Whether the legislated age of consent or age of responsibility--somewhere between 16 and 18 and 21 for different purposes--matches biological brain development or not, the point I want to emphasize is that our brains are not developing any faster now than in the past. True enough, with careful parenting and instruction, one can pour in more learning earlier, and improve performance at each stage of development, but brains still are not fully developed on average any sooner now than in the past.

Sexual maturity may be reached sooner, or later, depending on genetic and nutritional factors.

Mental maturity in terms of knowledge on how the world turns is possible at a younger age now than it was before. The media bombards children with information and this surely has an effect on the mind.

I agree that children in the past had ''responsibilities'' but they were of such kind that didn't affect their mental maturity. Farming and fetching water don't do anything for the mind but seeing the president give a complex point of view on TV does. — TheMadFool

The effect of watching media is probably not as influential on mental development as some people think. Language development in young children is not enhanced by watching television or tablets. Language development is critically dependent on caregiver-child interaction. We are not wired to pick up language from screens.

Watching the president give a complex point of view on TV does not "develop" the child's thinking. Watching the president, talking with one's parents, teachers, and peers about what the president said does that.

IF you observe typical young children who seem more advanced intellectually than what you think children growing up on the farm 100 years ago were, you're probably experiencing the bias of exposure to children whose parents are more sophisticated, understand the importance of lots of positive verbal interaction with their children, and make sure it happens.

Children working with their parents on the farm can have the same kind of positive verbal interaction, increasing responsibility, and so forth as children with sophisticated, effective urban parents. AND urban and rural children can both have intellectually very retarding experiences IF their parents are insensitive clods. Sophisticated, mature 18 year olds have definitely come off the farm.

If I remember correctly, 16 year olds participated in the Catalan voting for independence. Was that true for the Brexit vote, or Scottish independence vote?

It's good to give under-18s more autonomy to allow them early access to the benefits of the adult world but we also need to avoid the obvious pitfall of exploitation by unscrupulous adults. I guess we must err on the side of caution. — TheMadFool

I am speaking more jurisprudentially in that there is a clear deficit of assessment models that provide an adequate parameter to delineate capacity or the lack thereof and so we take that paternalistic approach by claiming that a child has no capacity for choice (for instance, children of divorced parents where in some jurisdictions do not have any rights to exercise choice). It is really about defining assessments and in the case of divorcing parents to ascertain impeding choice so that the courts can advocate for and enable children to exercise their rights, albeit limited and on a case-by-case basis. This is the functional rather than the diagnostic approach and if each case examines each child based on whether they have the reasonable capacity to communicate and understand their choice as well as retain information as part of their decision-making process, then the state can improve their methods of protecting them since it is our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Children who commit crimes is another key area and offering rehabilitation through a therapeutic framework is of more help to the child then simply throwing them into juvenile prison or punishing them. So, it is not necessarily autonomy of the child but rather an open mind that some children may have the capacity to make an informed choice. But yes, certainly in the case of sexual abuse, sometimes it is simply better to take that paternalistic approach to protect them from exploitation.

I only know that people can have a sexy time in the UK from 16 I think. I don't think they can vote or drink for that matter from 16. They may also be able to drive from 16? Can't remember.

I think quite the opposite. Many elements of adult society are dangerous for youth. As I said in my reply to TimeLine above the need to protect outweighs the advantages of greater autonomy at a younger age. What do you think? — TheMadFool

I don't think the elements you cite are any more dangerous to children than they are to adults.

Maturity requires experience and with modern media children have access to, literally, billions of second-hand experience of others. Don't you think this affects the maturing process of minds? For instance a 12 year old in New York is definitely more mentally advanced than a 12 year old Ghanian villager. — TheMadFool

I agree. I personally found that to be the case for me. But that was also because I was always of a very ambitious, studious and self-driven nature.

Children aren't more informed, they have access to more information, those are different things. Children still don't have the nous that comes from experience - i.e. the canniness to sift through the available information and sort the wheat from the chaff, the ability to sniff out what's likely to be a waste of time and effort.

Theoretically, adults are supposed to provide some guidelines that encapsulate their nous to children, so they can get a head start in thinking for themselves, but that's never really been done very well by mass education systems.

For instance, there was a case here where a man had sexual intercourse with an intellectually disabled adult and he was charged - despite her consent - because she demonstrably lacked the capacity to understand the consequential aspects to sexual intercourse and accepted direction and dependency. He done other terrible things to her, but ultimately the judge stated that "whilst she did not resist in any way and may have even consented in some form or another, that consent was not a real or true consent because she was not mentally capable of giving her consent." — TimeLine

There was another case, I believe in Australia, with the same situation, but the disabled person was male and the other sexual partner female. It was my impression it was fairly well known. It was discussed from a philosophical perspective on "The Philosopher's Zone" which comes from the Australian Broadcasting Company and is available on the web. It was an interesting show.

