“Or at least, I think it seems weird to hold the view that schools are a moral disaster without thinking that most employment is a moral disaster.”
The difference here I think is that, although people have to work to earn a living, they can choose what form that work takes. Sure, your choices will be limited by your skills, etc. But you get some choice. Even at the lowest level, there’s a huge difference between being a gardner, waiter, telemarketer, construction worker, retails salesperson, etc. They can tradeoff the inherent unpleasantness of certain jobs against the pay, see what works for them based on their individual circumstances.
If we made everyone be a construction worker or whatever regardless of individual wishes or skills it would be a moral disaster comparable to compulsory education. But the evil of education is how little choice kids have about how they spend a huge portion of their waking hours.
Yeah, I mean I guess I just don’t find this compelling in the way that others seem to. Kids are kids, loads of the stuff they would do if able to do whatever they wanted would be either a waste of time or actively harmful. This is partially why I find a lot of the complaints about violence in schools confusing, seems like people are simultaneously claiming that loads of kids are basically pretty dangerous and thuggish but also that they ought to be allowed to do what they want. Again, I think that the problem here is that they’re only remembering how their life would’ve been better if they could’ve done whatever they wanted to.
Well, I don't know about others, but I don't imagine kids literally doing whatever they want with no other input from anyone else. Rather, how they spend their time would be determined by them and their parents, who would have better information about their kids and an incentive to find what works best based on what they enjoy doing and what will be good for their future. I'd transfer resources away from schools and back to families and let them figure out. Maybe some, even most, would have something that look like normal school. But some minority that finds traditional schooling to be torture would get to do something else.
And no matter what they chose, I think there would be less violence than public schools, the way that there's less violence in private schools in part because private schools can have higher disciplinary standards and exclude the troublemakers.
Fair enough, but ‘kids who really despise school should be able to opt out if their parents agree to it, and some funding should be redirected from schools to families who go for this’ seems pretty different to thinking that school as it stands is a moral disaster or comparable to prison, unless I’m misunderstanding your view. If most kids would end up at something that looks like normal school, I guess you don’t think school is as bad as some people I’ve spoken to.
I think for some kids it’s probably fine as is, but I think that a lot of adults would be fine with prison too if they knew everyone else had to be there and thought it was the socially acceptable place for them to be! I think if you didn’t have compulsory school people would gradually realize it should be replaced with something else. Probably short term not that much would change, people’s imaginations are constrained by traditions and norms.
Most of these "schools are awful" takes are predicated on having well meaning parents who are able to do things like purchase books with good information. This is probably because most people writing substacks come from a family history of education. If you're a smart person who grew up getting a good education, you could probably do a better job teaching your children the knowledge and life schools that they need than a bad public school would.
But it's hard to do home schooling correctly! Most parents in the world don't have the skills or resources to effectively raise their kids without some help from specialists. And many parents are awful caregivers for a variety of reasons. Saying that "schools are a prison" is ridiculous because for many people schools are the ESCAPE from the prison of a bad family. No one gets to choose their parents, but in a good school you can have a lot more say over what you do than at home with controlling parents.
I went to slightly above average public schools and was bullied pretty heavily at one, but overall they were very positive and essential to my successful development. My parents were smart and cared about education, but school gave me the stability I needed to deal with divorce and a chaotic home life. Schools also taught me the social skills and variety of experiences I would never have gotten at home. I wouldn't give up my mediocre public education for anything.
I disagree. Most kids have rather okay-ish parents, most are loved, really. 98% I dare to say - else how would the kid survive till school-age?! - Now with kids of my own, I finally appreciate even my parents, :D Pretty much ALL kids have access to wikipedia, informative youtube-videos. I only had our public library. And used it to an extent that made my parents try to restrict that. Why? "All that reading, but not doing your school-homework." Without school, I would have learned more. Without parents, even - though both knew more useful stuff than school ever taught.
"in a good school you can have a lot more say over what you do than at home with controlling parents" - Strange school. Plus very strange parents. Between recesses we had about zero choice over what to do in my schools. Recess was 15 minutes. - My kids are experts in manipulating me to get their way. Sure there are limits. Sure, we fight about those, most every day. Ay, there's the rub: school won`t let you fight for your rights - the rules are set.
