14 DAY TRIAL // While trawling the Internet for useful bits of information that may come in handy at some point or another in life, I came by this gem of a post, made on the Senate Site by State Senator Aaron Osmond, a Republican from Utah. What he is arguing is that education should not be mandatory to all kids.
As someone who has spent 12 years in state-funded schools, my first intention was to laugh at this very notion. However, in the two weeks since I first found this material, I gave the idea some thought multiple times, and eventually decided to take it seriously. So here's what I've found on the issue so far.
Background
I'm not what you would call a Democrat, primarily because I do not live in the United States, but also because, after getting a degree in political studies in college I've had just about enough to politics for one life. Still, if I had to choose, I would probably not enroll in the Republican Party any time soon, just because I hate to be conservative, and think that an open mind is the only way to move forward.
From time to time, I come across Republican proposals that literally make my mind take a break, and go out for some coffee. At first, I thought that the compulsory education proposal was just another absurd idea, but apparently many people agree with Osmond, and not just in Utah.
The Senator provides in his blog post a link to a document written by Oak Norton, called The Need to End Compulsory Education – A Freedom-Based Argument. It makes for a somewhat interesting read, since it features both logical and rather poorly-conceived arguments about why governments should not play a role in deciding how, where and when children will receive education.
Norton quotes psychiatrist Thomas Szasz as saying that the public school system is trying to teach children a lot about the value of contracts and initiative, all while striving to include everyone in the same set of norms. The psychiatrist argues that exposure to compulsion and conformity cannot directly lead to initiative. Seeing how I've covered some studies suggesting that school curbs lateral thinking in children, I tend to agree to this argument, at least in part.
I also agree to parts of Norton's argument that the modern-day school system is ridged, centralized, and impersonal, and that that sends a mixed signal to children, who are constantly asked to think outside the box, but within the framework of the system nonetheless. To be perfectly honest, if someone in a position of authority were to ask me how I would change this, I would not have a clear answer for them.
History of compulsory education
Compulsory education did not always exist. Back in the Middle Ages, the Church largely held the monopoly on education, and only people who would later go on to become priests had access to knowledge. Empress Maria Theresa was the first to introduce mandatory education in Europe, in 1774. The United States followed suit in 1852, when the American Commonwealth of Massachusetts introduced compulsory education. The last state to adhere to this system was Mississippi, as late as 1918, at the end of the World War One.
Currently, the age of schooling varies in the US from 6 to 17, depending on state. In some areas, school starts at the age of 5, whereas in others children only start attending primary school at 8. Consequently, the ending age is 15 to 18. In some states, parents can give their approval for their children to finish their studies earlier, though why anyone would do that is beyond me.
Interestingly, the US Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly give the federal government authority over regulating education. As such, I argue that the role of the government in education in this country is indirect, and somewhat limited. The power to directly regulate the framework of the education system is reserved to each state, under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Federal jurisdiction only applies to those private or public schools that demand and accept educational funds from the US government. This includes taking part in collegiate federal financial aid programs. In other parts of the world, the Ministry of Education dictates funding, teaching, employment, curricula and policies related to public schooling. In the US, these attributions fall to locally-elected school boards, who have complete jurisdiction over their school districts.
As far as I can see, the overarching question that Osmond is posing is whether or not government in general should substitute itself for parents, and take several of their attributions.
“Some parents completely disengage themselves from their obligation to oversee and ensure the successful education of their children. Some parents act as if the responsibility to educate, and even care for their child, is primarily the responsibility of the public school system,” he writes.
“As a result, our teachers and schools have been forced to become surrogate parents, expected to do everything from behavioral counseling, to providing adequate nutrition, to teaching sex education, as well as ensuring full college and career readiness,” the Senator adds.
Parental versus government authority
The official then goes on to admit that one of the most important reasons for adopting compulsory education is the fear that irresponsible parents would not educate their children. This fear is perhaps more justified in poor countries, where kids are oftentimes requires to perform agricultural labors, take care of animals, or work from a very early age. However, the fact that some parents are simply degenerates cannot be ignored, as examples abound on TV and elsewhere.
While it is true that public education was an opportunity and a privilege – and not an obligation – before, I would remind Mr. Osmond that this was the case in 1890, which was roughly around the time when Marx's third issue of Das Kapital was published. Just like his writings are not as valid today as they were more than a century ago, so the conservative view of education no longer holds merit as well.