Think of yourself at 14. Do you honestly say that you lacked the cognitive capacity to understand what sex involved and the consequences? — Agustino

I can say definitely that I didn't understand till much later than 14. I certainly didn't have the emotional capacity. I didn't when I became sexually active at 17 or arguably much later. I'm not trying to deflect my responsibility for my actions, just describing my state of mind.

As mentioned in my original post, the clinical approach does have limitations particularly relating to parameters that determine what something like 'understanding' actually is even if this diagnostic threshold has equitable validity, but the functional approach allows us to presume that a minor or a person with an intellectual disability has capacity rather than not. I hear whispers of this at the moment in the international domain regarding the covenant of the rights of children. By assuming capacity, a person is not locked in an immovable and patriarchal process, but it would give those who may have an intellectual disability or a highly intelligent or mature minor the opportunity to verify capacity by explaining and communicating choice together with retaining information as part of their decision-making process. — TimeLine

As a student of law, you must see the possible difficulties implementing what you call a functional approach. Bureaucratic institutions are not good at putting together institutions and procedures that are effective in situations where sensitive judgment is required. Vulnerable people would get lost. There would be scandals.

Of course, the same is probably true of what you call the patriarchal approach. At least that has the benefit of being easy to understand and enforce. Of course, because this is an area where sensitive judgment is required, the laws won't be administered uniformly and fairly.

As a student of law, you must see the possible difficulties implementing what you call a functional approach. Bureaucratic institutions are not good at putting together institutions and procedures that are effective in situations where sensitive judgment is required. Vulnerable people would get lost. There would be scandals.

Of course, the same is probably true of what you call the patriarchal approach. At least that has the benefit of being easy to understand and enforce. Of course, because this is an area where sensitive judgment is required, the laws won't be administered uniformly and fairly. — T Clark

It really pisses me off how people are espousing the Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability with a fluffy ignorance about the very serious and difficult domain that will actually enable them to exercise those rights. Negative perceptions that persons with a disability entering into a sexual relationship is based on a misnomer about their capacity to understand what sexual intercourse is and are therefore asexual and sometimes the extremity of their intellectual disability validates this, but certainly not all. They are human beings who like everyone else have that natural instinct, only their understanding of it is different. Where is that line drawn and how can we ascertain whether they do have the capacity to understand? The functional approach in my opinion provides more scope than simply a clinical or diagnostic threshold - i.e., they have down syndrome and an IQ of 50 and so are automatically incapable of understanding - when what we can really do is simply educate them about sexual intercourse in a way that they will understand, to work at their level so they can make an informed choice by knowing that having sex may mean becoming pregnant or if unsafe potentially risking a sexually transmitted disease etc. The paternalistic attitude toward people with a disability means that we are failing them and it is our responsibility to ensure that we do our best to advocate for them as that is our responsibility and their human right. They are sexually active, it happens all the time, let us work together to ensure safety is a priority.

However, this paternalistic approach has enabled forced steralisations, for instance, of young women with a severe intellectual disability and unbelievably this is still permitted viz., guardianship laws here in Australia because they are at high risk of being sexually assaulted by the exploitation by unscrupulous adults as @TheMadFool said. This is an important example of breaching the boundary of human rights and the body (I have been vocal about my concerns for this and have used the Muir v. Alberta case as an example of that fine line between health and safety and eugenics). We define appropriate sexual behaviour in the law and in Australia consent in the Crimes Act is a 'free agreement' and therefore if international human rights law states that each person is equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, we need to ensure that capacity assessments are adequate and they are not (international law does not suggest any adequate method to ascertain this). Again, it really shits me at how this has been given the silent treatment like so many other serious and contentious issues so the world can pretend that everything is fantastic as capitalism enables.

We have advanced in so many ways, but yes, there are a large number of caselaw examples that can be used to solidify my point, particularly relating to consent and acquiescence that is comparable to children' law and sexual crimes. We think that rape mean actively protesting and screaming 'no' but passive acquiescence and cognitive capacity is a real problem that we need to understand for both those with an intellectual disability and children alike to ensure we protect them.

We have advanced in so many ways, but yes, there are a large number of caselaw examples that can be used to solidify my point, particularly relating to consent and acquiescence that is comparable to children' law and sexual crimes. We think that rape mean actively protesting and screaming 'no' but passive acquiescence and cognitive capacity is a real problem that we need to understand for both those with an intellectual disability and children alike to ensure we protect them. — TimeLine

You've thought a lot more about this than I have and your training and experience make you a much more credible advocate. For me it all comes down to this - vulnerable people need to be protected. Within that limit, they deserve as much chance to be happy as everyone else does. From what I can see, we don't even come close to protecting them in a consistent and effective way.

