Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Famine]

For one, education works best when parents are actively engaged in their child's learning. And parents have the right to choose where their children are educated, be it a public, private or secular school.

Or at home...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Or at home...

That, too.

Of course, each option has points in favour or against. For example, if you're a practicing Christian, you may enrol your child in a Christian school so that they may be educated by teachers with similar values - but these schools typically have lower educational outcomes, since they employ teachers on the basis of their faith rather than their educational ability.

 

[Famine]

That, too.

Of course, each option has points in favour or against. For example, if you're a practicing Christian, you may enrol your child in a Christian school so that they may be educated by teachers with similar values - but these schools typically have lower educational outcomes, since they employ teachers on the basis of their faith rather than their educational ability.

Oddly, Catholic schools have amongst the best results* in the UK, to the point where parents will actually "become" Catholic in order that their children become eligible.

*Where results refers to objective scores on final exams, rather than the production of rounded, functional human beings

 

[Spurgy 777]

You're within as-much-as-makes-no-difference of suggesting that my wife and I teaching our two year old to count (and she's started doing basic calculations - she's three next month) should be illegal because we are not teachers. Well, I sort of am, but I don't possess teaching qualifications.

I'm not though, what I'm suggesting has no impact on what parents teach. It only has an impact on people who are hired to teach, so in effect, all kids would be taught by their parents, at least one teacher who meets a minimum standard, and pretty much anyone else who hasn't been paid to teach.

Educating is a parent's job. Who they choose to employ to take this job off them is their prerogative.

Not really, that offers no protection to kids with parents who want to just keep them at home and teach them lies and misinformation. As I said before, it's unrealistic to control what parents teach, but you can at least make sure there is someone teaching kids some truth as well.

Either they're elected lawmakers (representative government) or not elected lawmakers (worse).

I don't see how that is worse when they are regulated and controlled by the public. In fact, I'd rather an unelected, but publicly controlled (and effectively run) body of relevant professionals/experts make the countries policies and laws than elected middlemen with an agenda who don't really know what they're on about.

The basics of how the regulation process would work are that members of the public would put forward arguments about how things should or shouldn't be taught, (or in other words if they are fact, fiction, or something inbetween), and then those arguments would be reviewed by independent (of both the government and the independent body) professionals and experts in the relevant fields who would decide on the validity of the argument, as well as justifying their reasoning. If the independent experts come to a verdict that is different to what the independent body is currently teaching, then the body would be forced by the law to change.

 

[Famine]

I'm not though, what I'm suggesting has no impact on what parents teach. It only has an impact on people who are hired to teach, so in effect, all kids would be taught by their parents, at least one teacher who meets a minimum standard, and pretty much anyone else who hasn't been paid to teach.

Okay, so this:

Parents can teach what they want, as unfortunately it is unrealistic to control what nonsense some parents teach. But I would suggest making it compulsory for all kids to be taught by a teacher, whether at home, or at a school, doesn't matter, and that all teachers must meet the minimum standard. That way you can at least ensure that all kids are being taught some sense to help counter whatever nonsense their parents may be coming out with.

Means that, wherever a child is taught, at least one person who does the teaching must be a teacher?

So parents who want to homeschool their children must pay for a teacher? Really?

Aside from all other considerations of forcing people to buy a product or service - which is almost as anti-libertarian as it gets - how will that work exactly? At what age does this start - would I be breaking the law teaching Minifam2 how to count aged 2? Exactly what proportion of the child's education must be taught by the teacher - will an hour a week suffice? What subjects must the teacher teach, or do we need a specialist teacher for each subject? Who monitors the standards of this teacher in a private home - do we give schools inspectors the power of entry to domiciles?

Not really, that offers no protection to kids with parents who want to just keep them at home and teach them lies and misinformation. As I said before, it's unrealistic to control what parents teach, but you can at least make sure there is someone teaching kids some truth as well.

