Youth rights vs. mandatory education

Great Debates
1

This is a branch of brickbacon’s thread, Is plagiarism that big a deal?. My position in that thread was that (1) cheating in classes you’re forced to take doesn’t make you a bad person overall, and (2) although teachers should still penalize students for cheating, people outside the educational system should have some sympathy toward those students because the system they’re undermining is an oppressive one.

I illustrated these points early in the thread with this analogy:

My position in that thread, like my positions in many others, was influenced by my beliefs about youth rights. I believe many minors should be allowed to make their own decisions about things like school, employment, medical care, sex, politics, and contracts; laws that prevent them from doing so because of their age are discriminatory and unjust. To allow that thread to get back to the issue of cheating in college, I’m creating this one to focus on the implications of youth rights on mandatory education.

So, to get started, here are a couple of my responses to posts in that thread that I think belong here instead of there. Anyone else can feel free to chime in.

Simple: They’re being singled out because of their age. Whether they want to or not, whether they need to or not, minors must attend school until they reach a certain age. There are some alternatives (homeschooling), but they require outside parties (the state or school board and the parents) to approve.

OTOH, adults aren’t required to attend school whether or not they have a proper education, so you can’t claim mandatory schooling is in place just to ensure that everyone gets an education. Requiring everyone to attend school until they graduate would at least be fair; the current system is not.

I’m 22 years old, well out of high school. My position isn’t based on self-interest - the only legal age restrictions that affect me anymore have to do with holding public office, and I doubt I’ll be running for office anytime soon anyway.

Depends on their individual circumstances. Avoiding school entirely would be a poor choice for nearly everyone; dropping out early would be a poor choice for many.

However, I don’t think making school optional would be as problematic as you imply. For one thing, any opportunity sounds better when you can actually choose whether to take it - how many of us hated the literature we had to read in school, then discovered we actually liked it once we read it on our own as adults? In a land where school is an opportunity instead of a requirement, an education becomes a way to set yourself apart.

Also, a rigid schedule of classes, daily assignments, and tests isn’t necessary for learning. At Sudbury Valley School, and others like it, kids explore at their own pace, set their own schedules, and learn from each other. They’re given resources, freedom, and trust, and they provide the education for themselves simply by interacting with each other and pursuing their interests. A well-equipped library or community rec center could provide a similar experience.

It’s in the child’s best interest the same way allowing an adult to opt out of things is in his best interest - freedom is in everyone’s best interest. Sounds corny, but I believe it.

While some kids might sit around doing nothing for 18 years, most won’t. Gaining knowledge is something most kids love to do; just listen to any young child spout trivia about dinosaurs or trading cards. Even if they never go to an organized school, they’ll still have interests, and they’ll pursue those interests, picking up knowledge along the way. The ones who “start running things” will be the ones who have the knowledge and motivation to do so - no one is going to pull some uneducated kid out of his parents’ basement and hire him as a CEO.

You’ll have to explain what “qualified to make the decision” means, then, if it’s more than just knowing what you want to do. For example, are you qualified to decide how you want to spend your time? Am I? How do you know, and how could you prove it to me or anyone else?

2

While I believe it’s unfair to characterize minors as being supid they are generally pretty naive and usually aren’t in a position to decide what’s good for them in the long run. Just how young of a minor are we talking about? There’s a big difference between a 16 year old and a 5 year old.

You really think six year olds should be permitted to purchase alcohol, firearms, vote in elections, and drive automobiles?

I don’t think so. It isn’t in the best interest of my child to sit at home playing Nintendo rather then going to school and learning how to read or learn geometry.

Damn straight they won’t. If they can take responsible for their own actions as an adult then they can move out of the house, get a job, and support themselves. Right?
Marc

3

For many of them, that’s true. The problem is it’s not true for all of them, and the law doesn’t distinguish between one group and the other.

Indeed. But there isn’t a big difference between a 16 year old and a 15 year old, or between 15 and 14, 14 and 13… and so on all the way down. No matter where the line is drawn, someone’s going to be on the wrong side of it, and I find that unacceptable. I’d rather err on the side of freedom, so if I were forced at gunpoint to set an age limit, I’d say 11 or 12.

