Political Compass #25: #25 Schools shouldn't make attendance compulsory.

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.

Proposition #25: Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.
This proposition, perhaps more than any other in the test, had me staring at the screen in bemusement. Eh??

At first I thought that this might be some ultra-anarchist stance; that children should be afforded all of the freedom of choice granted to adults. Then I wondered whether this was an ultra-capitalist position: that by only teaching kids who wanted to be taught, the amount of taxation given over to education might be decimated or even eliminated altogether, leaving education solely in the hands of the private market. Or, perhaps, schools should not demand attendance since they are part of the government machine - only parents should have the right to tell their children what to do.

I confess, none of these arguments seem to me to be worthy of much more than fleeting consideration by reasonable people: Gangs of bored, illiterate teens roaming the neighbourhood with an educative diet consisting of barely nutritious scraps from TV is surely far inferior to a mandate that they go to school, no matter how imperfect their education there might be.

Again, however, I might be ignorant of an important aspect which I enjoin you all to explore, giving your score in your first post as usual.

Strongly agree.

+7.15, -1.5

Children are the responsibility of their parents. Parents are (in the great majority of cases) those who have the best interests of their children closest at heart. Teaching can take many forms not covered inside a school system or fulfilled by simple class attendance. Many parents believe the schools are not only lousy but directly harmful to their children. Many parents believe in home schooling. Forced school attendance smells like state raised children – and that is a nasty smell indeed!

SentinentMeat: Again I’m puzzled how you could have scored so high on the Libertarianism-scale and yet believe the state should have the power to force anything as basic and central as this down the throat of the parents. Your kind of Libertarianism seems very strange to me – authoritarian would be how I would describe such state power.

I know these questions are worded in a very open fashion on purpose, to get a “gut reaction” response. However, this question is so poorly phrased it basically has no meaning.

I’d like to “strongly disagree” because students are children, who have not the ability to make the best decisions for themselves. They need to be forced to attend classes, because if given a choice they might not attend. This would benefit no one.

However, once I consider home schooling, I’d like to “stongly agree” because of course parents should have the right to educate their children in any way they choose.

I guess I would have to say that I strongly disagree with the statement, assuming that the test is referring to children who are enrolled at said schools, and not all children in general.

Ahh, I see. The proposition might be restated “Home schooling should be an option”, then?

My response does not change, however. The sad fact is that parents who might indeed “have the child’s best interests at heart” can be utterly mistaken about what constitutes education, in the same way that they may be mistaken about what constitutes sound medical treatment. Leaving both to the professionals is an essential “check and balance” in the system, since teachers and doctors are sometimes the only ‘outsiders’ in a position to spot when something at home was dreadfully wrong.

Even if their home-schooling was first rate, they are still missing out on a social education and so some compulsory attendance would seem in order. I cannot think of a reason why parents could not simply provide extra schooling if they felt that the education was lacking, other than rather sinister and IMO illegitimate arguments regarding the truth of a school education.

The proposition did not say that only state school attendance should not be compulsory. I guess it gets hazy whether a home visit by a private tutor counts as school attendance - I would suggest so in the sense that they are still an ‘outsider’ having an input to the child’s education, which I believe is essential, not merely optional.

As for whether this is Authoritarian rather than Social Liberal in nature, I suspect that, yes, in this one question out of 61 I might have added a small positive score to my very negative Social score. But my central tenet is government involvement only in the interests of the common good (ie. to feasibly decrease suffering), and I believe that this is still one of those special cases.

+7/-3

Disagree.

This is indeed a very strangely worded question. Note the use of “classroom” attendance. Does that mean that if the kid can pass the exams, who cares whether or not he sits in class all day? It doesn’t say “the state should require children to attend school”, which is what I think most people assume it means.

At any rate, whatever the school is (home school or public or private school), the default position should be classroom attendance. There might be exceptions where that can be waived, but more often than not, kids need to learn from teachers and books, not from books alone.

