Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance  (Read 9310 times)

UCCO2004

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« on: August 12, 2005, 01:43:40 pm »

I would like to hear from Libertarians, including those under 18, their opinions on truancy laws and/or school attendance.  Obviously, the national LP platform opposes compulsory education.  Yet I am not sure about the LPNH platform, which seems to believe that parents should make all the decisions about your education until you turn 18.  I personally believe that teenagers should be allowed to decide whether they attend middle school or high school, not their parents OR the government, because this would especially pressure government schools to offer curricula more to the personal liking of teenagers.  Although I had some positive experiences in my government high school -- and even learned about the LP itself from a government high school civics textbook!
Logged

Neo-Jeffersonian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Life Boy Scout and NRA Sharpshooter.
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2005, 02:29:36 pm »

you made good points, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

Number one:  Parents have a vested interest in having a certain degree of control over their child's life, education, etc.  I mean, they've spent lots and lots of money to raise the child, sacraficed their time, their jobs maybe, their own education, so that their child can have it better.  I, personally, have had massive control over my education.  My parents home-schooled me all my life, then founded a private school which I attended until this last May, when I graduated from High School.  I never really had "Junior High."  I went from elementary school to not-yet-college, then straight to college.  I think that teenagers should have some control, but I don't think that most teenagers, myself included, would get very far without the help, direction, and sometimes control of an older more experienced person.  Without the help and guidence of my parents, I'd not be where I am.

Number 2:  It is my opinion that the government should have no role whatever in the educational system.  The current education system is unreliable, inefficient, and frankly does more harm than good.  The Government School system was devised by a socialist, and modeled after the Hitler Youth and Nazi Re-education.  I, personally, would never put a child in that kind of system.  I think education should be privatized.

Number 3:  Truancy... I do not believe that Education should be compulsory.  Compulsory education is also ineffective, and if someone doesn't want to go to school bad enough, they'll just skip it anyhow.

there's my three cents.

/Jeff.
Logged
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"--Patrick Henry, 1776

"It is the path of least resistance that makes rivers and men crooked." --Unknown.

Gabo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2005, 01:20:30 pm »

As long as you agree to live under the guidance and control of your parents, they can make all your decisions for you.
You should be able to emancipate yourself at your own discretion, but until then you are living under your parents' rule.
Logged
I love my country!

It's my government that sucks...

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2005, 02:26:20 pm »

I believe strongly in separation of family and state.

If a child wants to leave a family, then state claims over that child have greater weight, but until that point how parents raise their children shouldn't be an issue up to the public to determine.  If a parent accepts outside assistance with the requirement that such assistance is conditional depending upon how they raise their children, that's fine, but if these monies are collected in an involuntary way (like through taxes) then the entire thing is still based upon using police to force the situation on the family and this should not be viewed as a legitimate relationship, IMO.

That doesn't mean children don't have their freedom in many things, it just means it's a family matter to determine as long as the child remains dependent on the parents.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2005, 02:32:43 pm by SteveA »
Logged
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren.  Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere.  Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile.  But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."

KBCraig

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2005, 10:44:46 am »

I'm reminded of an old poster:

"Teenagers! Throw off the shackles of oppression! Stop tolerating the tyranny of parents! Move out now and get a job, while you still know it all!"

Kevin
Logged

Neo-Jeffersonian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Life Boy Scout and NRA Sharpshooter.
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2005, 01:35:54 pm »

I definately agree that the family should have the choice.  Otherwise, we're just letting our kids and ourselves be trained by the Federal Government to be little factory workers and soldiers and policemen.  Did you know that the school lunch program was designed in WWII to fatten people up for being soldiers?

/Jeff.
Logged
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"--Patrick Henry, 1776

"It is the path of least resistance that makes rivers and men crooked." --Unknown.

castle_chaser

  • Guest
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2006, 11:01:08 pm »

This sums up my views.

The Teenage Liberation Handbook...

http://www.lowryhousepublishers.com/TeenageLiberationHandbook.htm

Kate

PS Sorry, I'm not under 21 any more but try not to hold it against me.
Logged

k0balt

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2007, 01:15:47 am »

studys prove teens have noc type sleeping schedules
which would explain why i couldn't wakeup at 7am
cool thing is, after so many tardies (even walking into class during the tv brainwashing every morning) would qualify me for detention and then suspension

yup that's right,  suspended twice for arriving late to class in the mornings, before the teacher ever started lecturing....(well maybe i walked in on her a few times too)
needless to say, i was REALLY late on the homework after that
Logged

dj2007

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: Truancy Laws and/or School Attendance
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2007, 08:01:46 pm »

I'm not under 21 anymore either, but here is what I think.