Not any of the six year olds I’ve met. But remember, we don’t just give everyone a driver’s license at age 16 - only people who prove they’re capable of safely driving a car are allowed to drive. We could do away with the age limit on driving and just rely on the tests (which need improvement anyway), and in my ideal world, the same would be true for all the rights you mentioned.

If a six year old can safely drive a car, there’s no reason to keep him from doing so… but if you show me that six year old, I’ll show you the most mature kid who’s ever lived. :wink:

The complicated details of all this testing have been discussed in earlier threads, though, so I’d prefer to keep this one on the topic of education for now.

That may be true. Similarly, it isn’t in the best interest of an adult to sit at home watching TV instead of working, borrowing money from his friends and family to pay the bills. But it is in his best interest to have the freedom to do so - to be able to make that choice on his own instead of being forced by law to send out resumes.

Also, as programs like the Sudbury Valley School demonstrate, you don’t have to put kids in a classroom to get them to learn. You just need to give them opportunities and let them congregate. Even Nintendo gets old after a while, and he’ll seek something more challenging. If he has friends or role models who read, he’ll want to be like them.

Sure.

4

I just don’t see it as being a problem that requires us to change the age of consent. If you’re willing to settle for 11 or 12 why not settle for 18?

If we want to talk about pie in the sky ideal worlds we should probably stick to the Libertarian, Objectivst, or Communist threads. Realistically I don’t see how we can issue test to determine whether or not a child can be responsible for themselves.

As they say, the devil is in the details. It’s great to have ideals but when they break apart when applied to the real world then what good are they?

Children aren’t miniature adults. They do not have the faculties to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. Do you spend any time with children at all? Do you have some sort of psychological study or something that would bolster your case? Because as it stands, the idea of treating children as if they were adults strikes me as utterly insane. This might be the kind of idea I could have gotten behind when I was 15 but my attitudes have changed over the past 14 years. I suspect this will simply be something we’ll never be able to see eye to eye on. Unless of course you’ve got some truly compelling reasons to lower the age of adulthood to 11 or 12.

Marc

5

I’m not exactly willing - I said “forced at gunpoint” for a reason, and only mentioned an age at all because it has come up in previous threads. Based on my personal experience, I believe that age would be the best compromise between false positives and false negatives, but even choosing the optimum age doesn’t change the fact that you’re still going to deny rights to some people who should have them, and give rights to some who shouldn’t.

Do you have those faculties? Do I? Think about it. How do we know?

Yes. I have a younger brother and cousins, and I’ve spent a lot of time with them and their friends, as well as my own friends’ younger siblings.

I was also a child myself for several years, and then a teenager for several more. :wink:

I see this just like any other civil rights issue. Was there a truly compelling reason to allow blacks and women to vote? If you don’t think eliminating unjust discrimination is a compelling enough reason, then no, I don’t think we will see eye to eye.

Note again, though, that I’m not suggesting lowering the ‘age of adulthood’. I am disputing the very notion that it’s appropriate for the law to divide people into classes based on the number of years they’ve been alive. People are individuals, not numbers.

6

I’m sure enough.

As was I, and not all that much earlier then you were. We did outgrow it though.

There were certainly compelling reasons to include suffrage for both women, blacks, unlanded males, and even those under the age of 21. I just don’t view the divide between adult and children as being and example unjust discrimination. Certainly it’s discrimination but it isn’t unjust.

If you have a realistic alternative then please share it with the rest of us.

Marc

7

Flashback. Is there any particualr reason why this issue is so close to your heart, Mr2?

8

This reminds me of a thread waaaaay back about minors, age of consent, etc.

Mr2001…there’s no doubt that some children are ready, responsible people. However, having the law’s default setting that they need to be protected (from themselves and others) is the safest, least exploitive way to go.

And, if i recall correctly, you want kids to have their cake and eat it too-they are supposed to be able to do whatever they want, but at the end of the day, it’s still their parents that have to clothe, feed, house them, etc. That strikes me as quite silly.

I love my kids- and I want them to eventually move out on their own and be successful, productive members of society. I will do everything in my power to that end- and if the weight of law is on my side, so much the better.

9

As I pointed out in the other thread, your mandatory school attendance = forced labor analogy falls apart because students are not, in fact, forced to work. They certainly are not forced to do a good job. The state prefers it if students do study and do a good job, and they spend a lot of money to encourage this, but students that refuse to work or put minimal effort into their work and do badly are not running afoul of the law. The state does not penalize them.

