That's great if everyone agrees to put nostrademons in charge. Instead what you get is:

"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of schoolchildren."

-- The late Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, 1985

OK... You asked a question, I answered, and you tell me my response is invalid because I don't have any power. This should make your responses similarly invalid. One of the assumptions in this thread was that we did have the power to make changes, otherwise all we could talk about was whether to vote Republican or Democrat.

I didn't ask that question. But the point is your solution requires putting/keeping the government in charge of education, just like we have now. Once the power is given, all kinds of interests become involved and people like Albert Shanker participate in how kids are educated.

I'd prefer to let parents decide how best to educate their children. The entire system shouldn't be designed to accommodate the outlying parents you fear who don't care about their kids.

My intended question was by what method the required curriculum should be decided. But I think that's clear now: what you consider "basic". What you are proposing is to set up a ruling system that permanently entrenches certain ideas (such as math lessons). No disagreement is allowed: the unwilling should be forced, not tolerated.

I think this is a step backwards. In the USA we have moved away from Who Should Rule? and Which Ideas Should Rule? and the focus is more on how should disputes be decided. Force is not a rational answer to that, and we have embodied this in our tolerance for queer and strange people/ideas, even disagreeable ones. The main feature of our system of Government is also about how disputes should be decided: it is responsive to changes in opinion of our citizens (via voting): when many people change their minds about an issue the government is changed correspondingly -- even about basic education. So disputes can be decided by persuasion instead of force.

It's worth noting that basic math or reading education are not presently required in some States, so requiring them would reduce freedom of choice relative to real life today. For example, in Kansas, there are essentially no requirements for home schoolers, including no record keeping, testing, or required subjects. http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?State=KS

"I don't think any argument exists against the required teaching of these two subjects, other than stating libertarianism is always better." - rms

Two competing schools of thought about how to treat the best ideas we have today -- the ones we feel most certain of, and have the hardest time imagining a reasonable person could dispute -- we might call the School of Certainty and the School of Fallibility. The first believes our best ideas are the ultimate truth and wishes to set up societal institutions which best embody those truths. The second believes that it is important to remember we might be wrong and our vision is limited, so we should set up institutions with a focus on error correction, which means openness to new ideas and approaches, tolerance of differences, and not using force in the name of sanctioned ideas. The first school is more concerned with creating a good society by present day standards. The second is more concerned with creating a free society where people live by their own standards.

The School of Fallibility is often ridiculed. Certainly we aren't all wrong about common sense opinion X, it's so obvious. Why do we have to be so careful and cautious about even the most basic things? That's a lot of wasted effort, and it allows people to make huge, unnecessary mistakes and ruin their lives.

We live in a period of rapid change. Many mainstream, traditional, long held, obvious, common sense opinions have been thrown out in the last century. This story is well known for science, and civil rights and many other issues. But still people are complacent. We changed. We got better. What remains obvious today must be even more certain.

So, rms, perhaps I can surprise you away from complacent certainty by presenting an argument which you did not think existed.

I know a lot of people who don't like math, and who actively avoid using it in their lives. One can have a successful life today even in the extreme case of irrationally avoiding all math. Consider the adults today who dislike and avoid math: forcing childhood math lessons on them did not turn out to have helped. Now they have a grudge against the subject fueled by deeply unpleasant memories. It's harder for them to actually learn math now, should they find a use for it. Therefore it would be better not to require math lessons, and instead to let people learn it themselves on their own initiative if/when they find a reason to want to. We might call this approach Just In Time Learning.

Most adults are mentally well adjusted enough that the mental scars of early torture by long-division fade into the background. Even adults that dislike math need to use it in their day to day lives. I don't think the math that many people truly dislike because of its perceived uselessness, like geometry and algebra, need to be mandatory, but someone with a McJob needs to make change and calculate their monthly wage from their hourly wage.

I would be curious to hear your examples of someone leading a successful life while irrationally avoiding all math.

People with a McJob don't need to calculate change: that's the cash register software's job. And many people avoid calculating their wage or budget -- their spouse does that kind of thing.

Perhaps you will reply they at least need to be able to count to 4 to hand back the right number of each coin. And need to be able to read numbers to answer questions like, "What does the Super Mushroom Burger cost?"

But the blatant usefulness of a skill is no argument in favor of required education of it -- won't people want to learn it voluntarily? And those who disagree, why can't you leave them alone?