"Schools also taught me the social skills and variety of experiences I would never have gotten at home" - well, think about the social skills and experiences one gets by actually meeting with peers you like: You don't meet the bullies., but make friends. You interact with them for hours actively. Not just during the 15 min recess when you swallow your sandwich. (I fondly remember those glimpses of social life I had during recess, sure. A short ray of sun on days filled with grey. If one is not bullied.)
Children's access to educational information has definitely changed a lot since I was a kid (1990s). I looked up some recent statistics and parental involvement in education in the US is apparently higher than it used to be as well. I'm having a hard time finding hard statistics on what percentage of parents are not okay-ish (however you would define it) because most of the research is very US-focused and is about encouraging okay-ish parents to become great parents, or on clear examples of child abuse which isn't really the case I'm talking about.
The best study could find (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-012-0549-y) has physical child neglect at 16% and emotional neglect at 18%, so I would guess that roughly 15% of children had "bad parents" who wouldn't even try to educate them adequately, plus an unknown percentage who would educate them very poorly.
Thanks for the numbers! Which I doubt, obviously. Even if true: why then force the huge majority whose homes are ok into this not-really-ok-institution? - Otoh: I do not claim that a huge majority of parents can teach trigonometry better than school. ( I could, but I definitely have no wish to spend my time and my kids time on it.) - Reading a bit in your linked meta-analytic review of neglect-studies, wondering how anybody believes school would NOT neglect kids: "Physical neglect refers to the failure to meet children’s physical needs" Do kids not need sleep? If parents would force their kids to sit still as long as schools do; I would call CPA! "Emotional neglect refers to the failure to meet children’s emotional needs, and includes for example the failure to provide adequate nurturance and affection, allowing children to be witnesses of violence", "to knowingly permit maladaptive behavior by the child, the failure to seek care for emotional of behavioral problems". Sounds familiar, if one has been to school.
There is heavy selection bias. Both in terms of all the people sayin this, their propensity to be in a place to say this, and their individual experiences. The answer so often is plane with red dots.jpeg
Yes, except the image may lead astray--"plane with red dots.jpeg" is not just about selection bias but more specifically about mistakenly drawing a conclusion opposite from the correct one due to selection bias.
I largely agree that school in of itself is a good thing. I base this not on my own experience, but on that of my immigrant parents who did enjoy school and have much of their current happiness and development to thank for it.
Even my own experience, which was likely atypically bad, was mostly good except for the roughest years (say ages 11-15). This conforms to your linked survey that shows kids are "happy at school most of the time"- This is true for 4th graders, with 49% saying they are happy "all or most of the time" but for 8th graders this is only 26%.
School is largely a good thing, mixed in with a level of violence the adult world won't accept anywhere except prisons. I don't think it's as bad as prisons, but I also can't think of any other grown-up institution where violence is so routine.
To me it's what we allow to exist within schools, not school itself, that is evil.
Oh no need! Thanks for sharing the piece and the discussion. I think you're addressing the larger point about school and accurately represent my views where relevant.
One thing I might change is about kids "being happy at school most of the time" because the linked "most or all of the time" happiness rates are 49% and 26% for 4th and 8th-graders respectively. Maybe something more like "happy more often than not" etc.
It's a weird one because the numbers for 'all or most of the time' are as you describe, but there's another option for 'over half of the time' (which means you're happy most of the time!), and you get a majority of kids giving either the answer 'all or most of the time' or 'over half of the time'. I think saying that they're happy most of the time is still accurate, although the answer options are a bit weird.
