But children are forced to go to school
No they're not. Children are required to have an education expoerience, not a school experience. You can homeschool or send them to a private institution or to another country for education, etc etc etc.
what justifies removing their freedom and forcing them there every day
It's not about education. It's about training them to do something they don't want to do for roughly 8 hours a day. It's work training.
How would somebody defend the constitutionality of schools
There's nothing in the Constitution about schools however a SCOTUS judge might be able to make a case that in order to adaquately avail yourself of Constitutionally provided rights you must have a basic education.
It is not the government's responsibility to provide an education but it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that they have one.
Children are required to have an education expoerience, not a school experience
That seems to be nearly the exact opposite conclusion from this case, viz the state must provide a school experience but it doesn't have to be an education experience.
I get what you're saying about parental reponsibility and how the parents need to provide instruction in addition to what happens in school--whether at home or in the public schools. However, that's not even close to practical to expect minimum wage workers to give their kids necessary and adequate instruction, nevermind willfully neglectful or abusive parents. Leaving kids at the complete mercy of having good parents would produce even more dysfunctional illiterates than we have today, and that would be disastrous for both the economy and society. Since we're using schools are day care facilities and warehousing kids 9 months of the year there, they might as well gain useful skills and literacy during that time.
Let me clarify what I mean:
The students are required to be exposed to an experience which ostensibly provides an education. That is to say that the parent is held responsible if a student is or is not in a school environment. Not a school building. This is the technical part of what I'm talking about.
In this instance, the court is saying that a state institution is not expected to fulfill the roles the taxpayer is paying for "because Constitution." This is technically correct but since the majority of funds for the public school system comes from a legal nightmare of sources, the court is not justified in invoking the Constitution: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/blog/finance-how-do-we-fund-our-schools/197/
That article lays out that the public schools receive the lion's share of funding from sales, income, and (surprise) property taxes.
Leaving kids at the complete mercy of having good parents would produce even more dysfunctional illiterates than we have today, and that would be disastrous for both the economy and society
So just to play devil's advocate for a moment... you're saying that parents should be given licenses to reproduce? Income? Check. Intelligence? Check. Stable in the community? Check. What's this? A criminal record? Application denied. No children for you. We do these kinds of checks for adoption, why not for having children?
I know that's not what you're saying but it is strongly implied that parents who are not capable of caring for a child should then not have children. I actually personally believe that this is valid - that people should not have children if they cannot provide for them, care for them, provide a good example, partake in the child's education. I've seen the difference in children in both types of familial environments and those who would fail an adoption scrutiny are the same types of parents who raise the type of children you bemoan. Ultimately, it's the only ironclad solution, though, isn't it?
Okay, enough of the devil for a moment.. :)
Kids today can't read analog clocks. There's a strong movement to stop teaching cursive (good luck reading the Constitution and knowing your rights). Children in high school don't know about the French Revolution, haven't read any of the classics, can't balance a checkbook, don't know how insurance works or the difference between a checking and savings account. This is the condition of the public school system where "they might as well gain useful skills and literacy". Just sayin'....
Agree that the government shouldn't provide phones or cars. But children are forced to go to school. If students aren't receiving an education, what justifies removing their freedom and forcing them there every day? How would somebody defend the constitutionality of schools when viewing them as having no requirement to educate?