a bare minimum of core requirements (ugh, reminds me of the phrase “Common Core”, a disaster here in the USA in my opinion) and then a slew of electives, free time, unstructured group projects, and guided mentorship/apprenticeship. Labor intensive to be sure, but if I’m making my wish list (want list?) why not go big?
I want to live in a society where everyone can read and write. But I really don’t care if someone can’t multiply or divide. I want to live among people who know how our government works, but I don’t care if they don’t know who the first president was. Less Washington the man, more Washington D.C. Make history optional. The people who want to be there will still go. It might even surprise us all to see the students who show up when it’s not forced or when they can participate on a pass/fail or even audit basis. History is just one example - 90% of required classes could propbably be made optional.
Anyway, back to my bigger picture. I think in addition to needs and wants, we also have rights. And just like you separated needs into essential and non-essential, we also have both inherent and given rights. The right to freedom of religion is inherent to each human. The government does not “grant” you that right, it just recognizes and protects a preexisting perk of being human. Driving a car, on the other hand, is a granted right (or privilege, if you like) which can be regulated, controlled, and revoked. You do not have an inborn right to drive your car down a public highway. The government grants you that right.
Where it gets tricky, and where the conversation with my dad came from, is the “right to keep and bear arms” in the United States. My dad had been arguing with a coworker who said he “needed” to own an AK-47. I would not agree with that statement, and neither did my dad. No one “needs” a military style rifle. But where my father and I diverge is on whether we believe a US citizen has the right to own a military style rifle. But even if you say yes they do, you still have to distinguish between an inherent right and a right that the government grants you. I won’t soil your peaceful education post with anything more than that regarding firearms 😉
I think it is easier to frame this dilemma in the context of health care (which is my forte), so here I go. I think people definitely have esssntial needs when it comes to health care, especially with chronic diseases or serious illness. I believe that everyone has the granted right to receive emergency treatment, palliative care, and stabilization of acute episodes. However, I don’t believe humans have an inherent right to health care. That is my major disagreement with many people on this issue, but there you go. I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to receive the best medical treatment science can offer. Again, I’ll just leave that at that.
So to come back around to your education post, we’ve established that there is a need to educate the populace and that most people want at least some degree of education. I think the missing link here is to define whether or not any of this is a right, and then further whether it’s a granted right or an inherent (aha, I just remembered “inalienable” is the term I should have been using) right. I’m not sure where I fall on that question. I’d love to hear what you think, though!
Thank you so much for this thoughtful reply @dollarandsense - you've added even more to contemplate with this response. If only I had greater voting power! I find insight and conversation such as this worth much more than the small change I can offer currently.
I'm going to throw a curly statement out there - it relates to rights. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this notion, I'm merely putting it out there as a what if. You see, I struggle sometimes with the notions that the word rights elicits in me.
Personally, I see the word rights stemming from the word entitlement, and once we feel we are entitled to something, it brings about all sorts of misinformation and problems. Your firearm debate example highlights this (which by the way, I don't mind you bringing to the table in this thread. It's a difficult debate, one I'm glad Australia sorted out years ago!). The coworker your Dad had the argument with believes he is entitled (because he has a right) to own an assault rifle, but what actually makes him entitled to this? And while I'm sure your Dad's coworker would argue that the government has said he does, we can then extrapolate this out to, well, what gives the government the 'right' to grant this to him, and so on and so forth (probably quite philosophical actually - what came first, the chicken or the egg?!).
To get back the the curly statement I mentioned earlier, let me pose it as a question: What if we don't actually have a right to anything?
Now, please don't misinterpret this. I'm not arguing that you're wrong - far from it. I'm just playing devil's advocate and throwing something different into the ring. What if we're not entitled to healthcare, firearms, or any other item we come into possession of? What if it's just that we're lucky enough to live in countries that can offer opportunities that we now take for granted? Like you said in your post - I'm not sure where I fall on whether we actually have the right to something or not. Maybe rights are determined by where one lives as opposed to anything else. I guess someone who is seriously ill and had never received medical treatment before would just be super pleased to finally get some - right or not.
Long story short, if we were to settle on rights existing (because in reality they do), and we were to determine education as a right, then I guess it would be an inherent one. But then that summation is only really as true as the circumstances you are born into. Many children born into poverty or under the rule of tyrannical governments probably don't automatically have the right to education, inherent or granted.
Difficult to answer, @dollarsandsense. Thought provoking, but not easy to answer.
Indeed it is not easy! Love jumping in on an interesting conversation such as this. The dialogue is its own reward!
I like your "granted rights" as being linked to the entitlement mentality. That just because you have a right to something does not obligate anyone else to give it to you.
Also interesting point of view - that there are no rights. I still want to say there have to be some inherent and inalienable rights. For instance, everyone has the right to be free from slavery. But then prison is a form of slavery if you squint hard enough... so maybe you're correct in that there are truly no rights! I will have to think on that more.
For what it's worth, the UN has "decreed" or whatever that there are a certain number of fundamental human rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
In case you're in the mood for some light reading XD
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a historic document that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its third session on 10 December 1948 as Resolution 217 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the then 58 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favor, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.
The Declaration consists of 30 articles affirming an individual's rights which, although not legally binding in themselves, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The Declaration was the first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966, and came into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.
Hah! Didn't know this was here!
I'm glad to get you thinking @dollarsandsense. Not enough people do that nowdays!! Just to reiterate, I'm not stating I'm right, but I do think there may be merit in that ideology. Would really like to hear your ideas once you've pondered for a while.
I have heard that the UN have their 'bill of human rights'. Not so much because I sought it out, but more so because I have heard of it from other teachers - humanities and history teachers mainly.
I'll follow your link and have a bit of a read very soon.