If children were going to be starved by Big Brother if they couldn’t pull in straight As then sure, kids who couldn’t make such grades on their own would be justified in cheating to survive. But this is not reality, and it is not remotely comparable to reality. In reality, even truancy laws are not widely or strictly enforced.

10

Exactly. “Have their cake and eat it too” is exactly what I’ve said in response to this issue as well.

I’ve gone 'round and 'round with him on this as well, and that’s what it boils down to. Some lip service is made about the kids being responsible for themselves, but as you say, at the end of the day, it’s still the parents that have to clothe, feed, house them, and also pick up after their mistakes.

11

You wouldn’t happened to have gotten your ideas from this site, per chance?

12

Interestingly enough, before mandatory schooling plenty of parents sent their children (and I’m not talking teenagers, but little children) to toil in coal mines or textile mills. Kids did not have much choice about this. Free and compulsory public education appeared along with child labor laws to protect the freedoms of children, give them the opportunity to better themselves no matter how poor their backgrounds, and prevent them from being forced into hard labor when they were young and vulnerable.

Sitting in a classroom may not always be fun, but it beats black lung disease.

13

Ben? Is that you?

14

That’s the crucial point. A 12 year old is not a 21 year old with short arms. Kids go through developmental stages. Mr2001 is too close to being a kid to see this. I have a kid older than he is, and the amazing thing about having two is that you can tell what stage the second one is in from experience with the first, even though their personalities are very different.

I guarantee that if someone shows him this thread in 20 years, he’ll go :smack: and wonder how he could ever be so dumb. Consider this another example of how parents get smarter as kids get older. :slight_smile:

15

“Qualified to make the decision” means, objectively, that the person possesses the mental maturity, perception, background knowledge and reasonable priorities that allows them to make the decision that is actually best for themselves and others, considering more than immediate gratification.

I honestly don’t think you’re making much headway with your current argument, Mr2001. If you were arguing for some kind of competency exam that minors could take to have themselves declared legally adult, you might get some support – heck, I’d probably support you. But you are arguing, so far as I can tell, that each and every human being, regardless of age, should be able to make decisions about how to spend their time. And that’s simply nonsensical. My daughter is 5, and given the opportunity, she would stay awake all night and never go to daycare, depriving herself of much-needed sleep and her parents of the ability to go to work so that we could make house payments and put food on the table. She is not COMPETENT to make decisions.

In the same respect, the 16-year-old who would rather spend his or her time playing basketball (or reading Proust, who cares) than studying and doing homework for “useless” stuff like algebra is NOT COMPETENT to make the decision that that is a better way to spend time. It may be more fun, it may be more enjoyable. But it is not “better.” It does not build the skills that are the basis of success in later life (arguably, it may if the child become a professional basketball player or novelist, but the chances of algebra being useful as a foundational skill are far greater).

In all honesty, I think some of us in this thread are doing you a disservice by blaming this on your (comparative) youth. I don’t understand how you can hold your position, but I don’t think that aging alone will change it.

16

Doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid. If I say I’m sure enough that most teenagers do have those faculties, you’ll expect me to prove it, right? Well, if you can’t even think of a way to prove you have them, you have no place declaring that minors lack them.

Please read the thread title again.

Yes, that would be silly, but you (and yosemite) do not recall correctly. What I’ve always said is with rights come responsibilities.

Now, if you can relate this concern to education, I’d be happy to discuss it further. What responsibilities do you think minors should be given in exchange for being able to choose where and whether to attend school?

Eh… hard to say. I felt oppressed as a teenager because everywhere I went, I was judged by my age instead of my qualities as an individual, and I wanted to do something about it. Although I’m not active in any youth rights organizations these days, most of that enthusiasm is still with me. Most people seem to forget how frustrating life is when you’re under 18 as soon as it doesn’t affect them anymore–either that, or I had it a lot worse than everyone else–but I feel more like someone who struggles to move from a third world country to the Land of Opportunity™, becomes successful, and uses his new position to help the folks who are still suffering in the place where he grew up.