Very fine piece. Esp. the "fake vs real reason"! - To stay fake: US midwestern-prisons being worse than most schools - sure. Our German prisons hold much less horror for me. Norwegian prisons? Some foreigners commit crimes so they can stay (and work) there. - A nice prison with nice admin and inmates "not selected for being criminal, just the average of Joes"? How far is that really from a strict full boarding school? Same ballpark, same league I'd say. Mainly a question of stigma. Reality check: https://meduza.io/en/quiz/is-it-a-norwegian-prison-or-a-russian-hotel
Real reason: Even in Scott-reading circles, you will find most people arguing for very different or at least better schools. Though studies showed than "un-schooled" do not know much less than schooled - and catch up easily. Not least because schools really are day-care (Bryan Caplan). I sent my son, cuz I have to - but mostly cuz he would be full-day-mine-crafting else. From what he learned at school in 2nd grade: less than he did by hitting some youtube-videos.
Scott et al. and me "hating school" - indeed, WE could have learned more without compulsory attendance and with a library (now: amazing internet). But a) So, why no opt-out for us "just pass the test, learn as you want"? Back to "prison". (In my country the police will take you to school if your parents don't - next they lose their parental rights.) b) WE are not so few. Many non-smarties hate school not a bit less than "rationalists". As they can use even much much less of the stuff. And much less inclined to read. They were done after primary school, too. Check 40+ outside of academic jobs on their high-school-knowledge. Ridiculous. And so it was (Greg Cochran)
School apologists assume the kids would NOT be alright without school. Burden of proof on you, before forcing millions of kids to attend. (And before robbing millions of tax-paying parents of the funds to finance a better day-care themselves.)
Agree that school is good, but there are probably massively better ways to do it than our current system. I think these people are right to notice that kids tend not to enjoy school in its current form, and that it forces them into a lot of unnatural behavior.
They also get something right in that there’s a general attitude adults take towards kids that involves not treating them like full human beings. Don’t get me wrong, kids need to be bossed around a fair bit for the sake of keeping them safe, helping them learn, etc., but I think adults ought to treat their authority as including a responsibility not to boss kids around arbitrarily. There should be some purpose in the things kids are made to do, and adults should tell kids what that purpose is, as best they can.
1. We can think of way worse alternatives to school, that loads of kids experience;
2. We can maybe think of better alternatives to school, that pretty much no-one experiences, but most superior alternatives to whatever we mean by 'schools' are probably just better schools.
On a global level, the problem of kids not going to school is still way, way more harmful than kids not enjoying the benefits of potential alternatives. In countries with low school attendance (I spent some time working on education in Ghana), I'm convinced that even a really crappy school, being lectured on something that you barely understand for hours and getting hit by the teacher if you make trouble, is better than the alternative (I still have images of out-of-school 8 year olds playing with car batteries in a malarial swamp, and most out-of-school girls being pregnant by 13).
If you're an elite Californian (I assume most of the anti-school rationalists fit this demographic), then you might imagine that your rich parents could either take a sabbatical to accompany you in your learning and transmit their vast elite knowledge and experience, or they could just hire a few private tutors from the elite overproduction assembly line, which, kinda obviously, sounds pretty nice. Even if your parents aren't so attentive, you can just spend your time with other elite kids- you'll probably find someone to make you lunch and keep you safe either way. I suspect that even the elite Californians would be better off in school ~90% of the time- if you genuinely think you'd have been better off out of school, you surely must realise that you're an outlier, even within your elite community.
On the point that 'Most superior alternatives are probably just better schools', I think that most people would want a structured way of getting kids to socialise and make friends with other kids, become acculturated to their country's norms, language and culture, and learn a set of basic skills. We also probably want something that efficiently outsources caring for and educating kids (in the daytime) to professionals at something like a 1-10 to 1-30 ratio (lower ratios better for kids, but unsustainable at societal level)/ a way that busy parents can be relieved of childcare responsibilities for ~8 hours a day do with minimal effort.
If we have a far less formalised school system, with more freedom, fewer exams, less rote learning, more play, yeah, absolutely, but most of Northern Europe has schools like that- they're still called schools.
Most of the debate around schools that I have seen on substack seens to me to be missing a major point. There are at least two reasons kids are sent to school that have nothing to do with education. First, parents have to work. Until age 10 or so kids need to be actively cared for and that’s incompatible with concentrating on work. Second, states need to form citizens. Schools teach history, geography, art and above all language to make sure all citizens have a common cultural ground, reducing ethnic diversity that may lead to separatism. Am I missing something?
