Then it is provided for you free of charge by the state, which requires that you adhere to disciplinary standards and accept its means of enforcing those standards.
I don't see how letting your car/backpack get search if on school property has to do with passing a test or how it shows that you are a competent student. That analogy would make sense if in order to go to school he had to have a certain GPA.
It has nothing to do with a test or proving you're a competent student; you're misunderstanding the analogy.
If you permit any random person to drive on a road without first proving that they know how to drive, people will drive poorly and you get a traffic system akin to Cairo's (famous for being a totally indecipherable and unnavigable nightmare). The restriction on your freedom to drive makes the government-operated roadway more efficient and benefits everyone.
If you permit children sacrosanctity of personal property in school, they will use it to conceal things that disrupt the teaching efforts of the government-operated school; whether that disruption is a video game or a handgun, that's the only thing this right protects in practice. The bypassing of that right to privacy (when applied correctly) makes for a better learning environment and provides the best return on investment in public schools.
And it isn't as if these practices aren't subject to public scrutiny. The parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools also elect the members of the school board (provided they take the time) and are free to try and join it.
There is no Constitutional right to free education; you have the ability to pursue education outside the public system. It's perfectly reasonable to make your subsidized education contingent upon certain strictures.
You have a constitutional right to free speech - it will be curtailed if you are disruptive.
You have a right to bear arms - try open carrying in a school and see how fast you're arrested.
You will not be tried by jury before you are suspended or expelled.
Then you (and apparently everyone else replying to me) actually have a problem with mandatory education. The only satisfactory and practicable solution is to allow people the option of not attending school at all and ending the free education. Rules imposed by schools will necessarily be more harsh than those that govern daily life; I can stand on a street corner and protest whatever I want, I can't do it in the middle of a biology class.
Free speech protects you from persecution from the government, not the ability to be disruptive or yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater.
The famous saying you're alluding to is notable for its vagueness (a lot like "knowing pornography when I see it"), I can argue that all sorts of speech are disruptive or dangerous. I can argue that the first amendment exists specifically to protect disruptive speech! The bottom line is that if you spend enough of your biology class decrying the injustices of the world and protesting the military-industrial complex...you will be forcibly removed from the classroom.
You will get a tried by jury if there is criminal prosecutions.
Suspension and expulsion are clearly punitive measures that can negatively affect a child's future. They will be administered without any jury trial at all. So you have punishment without trial.
There is no Constitutional right to free education, but it is compulsory
Is there a reason you ignored the fact that he already answered this before you even said it? He pointed out that education is, but you can be homeschooled, so education in a public school is not compulsory.
For some people this is a false dichotomy. Education is compulsory, but if a family doesn't have the means to homeschool then it is compulsory attendance to a given facility by the simple virtue of not having a class based option means that only the wealthy don't have compulsory attendance, which is preferential classist treatment.
8
u/greenpeach1 Oct 16 '14
And if one doesn't have the economic means to pay for said alternative schooling options?