Why do you think I’m proposing a less-educated society? Or conversely, why do you believe that the State-funded UK education system produces educated people?
Just because something looks like a school doesn’t necessarily mean that it delivers education. Go to anywhere in Africa to find laughable demonstrations of that.
It need not necessarily be so. In fact given my assertion that humans are mostly incompetent, success is by no means guaranteed. However, my point is that (a) the current situation is so execrably awful that it would be quite an achievement to make it any worse and (b) that pisspoor outcome is costing the country a lot of money.
You’re assuming the State actually has the power to do anything about bad parents. Bad parents will, sadly, fuck their kids up, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. A far better course of action is to stop deliberately producing bad parents; the UK welfare system churns them out like Henry Ford made cars (cue jokes about “any colour as long as it’s black”).
Quite the opposite.
The parents can do precisely what they want right now because the State enables them to do so. It pays their rent, gives them money for drugs and beer, and pays for their legal costs when they’re caught burgling or committing ABH. If all of that were removed, they’d have a much stronger incentive to not sit around drinking or battering their kids.
Now, I concede that no other alternative would occur to them, and nobody would want to employ them. The solution would be for somebody (not necessarily the State) to provide basic education facilities for that tiny minority who wanted to avoid destitution and/or jail. For an appropriate fee, of course. On credit. Lesson 101: the good and bad uses of financial credit.
This is a fair point, but again you’re assuming the State has meaningful power to intervene now, and it really doesn’t. Yes, parents can be told to send their kids to school, but they can’t actually be forced to stop poisoning their kids’ minds against the concept of school, nor (in reality) are they prevented from taking their kids out of school for long periods, or accepting/encouraging their truancy, or turning up at the school threatening the teachers for telling Our Wayne not to set fire to the classroom.
Feral kids are already independent of their parents (albeit not in a good way) around their early teens. There are undoubtedly ways of channelling their natural desire for freedom into productive directions. They might never be academic superstars, but it would be a huge achievement simply to get them doing something other than hanging out in the park drinking and shagging. My ex-gf was a social-services worker for kids in this sort of situation and there absolutely are things that can be done, but the State isn’t interested in doing them. It wants them in school not because that’s the route to a prosperous future, but because that’s how the bricks are stacked into The Wall.
Dunno. I wasn’t checking the ranking; I was referring to research papers on the subject.
and why would you think I’m pro- covfefe? 
? Discourse better than no discourse on every Planet 
I consider it an improvement over not having a system at all, but it’s no poster child.
), which they’re now claiming they’re not actually going to revert to, but they still haven’t come up with a new version to replace it with… Meanwhile in the rest of the country, the kids may be confused, but at least the teachers know what’s going on. 
Oh, and in “New France”, in addition to the usual human biology stuff that kids in most countries learn, they’ve added love to the curriculum. 
I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work, but the point is, no system is perfect, and there are systems within systems, and overall, societies with more state education do better than those with less.
). What role did the State play in your personal development? If the State had spent more money on you and commandeered more of your time, would you be a better person?
Oh, my.
) destroying the hopes of a minority of hypothetical achievers.
