Part 1 of 3

“But when it comes to reforming education systems, the answer isn’t necessarily mass privatization. Remember, the principle of universal access to free primary education is enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That means governments should be paying the tab for primary school — either public or private — and making sure that teachers and principals are put on notice: either shape up or ship out. The real test is whether students are learning anything, not just attending.”

And here comes the big BUT, and where the public K to 12 establishment will fight education choice on all fronts. To do that it requires a trip into history and a look at Article 26 - “^ Top

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The key clause is in the UN document - “Elementary education shall be compulsory”
All public K to 12 education models has their authority to educate children based on the compulsory attendance laws, that has aided and abetted the monopoly status of the K to 12 model.

Two modern examples of the compulsory attendance laws. Florida - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search;_String=&URL=1000-1099/1002/Sections/1002.20.html
And in Michigan -  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1976-2-24.pdf?20140404093516

The Florida one has this clause, that one normally does not see - “. Parents are responsible to ready their children for school; however, the State of Florida cannot be the guarantor of each individual student’s success.” One doesn’t normally see this clause, because under the education laws as the K to 12 education model developed over time, what was never guarantee by the education authorities was that the students would learned, progress and achieved as they acquire an education in the public K to 12 system. So that begs the question why were the compulsory attendance laws created and for what purpose?  If one reads the Florida and Michigan compulsory attendance laws, it is all about compliance, rules, regulations, fines, and more importantly, the exceptions where individual rights overrides the compulsory attendance laws. Another question, why does the UN charter for children, have the clause that elementary education shall be compulsory? Why indeed, when compulsory attendance laws are there to limit and prevent students from receiving an academic education. Note in the UN Article 26, part 2 - is the education of children all about this? ” Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.” 

No, but for the K to 12 education globalists and right down the local public K to 12 schools whether in a third world country or the industrialized countries, will have similar statements like the UN Children Charter and Article 26. The compulsory attendance laws are designed to protect the K to 12 monopoly so they do not carry the burden to educating children academically. Another question arises, what are the purposes of the public school, if the schools are not places of academic learning?

Part 2 of 3

A question that has been asked by many of a parents including the poor parents sitting in the India slum. One doesn’t need to be poor, to understand that the 21st century public K to 12 are not academic places of learning of the 3 Rs, when the parents are being hauled up in a court of law to answer the charges of truancy, while the courts conveniently ignore the reasons of the parents, based on the questionable education policies of the school, where their child is not learning and progressing academically. Or why in places like India, private schools of low costs is much preferred than the public schools of India, where the academics are missing in action.

The only saving grace of the compulsory attendance laws is that the choice movement has been given the opportunity to carved a pathway through the regulation regime of the K to 12 public education model, there is nothing in the education laws that the education choices made by parents should be selected by the edicts of the public K to 12 monopoly. The sole exception is Germany, and thanks largely to Hitler, prevents choice other than the education offerings by the Germany education system. All done through the compulsory attendance law acts to control choice, prevent choice and in some cases prevent parents and students from exercising their civil rights to execute their choices.  http://www.german-way.com/history-and-culture/education/the-german-school-system/

A bit of history - 1. “Compulsory education in the United States began over 150 years ago when Horace Mann established a statewide system of education in Massachusetts, which became the first state to pass school attendance laws in 1852. By 1918, children were required by law to receive an education in all states.”  http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-history-of-the-k-12-education-system.htm

2.“Supporters of the movement argued that mandatory attendance at free, government schools should be used to integrate America’s increasingly heterogeneous peoples. By 1890 a majority of the states had compulsory schooling, and by 1918 all did.8 ” - See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/k-12-education-subsidies#sthash.tZUBMV1f.dpuf

3. “The compulsory attendance act of 1852 enacted by the state of Massachusetts was the first general law attempting to control the conditions of children. The law included mandatory attendance for children between the ages of eight and fourteen for at least three months out of each year, of these twelve weeks at least six had to be consecutive…....Since the first law in 1852 the goals of education remain the same and have been gradually improving the conditions of children by supporting these restrictions on child labor. Compulsory education laws and child labor laws have worked hand in hand to advance children’s rights.” http://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/compulso.html

4. “Part and parcel with homogenizing the public schools was the effort to ensure that all eligible children were present for instruction. As a result, compulsory attendance laws were passed beginning in 1852. And by 1918, compulsory attendance through elementary school was the law in each of the (then) 48 states. - See more at: http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/american-public-education-an-origin-story/#sthash.f2rxdCaf.dpuf

