5 ms·

I am always in support of less government - why in the world should a government be in control of the education of children? Society doesn't progress by circums

by Ixiaus 17y ago

I am always in support of less government - why in the world should a government be in control of the education of children? Society doesn't progress by circumscribing all of it's member entities, it progresses when those boundaries are pushed by people that do things different. I was home schooled most of my life, and I'm self educated; school was a failure for me because there was too much "authority" instead of "discovery" while learning.

bbb 17y ago
This is not a "black and white" issue with one true answer. You have to see this in the historic context. One of the reasons why the first German democracy (1918-1933) failed (and gave rise to Hitler) is because the German society was very much compartmentalized and split into "subcultures" at the time. In fact, large parts of the military chose to continue as "para-military" units after the end of WWI. These violent groups that saw themselves as above the law played a significant part in Hitler's ascent to power. When the current Germany was designed after WWII, many safeguards were built into the system to ensure that there would be no more "parallel" societies. Two obvious examples are 1) the universal draft (flow all parts of society through the military to prevent the military from isolating itself) and 2) no home schooling (the public schools serve to promote democracy and western values; the public school system is designed to be the "melting pot" that integrates immigrants and fringe groups). How would you feel about this case if the home schooling did not involve Christians (Note: I'm not religious myself.), but radical Moslems? What if it were about Nazis indoctrinating their kids with hate? What if it were about a sect that raises their kids to prepare for a collective suicide? The German (mainstream) belief is that the government has to step in in these cases. It has to protect the kids from their own parents. The family that was granted asylum may very well be fine parents and teachers (I don't know them), but for obvious reasons you can't have an effective law that says "you may only homeschool kids for Christian reasons, but other choices are not ok". So, the German society, under consideration of its history, chooses to err on the safe side: no homeschooling. Period. Of course, the particular circumstances may very much differ for other societies, so that other societies may reasonably come up with different rules (e.g., the US). But that does not invalidate the reasoning behind the German laws.
- oldgregg 17y ago
  The ultimate question is who is responsible for educating their children? Historically it's never been the state. Government run education went hand in hand with the industrial revolution-- it's designed to create a reliable (and pliable) workforce. By this point the public education complex is just one more oppressive power structure motivated primarily by self-preservation.
  - evgen 17y ago
    Historically, education was something for the elite because there was no need to educate the poor who would spend their lives performing unskilled labor; when it comes to education there is not a lot of historical precedent to fall back upon. In the US the concept of an educated citizenry was a core principle of the founders -- when you divest power to the masses you want them to be relatively smart about what they do with it. Public education predates the industrial revolution and while industrialists may have wanted a better-educated workforce that was not why public education was established. If a "pliable" workforce was desired then simple apprenticeship after basic literacy would have worked fine. Mass education gives a country more engineers, but is not required for simple factory work. It is in the interest of the state and it's citizens to seek the former and not just settle for the latter.
- araneae 17y ago
  One argument is that in order to maintain a free state, quite ironically, you need state indoctrination of the civic ideals of liberty. That is, in order to keep people from voting for despotic leaders you need to convince them that liberty is good. Public compulsory education seems like the best way to do that. Of course, that's failed (in my opinion). I think compulsory, public education teaches kids both implicitly and explicitly to do what their told by teachers and the state. So yes, I support the right of people to homeschool their children. There's the inherent danger that they'll teach their kids values you disagree with, but I fear that less then the gov't forcing all kids to learn the same values. The probability that those values will perfectly match mine (or anyone else's, for that matter) are pretty slim.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
utku_karatas2 17y ago
> why in the world should a government be in control of the education of children To maintain a minimum education level. In poorer countries no obligatory prime education will result poor families abondoning education of their kids completely and forcing them for child labour.

by Ixiaus 17y ago

bbb 17y ago

This is not a "black and white" issue with one true answer. You have to see this in the historic context. One of the reasons why the first German democracy (1918-1933) failed (and gave rise to Hitler) is because the German society was very much compartmentalized and split into "subcultures" at the time. In fact, large parts of the military chose to continue as "para-military" units after the end of WWI. These violent groups that saw themselves as above the law played a significant part in Hitler's ascent to power. When the current Germany was designed after WWII, many safeguards were built into the system to ensure that there would be no more "parallel" societies. Two obvious examples are 1) the universal draft (flow all parts of society through the military to prevent the military from isolating itself) and 2) no home schooling (the public schools serve to promote democracy and western values; the public school system is designed to be the "melting pot" that integrates immigrants and fringe groups). How would you feel about this case if the home schooling did not involve Christians (Note: I'm not religious myself.), but radical Moslems? What if it were about Nazis indoctrinating their kids with hate? What if it were about a sect that raises their kids to prepare for a collective suicide? The German (mainstream) belief is that the government has to step in in these cases. It has to protect the kids from their own parents. The family that was granted asylum may very well be fine parents and teachers (I don't know them), but for obvious reasons you can't have an effective law that says "you may only homeschool kids for Christian reasons, but other choices are not ok". So, the German society, under consideration of its history, chooses to err on the safe side: no homeschooling. Period. Of course, the particular circumstances may very much differ for other societies, so that other societies may reasonably come up with different rules (e.g., the US). But that does not invalidate the reasoning behind the German laws.

oldgregg 17y ago
The ultimate question is who is responsible for educating their children? Historically it's never been the state. Government run education went hand in hand with the industrial revolution-- it's designed to create a reliable (and pliable) workforce. By this point the public education complex is just one more oppressive power structure motivated primarily by self-preservation.
- evgen 17y ago
  Historically, education was something for the elite because there was no need to educate the poor who would spend their lives performing unskilled labor; when it comes to education there is not a lot of historical precedent to fall back upon. In the US the concept of an educated citizenry was a core principle of the founders -- when you divest power to the masses you want them to be relatively smart about what they do with it. Public education predates the industrial revolution and while industrialists may have wanted a better-educated workforce that was not why public education was established. If a "pliable" workforce was desired then simple apprenticeship after basic literacy would have worked fine. Mass education gives a country more engineers, but is not required for simple factory work. It is in the interest of the state and it's citizens to seek the former and not just settle for the latter.
araneae 17y ago
One argument is that in order to maintain a free state, quite ironically, you need state indoctrination of the civic ideals of liberty. That is, in order to keep people from voting for despotic leaders you need to convince them that liberty is good. Public compulsory education seems like the best way to do that. Of course, that's failed (in my opinion). I think compulsory, public education teaches kids both implicitly and explicitly to do what their told by teachers and the state. So yes, I support the right of people to homeschool their children. There's the inherent danger that they'll teach their kids values you disagree with, but I fear that less then the gov't forcing all kids to learn the same values. The probability that those values will perfectly match mine (or anyone else's, for that matter) are pretty slim.
rsheridan6 17y ago

utku_karatas2 17y ago

> why in the world should a government be in control of the education of children To maintain a minimum education level. In poorer countries no obligatory prime education will result poor families abondoning education of their kids completely and forcing them for child labour.