Those children went to public school, sent there by their parents. In places without public schools, peasant children often do not learn to read.cube said:
Your stat source there is cherrypicking, btw: the religious sects dominating the pioneer northeastern US placed great emphasis on literacy. You might ask why those same communities ever thought compulsory education was needed - an influx of immigrants who did not educate their children explains that.
It's like a law saying you have to dig an outhouse pit, and cannot just defecate in your yard. No one even thinks to pass such a law unless the new immigrants present the necessity.
Teh Khmer Rouge was organized among the peasantry, who were unschooled, by a few elite who were. The schools they destroyed were not for them, by and large.cube said:Wait! So the Cambodians had public schooling, yet this didn't stop the rise of the Khmer Rouge? Weren't you contending that education prevented tyranny?
It has evidence to back it. An uneducated people, like an unarmed people, is vulnerable.cube said:To claim that public schooling 'prevents' tyranny is pure speculation on your behalf.
One reason I don't advocate that. The OP title is "education by force", not "forced attendance at the government's school".cube said:It's also worth noting that for a government to employ force in order to coerce parents into sending their children to school *is* tyranny.
The more people educated, the more difficult tyranny becomes.cube said:Why not? Educating more people just empowers more potential tyrants,
The alternative, educating nobody, would in theory work as well against tyranny. But it's far more difficult to enforce, and not near as much fun or productive.