Talk:Compulsory education

	Alternative education (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternative educationWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative educationTemplate:WikiProject Alternative educationAlternative education articles

Education Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A quick research in the web shows the following data:

Compulsory education was introduced in Parts of Prussia on the 28.Oktober 1717 by Friedrich Wilhelm I and extendet to whole Prussia by Friedrich II 12. August 1763. (81.10.128.117 - talk)

True, but a quick search of the web also shows a number of sources which specify 1819 or even "the 1820s." It would be nice to have something more authoritative. (Visviva - talk) in irish form usa thats from the homokrati...

Might mention controversy (mainly among students) over concept. (Daniel C. Boyer - talk)

Added some considerations about it and linked to truancy. (TuukkaH - talk)

These two wikipedia articles mention compulsory education in Judea from ~60 C.E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section about schools in Scotland from 1616. If you read the pertinent section footnoted in the W article on education in Scotland, you will find that it does not say that these schools were mandatory. In fact, it says they exerted "moral pressure" to try and get the local inhabitants to attend. That's not compulsory education. (6Darentig - talk)

The fact about the Education Act of 1496 does seem to be compulsory, but could hardly be referred to as "modernity". Nevertheless, the "1616 Scottish Privy Council" part is still non-compulsory. (6Darentig - talk)

"Moral pressure" by government is compulsion. Ramorum (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory education starts from 6 and ends at 15. When someone turns 16, which means that person is no longer required to go to school. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

That's a matter of opinion.

Whatever the merits or non-merits of compulsory education it is largely popular around the world so it is strange that this article is 5% history and 95% criticism. I'm not sure how to integrate it but including some support might be a good idea, maybe as part of the history and in there much of the criticism could also be located. Then you could also have an effects section or something of the like which contains facts, praise and criticism about the effects of compulsory education

There is some conflation (see below) going on here and an absence of citation - who can say that compulsion is 'largely popular around the world' when it is so rarely discussed?

The Benefits section is small because all of the supposed "benefits" have no explanation of how or why compulsory education brings them about. Perhaps if someone could show how compulsory education has these benefits, it wouldn't look like something out of a grade-school persuasive essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.153.130 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits section is small because, just that the benefits of compulsory education are small. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of conflation (confusion of related issues) going on here, on both pages, and beyond - perhaps reflecting the relative youth of the institution in this culture. Are those who sing the praises of 'compulsory education' applauding the enforcement of the universal right to education, the compulsion itself, or the education which happens to result? These are important distinctions, for there is clearly a difference between education itself, which is a right, and the compulsion, seen by some as essential, and by others as an infringement of civil liberties. No-one denies that some parents and guardians unfairly deny children the right to education where it is not enforced, but this is quite different from a general acceptance that universal compulsion is therefore an inevitable summum bonum.

I agree, the righ to education is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, amongst others, and in international law the realisation of the irght to education does not mean compulsory education. I have taken the re-direct for right to education out. I think the two are linked, as many countries have thought to realise the right to education of every child by implementing compulsory education, but its not the same. So the right to education should really ahve its own article. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a palpable, perhaps chauvinistic US bias. It refers to 'public schools' (a term which can mean something quite different in the Commonwealth) and to 'the principles of personal liberty that this country was founded on.'

Perhaps the above editor will do it, not just complain. --Zeamays (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the anonymous editor only had time to identify the problem, and you only had time to give a snotty response.

The topic of home schooling seems to be the driver for some of the highly POV material in this article. While the reasons for objections to compulsory education are a reasonable topic for debate, the facts are not. I have tried to correct several POV problems and omissions and to make it less USA-centric.

• Ignoring private school options. Home schoolers who wrote much of the article have ignored that private school attendance fulfills compulsory attendance laws. They object to attending any school to fulfill requirements.

• Confusion of publicly-funded schools and compulsory schooling. One need not attend any school to comply with law, as long as some approved curriculum is being taught, but much of the article seems to ignore this.

• Implied criticism that public education (USA sense) is inherently bad. Prior to compulsory attendance in the USA there were no publicly-funded schools in many places, particularly the South. How was that a bad thing? For example there were no schools for the recently-freed slaves in the South. The South was dominated by a plutocracy that saw no need for general education and literacy (for poor whites as well as blacks). The writers are unaware that how important compulsory education was in changing this situation.