Nope. I’d never heard of TCS before it was mentioned on the SDMB a while back, but I briefly looked through the site just now. Their core philosophy seems to be “it’s best to solve conflicts in a way that makes everyone equally happy”, which no one would question under most circumstances; the only novel thing about it is they also consider the child’s emotions important, which I agree with. Some of the practical implications of TCS seem bizarre, but a lot of what I saw was reasonable. Getting back on topic, “Doing Nothing Academically?” mirrors the ideas behind places like Sudbury Valley School.

Well, I’d say it is at least remotely comparable. If you don’t graduate, your career options are limited. If you don’t do schoolwork, you don’t graduate. Whether it’s appropriate to say that students are forced to do schoolwork is debatable, I guess–as I mentioned in the other thread, the presence of students who weren’t working was not tolerated in the classes I attended–but they are certainly forced into an environment where schoolwork is just about all there is to do.

The lax enforcement of truancy laws is interesting in that it gives kids an opportunity to avoid school if they want, but ultimately it doesn’t justify anything. The law is still on the books, even if the local PD has other priorities.

Color me whooshed. Star Wars reference, right?

Or perhaps you’re too far from being a kid to remember that even before you turned 18, you had emotions and the capacity for rational thought. You knew how you wanted to spend your time.

Don’t patronize me, pal. If you want to call me dumb, take it to the pit.

But you know, you might even be right. A few decades from now, I might have a lot less respect for people younger than me. And if I won the lottery, I might start caring a lot more about capital gains tax and a lot less about universal health care. Changes in circumstances lead to changes in beliefs, but that doesn’t mean an old man’s opinions are any more correct than a young man’s.

17

I’m with you until that last part. Immediate gratification, or more generally convenience, is something we all take into account when we make decisions.

If I’m hungry after work, and I stop at a drive-thru on the way home and pay $6 for dinner, instead of waiting a couple hours to eat the food I’ve already paid for at home, that’s making a choice based on immediate gratification, isn’t it? I wouldn’t die if I waited, I’d just get hungrier, but I decided that sating my hunger now is more important than saving a few bucks and eating a bit healthier. Surely you agree that doesn’t mean I’m unqualified to make decisions about dinner, though, right?

It’d be easy to say that the best decision is to eat the healthiest food, or to avoid spending any more than is necessary, but those views fail to account for the subjective value that eating now has to me.

Similarly, I believe arguing that the best decision for a kid is to go to school because it’ll increase his overall knowledge, or his job prospects, fails to account for the subjective value that pursuing his other interests has to him. The usual justification is to wave one’s hands and say that since he’s under 18, his personal desires are screwed up and not worth considering, so he should only be making choices based on what other people feel is important. I just can’t buy into that.

I could support something like that too, as a compromise or temporary solution, but see below.

Indeed. I’ll certainly concede that young children are incompetent to make a lot of decisions. Everyone starts life as a newborn, unable to make any decisions, and at some point they’re an adult, able to make all their own decisions. But at what point does someone become an adult? Is it something that happens all at once, overnight, or a gradual process - one day you’re competent to make decisions A and B, a few months later you can do C and D, etc.?

I believe it’s a gradual process, and that’s a big problem when the law considers you a child one day and an adult the next. That simply cannot match up with reality no matter where you draw the line.

OK, consider an 18 year old who’d rather spend his time reading novels and delivering pizza than going to college. All the same arguments apply - he may find reading and driving a pizza wagon more enjoyable, but those still aren’t things that build the skills that are the basis of success in later life. Sure, he might become a novelist, and all that driving might lead him to someday become a Formula One star, but chances are he’d be better served in the long run by getting a degree in law, medicine, computer science, etc.

Now, is he NOT COMPETENT to make that decision either? Suppose he’s 21 or 30 - still not competent?

If your answer is yes, well, kudos for being consistent. I certainly wouldn’t support restricting the rights of 18 or 30 year olds who choose leisure and menial jobs over the pursuit of education, though… but who knows, maybe some people would. (Not that the popularity of an idea is proof of its correctness, as I am well aware. ;))

If, as I suspect, your answer is no, then the question is what happens between age 16 and 18 that makes the difference? Can you really say for sure that there are no 16 year olds who have whatever that 18 year old has? I know I can’t. Everyone grows at a different rate, and some people are more mature at 16 than others are at 18.

Thanks… I think. :wink:

18

Who said that kids don’t have the capacity for rational thought? I was nerdly enough that I would have stayed in school whatever. But one kid in my class, who should have been valedictorian, wasn’t because he didn’t show up enough. I was immature in plenty of other ways. And my daughter, who is scarily rational, admits five years later that she did dumb things.