Part 3 of 3

Some of the reasons given by the Public K to 12 authorities for compulsory attendance, in the 20th and 21st century. 1. “Attendance is important for academic success, and unexcused absences may be an early warning sign for unaddressed problems with school and future dropout. When youth fail to attend school, they are considered truant.” https://k12.wa.us/GATE/Truancy/default.aspx

2.“Compulsory School Attendance - Development of Compulsory School Attendance Philosophy and Laws, Exemptions and Alternatives, Issues Associated with Compulsory Attendance’
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1878/Compulsory-School-Attendance.html

3.“The term compulsory attendance refers to state legislative mandates for attendance in public schools (or authorized alternatives) by children within certain age ranges for specific periods of time within the year. Components of compulsory attendance laws include admission and exit ages, length of the school year, enrollment requirements, alternatives, waivers and exemptions, enforcement, and truancy provisions.” http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Compulsory_School_Attendance.aspx

A few academic papers covering choice, compulsory attendance laws and the legal aspects.
1. 1975 - “Seriously questioned by several critics of schooling, compulsory attendance, through written into present laws, is no longer exempt from searching examination. These authors review the case for and against such requirements both home and abroad.” http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197501_nawaz.pdf

2. 1997 - “School Choice and the Death of Compulsory Education” http://www.publicschoolrenewal.org/essays/compulsory1.htm

3. 2001 - “Were Compulsory Attendance and Child Labor Laws Effective? An Analysis from 1915 to 1939 - http://www.econ.ucla.edu/alleras/research/papers/education_paper-revised2.pdf

4. 2005 - “Canadian Compulsory School Laws and their Impact on Educational Attainment and Future Earnings ” http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2005251.pdf

5. The legal aspects - What Landmark Educational Legal Cases Formed K-12 Education
http://www.teach-nology.com/policymakers/landmark_cases/

The Toronto Star, steadily at a snail’s pace working towards educational choice for one and all. It is a matter of time, especially in their investigative work in the finances of the Toronto School Board.

All the above to confirmed the title of the SQE blog post - Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children – is correct. All of the above to confirmed that the present day public K to 12 education system works against the rights of parents and students in obtaining an academic education, by controlling what will be or not be in the education offerings of a given public school via through the compulsory school attendance laws or acts.

None of the above has anything to do with parents choosing the education of their children. You have made a very strong case that Canadians and Americans have a right to a free public education. I agree.

Choice lovely but substandad. Vouchrr schoold do nog do as well as public schools.

Check out @MTEAunion’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/MTEAunion/status/453700559661330432

This is truly a contentious subject, and not one that is likely to be settled soon.  One key issue is of course the problem of equality of access to a good education; the child born to parents with little money and possibly little education themselves should have as much chance to make something of him or herself as the child whose parents are both well-educated and wealthy.  Hence the provision of a public education system, and the discouragement of alternative schools to which access is mainly limited to those who have financial or other advantages.  This emphasis on equality and overall public good conflicts with what would seem to be a basic right of parents to provide for their child the kind of education they think best.  This is not unlike the conflict between the need for equal access to good health care in Canada and the individual’s natural desire to have his or her ailment treated more quickly or more effectively than would be the case in the public system.  Understandable, but not necessarily good for the nation as a whole.  If there is an answer, it must be this: either forbid the alternatives but improve the public system to a point where no better alternative can be imagined, or allow alternatives but improve the public system to a point where the alternatives are seen as no better. In either case, improving the quality of public education is a must.  The latter choice (of allowing alternatives against which the public system would “duke it out”) would seem desirable, if only because alternative teaching philosophies and methods might eventually be seen as superior.  However, allowed alternatives must not siphon away resources that would otherwise go to the public system.  That loss of resources would hamper the public system as it tries to provide education of equal quality, and would disadvantage students in that system.  If alternative schools are allowed, there must be no reduction of money allotted to the public system, and indeed it might be argued that more money should be directed there so as to hasten the day when education received in the alternative schools is widely seen as no better than that in the public system. That of course would be a tacit admission that the alternatives are superior, at least at the beginning.  Having seen what goes on in quite a few Canadian classrooms, I know improvement is urgently needed, and were my own sons still in the public system, I would consider alternatives that seemed to offer a better educational experience.  But my belief in the importance of a high quality public system would make me think twice.  So… no easy answer.  I know none of what I’ve said is in any way original, but I hope it clarifies the situation in which we find ourselves.  Proposed answers are welcome.