I think you make some good points. But I think it under-appreciates alternative ways kids -- even kids outside of the top 10% -- can learn more productively.
A system that focuses on voluntary on-the-job apprenticeships (like we had before the 1900s) is likely to be a lot more fulfilling and educational for many people. It would also give them more contact with adults, which can have a maturing effect.
These are things that would gradually evolve if compulsory schooling were ended.
Imagine if no prisoners ever experienced sexual assault. Would that suddenly mean the comparison makes sense? or is sexual assault non-central to the nature of prisons that elicits such comparisons?
I think, “Kids should be allowed to go to a relaxed daycare that’s enforces some skills useful in work and is very harsh on bullying” feels like it might be better than school.
I came to make the same point Hanania makes - if you don't like you're job, you can quit tomorrow, so they're not at all the same.
Although that comparison is deeply flawed, it does point to a deeper problem and absolve schools a bit: schools are just an intstrument; the real problem is the over regulation & over policing of childhood (and the desire by many parents & society at large to do so).
It just doesn't seem that different to me if you're in a job you hate and every other job you're able to get is also gonna suck. But I'm not as libertarian as most of these guys, so the 'well children are *forced* to go to school' doesn't seem as compelling to me, and my point probably doesn't seem particularly compelling to you.
Why is every job going to suck? Even working in retail in a small town (I started at an ice cream store), you have many options of workplaces to choose from. And you can always do your own thing too.
You don’t have to be Libertarian at all to see the choice set of a worker is dramatically different from the choice set of a child with compulsory education.
I have done many kinds of jobs, from factory-floor to watchmen to college-teacher and back ;) - The only job worse than my high-school (I went to a good one) was in the assembly-line of MIELE-dishwashers. So what? I quit after 1 month. Took 2k Deutschmark with me and changed to a job I enjoyed. If you need the money, most real jobs in our rich societies are actually rather ok - else workers would leave, ya'know. Could not do that with geometry, "music", "art", "grammar", "sport", "Latin", "English" ("Your son will never learn it", my father was told. By one of our better teachers) - at least, I could not change any subject for most of nine long years. Was not paid a cent ever by school. ;) Our prisons pay 10€ to 17€ a day. Inmates want them to escape boredom, mainly. - Life in the west gives you choices. Unlike in prison or North Korea. If kids had much more choice in school, the prison-metaphor would indeed be much less appropriate. Sadly, it still is.
Mostly I agree, although I think reforming school to be better for kids is probably a pretty easy welfare gain. Lower work loads by cutting the more useless curricula, use the extra time to start later and devote more time to physical activity and play. Make violence prevention a higher priority. Allow students more freedom and choice (e.g. some high school students could be learning car mechanics or welding or ... instead of biology and calculus).
I don't think schools are a moral catastrophe, it seems that public education has been a boon to human welfare actually, but there are important and large problems with schooling that I feel like it is more productive to focus on.
I pretty much echo all the sentiments in this post. Like you, I enjoyed school. I mean, I don't know for sure my life wouldn't have been better if I hadn't had to go to school, but I very much doubt it.
I do wonder whether it's possible UK schools are generally slightly better than US ones, but I've no evidence for that.
It is true that school is the only place I've ever really felt physically threatened (and I was only very mildly bullied as a child and only for a couple of years). That's.... weird, but doesn't change my generally positive view of school. I did enjoy university more than school, but I think school was better than adult life (and my adult life isn't particularly bad).
I'd assume that bad experiences at school are correlated with bad alternative non-school experiences (if you're in a poor area etc.), so I wonder what the intersection in the Venn diagram of people who a) had a bad experience at school, and b) think that they would have had a much better non-school experience, looks like. Perhaps very introverted people with super nice home environments?
“Or at least, I think it seems weird to hold the view that schools are a moral disaster without thinking that most employment is a moral disaster.”