You’re no dumber than I was at that age, or anyone else for that matter. Look, kids would lose a lot if they had to be responsible for themselves. Dealing with teenagers is a scaling of dealing with babies - you let them crawl, but keep them away from the stairs and light sockets. But if you don’t let them crawl, they’ll never learn to walk. A kid who doesn’t push the limits would be a boring kid indeed. The purpose of the law is to set some loose bounds. If a parent wants to let a kid stay up until 3 am every night, that’s fine, but he still has to go to school the next day.

Didn’t once in your life your parents tell you that you’d understand something when you got older, and weren’t they right at least once?

19

Maybe I read too much into your support of MGibson’s post. He said children lack the faculties to make decisions about what they want to do, and since no one seems to know what those faculties are or how we can determine whether someone has them, I took a guess.

Sounds like he shouldn’t have been valedictorian after all. It’s not an award for being the smartest kid in school, it’s an award for putting in the time and effort to get the highest grades. Perhaps he should’ve received the title I did in high school “most likely to succeed without trying”. :wink:

We all do things that we regret later. That doesn’t mean we were incompetent at the time and should’ve been prevented by law from doing them, though.

Is that supposed to be less offensive? :mad: Compare it to “You’re no dumber than any other woman.” There’s a place for insulting entire classes of people, but this ain’t it.

No, actually, they never told me that. My parents treated me with respect. What you describe is patronizing and it’s a cop out: “I’ve failed to convince you of this today, but someday I know you’ll see the light anyway - because how could I, an adult, believe something that isn’t true?”

20

I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that immediate gratification is not a factor, but that it needs to be placed in context. Your example has a number of assumptions built into it – that you can afford to spend $6, and that the health consequences are minima, just to name two. You’re equipped to understand the decisions you’re making in the full context of your life and circumstances, or at least we treat you as though you are (not intended as an insult, but as a recognition of your point that the decision is not based on an evaluation of your abilities).

If you did not have $6, for example, or the $6 you were about to spend would leave you $6 short for making rent this month, then it would be a terrible decision. The contextual information drives whether you get to make decisions based on personal preference.

Except that’s not what I am saying, or at least not what I intend to say. I’m not failing to account for the subjective value of his or her desires, I’m just placing them at a lower level than the contextual decision-making of the people who are legally responsible for his or her well-being and upkeep. I not only get to make decisions for my kids, I am legally required and morally obligated to do so. I am supposed to be taking care of them. Their desires aren’t “screwed up and not worth considering” – quite the opposite, in fact. But they’re not paramount, and you seem to be arguing that they should be.

I agree that becoming mature and capable of rational, contextual decision-making is a gradual process. And that any system which places a hard breakpoint between the two states is going to fall short of accuracy. But I think we can also agree that the capability to make decisions well increases with age – at least I assume that from your admission that all children below a certain age are incapable, and that at least some older people are capable. As mentioned earlier, the rights and freedom that come with being adult also come with responsibilities.

The difference between the 16-year old and the 18-year old is that, legally speaking, the 18-year old is responsible for the consequences of his or her actions. The 16-year old (barring being tried as an adult) is not.

The 18- and 30-year olds of your example are assumed to be competent, because (a) they are of an age where they are biologically adult, past most of the hormonal surges that can make decision-making harder, (b) they have an amount of years of life experience that we have societally agreed prepares one for making decisions and (c) they’re responsible for the consequences of their actions.

That said, I’m mightily tempted to go for internal consistency. :slight_smile: There are plenty of people of all ages who should be kept from making decisions. My soon-to-be-ex-sister-in-law, for example, should never be allowed near credit in any way shape or form.

I think the thing about your argument that I find objectionable is that, if we were to do as you ask, we’d be burdening very young people with the consequences of poor decisions that would have lifelong consequences. My brother dropped out of high school at age 18 (which he was legally able to do, by the way – I am not sure why the 18-year old of your example was not…). It was a good decision for him at the time, and one he was able to make, but he regretted the decision deeply for many years. When he later decided to go to college, he needed to get a GED, and then go to a general college rather than the college of his choice.

I’d rather err on the side of oppressing young people for a few years than allowing them do long-term damage to themselves.