Define truth, because it looks like it's a choice of either government set standards (propaganda) or standards set by a the public-regulated body (public opinion). Depending on the size of the regulatory body, this system is open to the state-consented teaching of rubbish, like Creationism or radical Islam. Having been intimately involved with the National Curriculum of the UK in the last decade, I can tell you that what they teach in science isn't necessarily the truth and Minifam1 has been taught sufficiently well that she can spot a misleading - or leading - question from her teachers at ten paces.


Remember, teaching a child is a parent's job. It's no-one else's job to tell me how to educate my children - and it's not mine to tell anyone else how to educate theirs. The systems we've developed to have someone else teach them things while they're looking after them should reflect that.

 

[KSaiyu]

So parents who want to homeschool their children must pay for a teacher? Really?

It's a way of providing continuity. This goes back to the argument of giving up certain freedoms for the benefit of the society you live in - the services from a teacher would be an adjunct to what you are teaching. It's an unfortunate fact that some parents won't teach their daughters to count at age 2, or even 20 because they believe there is no need for them to know that. This is where the protection is necessary.

 

[Famine]

It's a way of providing continuity. This goes back to the argument of giving up certain freedoms for the benefit of the society you live in - the services from a teacher would be an adjunct to what you are teaching.

You can't give up a freedom if you don't have it...

Besides, a society in which freedoms are respected is far more beneficial to those who live in it than one in which they are not. We've seen enough end products of those societies over the years to know this, but apparently we keep forgetting. Remember, the smallest society is the individual.

It's an unfortunate fact that some parents won't teach their daughters to count at age 2, or even 20 because they believe there is no need for them to know that. This is where the protection is necessary.

Why?

Why is what you're saying there generating a requirement for everyone in a state/country/region/planet (after all, are we not all in a global society?) to be forced to pay for a service they do not want?

 

[Exorcet]

See it's not really the government that maintains these standards, it's the bodies representing the professions. You are right about the origin of ethical standards, but the maintenance of these unfortunately necessitates some form of oversight.

I don't have a problem with people setting standards and following them, what I don't want to see is people being told that they need to conform to some specific standard they might not agree with.

Some recent examples from the UK:
The nurse who behaved inappropriately while working in a NICU. (Ethical)
The hapless doctor who prescibed the pill for someone trying to conceive. (Competence)

Now you could say legal protection would stop either from practising again, but can you guarantee someone, somewhere won't hire them? What's to stop them creating their own practice? Insurance costs can make you more unemployable, but it doesn't outright make you unemployable.


And the ones who don't sign up?

Regulation doesn't guarantee they won't be hired either though. Also, if you're purposely getting people sick against their will that is not alternative medicine, that's a crime. Such a person isn't really fit for the job anyway.

It's a way of providing continuity. This goes back to the argument of giving up certain freedoms for the benefit of the society you live in - the services from a teacher would be an adjunct to what you are teaching. It's an unfortunate fact that some parents won't teach their daughters to count at age 2, or even 20 because they believe there is no need for them to know that. This is where the protection is necessary.

It's not for the benefit of the society, it's for the benefit of those people who would rather you give up your freedom for their sake. Even if they happen to be the majority, that doesn't make their wishes more important.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Okay, so this:Means that, wherever a child is taught, at least one person who does the teaching must be a teacher?

Yes.

So parents who want to homeschool their children must pay for a teacher? Really?

Pretty much yes, although technically they could become a teacher.

At what age does this start - would I be breaking the law teaching Minifam2 how to count aged 2? Exactly what proportion of the child's education must be taught by the teacher - will an hour a week suffice?

Two good questions which I'm not really qualified to answer, the answers to those questions would be better determined by people who know the minimum educational needs for a kid to be functional in society.

What subjects must the teacher teach, or do we need a specialist teacher for each subject?

Any subject the parent wants taught, as long as the subject is taught truthfully. (Will explain what I mean by that below) As I said, there would be no restrictions on what is taught, only how it is taught.

Who monitors the standards of this teacher in a private home - do we give schools inspectors the power of entry to domiciles?

