the underlying lesson (from article below): government should think through unintended consequences of well meaning mandates. the opposite side of the mandate coin is the government making some action illegal.
if "we" (society) want a certain behavior reinforced, we assume it is the governments responsibility to issue mandates; if we want to discourage some behavior or action we pass a law to make it illegal. history is littered with well intended mandates and laws that lead to the very oppositie of the intended result. consider prohibition for example. Prohibition was aimed at eliminating evil alcohol from society. the result was a boom in organized crime -- thousands if not millions of individuals suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the "law" not only for trafficking in booze but in consuming it in speakeasies and behind closed doors. consider the war on drugs, which has led to results very similar to prohibition yet we don't admit it: gang shootings. organized crime. proliferation of guns on the street. and endless carnage in inner city. and millions of otherwise law abiding citizens being criminalized for behavior they choose to pursue (e.g. smoking pot or snorting some lines at a party.) I am not advocating drug use. i don't do drugs myself or even drink alcohol (anymore), but i believe in each individuals right to make their own decisions about drugs.
ALSO, consider mandated health insurance or mandated automobile insurance. the mandates and the laws don't work (see Massachussets for result of mandated health insurance); mandates more often than not lead to negative unintended consequences, mandates criminalize behavior that should not be any business of government, and yet we keep doing the same thing over and over because it seems like we have no choice. the moral position should be for politicians to "do no harm" first and foremost. mandates and laws should not be enforced based on good intensions. the road to hell is paved with good intensions. look at the example of the wonderful idea of mandating school attendance until 18 years old. sounds great, but in practice it leads to unintended consequences (for individuals being forced to attend school and those who are willingly there) and thus the result is to impoverish society in the end.
Actually, we shouldn’t keep all students in high school until they’re 18
January 26, 2012, 11:55 am
Should teenagers be forced to go to high school? Here’s President Obama from the State of the Union speech on Tuesday:
We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.Another idea that sounds good as a bullet point in a speech, but not so much in reality.
1. As the Los Angeles Times points out, 17 states already mandate compulsory education until age 18, including California. But the most recent figures show that 18.2 percent of California students drop out.
2. A 2009 study, also noted by the LA Times, by the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy (the source of the accompanying chart) found such mandates ineffective:
The primary rationale behind raising the compulsory school attendance age to 18 is the belief that it will decrease the number of students who drop out and increase the number of students who graduate. However, our review revealed that there is little research to support the effectiveness of compulsory attendance laws in achieving these goals. As we have described, the evidence that does exist is dated. The research suggests that these laws had an impact on high school students in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s when the circumstances behind the decision to drop out were likely quite different than they are today. In addition, the findings themselves suggest that the impact of laws requiring students to stay in school until they are 18 has decreased over time.
3. In his must-read book Real Education, AEI’s Charles Murray (whose new book, Coming Apart, I will soon write about) notes that whatever the educational advantage of charter schools over government schools, they certainly succeed in providing students a safe and orderly classroom for those who want to learn. “The worst inner-city schools … contain classes in which competent teachers cannot be heard over the din … daily student-on-student and student-on-teacher altercations, frequent assaults … and the occasional assault with a deadly weapon.” In response, Murray offers a few basic rules:
1. Disruptive students are not permitted to remain in class.
2. Students who are chronically disruptive are suspended.
3. Students who in any way threaten a teacher verbally or physically are expelled.
Now, Murray realizes that “alternative schools” may not be able to absorb all the disruptive students and many may end up on the streets. But that may be a price we have to pay to reestablish order in our schools. And just how high a price is it really?Students who are suspended are often learning nothing when they are in school — literally nothing … Nor are their hours in the school building keeping them out of trouble. The kinds of activities that get teenagers into trouble in the inner city (or anywhere else for that matter) do not usually take place from 8:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m. … Most of them are already on the street for all but a few hours of the day when they are preventing teachers and other students from learning. … The overriding priority for inner-city schools must be the children who are trying to learn. It is morally unacceptable to sacrifice their futures … just because we do not know how to reach the children who are not trying to learn.Keep every kid in school no matter how disruptive they are? A perfect example of government creating a mandate without thinking through the unintended consequences.