More boys than not have a ceremony or apprenticeship between ten and thirteen years old. Societies use this method to teach adulthood. Rites of Passage.

Adulthood is based on readiness, the parents wishes, and cultural expectations. Defining it in solid numbers is an invention of Western expansion.

People kept their kids longer for labor during the agricultural revolution.

I’m not sure what timeframe/culture you’re referring to as comparison to modern expectations. Will you divulge?

I’m not sure what timeframe/culture you’re referring to as comparison to modern expectations. Will you divulge? — Brianna Whitney

Good post. I assumed that we were talking about western culture now vs. western culture in the not too distant past. Maybe as recently as the 1990s. I'm not sure what period TheMadFool meant. Maybe he'll tell us.

More boys than not have a ceremony or apprenticeship between ten and thirteen years old. Societies use this method to teach adulthood. Rites of Passage. — Brianna Whitney

That is called child labour. When I was very young, I was taken out of school for a number of years and forced to work because children were considered an economic asset, which is why in many cultures and communities they - despite poverty - have a large number of children. I am wholeheartedly against this concept and children aged 10-13 should be getting an education and playing before making an informed choice at a suitable age as to whether or not they would like to do an apprenticeship.

I’m not sure what timeframe/culture you’re referring to as comparison to modern expectations. Will you divulge? — Brianna Whitney

Now, today, global, unless perhaps you can divulge in what your point is? We are talking about children and human rights and I understand the necessity within this discussion about cultural relativism and other relevant sociological dynamics, but what children did during the industrial revolution with the high number of mortality rates (and yes, statistics, how Western of me...) and other unbelievable levels of suffering hardly serves the discussion; human rights laws were created with the aim of protecting and enabling children to lead happier lives. If that is too 'western' or modern for you, then I don't know.

And is there no universality in these rights? Are you saying, for instance, that we should just accept that child marriage is normal for some cultures and any contestation is too 'modern' or 'western'?

Now, today, global, unless perhaps you can divulge in what your point is? We are talking about children and human rights and I understand the necessity within this discussion about cultural relativism and other relevant sociological dynamics, but what children did during the industrial revolution with the high number of mortality rates (and yes, statistics, how Western of me...) and other unbelievable levels of suffering hardly serves the discussion; human rights laws were created with the aim of protecting and enabling children to lead happier lives. If that is too 'western' or modern for you, then I don't know. — TimeLine

I'm sure BW can speak for herself, but I thought she was referring to the original post where TheMadFool made a comparison between children now and those in the past, saying they mature earlier now. I'll let her clarify.

I'm sure BW can speak for herself, but I thought she was referring to the original post where TheMadFool made a comparison between children now and those in the past, saying they mature earlier now. I'll let her clarify. — T Clark

Either way, I did not agree with her discussion points.

I wouldn't be wrong in saying children are maturing faster nowadays. — TheMadFool

Dear lord, no. It is precisely the reverse. Try being a substitute teacher at a public school, as I was, or talk to a teacher over the age of 50. I have no hesitation in declaring that this is the most infantilized, coddled, illiterate, and immature generation in the history of civilization. It's a running joke among academics that college is the new high school. Compare this observation to the rites of passage into adulthood that existed for most of human history when the individual was about 13 or so.

Child labor, scaled appropriately to the age, size, and strength of the child, may not be, in itself, an abridgment of the child's development, but when long periods of time are devoted to even appropriate manual labor, there is a good chance that the child will be deprived of an opportunities lsaato develop intellectually and socially.

Whoa. Open mouth insert foot. Awkward timing is a talent.

Whoa. Open mouth insert foot. Awkward timing is a talent. — Brianna Whitney

I don't understand why you would think that way.

I had no idea you guys were talking about human trafficking, child sex workers, and child labor.

I am wholeheartedly against this concept and children aged 10-13 should be getting an education and playing before making an informed choice at a suitable age as to whether or not they would like to do an apprenticeship. — TimeLine

So having a child do healthy satisfying, and rewarding outdoor work on, say, a ranch would be a bad thing, but physically imprisoning then in a school building, forcing them on pain of further imprisonment to sit down and shut up (all of which does actual medically demonstrable harm to their well-being), just so that they can be force-fed some useless crap about the Roman Empire is absolutely fine is it?

So having a child do healthy satisfying, and rewarding outdoor work on, say, a ranch would be a bad thing, but physically imprisoning then in a school building, forcing them on pain of further imprisonment to sit down and shut up (all of which does actual medically demonstrable harm to their well-being), just so that they can be force-fed some useless crap about the Roman Empire is absolutely fine is it? — Inter Alia

Your description of an education being "imprisoned" where people experience "medically demonstrable harm" because they sit on a chair and write, being forced to learn about useless things like history is rather interesting. Of course, forced labour to you is just rewarding outdoor activities on a ranch.