Yes, I see no issue with that, part of the decision to home-school would be that you have regular educational inspections to make sure the content that is being taught is not misleading or misinformation, as determined by the independent body and the public through the process I mentioned before.

Define truth,

Quite difficult to explain, despite it being a simple concept in my head, but it would involve teaching subjects as the experts in each relevant field understand them, and making it clear as to the level of understanding the experts have on each topic. So for example, if there is a lot of debate between academics over a certain topic, say for example the debate is over whether X is right, teachers wouldn't be allowed to teach that X is definitely right. Does that make sense? Wording things isn't my strongest point.

because it looks like it's a choice of either government set standards (propaganda) or standards set by a the public-regulated body (public opinion).

No, and not really. I say not really because by public opinion, I assume you mean majority opinion? Which it wouldn't be, the public would put forward arguments as to why the independent body is wrong, and their arguments would be reviewed by a number of experts in the relevant field. So in other words, the standards would ultimately be set by experts in their respective fields.

Depending on the size of the regulatory body, this system is open to the state-consented teaching of rubbish, like Creationism or radical Islam.

It's not open to that at all, unless you can get all of the independent experts to come to the consensus that the rubbish should be taught in a misleading way. For example with creationism, you would have to get a large part of the scientific community to come to the consensus that creationism should be taught as a fact with lots of evidence as opposed to an idea with absolutely no supportive evidence, and with lots of contradictory evidence, good luck with that one.

Having been intimately involved with the National Curriculum of the UK in the last decade, I can tell you that what they teach in science isn't necessarily the truth and Minifam1 has been taught sufficiently well that she can spot a misleading - or leading - question from her teachers at ten paces.

Is that because of an oversimplification, in which case my system would force teachers to point out that it is an oversimplification, or is that because it's just wrong? If it's just wrong, then my system would allow you to put forward an argument as to why it shouldn't be taught as true, which would then be reviewed by experts (basically people just like you ), who would (presumably) decide that whatever you've pointed out can be no longer be taught as true, and the independent body would change it's regulations to reflect that. Also bare in mind that my system doesn't mean that the national curriculum would be the only curriculum, it would merely put in place a minimum standard that all curriculum's and teachers must meet.

Remember, teaching a child is a parent's job. It's no-one else's job to tell me how to educate my children - and it's not mine to tell anyone else how to educate theirs. The systems we've developed to have someone else teach them things while they're looking after them should reflect that.

I would argue that it is only the parents job to provide at least a certain amount of education for a certain amount of time at a certain minimum standard so that their kids minimum educational needs are met (as covered above, that would be determined by someone more qualified than me). It is not their job however to decide what is or isn't taught as true about reality, or the job of any individual for that matter, and I think precautions (namely my proposed system, or something with a similar effect) should be put in place to protect kids against parents who would harm their education and ability to function in society.

Obviously there are probably lots of details that would need sorting out, but I've yet to see anything posted that clearly points out a fundamental flaw in the concept that would leave it open to abuse.

 

[Northstar]

Pretty much yes, although technically they could become a teacher.

I've known teachers that are little more than glorified substitutes that aren't very affective on the subject they are supposed to be teaching (some of them seemed to learn the material as they are teaching it). On the contrary I've seen parents/adults that are rather effective at teaching various things to children yet aren't actual teachers nor do they have any desire to become one.

Just because someone is a teacher, doesn't mean they are any good at it.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I've known teachers that are little more than glorified substitutes that aren't very affective on the subject they are supposed to be teaching (some of them seemed to learn the material as they are teaching it). On the contrary I've seen parents/adults that are rather effective at teaching various things to children yet aren't actual teachers nor do they have any desire to become one.

Just because someone is a teacher, doesn't mean they are any good at it.

Of course, but the education from the teacher wouldn't replace the education from the parent, it's meant to be an addition that would help protect kids from being solely taught misinformation that could harm their ability to function in society. What I'm suggesting doesn't address the effectiveness of the teachers at teaching, as again it's an area I'm not qualified to comment on, although someone might be able to come up with a way of incorporating that into the minimum standard.