The difference here I think is that, although people have to work to earn a living, they can choose what form that work takes. Sure, your choices will be limited by your skills, etc. But you get some choice. Even at the lowest level, there’s a huge difference between being a gardner, waiter, telemarketer, construction worker, retails salesperson, etc. They can tradeoff the inherent unpleasantness of certain jobs against the pay, see what works for them based on their individual circumstances.
If we made everyone be a construction worker or whatever regardless of individual wishes or skills it would be a moral disaster comparable to compulsory education. But the evil of education is how little choice kids have about how they spend a huge portion of their waking hours.
Yeah, I mean I guess I just don’t find this compelling in the way that others seem to. Kids are kids, loads of the stuff they would do if able to do whatever they wanted would be either a waste of time or actively harmful. This is partially why I find a lot of the complaints about violence in schools confusing, seems like people are simultaneously claiming that loads of kids are basically pretty dangerous and thuggish but also that they ought to be allowed to do what they want. Again, I think that the problem here is that they’re only remembering how their life would’ve been better if they could’ve done whatever they wanted to.
Well, I don't know about others, but I don't imagine kids literally doing whatever they want with no other input from anyone else. Rather, how they spend their time would be determined by them and their parents, who would have better information about their kids and an incentive to find what works best based on what they enjoy doing and what will be good for their future. I'd transfer resources away from schools and back to families and let them figure out. Maybe some, even most, would have something that look like normal school. But some minority that finds traditional schooling to be torture would get to do something else.
And no matter what they chose, I think there would be less violence than public schools, the way that there's less violence in private schools in part because private schools can have higher disciplinary standards and exclude the troublemakers.
Fair enough, but ‘kids who really despise school should be able to opt out if their parents agree to it, and some funding should be redirected from schools to families who go for this’ seems pretty different to thinking that school as it stands is a moral disaster or comparable to prison, unless I’m misunderstanding your view. If most kids would end up at something that looks like normal school, I guess you don’t think school is as bad as some people I’ve spoken to.
I think for some kids it’s probably fine as is, but I think that a lot of adults would be fine with prison too if they knew everyone else had to be there and thought it was the socially acceptable place for them to be! I think if you didn’t have compulsory school people would gradually realize it should be replaced with something else. Probably short term not that much would change, people’s imaginations are constrained by traditions and norms.
I hate Michael Malice but his quote stayed with me:
"Public schools are literal prisons for children and the only place many people will ever encounter physical violence in their lives.:"
(https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1412929708145225728)
Most of these "schools are awful" takes are predicated on having well meaning parents who are able to do things like purchase books with good information. This is probably because most people writing substacks come from a family history of education. If you're a smart person who grew up getting a good education, you could probably do a better job teaching your children the knowledge and life schools that they need than a bad public school would.
But it's hard to do home schooling correctly! Most parents in the world don't have the skills or resources to effectively raise their kids without some help from specialists. And many parents are awful caregivers for a variety of reasons. Saying that "schools are a prison" is ridiculous because for many people schools are the ESCAPE from the prison of a bad family. No one gets to choose their parents, but in a good school you can have a lot more say over what you do than at home with controlling parents.
I went to slightly above average public schools and was bullied pretty heavily at one, but overall they were very positive and essential to my successful development. My parents were smart and cared about education, but school gave me the stability I needed to deal with divorce and a chaotic home life. Schools also taught me the social skills and variety of experiences I would never have gotten at home. I wouldn't give up my mediocre public education for anything.
I disagree. Most kids have rather okay-ish parents, most are loved, really. 98% I dare to say - else how would the kid survive till school-age?! - Now with kids of my own, I finally appreciate even my parents, :D Pretty much ALL kids have access to wikipedia, informative youtube-videos. I only had our public library. And used it to an extent that made my parents try to restrict that. Why? "All that reading, but not doing your school-homework." Without school, I would have learned more. Without parents, even - though both knew more useful stuff than school ever taught.
"in a good school you can have a lot more say over what you do than at home with controlling parents" - Strange school. Plus very strange parents. Between recesses we had about zero choice over what to do in my schools. Recess was 15 minutes. - My kids are experts in manipulating me to get their way. Sure there are limits. Sure, we fight about those, most every day. Ay, there's the rub: school won`t let you fight for your rights - the rules are set.
