3 ms·
"Possibly unpopular opinion: school is not negotiable for children and so there's no guiding. It's pure coercion." There are lot's of things which are non-nego
by fsloth 11y ago
"Possibly unpopular opinion: school is not negotiable for children and so there's no guiding. It's pure coercion."
There are lot's of things which are non-negotiable for children. Things like brushing teeth, going to bed and washing hands after toilet. All of which have some intrinsic value beyond tradition.
Coercion is the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.. There are other means of guiding children to do something. These include gentle reminders, routines and and just agreement.
And, yes, coercion as well, when all other things fail. Hopefully not that much.
If a child goes routinely to school I would not call this an action under coercion, unless the child has learned e.g. that he needs to go to school so he does not turn into a destitute when he grows up.
"School was a great alternative at a time when it was the only place to get information. This is no longer true."
I don't think there ever was time when "school was the only place to get information". I would claim this is location based (if true even then). I.e. rural villages with low rate of literacy vs. a literate society with access to books.
Or, in pre-literate societies, just having access to a sufficient number of people would probably provide a venue for some information access.
Besides, providing information is not the only function a school has. My kid internalizes all math he is taught immediately and combines all new facts he learns into a logically cohesive model of the world which he has structured in his head.
However, he does need to learn how to live in a society and how to work with other people and school provides a good place for that.
- nightspirit 11y ago> If a child goes routinely to school I would not call this an action under coercion I'm actually young enough to remember what school looked like and I'm sure as hell many of the kids wouldn't attend if they didn't know that they are going to be forced by their parents or the nanny state anyway.
- fsloth 11y agoSorry, I'm a bit of a pedantic in discussions here. To simplify the situation let's claim that children do not go to school unless prompted by their parents. This is then an influence attempt by the parent to make the child follow with their directives. Such an attempt has usually three possible outcomes: commitment, compliance or conflict. Just because coercion can be used as an influence tactic does not mean it's always necessary to do so. Also, it seldom leads to the most preferred outcome (commitment). The point was - not all influence tactics can be categorized as coercion - not that the hypothetical child would not need external influence to attend school.
- jostylr 11y agoFor school, it is illegal not to attend. This means in America that people with guns can forcibly detain children not in school during the school day. Police proudly do so in an attempt to defeat crime since, in their opinion, all children not under the watch of an adult are criminals. How can being threatened with gun violence by the authorities not be coercion? They also have the power to rip a child from their parents. This is biologically a very serious threat.
- fsloth 11y agoI would generally call that a very poor situational awareness by the persons holding executive power. If the higher level goal for a state is to make people follow the law, then starting with violent coercion is a stupid influence tactic. There are other influence tactics as well. But, if the culture is such that coercive tactics take precedence then I suppose you can have a point. I would not start to unravel this by deregulating schooling but by fixing the habits and culture of the executive personnel, though.