 

[Northstar]

would help protect kids from being solely taught misinformation that could harm their ability to function in society.

Having teachers isn't going to stop that as plenty of teachers refuse to teach things like evolutionary theory. Plus, in the states we have a thing called Common Core, which, as a method of teaching is rather controversial and something I think a parent should be able to opt-out of without having the government doing check-ins.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Having teachers isn't going to stop that as plenty of teachers refuse to teach things like evolutionary theory.

It won't stop them being taught misinformation, it will just ensure that all kids are given at least a minimum amount of truthful education.

Plus, in the states we have a thing called Common Core, which, as a method of teaching is rather controversial and something I think a parent should be able to opt-out of without having the government doing check-ins.

Not particularly relevant, or at least atm, as what I'm suggesting isn't government run, and it doesn't yet propose regulations for the methods teachers use for teaching.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Oddly, Catholic schools have amongst the best results* in the UK, to the point where parents will actually "become" Catholic in order that their children become eligible.

*Where results refers to objective scores on final exams, rather than the production of rounded, functional human beings

Catholic schools here are fine, too. My parents did almost exactly what you describe to get me into the Catholic system. And I have had no problems getting employment with them as an adult. It's the Christian schools that filter staff and have lower outcomes.

 

[Keef]

Catholic schools here in the US have a great reputation, to the point where I didn't get in because our neighbor bought the last opening. The lower-middle class money was flowing on that day, tell you what.

 

[Famine]

Catholic schools here are fine, too. My parents did almost exactly what you describe to get me into the Catholic system. And I have had no problems getting employment with them as an adult. It's the Christian schools that filter staff and have lower outcomes.

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity...

If you mean Protestant/Anglican schools... yeah. Worked in one of those. Hoo, boy.

Yes.

Okay. Why are we legally forcing someone into the home? Not even the police have that power, unless a crime is in progress - and being in possession of a child isn't a crime (unless it's not yours).

Any subject the parent wants taught, as long as the subject is taught truthfully. (Will explain what I mean by that below) As I said, there would be no restrictions on what is taught, only how it is taught.

What if the parent wants no subjects taught? Or wants their religion taught to their child - something that can never be done truthfully?

If you're talking about a minimum standard of education, that minimum standard needs to be determined. That means a minimum standard of knowledge imparted across a number of subjects.

Yes, I see no issue with that, part of the decision to home-school would be that you have regular educational inspections to make sure the content that is being taught is not misleading or misinformation, as determined by the independent body and the public through the process I mentioned before.

Quite difficult to explain, despite it being a simple concept in my head, but it would involve teaching subjects as the experts in each relevant field understand them, and making it clear as to the level of understanding the experts have on each topic. So for example, if there is a lot of debate between academics over a certain topic, say for example the debate is over whether X is right, teachers wouldn't be allowed to teach that X is definitely right. Does that make sense? Wording things isn't my strongest point.

No, and not really. I say not really because by public opinion, I assume you mean majority opinion? Which it wouldn't be, the public would put forward arguments as to why the independent body is wrong, and their arguments would be reviewed by a number of experts in the relevant field. So in other words, the standards would ultimately be set by experts in their respective fields.

It's not open to that at all, unless you can get all of the independent experts to come to the consensus that the rubbish should be taught in a misleading way. For example with creationism, you would have to get a large part of the scientific community to come to the consensus that creationism should be taught as a fact with lots of evidence as opposed to an idea with absolutely no supportive evidence, and with lots of contradictory evidence, good luck with that one.

There's very, very, very many problems with your independent body.

First off, who appoints them? This is a horrible mire right from the start - if they're elected, that's public opinion. If they're appointed by other bodies, that's institutionalism. Both are immediately open to abuse by the appointing body.

Next, which experts are consulted? It's all well and good being "a number of experts in the relevant field", but which ones? Will certain posts - professor of organic chemistry at St Andrews, professor of particle physics at Durham - come with that responsibility automatically?