"Schools also taught me the social skills and variety of experiences I would never have gotten at home" - well, think about the social skills and experiences one gets by actually meeting with peers you like: You don't meet the bullies., but make friends. You interact with them for hours actively. Not just during the 15 min recess when you swallow your sandwich. (I fondly remember those glimpses of social life I had during recess, sure. A short ray of sun on days filled with grey. If one is not bullied.)
Children's access to educational information has definitely changed a lot since I was a kid (1990s). I looked up some recent statistics and parental involvement in education in the US is apparently higher than it used to be as well. I'm having a hard time finding hard statistics on what percentage of parents are not okay-ish (however you would define it) because most of the research is very US-focused and is about encouraging okay-ish parents to become great parents, or on clear examples of child abuse which isn't really the case I'm talking about.
The best study could find (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-012-0549-y) has physical child neglect at 16% and emotional neglect at 18%, so I would guess that roughly 15% of children had "bad parents" who wouldn't even try to educate them adequately, plus an unknown percentage who would educate them very poorly.
Thanks for the numbers! Which I doubt, obviously. Even if true: why then force the huge majority whose homes are ok into this not-really-ok-institution? - Otoh: I do not claim that a huge majority of parents can teach trigonometry better than school. ( I could, but I definitely have no wish to spend my time and my kids time on it.) - Reading a bit in your linked meta-analytic review of neglect-studies, wondering how anybody believes school would NOT neglect kids: "Physical neglect refers to the failure to meet children’s physical needs" Do kids not need sleep? If parents would force their kids to sit still as long as schools do; I would call CPA! "Emotional neglect refers to the failure to meet children’s emotional needs, and includes for example the failure to provide adequate nurturance and affection, allowing children to be witnesses of violence", "to knowingly permit maladaptive behavior by the child, the failure to seek care for emotional of behavioral problems". Sounds familiar, if one has been to school.
There is heavy selection bias. Both in terms of all the people sayin this, their propensity to be in a place to say this, and their individual experiences. The answer so often is plane with red dots.jpeg
Yes, except the image may lead astray--"plane with red dots.jpeg" is not just about selection bias but more specifically about mistakenly drawing a conclusion opposite from the correct one due to selection bias.
Author of the dinner party linked piece here.
I largely agree that school in of itself is a good thing. I base this not on my own experience, but on that of my immigrant parents who did enjoy school and have much of their current happiness and development to thank for it.
Even my own experience, which was likely atypically bad, was mostly good except for the roughest years (say ages 11-15). This conforms to your linked survey that shows kids are "happy at school most of the time"- This is true for 4th graders, with 49% saying they are happy "all or most of the time" but for 8th graders this is only 26%.
School is largely a good thing, mixed in with a level of violence the adult world won't accept anywhere except prisons. I don't think it's as bad as prisons, but I also can't think of any other grown-up institution where violence is so routine.
To me it's what we allow to exist within schools, not school itself, that is evil.
Thanks for commenting, happy to amend the piece if you feel I misrepresented your views in any way.
Oh no need! Thanks for sharing the piece and the discussion. I think you're addressing the larger point about school and accurately represent my views where relevant.
One thing I might change is about kids "being happy at school most of the time" because the linked "most or all of the time" happiness rates are 49% and 26% for 4th and 8th-graders respectively. Maybe something more like "happy more often than not" etc.
Thanks for your quick reply!
It's a weird one because the numbers for 'all or most of the time' are as you describe, but there's another option for 'over half of the time' (which means you're happy most of the time!), and you get a majority of kids giving either the answer 'all or most of the time' or 'over half of the time'. I think saying that they're happy most of the time is still accurate, although the answer options are a bit weird.
