But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?
Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system.
The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni...
We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.
What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum.
> The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.
Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong?
Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice.
Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.
That's what I'm saying. I wouldn't agree if we were in North Korea, but I will if we're talking about a third world country where the alternative to no public education is simply no education. What I see where I live is that where there is no public education, kids end up joining drug trafficking gangs, or end up crack addicts. If we're talking about Northern Europe, sure, go ahead, abolish public education, I won't be worried, I'm all for personal freedom from the state where it isn't irresponsible. It's just that some places, if you take away the state's presence, there are other forces with high interests in taking over that space where the state used to be.
Where I'm from, we have free schools (anarchist workshops where anyone can attend or present), volunteering workshops, apprenticeships, etc. If you're community has a mafia(s) abusing a local area, you don't send your kids to the biggest one for protection and call it moral. It's just more comfortable. The moral option would be to fight the coercion that your community is suffering from (which seems entrenched sadly).
Also, I don't think public schooling gives a free pass at the potentiality that these students won't join gangs. It's most likely a complex set of reasons that may include that gang being the dominant form of force in the area (a mafia/government w/o the monopoly on force).
Also, I don't believe there is such a thing a no education. Again, just because some people don't have book smarts doesn't mean they aren't smart.
Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.
I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails.
Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government.
Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?