The "Criticism" section is badly in need of balance and needs the efforts of a knowledgeable editor who can provide the other side's story with good references. --Zeamays (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Confusion of publicly-funded schools and compulsory schooling." -- the problem is that they are very closely related issues. One is used to fund the other. Discussion of compulsory funding of schools (i.e. through taxes) therefore has a place in this article, perhaps with references to a "main article" with a more extensive discussion (is there one?).

"One need not attend any school to comply with law, as long as some approved curriculum is being taught" -- there are two problems with that statement: 1) Requiring "some approved curriculum" is still compulsion and 2) not all states'/countries' laws are friendly to homeschooling (for example, California and Germany).

"Implied criticism that public education (USA sense) is inherently bad." -- This is a commonly-held position with a lot of arguments from different perspectives. It is thus a valuable part of the discussion. Your "how was that a bad thing?" comment, if you mean "how is compulsory public education bad?", is representative of a blatant bias in favor of compulsory schooling, which has no more place on wikipedia than an unjustified assumption of the contrary opinion. Ramorum (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you guys mean compulsory schooling? There's a big difference between education and schooling, they are not synonyms. 63.225.247.126 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article with the huge criticism rant section looks like as if being written by a survivalist wacko living up the hills in a wooden shed sleeping with a loaded gun out of constant fear of FBI agents coming to nab him. The author who composed this article is obviously paranoid and should get treatment. He is so afraid of the state, the state of his mind lost balance!

It is a matter of fact that compulsory schooling makes a country successful. Look at Japan and Germany, world class industrial powers due to their skilled labour. Even the USSR made a great progress from the misery of tsarist Russia after implementing the ten year schooling system. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, who's lost the "balance" of his mind now? Sounds like you, buddy. Ramorum (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That 82.131.210.162 guy sounds like a communist sympathizer to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.109.119 (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, folks. 82.131.210.162 is entitled to his irrelevant fascist opinion. Let's wish our comrade a safe journey to the labor camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.211.17 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a good chunk of the "Benefits" section, for several reasons. The whole section was riddled with false dichotomies and misleading verbage.

• Higher percentage of literate people in the population
• It prepares people for the schedule and effort that jobs demand.
• An alternative to compulsory education is homeschooling, in which parents teach their children at home. Many parents are not familair with the subject material, so they cannot teach it. The children end up with no education.
• Compulsory education is a babysitting service too. This allows parents time to go to their jobs, where they cannot take their children.
• Though homeschooling might increase quality of education among some individuals, it reduces the quantity of people educated.

Most of these "benefits" present a false dichotomy. The picture painted is one in which there are two options for every child: either attend compulsory government schooling or have no education. Alternatively, be homeschooled (which one of the "benefits" mentions but others overlook). This is simply not an accurate picture of schooling. Many students attend private educational institutions and would do so even if doing so were not made compulsory by government. Homeschooling does not "reduce the quantity of people educated" -- what a ridiculous claim -- if they students who are not homeschooled attend some other school -- public or private. If parents desire a school as a babysitting service, they can achieve this by voluntarily enrolling their children in school in a system without compulsory schooling. Every one of the points above is addressed by a free (as in liberty, freedom, free will, voluntary, speech; not beer) system of education.

These arguments and others could probably also apply to the three "benefits" I didn't (yet) remove. Probably the section should be written to include some of the common benefits which people or governments claim, with citations, and clarifying that they are perceived or claimed benefits, not benefits. Also, contrary views should be presented in such a case. Any benefits of a general high level of education or literacy should be left out, since they are not benefits of compulsory education, as mentioned above.

Ramorum (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatto simply isn't that influential. There's no need for a blushing 4 paragraph rant on his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartyMan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "citation needed" tag next to the part where it says that compulsory education takes up a great deal of an individual's time. This is obvious, and no citation is needed. If you do insist on citing someone, cite me. 131.151.211.17 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job including all of those valid and respected viewpoints by opposers of compulsory education. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before about 1840, when the government-school movement began, America was a highly literate society. Publishing boomed in the young Republic. Hundreds of newspapers flourished. Books and pamphlets sold in the millions among a population of around 20 million. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]