One of the things Osmond says that do make sense is that the “local teacher was viewed with respect and admiration as a professional to assist a parent in the education of their child” back then. I, too, feel that many parents are simply relieved to renounce responsibility of their children in favor of schools.
I am not one to judge their reasons for doing so, since some may be well-grounded, such as a busy work schedule. However, this does leave a lot of room for abuse. It is nowadays becoming easier for numerous parents to simply pick on teachers and schools for failing to provide their children with the very basic education that they themselves should have provided.
Another issue Osmond and I share with the public school system is that teachers are often held accountable by parents when the former try to discipline children for their bad behavior or poor grades. Personally, I feel that this sends the wrong message to unruly kids, who start thinking that they can get away with everything. Parents are exclusively to blame here, due to their unjustified attachment to the idea that their children can do no wrong, and that teachers must therefore be always wrong.
Osmond also argues that schools and teachers oftentimes appear to be insensitive to issues raised by parents who are actively engaged with education their children and supporting the public school system. This is where one of the fundamental flaws of mass education comes in – encouraging students that fit a mold and punishing those who do not adhere to the curricula.
I believe that a system of education should be set up where children can exploit their unique needs and inclinations, and deal with their personal challenges in a nourishing environment. Standardizing everything is not always the best way forward, I would argue. However, I cannot agree with what Osmond is proposing, which is passing the entire burden of education from schools onto parents.
I am a working person. I have a house to look after, and a young puppy to raise. However, I am only around the house for 4 to 5 hours a day before I have to crash due to extreme fatigue. If I were a parent today, I would literally have no way to educate a child. It would also do good to note here that kids learn best in the morning, due to superior brain performances before noon. Teaching my child math or English after 7 o'clock would be extremely difficult for the both of us.
Norton argues in his material that abolishing the mandatory education system would do nothing except restore the natural rights of self-government to the people, which would be in tune with the tenets of the US Constitution. He argues that the federal government has taken these liberties away from its citizens abusively.
As of yet, I am not convinced whether or not I agree with him. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is very complicated precisely due to the fact that it goes all the way back to human nature. If you are a firm believer in the idea that humans are inherently good, then it would make sense to allow parents – as rational actors – to take care of, and educate, their children.
However, if the opposite is true, and humans are inherently evil, bad or selfish, then the entire foundation of the argument above crumbles into dust, and kids stand to lose the most. Kids, in this case, meaning future generations, or the people who will carry what our generations build forward. Just to clarify, I am an adept of this notion, since as far as I can see, goodness is fleeting among people, and personal interest seems to prevail.
What I find particularly interesting in Norton's text is a question he poses: “Are we willing to live by the principles of liberty and individual agency, or continue to embrace the fears that education requires compulsion because free will is too dangerous to leave to chance?”
I think that he hits the nail on the head with this query. Personally, I would argue that free will is too dangerous to leave to chance, especially in the hands of non-rational actors. The debate foreshadowed here is that between people who believe in a negative human nature and the perils of free will in the hands of stupid people, and those who argue that human nature is good, and that free will should always be allowed in society, regardless of the outcome.
Short Intermission
The great philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued centuries ago, in his book Emile: or, On Education, that children are perfectly designed organisms who are ready to learn from their environments, and then grow on to become fully-functional and healthy adults. He advocated a teaching method where the kids are removed from society, for instance taken to a country house, and there exposed to mysteries, puzzle-solving problems and alternate conditioning teaching methods.
He argued that this is the only way to ensure that the malign influence of society and political or financial interests do not affect the children. Rousseau was also the first thinker to encourage parents and teachers to admit the nature of their legitimation for teaching, which is basically physical force. He argued that parents and teachers had no foundation for their position of authority in front of kids except the phrase “I am bigger and stronger than you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche also took issue with education in the 19th century, when he wrote that “there are no educators. As a thinker, one should speak only of self-education. The education of youth by others is either an experiment, conducted on one as yet unknown and unknowable, or a leveling on principle, to make the new character, whatever it may be, conform to the habits and customs that prevail.”
In essence, his argument against mandatory education is one of uniformity trumping individuality. His idea was echoed in the 1940s by thinker Herbert Read, who said that “mankind is naturally differentiated into many types, and to press all these types into the same mold must inevitably lead to distortions and repressions.”
This is the end of Part 1 of this editorial. It will be continued next week with Part 2, so check back for more.