Because immigrant education was not the point of proposition #25, but I would advocate a basic education for immigrants.
More or less basic than for children?
Mr2001, might I ask the point of this diversion? If you seek to trap me with some inconsistency somewhere along the line, surely it would be more useful if you provided us with a paragraph explaining your line of reasoning?
My point is that I have not seen a reason for forcing children into school that only applies to children, yet no one would seriously suggest holding all adults to the same academic standard that children in school are required to meet - why not, if it’s so important for everyone to have that level of education?
We do give up on troubled and unwilling students, as soon as they turn 18; and as for those adults who make it into the country without the equivalent of a diploma, we don’t even attempt to have them learn the same subjects that public school children are graded on.
That suggests to me that compulsory schooling has less to do with giving everyone an education of a minimum standard, and more to do with keeping kids out of sight.
As I said, I can see the merit in requiring everyone to have a certain level of education… but I must strongly agree with the political compass statement as it’s given, because schools (as I know them) are only compulsory for children and teenagers, and therefore serve quite a different purpose.
Well, there are all manner of distinctions between children and adults: that is the very heart of the concept of an age of consent. Nobody would seriously propose granting children all the freedom of choice enjoyed by adults (immigrant or not), from choice of vehicle to preferred liquor.
And yes, we ultimately do ‘give up’ sooner or later (in the UK, one can leave school at 16). But we must try in the first place.
Perhaps not, but I didn’t propose that either. I’m simply wondering where the logic is in insisting on a minimum standard of education for children, if you don’t extend it to anyone else. I am far more concerned with making sure voters and public servants are educated, and they tend not to be children.
Why does it matter whether little Johnny can write a research paper, recite the capitals of African countries, explain the symbolism of Watership Down, or balance a chemical equation, when his parents–the people who actually wield political and economic power–are not held to any remotely similar standard? It’s like a coach asking a runner to train every day, starting 12 years before a big race… but then feeding him donuts and sitting him in front of the TV for the last six weeks before the event, just when being in shape matters the most.
Freedom of choice is a nice vague thing to point out in order to justify different treatment for minors and adults, but modern societies have no problem abridging freedom of choice when the goal is important enough. You don’t have the freedom to choose not to pay taxes, for example, because taxes are needed to fund essential services. Is education only important enough to justify abridging some people’s freedom, but not others?
A very interesting question, Mr2001, but if I may politely suggest you open a separate thread, I’m sure you’ll find many respondents.
I read the question as asking whether or not schooling per se should be optional, in which case I strongly disagree–though the form this schooling takes can be flexible, and in general I think we need less general education options and more technical options available (more tech schools for precocious 11th and 12th graders who are well aware of the field they’d like to be a part of, with or without college). In most areas, so long as the child is getting an education, they do not need to attend any particular public school. This is, for all purposes, fine by me.
.88
.-77
Guess I’m pretty wimpish on everything 
For example, I’m a pro-life feminist and a pro-gay-rights religiously observant person, and boy, does that throw all these polls off.
I think that in addition to having unruly gangs of ignorant teens roaming around (more than we already do) you’d end up with certain socioeconomic classes and whole genders–namely mine–ending up with much less education and unable to make their way in the world except in the lowest-status/paying jobs. And the low-paid person will pull the kids (girls first, of course) out of school to get jobs to support the rest of the family–this happened to my own grandmother, in 1917.
One of the great goals and principles of America is our determination, after initially omitting all too many groups, to try to give each child an equal education. I agree the question is worded oddly, but that’s the Brits for you.