You've mentioned point three already - what happens when the experts disagree? This isn't an easy one to resolve - it's all well and good saying that teachers will have to teach that X and Y disagree and they can't say which is right (yes, that makes sense!) but it's not a resolution. If we go back to opinion-led subjects - humanities, arts - that's the same as nothing being taught at all.

There's a bigger point too - what classes as "teaching" exactly? There are many examples every day of knowledge being imparted between individuals. It doesn't just come from teachers, but from other adults, peers (sometimes it's right...), television.

Is that because of an oversimplification, in which case my system would force teachers to point out that it is an oversimplification, or is that because it's just wrong? If it's just wrong, then my system would allow you to put forward an argument as to why it shouldn't be taught as true, which would then be reviewed by experts (basically people just like you ), who would (presumably) decide that whatever you've pointed out can be no longer be taught as true, and the independent body would change it's regulations to reflect that. Also bare in mind that my system doesn't mean that the national curriculum would be the only curriculum, it would merely put in place a minimum standard that all curriculum's and teachers must meet.

Simplification is the nature of education and, unfortunately, structured simplification in a one-size-fits-all public education system is responsible for a great many ills, but no I'm talking about currently politically-relevant matters being forced into the National Curriculum, absent of current validity.

Unfortunately, if your independent body's panel and array of experts are state-appointed, this is something you cannot combat.

I would argue that it is only the parents job to provide at least a certain amount of education for a certain amount of time at a certain minimum standard so that their kids minimum educational needs are met (as covered above, that would be determined by someone more qualified than me). It is not their job however to decide what is or isn't taught as true about reality, or the job of any individual for that matter, and I think precautions (namely my proposed system, or something with a similar effect) should be put in place to protect kids against parents who would harm their education and ability to function in society.

It's a parent's job to do everything for their child.

We, by which I mainly mean @Mrs. Famine, feed, clothe, clean, educate, repair, entertain and occasionally consider leaving behind in the supermarket our youngest child. It's not your job, nor is it the job of anyone else but us. We feed her what we see fit, we clothe her with what we see fit, we clean her how we see fit, we educate her how we see fit, we medicate her how we see fit* and we entertain her how we see fit. That's our job.

It's our job to look after our child. It's our only job because we have a child - we're the people that know the child the best and we can decide what is best for her. Sometimes it's best for our child to go somewhere that we aren't so she can learn things from other people - and it's our choice who those people are.


Now, you're suggesting that when we do number cards or help her write her name, we should have a teacher there making sure it's age-appropriate according to some independent body that has never met our child. No. We don't have a cook in the house making sure that we feed her what an independent panel of nutritionists say should be the appropriate intake for a child her age - and we could kill her a lot more quickly by abdicating that responsibility than by not teaching her what a 3 looks like...

There are existing mechanisms for dealing with us if we did though, under child abuse laws. I don't see why we need to treat education as so much more important that we need to have a stranger forced into our house to make sure she's no more stupid than the average state school child of the same age (which is very stupid indeed).


*Not, for a random example, with too much Calpol and then leaving her alone to go out for a snack...

 

[BobK]

Okay, so this:Means that, wherever a child is taught, at least one person who does the teaching must be a teacher?

Yes.

So you're telling me I need a state-approved somebody looking over my shoulder when I teach my child to tie their shoes?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Catholicism is a branch of Christianity...

If you mean Protestant/Anglican schools... yeah. Worked in one of those. Hoo, boy.

Maybe it's just a weird application of our system. I have never run into a Catholic school that cared about my faith. The Christian schools, on the other hand, do. Some of the Protestant and Anglican schools might fuss over it, but they're smart enough to hire based on educational outcomes first. Islamic and Jewish schools only care about it if you intend to teach religious studies. I'm in the public system and teach a mix of English and Social Science, so it's neither here nor there.