Very fine piece. Esp. the "fake vs real reason"! - To stay fake: US midwestern-prisons being worse than most schools - sure. Our German prisons hold much less horror for me. Norwegian prisons? Some foreigners commit crimes so they can stay (and work) there. - A nice prison with nice admin and inmates "not selected for being criminal, just the average of Joes"? How far is that really from a strict full boarding school? Same ballpark, same league I'd say. Mainly a question of stigma. Reality check: https://meduza.io/en/quiz/is-it-a-norwegian-prison-or-a-russian-hotel
Real reason: Even in Scott-reading circles, you will find most people arguing for very different or at least better schools. Though studies showed than "un-schooled" do not know much less than schooled - and catch up easily. Not least because schools really are day-care (Bryan Caplan). I sent my son, cuz I have to - but mostly cuz he would be full-day-mine-crafting else. From what he learned at school in 2nd grade: less than he did by hitting some youtube-videos.
Scott et al. and me "hating school" - indeed, WE could have learned more without compulsory attendance and with a library (now: amazing internet). But a) So, why no opt-out for us "just pass the test, learn as you want"? Back to "prison". (In my country the police will take you to school if your parents don't - next they lose their parental rights.) b) WE are not so few. Many non-smarties hate school not a bit less than "rationalists". As they can use even much much less of the stuff. And much less inclined to read. They were done after primary school, too. Check 40+ outside of academic jobs on their high-school-knowledge. Ridiculous. And so it was (Greg Cochran)
School apologists assume the kids would NOT be alright without school. Burden of proof on you, before forcing millions of kids to attend. (And before robbing millions of tax-paying parents of the funds to finance a better day-care themselves.)
Agree that school is good, but there are probably massively better ways to do it than our current system. I think these people are right to notice that kids tend not to enjoy school in its current form, and that it forces them into a lot of unnatural behavior.
They also get something right in that there’s a general attitude adults take towards kids that involves not treating them like full human beings. Don’t get me wrong, kids need to be bossed around a fair bit for the sake of keeping them safe, helping them learn, etc., but I think adults ought to treat their authority as including a responsibility not to boss kids around arbitrarily. There should be some purpose in the things kids are made to do, and adults should tell kids what that purpose is, as best they can.
Agreed with this. Two things are obvious:
1. We can think of way worse alternatives to school, that loads of kids experience;
2. We can maybe think of better alternatives to school, that pretty much no-one experiences, but most superior alternatives to whatever we mean by 'schools' are probably just better schools.
On a global level, the problem of kids not going to school is still way, way more harmful than kids not enjoying the benefits of potential alternatives. In countries with low school attendance (I spent some time working on education in Ghana), I'm convinced that even a really crappy school, being lectured on something that you barely understand for hours and getting hit by the teacher if you make trouble, is better than the alternative (I still have images of out-of-school 8 year olds playing with car batteries in a malarial swamp, and most out-of-school girls being pregnant by 13).
If you're an elite Californian (I assume most of the anti-school rationalists fit this demographic), then you might imagine that your rich parents could either take a sabbatical to accompany you in your learning and transmit their vast elite knowledge and experience, or they could just hire a few private tutors from the elite overproduction assembly line, which, kinda obviously, sounds pretty nice. Even if your parents aren't so attentive, you can just spend your time with other elite kids- you'll probably find someone to make you lunch and keep you safe either way. I suspect that even the elite Californians would be better off in school ~90% of the time- if you genuinely think you'd have been better off out of school, you surely must realise that you're an outlier, even within your elite community.
On the point that 'Most superior alternatives are probably just better schools', I think that most people would want a structured way of getting kids to socialise and make friends with other kids, become acculturated to their country's norms, language and culture, and learn a set of basic skills. We also probably want something that efficiently outsources caring for and educating kids (in the daytime) to professionals at something like a 1-10 to 1-30 ratio (lower ratios better for kids, but unsustainable at societal level)/ a way that busy parents can be relieved of childcare responsibilities for ~8 hours a day do with minimal effort.
If we have a far less formalised school system, with more freedom, fewer exams, less rote learning, more play, yeah, absolutely, but most of Northern Europe has schools like that- they're still called schools.
Most of the debate around schools that I have seen on substack seens to me to be missing a major point. There are at least two reasons kids are sent to school that have nothing to do with education. First, parents have to work. Until age 10 or so kids need to be actively cared for and that’s incompatible with concentrating on work. Second, states need to form citizens. Schools teach history, geography, art and above all language to make sure all citizens have a common cultural ground, reducing ethnic diversity that may lead to separatism. Am I missing something?