The unfortunate minority, unable to take care of their children, should never be used as a cudgel to beat the masses into submission. The road to hell is paved on special cases.

“IMO” being the central word of that sentence.
And what makes you think home schooled children don’t get social interaction outside the class room – or indeed that the school is the only/best place for this to happen? In any case, it is a fortunate fact that there are many things in this strange world that neither you nor I will ever understand or think of a reason for, that doesn’t make them wrong though, nor does it allow us to rule what is the proper and only way to live you life.

On a personal note, considering the Danish/Faroese winter, I have a number of times fled to somewhat more humane latitudes in southern Spain for the winter. I and my family, which includes school children – for these months we’ve schooled them ourselves. This you want to make illegal - and what pray should be my punishment for this crime? The only one that has any meaning would be removal of the children.

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]

I’ll disagree. Home schooling and other forms of schooling should also be options.

To detect wrong doing is a poor reason to support compulsory education. If it makes you feel any better most schools require that home schooled children pass some sort of standardized test to ensure they’re getting a proper education. So far as doctors go I know of no law that requires parents to take their children to see them on a regular basis. I do feel that at times the schools are utterly mistaken about what constitutes education. After all it was public schools that taught me guns were bad, the drug war was good, and alcohol was bad.

We all “miss out” on all sorts of things growing up. Some kids miss out on piano lessons, some miss out on summer camp, and others miss out on field trips. Is there any evidence that home schooled children grow up socially inept compared to public school kids? As for the extra schooling the kids are already there 7-8 hours a day not counting time going to and from. How much more extra education should they receive?

Marc

I think we are now merely debating extent, Rune - my concerns regarding abuse or utter miseducation at home are addressed simply by some compulsory attendance somewhere by ‘outsiders’: your nomadic lifestyle does not forbid school attendance any more than I advocate forbidding home-schooling.

Classroom attendance for all of the school year should be the ‘default’. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons for some non-attendance, but none I can think of for preventing children ever seeing a teacher (or equivalent ‘outsider’) in a classroom. In the same way, I would consider a parent who prevented their child ever seeing a doctor as verging on outright abuse of that child.

Actually, having read Marc’s post, I am starting to come around to ticking Agree to proposition #25.

The caveat, of course, being that the state must ensure that the education was up to scratch.

The best way to do this being to mandate that the child takes the same exams, under the same conditions, as everyone else.

And therefore, since most exams are taken in classrooms, making classroom attendance compulsory.
Errm, what was the question again?

-2, -3.28 (Or the other way around, I don’t have it written down near me today)

Yes, the question is phrased confusingly. As things stand, many Western “democratic” jurisdictions make the schooling itself be what’s compulsory, and allow some latitude as to WHERE do you get the education. In such a regime the state compels you to have your children between certain ages in some sort of course of education, be it public, private, parochial or homeschooling, denying you the option to raise your children ignorant and illiterate due to a social understanding that being raised ignorant and illiterate is in itself deleterious to the child.

Now, I’m not as far off-center as the OP or Rune, but let’s see the alternate phrasings:

(a) “Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory” - Disagree
Indeed, I too noticed it does not say WHICH schools, though it is reasonable to presume that if they have the power of compulsion it must be at least state-regulated, just as it’s reasonable to believe this refers primarily to children. The first reasonable assumption prevents my adding “strongly” in the disagreement because that could be interpreted as being able to annull any other educational choice. But the second one means I must support that if there is an educational system, it must seek to reach as many as possible, by compulsion if necessary, a basic education being a basic necessity.

(b) “Home schooling should be an option”: Agree!
In this case, however, I stop short of the “strongly” only because it could be understood as meaning that the option should extend to the homeschooled being exempted from ANY regulation or vetting on every and any aspect of the educational process. I am not so concerned about the “social” aspect since even within a formal schoolgroup there are your loners and misfits, and the homeschoolers may have other avenues to interact withpeer groups.