Simplification is the nature of education and, unfortunately, structured simplification in a one-size-fits-all public education system is responsible for a great many ills, but no I'm talking about currently politically-relevant matters being forced into the National Curriculum, absent of current validity.

Unfortunately, if your independent body's panel and array of experts are state-appointed, this is something you cannot combat.

A prime example of this is our NAPLAN system, which is politically-charged. It's aimed at improving our national literacy and numeracy standards, and that's fine, but the problem is that NAPLAN results are tied directly to school funding. The end result is that schools are spending a lot of time on basic comprehension and mathematical ability rather than the actual curriculum, even when students are at a level where they should be comfortable with these basics. And it's being done because some muppet in Canberra saw that Australia was sliding down the PISA rankings for literacy and numeracy. Then when the government changed, another muppet decided to renege on the government's promise to deliver the largest educational reform package in our history, delay the introduction of the national curriculum, and commission a review into the curriculum to "promote Australian values" (read: stamp out multiculturalism through assimilation), single-handedly setting the education system back a decade, and all because the religious schools complained that they weren't getting a big enough cut of the pie in the original reform package. Meanwhile, literacy and numeracy figures are not improving, while said muppet is pretending it is not a problem as he is off trying to reform higher education (which the cynic in me suspects is to make tertiary education unavailable to anyone but conservative voters who have money).

 

[FoolKiller]

what I'm suggesting isn't government run,

Then how do you propose to enforce it?

New question: As I am the parent, how can you even begin to think you can tell me the kind of education I give to my daughter?

We have Amish in this country who don't need certain sciences or other fields in order to live their lifestyle. Would you tell them that a teacher with a minimum standard must come in a teach their kids the "English way?"

Ultimately, I am the parent. I am an involved parent. I am not a lazy parent who thinks the moment I drop my daughter off at the school that my job is done. No! I love and care for my daughter far to much to assume that. I'm working on teaching her how to read a year before her school, which is years ahead of the local public schools, and she is two years ahead in math. Your minimum standard idea runs into an issue we already deal with now: Focusing on ensuring a minimum standard leaves the advanced students to be ignored. The students who might cure cancer one day are set aside while educators try to meet the minimum standards set by the system. I have to step in to teach my daughter things on her level. In your world I would not be following the required standards for those topics because those standards apply to older kids. I wouldn't have any proper oversight into my extracurricular teachings.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Consider this: I will teach your child for an hour and twenty minutes each day. In that time, I will either teach them English or HSIE (it depends on the timetable). And in that time, I have plenty to teach them. So when, exactly, am I supposed to teach them something like right from wrong?

 

[Mrs. Famine]

We, by which I mainly mean @Mrs. Famine, feed, clothe, clean, educate, repair, entertain and occasionally consider leaving behind in the supermarket our youngest child. It's not your job, nor is it the job of anyone else but us. We feed her what we see fit, we clothe her with what we see fit, we clean her how we see fit, we educate her how we see fit, we medicate her how we see fit* and we entertain her how we see fit. That's our job.

You should really clarify, @Famine that it's not just the supermarket I consider leaving her behind in

(Apparently small children aren't legal tender)

 

[Keef]

I would argue that it is only the parents job to provide at least a certain amount of education for a certain amount of time at a certain minimum standard so that their kids minimum educational needs are met (as covered above, that would be determined by someone more qualified than me). It is not their job however to decide what is or isn't taught as true about reality, or the job of any individual for that matter, and I think precautions (namely my proposed system, or something with a similar effect) should be put in place to protect kids against parents who would harm their education and ability to function in society.

As the protector of rights that a child is not yet capable of understanding or protecting for himself, the parents or legal guardians of a child are in charge of everything that affects the well being of the child. As a human being, it can be safely assumed that the child will eventually develop strong self aware and a desire for self preservation, and also understand and observe the concept of rights. They will want their parents to have done the same for them while they were growing up.