I think you make some good points. But I think it under-appreciates alternative ways kids -- even kids outside of the top 10% -- can learn more productively.
A system that focuses on voluntary on-the-job apprenticeships (like we had before the 1900s) is likely to be a lot more fulfilling and educational for many people. It would also give them more contact with adults, which can have a maturing effect.
These are things that would gradually evolve if compulsory schooling were ended.
Thanks. The concept of warehousing children in these prison farms is an idea that has outlived its usefulness it we desire an educated world.
Imagine if no prisoners ever experienced sexual assault. Would that suddenly mean the comparison makes sense? or is sexual assault non-central to the nature of prisons that elicits such comparisons?
I think, “Kids should be allowed to go to a relaxed daycare that’s enforces some skills useful in work and is very harsh on bullying” feels like it might be better than school.
I came to make the same point Hanania makes - if you don't like you're job, you can quit tomorrow, so they're not at all the same.
Although that comparison is deeply flawed, it does point to a deeper problem and absolve schools a bit: schools are just an intstrument; the real problem is the over regulation & over policing of childhood (and the desire by many parents & society at large to do so).
It just doesn't seem that different to me if you're in a job you hate and every other job you're able to get is also gonna suck. But I'm not as libertarian as most of these guys, so the 'well children are *forced* to go to school' doesn't seem as compelling to me, and my point probably doesn't seem particularly compelling to you.
Why is every job going to suck? Even working in retail in a small town (I started at an ice cream store), you have many options of workplaces to choose from. And you can always do your own thing too.
You don’t have to be Libertarian at all to see the choice set of a worker is dramatically different from the choice set of a child with compulsory education.
I have done many kinds of jobs, from factory-floor to watchmen to college-teacher and back ;) - The only job worse than my high-school (I went to a good one) was in the assembly-line of MIELE-dishwashers. So what? I quit after 1 month. Took 2k Deutschmark with me and changed to a job I enjoyed. If you need the money, most real jobs in our rich societies are actually rather ok - else workers would leave, ya'know. Could not do that with geometry, "music", "art", "grammar", "sport", "Latin", "English" ("Your son will never learn it", my father was told. By one of our better teachers) - at least, I could not change any subject for most of nine long years. Was not paid a cent ever by school. ;) Our prisons pay 10€ to 17€ a day. Inmates want them to escape boredom, mainly. - Life in the west gives you choices. Unlike in prison or North Korea. If kids had much more choice in school, the prison-metaphor would indeed be much less appropriate. Sadly, it still is.
Mostly I agree, although I think reforming school to be better for kids is probably a pretty easy welfare gain. Lower work loads by cutting the more useless curricula, use the extra time to start later and devote more time to physical activity and play. Make violence prevention a higher priority. Allow students more freedom and choice (e.g. some high school students could be learning car mechanics or welding or ... instead of biology and calculus).
I don't think schools are a moral catastrophe, it seems that public education has been a boon to human welfare actually, but there are important and large problems with schooling that I feel like it is more productive to focus on.
I think school as a factory is a better analogy than school as a prison.
I pretty much echo all the sentiments in this post. Like you, I enjoyed school. I mean, I don't know for sure my life wouldn't have been better if I hadn't had to go to school, but I very much doubt it.
I do wonder whether it's possible UK schools are generally slightly better than US ones, but I've no evidence for that.
It is true that school is the only place I've ever really felt physically threatened (and I was only very mildly bullied as a child and only for a couple of years). That's.... weird, but doesn't change my generally positive view of school. I did enjoy university more than school, but I think school was better than adult life (and my adult life isn't particularly bad).
I'd assume that bad experiences at school are correlated with bad alternative non-school experiences (if you're in a poor area etc.), so I wonder what the intersection in the Venn diagram of people who a) had a bad experience at school, and b) think that they would have had a much better non-school experience, looks like. Perhaps very introverted people with super nice home environments?