Garbler, I don't believe the U.S. currently recognizes the human rights act as valid, because of the socialist interpretation of human rights that is perpetuated throughout the act itself. Therefore, since the U.S. is not subject to the act, it has no reason to cease public schooling solely because of the definitions included in the act. This is not necessarily to say that public schooling is right. It is only to say that the U.N.'s human rights act is not a good source of argument against any policy, much less public schooling.

I'm sorry but i know very little about US law, I live in the UK.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

__________________
"Why check the third lock on the front door when the back door is wide open?" -Orson Scott Card


"Ohh, ADD, what bliss, ahh..err...what was i saying?" -Me

I have said that school is no bad thing, and Lord-Kark that is why. I am afraid that I could not translate that abysmal message you left.

I just hope that someone will translate it into a constructive comment because as far as I can see it was a passing comment of no particular relevance to this topic which was probably in a feeble attempt to increase your rating.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

Someone please contact the ACLU. I think we have a gross violation here...

Seems to me the issue is less about public schooling than it is about the government *requiring* attendance until age 16 or whatever. Without mandatory attendance, school is an opportunity. With it, it's an obligation.

But it's not even close to slavery, in part because the student is not providing labor that produces labor or a service. Perhaps he or she does so indirectly, through the compulsory consumption of a service (education) that is supplied by an industry (the education establishment) that has no other purpose or constituency. But that's not slavery.

Now, you could argue that elementary education rightfully falls within the public sphere of compulsion, like traffic and littering laws, or public health policy. After all, those who do not get at least a minimal education are more likely to be a burden on society, or even outright criminals, than those who get one. And minors are generally recognizes as having few if any rights, and to be less capable of making informed decisions such as whether to attend school.

I completely agree; making school anything less than mandatory would devastate several things, our economy as well as our appearance in front of Anne Robinson.

I am in the last week of my exams now, and I would like to thank all of my teachers for their hard work they have done.

But I wouldn't agree with your definition of a slave:

I looked it up on www.dictionary.com and got the following:

A student is subservient to the influence of their teachers, we are punished if we do wrong (although not too harshly any more), and we do work very hard, especially at this time of year.

So although it is necessary that everyone should receive some formal education I feel that education should be a matter of choice for the major examinations including GCSEs. I feel that many students do not get the grades they could at GCSE which may or may not inhibit their future in school or at work due to the irritating members of the class taking up most of the teacher's time and interrupting concentration. If it was a matter of choice then it would mean that only the people that wanted to learn would be in class.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

Before I start sounding really pedantic, I recognize that at least part of this whole discussion is for the pure fun of it.

It's still not slavery, or even indentured servitude. The teacher's influence and control over you is severely circumscribed. He/she cannot do anything they want with you, they only directly control you for a specified time period each day, their punishments are restricted in scope, and even in school their authority is limited: they can't require you to take your exam naked, for example, or come over and mow their lawn.

As for working hard, that's more a metaphorical definition of slavery than one that could be used in human rights.

I've always found European school systems interesting, in that fairly early on most of them shunt students on to an academic track or a trade school track, usually through standardized testing. It always struck me as efficient at a societal level but rigid and deterministic at the individual level.

I agree that it would be best if the only people in class were people who wanted to be there. But in practice, that would mean schools would mostly be empty. Even in college, I was there mostly because it was expected, not because I really knew what I wanted to learn. And I was a good student throughout my life — well, at least until I discovered alcohol and girls.

Everyone I know who has ever taken adult education classes loves the experience, precisely because everyone in the classroom is paying for the course, and knows exactly what they want to get out of it. But it probably wouldn't be a good idea if we all waited until our mid-30s to get an education.

My Mum wishes now that she had had the oppertunities we have. Everyone may hate doing it at the time but I'm sure that I will be greatful to the government for taking six and a half hours of my day monday to friday during term time and subjecting me to knowledge. Some subjects though I cannot see the point in geting qualifications in, RE for instance, yes it provides diversity but who save priests and RE teachers are ever going to use the qualification. Surely subjects like this should be taught without the added stress of the exam.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

To further the devil's advocacy of this topic, what about the draft. That is an even better example of this so called "slavery"

Many counties (although most are moving away from it) still have compulsory military service requirements for young men.

Seems to me like this could be a gross human rights violation.

As another note, one of the basic principles of government is to maintain the order and safety of its citizens. As a general principle, (basic theory, I am not trying to get into this inevitable arguement) educated citizens result in a more "civilized" country. Therefore, governments can justify a forced education. Just like they can justify prisons and mental insitutions (also human rights violations).