There are times when professional help is required. Obviously most parents are not professional educators but they still must seek education for their child. Even fewer parents are capable of thorough medical care but they still must seek medical care for their child. They might even consult an attorney to more fully understand their own rights and those of the child, just to make sure they've got their bases covered. The point is that while parents are probably not capable of providing everything the child needs to survive in today's society, they still have to find where they can get those things. Otherwise, if they don't do what they can to protect the child's rights they can have the child taken away from them and given to somebody who can. That's not just a legal consequence but a moral one as well.

 

[KSaiyu]

Guys this is going insanely deep from a pretty basic question about education in a libertarian world, namely what would be the protection for those affected from Operation Trojan Horse. I'm still not seeing any form of adequate protection for those most vulnerable to abuse of power.

 

[Famine]

Guys this is going insanely deep from a pretty basic question about education in a libertarian world, namely what would be the protection for those affected from Operation Trojan Horse. I'm still not seeing any form of adequate protection for those most vulnerable to abuse of power.

The best protection of all: Freedom.

 

[KSaiyu]

So your answer to the girl that has to work at home cleaning up after her uncles, go to school to be taught as a second class citizen and married off is....freedom?

Education, or the work place is an escape for thousands of people at the moment. There would be no guarantee of this in the world proposed here, just because it could be argued that it isn't their right to expect it.

 

[Famine]

So your answer to the girl that has to work at home cleaning up after her uncles, go to school to be taught as a second class citizen and married off is....freedom?

Yep.

See, it turns out that when we start denying freedoms at a state level, all sorts of freedoms get ignored further down the chain. Then people with even fewer freedoms attack us to deny us our freedoms and we react by denying more freedoms in order to stop them.

Then folk come up with ideas to deny other freedoms because some people are having theirs ignored. For some reason, no-one notices just how insane this is.

Education, or the work place is an escape for thousands of people at the moment. There would be no guarantee of this in the world proposed here, just because it could be argued that it isn't their right to expect it.

See, it's interesting because your example in all of this from the beginning has been one where state education has been co-opted by people who want to deny freedoms, and your solution is more of it.

I'm afraid that the problem you're thinking of cannot be solved by denying freedoms, no matter how many you want to deny, except for one. That one is "remove all children from their parents at birth". I guess you don't want to go there because you know what that means, so instead you want parents to "look after" their children in the sense of giving them a place to live but have them removed from all responsibility of educating them.

Why it's just education and not feeding them, clothing them, housing them, looking after their health - all of which can kill a child very quickly if done poorly - I just don't know.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why it's just education and not feeding them,

It's called the school lunch assistance program here, which has grown to include breakfast. And we are in our new school lunch standards, which affects even the kids who bring lunch from home. If their lunchbox contents don't meet a specific standard it is taken away and they are given a school provided lunch, and then they send a bill home to the parents. It isn't heavily enforced to that degree, but it has begun happening. We're only in the first year of this new policy.

As for everything else: Parents have had cops called on them for letting their kids play in their own yards unsupervised. And the sheer act of owning a gun can have the kids taken to be housed by the state in some crazy cases. I'm sure if I looked around I could find some cases of a kid forgetting his coat or not being dressed appropriately, in someone's opinion, that resulted in government intervention.

 

[NotThePrez]

It's called the school lunch assistance program here, which has grown to include breakfast. And we are in our new school lunch standards, which affects even the kids who bring lunch from home. If their lunchbox contents don't meet a specific standard it is taken away and they are given a school provided lunch, and then they send a bill home to the parents. It isn't heavily enforced to that degree, but it has begun happening. We're only in the first year of this new policy.

Sorry to jump in but, wat. That sounds absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Famine]

It's called the school lunch assistance program here, which has grown to include breakfast. And we are in our new school lunch standards, which affects even the kids who bring lunch from home. If their lunchbox contents don't meet a specific standard it is taken away and they are given a school provided lunch, and then they send a bill home to the parents. It isn't heavily enforced to that degree, but it has begun happening. We're only in the first year of this new policy.

My daughter had a chocolate bar confiscated from her lunch box once.

Once.

 

[Tornado]

There were no survivors.