Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

May it be an enjoyable and productive one! Now, to begin, we should look at the reasons the pro gives to support his position: First, he claims that the government has no business telling children what to do. I completely disagree. The government tells children what they have to do in many cases where they do not do so with adults. The government does not allow children to drink, smoke, or drive. It is not until you reach the age of 21 that you gain the ability to do all of these-- legally, anyway. He goes on to claim that this is a question of the parent's rights. I disagree; it is my view that the rights in question are the rights of the child--namely, the right to an education. I will return to this in more detail later. ----- I will now present my own arguments: Firstly, there are solid practical reasons for having a populace that is as educated as possible. Education has a strong negative correlation with crime-- so much so that 41% of the prison population has not completed high school or equivalent, compared to 18% of the general population. [1] I would argue that this correlation is probably in part causal: those with a lower level of education cannot get good jobs, and will therefore be more likely to resort to a life of crime. Therefore, by allowing parents to choose to not send their children to elementary school, the level of education would decrease-- and, as a result, crime would rise. Secondly, an educated populace is good for the economy; those who are better educated are likely to prosper far more than those who are not educated. [2],[3] An improved economy will benefit society, and allow our nation to compete in the 21st century. Conversely, having a more poorly educated populace will allow other countries to surpass us economically. I now return to the rights of the child. This issue is not a question of the rights of the parent, but of the rights of the child. If a parent chooses to deny his or her child an education, the parent is not the primary person affected by this; (s)he is not the one to suffer the consequences-- the child is. Our law already recognizes that a parent should not be able to deny a child certain rights: those who do not feed or provide shelter for their children are guilty of child abuse. By providing public schooling, our government also recognizes education as a right: something that one shouldn't need to pay for. Therefore, a child deprived of an education is deprived of a basic right. Parents should no more be allowed to deny their children the right to an education than they should be allowed to deny them food or shelter. A child who does not receive an education will have few future prospects; he will not be able to get a good job and will be likely to live in poverty for the rest of his life. Clearly, this is not a desirable outcome. We must ask ourselves, then, what practical benefit would come from the course of action suggested by my opponent? What benefits would outweigh all these negatives? I can see none-- except for one possible benefit to the parent, and that is that it will allow them to exploit the child for labor. Indeed, studies indicate that parents in developing countries who withdraw their children from school often do so. [4] A lack of mandatory education would also make it easier for parents to use their children for labor: as it stands now, schools will investigate if a child ceases to show up. They would, in doing so, have a chance of discovering it if a parent was attempting to use their child as a worker. By allowing parents to withdraw their children from school, then, we would both encourage and facilitate child labor in the United States. ----- My arguments in summary: 1) Increased education helps deter crime 2) Education is good for the economy, and allows us to stay ahead economically. 3) Parents should not be allowed to deny their children rights 4) Our society and our government recognize education as a right 5) By 3) and 4), parents should not be allowed to deny their children an education 6) Those without an education usually end up in poverty 7) There are no desirable benefits to allowing children to opt out of school 8) Indeed, doing so may serve to increase exploitive child labor, which is both illegal and morally wrong. 9) 1), 2), 5), 6), 7) and 8) are each good reasons on their own to mandate education in the case of children. ----- Sources: 1: . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... 2: . http://www.chicagofed.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4: . http://en.wikipedia.org...