There is nothing about “the state” in this question. It’s just asking whether the school that a kid attends should force the kid to be in the classroom regularly. I think people are reading too much into this question, and assuming it’s about state mandated school attendance, which it is not.

-4.62, -5.28 (though I take issue with the economic aspect, I’m no commie)

These political compass questions all seem to be intentionally broad so as to test one’s assumptions. I think it’s only reasonable that most people would assume the question was in regards to state schooling in some form or other, since that is by far the most common type of schooling around, for both developed and developing nations. I strongly disagreed with the question as worded, because at it’s most basic, the question essentially says should education be mandatory. I don’t care how liberal you want to be, you have to accept certain limits. Children should not be free to make the choice to get an education or not, nor should misguided parents be free to keep their kids ignorant. No one lives in a bubble, and being a member of a society means accepting certain responsibilities, including learning a broad enough curriculum of “stuff” to be able to integrate successfully with others.

That said, of course home schooling should be an option, so long as it passes some quality control standards. It’s not enough to just let parents be free to teach their kids whatever and not put them in school, because society pays the price if they raise some retarded kid with no concept of reality. I’m not saying schools are perfect, but you have to have some baseline to begin with.

Economic Left/Right: +5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: + 0.46

Strongly Agree

I didn’t overthink this one- the test states that certain phrases or terms are used for the purpose of eliciting specific associations. So even though this proposition can be interpreted as fairly vague, I just went with my gut reaction toward to the wording.

I’m sympathetic to the proposition primarily for the reasons mentioned by Rune - it is the parents and, as they become older, the children who should be responsible for education. Should they take advantage of schools (public or private), or if they use homeschool or any other system is entirely up to them.

Incidently, my own experiences in public school were absolutely terrible and for the most part a great waste of time- and that no doubt accounts for part of the gut reaction I have toward this proposition.

7, -1.5, right next to Rune. Strongly agree.

I’ve gone to public school here in Los Angeles since I moved here, from the third grade to the twelfth. I have received infinitely more relevant knowledge from my mother and from independent reading than from the schools in that decade. I detested the environments which were generally geared for the lowest common denominator (with the exception of two years in a gifted program, where I couldn’t keep up due to my then lacking English.) I’m not a social beast, never was, never will be, and did not benefit at all from the environment.

In high school, many kids don’t want to be there and actively ruin the classes for the teacher and the other students. They are forced into the system, just as incompetent teachers are regularly forced onto the students, and they gain virtually nothing from it. They torment, sunder, annihilate the already halfassed educational atmosphere.

Why do you think college presents a substantially better environment? My fellow students at my community college come from the same socioeconomic cesspit as I and my former classmates in high school. The difference is that they want to be there. Nobody forces them to attend; everyone is there from their own direct desire, or at least for the sake of a desired long-term goal. And the tormentors are not with us - they have gone a different path, and with luck if I ever see any of them again it will be on some installment of “When Animals Attack” in the distant future.

Disagree. I believe the state has compelling interest in making school attendance cumpulsory- a more educated populace is going to require fewer welfare recipients and have less crime than a less educated populace. This is an economic benefit to us all. Children (or even their parents) are not always able to appreciate the value of a good education and therefore I believe that attendance should be compulsory. The condition that I would add is that if you have shown that you are not there to learn, if you bring drugs and/or weapons onto school grounds, or if you just plain continually cause trouble then you should not be allowed in school. Draw the line by whatever criteria as you will, but non-troublemakers- you MUST go to school and as for the troublemakers, you CAN’T go to school.

(-3.38, -5.54)
Strongly agree.

If affording children much of the same freedom of choice as adults is an anarchist stance, well then, color me an anarchist (though I don’t think my compass position reflects that). The primary reason I agree with this statement is that I think kids who don’t want to go to school shouldn’t have to answer to anyone but their own parents about it… simple as that. Forcing them to spend most of their days someplace where they didn’t choose to be, where they aren’t getting compensated for their time, and where they are subject to rules set by committee is one step short of imprisonment.