I think that parents should be responsible for ensuring that their children learn basic mathematics, reading, and writing skills, in addition to basic government (know how the constitution structures the government, what the different branches do, how they check each other, the role of voting, the role of individual rights in a republic, the bill of rights). I think that this is a responsibility that should be fulfilled by the time the child is 12 or 13 (8th grade). Beyond that point, I think that legally the child must agree to any further education, while the parent has the right to deny any funding that might be required for that further education. I also think that a parent of a child who refuses further education should no longer be responsible for the child in other regards (so, the child can refuse high school, but if he does the parent is no longer responsible for his food and shelter).

Whether a state public education system exists should be up to the state. I think states should choose not to have such a system, but I don't think it is appropriate for the federal government to ban them from doing it. Still, even in states whose populations choose to have a public school system, I do think that states should not be allowed to compel parents to send their children to a public school, provided parents are ensuring that children learn the basics in some other way, such as in a private school or a home school. I think that that is a right of individual families that should be backed up federally.

As far as what I think best, I think education should be like food: it is parent's responsibility to provide it to children, and there is not a public system for supplying food, so why education? We don't think that the fact parents must feed their children means that there should be a massive federal system providing standard food for all children at general taxpayer expense, and education should work like that as well. Then you'll get the variety and competition and innovation that markets are known for.

The problem is like the problem with food, but worse. When parents can't feed their children, but have good intentions and try to, typically charities step in, but sometimes there are programs like food stamps needed to get the kids fed. When parents are really negligent, another option is removing their kids and putting them in foster care. This should be rare, and can be rare if you have a populace maintains a culture of personal responsibility, but occasionally there are really bad cases where it needs to happen to secure small children's rights to basic care. I think in those cases, things like foster care and a need-based food stamp program are worth considering, on a state-by-state basis. Still, the first line is personal responsibility and private charity.

With food, this can be a minor problem, typically dealt with through charity, because basic food is pretty cheap with the market system. Education would probably be much more expensive than basic food even with the market system, so the problem of well-intentioned parents being unable to pay for basic education would be more frequent. I don't know how it would be dealt with.

-If it is dealt with by removing the kids from the home, you've created a traumatic experience for the kid. That's a horrible thing unless there is serious abuse and serious negligence happening.

-If it is dealt with by punishing the parents by jail or fines, this again isn't making the situation better unless the parent is failing to fulfill duties on account of simple laziness rather than on account of bad luck and past bad planning. (In the first case, avoiding punishment is a motivator, while in the second, the motivation is there and there are other causes behind the problem.)

-If it is dealt with by a school stamp type program, that will be a major burden on taxpayers, because educational costs are high (though they are likely to be lower in a market system). It is also a form of welfare and there are loads of problems with that sort of funding and social structure.

-If it is dealt with by charity, there is a good chance there will not be enough charity funds coming in to cover basic education costs for many people. For this to work you're depending on the society either having a LOT of philanthropists who are skilled at effective philanthropy (that is, not the sort of people who thing to give computers to African schools before considering whether pencils and mops might be more useful), or else being very prosperous and full of economic opportunity for even unskilled labor and for people of below average smarts and learning capacity. This is a shaky proposition, and is quite likely to lead to the next possibilities.

-If it is dealt with by just ignoring the fact that many parents won't or can't give their kids even a grade 8 education, you're looking at  accepting that a significant proportion of the next generation is will not be prepared for citizenship in a rights-respecting Democratic Republic. That is a serious problem, as I'm not keen on my country slipping into some sort of feudalism. I want a Democratic Republic, with the checks and balances on government power, and with the Bill of Rights, and with the popular feedback and check on power, maintained.

-If it isn't dealt with beyond just punishment of parents who don't educate (taking their kids, or jailing, or fining), you're likely to get a lot of institutes cropping up that will provide the basics for a very low price or for free, but at the cost of being coupled with indoctrination that is contrary to both the individual's interests and the interests of maintaining a free society. Think Communist indoctrination, or think Radical Islamic indoctrination, or think of radical racial hate groups (Christian Identity, for example). I'm not necessarily saying that these folks shouldn't be able to run schools for their own kids, but I am saying that if a lot of parents who don't have these beliefs are in an economic bind over education, if they're in a situation where they might have to go for whoever will subsidise them voluntarily, and then they're easy prey for ideological groups. This could even have worse results for individualism and for maintaining a society in which rights are respected than the current statist system has.

So, it is a tough problem.

By the way, I'm pro-liberty, and vote LP when I vote, but I'm not LP and not ideologically hardline. I'm thinking of moving to NH within the next year.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up