As school policies get crazier and crazier, I can only agree more and more. No one who hasn’t committed a crime should be forced to go someplace where having a bottle of Advil or a nail file in his backpack is grounds for punishment, or where the people in charge turn a blind eye to bullying and assault.

Also, as Paladud points out: the more students who don’t want to be in class, the less effective those classes will be for the students who do want to be there. You can’t force someone to learn against their will. Unwilling students just suck up the staff’s time and effort, without producing any benefit for themselves or others.

Economic: -5.5
Social: -5.3
Strongly Disagree

However, I interpretted the question as mandating basic education in general, not just attendance in public schools. Acreditted private schools and home schooling programs are also acceptable. There are certain things we accept that the state should force parents to do for their kids. Feed them, provide them safety and basic helth care, and I feel that educaton should be on that list as well.

We need an educated populace both for the workforce and to ensure a popularly educated voting pool (then there’s jury duty, the possibility of the draft, and simply navigating through everyday bureaucracy).

Arguments about the quality of this education seem to me to be an entirely separate issue. Giving up on troubled students is not an option.

Right then, here goes. My original answer interpreted the proposition as “Education should be optional even for children”, which is just plain silly. Education of some minimum standard must be universal.

Then an aspect I was ignorant of was pointed out - that of home schooling, and the proposition made a lot more sense. But, following my gut instinct and concentrating on parents with sinister or batshit reasons for keeping their children from school, I chose to stick with Strongly Disagree, thus mandating classroom attendance. Having had a think about it last night, I’m going to swallow my pride and change my mind.

Upon reflection, I feel that my gut instinct was wrong. If the proposition read “Home schooling should be an option”, I would now tick Agree.

The important person here is the child. Every child must have an education of a minimum standard, whether they “want” it or not. Home schooling can provide this, so long it is subject to regular checks by an ‘outsider’ to ensure that the education attains that minimum standard and that no sinister batshit or abuse is involved. Even exams need not be in a classroom: so long as the invigilator is satisfied with the location, the kid need not ever see a classroom whilst receiving a first rate education perhaps even suitable for progression to university after passing the same exams as everyone else.

But if parents are unable or unwilling to provide such, the schools must take over, and letting disaffected children who don’t really want to be there roam the town in boredom is not a reasonable option. Unruly pupils might be granted their own classroom so that they do not disrupt the education of others but, ultimately, schools must make classroom attendance compulsory for all pupils enlisted there (by their parents or by the authority which judged their home education inadequate or abusive).

The proposition is poorly constructed, I think - specifying that home schooling was the relevant issue would have been far more helpful. But since it speaks of the schools, ie. the things with the classrooms, not the children who are not enrolled with those schools, then it would be remiss of the schools themselves to allow their pupils to avoid the classrooms. My final answer is Disagree in light of this poor phrasing (but I now Agree that home schooling should be an option.)

I thought that there would be precious little debate here at all, and here I am not only having my ignorance dispelled but actually being talked around to a more reasonable position. Thanks to all concerned: I hope that I may do (or have already done) you a similar service (and that you may be similarly big enough to admit it!).

Why stop at children… why not say that, for example, every immigrant must also receive that same education, whether they want it or not? If someone comes into the country and doesn’t know biology, algebra, or 19th century literature, why should he be let off the hook more easily than our own children?

If your reasoning is that people must have a certain level of knowledge to participate in society, that’s a valid point - but it extends to all people, not just children. I could perhaps agree with a proposal to require everyone to attain a certain level of knowledge, whether that means keeping someone in high school until age 30 (if that’s how long it takes him), or putting immigrants into adult education programs… but I can’t see how one can justify holding children to that standard and no one else.