It is pretty difficult writing anything more because I am genuinely speechless.

http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2653704/patterns-sedentary-behavior-mortality-u-s-middle-aged-older-adults.

Sitting for too long causes demonstrable medical harm. Would you like me to post some of the other similar studies I have available?

In what way is imprisoned deserving of its incredulous quote marks, are you seriously suggesting the children can just get up and walk out if they want to, what other definition of imprisoned are you referring to?

being forced to learn about useless things like history is rather interesting — TimeLine

Is it? Because you find it interesting that makes it OK to force the entire population of children to endure it?

Of course, forced labour to you is just rewarding outdoor activities on a ranch. — TimeLine

Who said anything about forced labour. It school that doing the forcing, I'm talking about the child's ability to choose which is taken from them by authoritarian rules about working age and full time education. It's already illegal to force anyone to work, child or adult. It doesn't require additional draconian age restrictions.

Sitting for too long causes demonstrable medical harm. Would you like me to post some of the other 20 similar studies I have available? — Inter Alia

How is that study of middle-aged related to early childhood education? I work with numerous schools and school aged children and I can assure you that they do not sit down in sedentary positions for long periods of time, on the contrary fitness and physical activity is largely incorporated in many school cultures.

Who said anything about forced labour. It school that doing the forcing, I'm talking about the child's ability to choose which is taken from them by authoritarian rules about working age and full time education. It's already illegal to force anyone to work, child or adult. It doesn't require additional draconian age restrictions. — Inter Alia

Are you suggesting that it is not a human right for a child to receive an education, on the contrary that it is authoritarianism to believe we are responsible for their brain development? So, by enabling accessibility to an early childhood education so as to strengthen their future capacity to make informed choices and empower reason, we are actually committing an evil? I am quite literally gobsmacked.

An education is critical for a childs brain development and when you read books to babies or toddlers, you may not think that you are actually doing much but evidence shows that it has a positive impact on their neurological and social development, where fibers grow between neurons and the white matter of the brain that forms neural networks that transmit information. An education assists in the maturation through further fibers and growth that strengthens the capacity to process information, reading, mathematics and logic as well as retaining better memory.

The study of childhood neglect in Romanian orphanages is an example of how neglect affects the brain. When a child experiences stress, the neural connections in areas of the brain that assist with learning pivotal later in life for either higher education or employment is damaged, whereby early preventive intervention such as the provision of an education will likely assist in a more successful future for the child,



An education is crucial for the development of a child' brain and while casual, outdoor activities with a pocket allowance is useful, being pulled out of school and forced into labour is not. If we have over 200 million children and young people out of school, then we not only fail our responsibility to protect and support children as they risk never developing the capacity to activate areas of the brain that will empower and enable them with the skills later in life, but we indirectly assist the continuity and proliferation of negative determinates that are characteristic of poor social, emotional and cognitive skills.

How is that study of middle-aged related to early childhood education? — TimeLine

Fine here's one directly on children, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370881, though I'm not sure why you would think one on adults wouldn't apply, they're not a different species.

they do not sit down in sedentary positions for long periods of time, — TimeLine

So hour long lessons are a thing of the past are they, I'm not sure what schools you might have taught in, but the ones we have here are still pretty much hour of Maths, hour of English, hour of Science etc etc, with a few 15min breaks and one PE lesson a week. Are the children being taught their History whilst jogging across the countryside nowadays and I've just missed the revolution? Are science lessons conducted during a game of football?

by enabling accessibility to an early childhood education so as to strengthen their future capacity to make informed choices and empower reason, — TimeLine

I'd be very interested to see any evidence you have demonstrating a link between school education and an ability to reason. This study https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022611, seems to show otherwise, or this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445388/ which concludes that "that extended durations of education do not have domain-general effects on ability"

evidence shows that it [book reading] has a positive impact on their neurological and social development, — TimeLine

So you're suggesting that tribal cultures are socially underdeveloped because they don't have any books? That sounds like something out of Victorian colonialism.

It is outrageous to suggest that a child who isn't in school is in any way suffering the equivalent damage as a child who is the victim of such neglect as was seen in the Romanian orphanages. Plenty of people home educate, plenty adopt 'Free to learn' approaches such as advocated by Peter Gray at Sudbury School, there are thousands of children living in tribal cultures across the world who do not have a formal education but simply adopt their parent's role's as they grow up. Are you suggesting all these cultures are neglecting children to the extent seen in the Romanian orphanages?

and forced into labour — TimeLine

Will you please stop misrepresenting my argument, I have never said anything about forced labour. Either you accept that a child has a choice or you don't. If you are to suggest that a child is too easily influenced to exert a real choice (deeply insulting, but possible) then they are 'forced' into school just as much as 'forced' into labour should they choose to take early apprenticeships or work on their parent's farm. If you take the much more reasonable view that children are autonomous individuals capable of expressing and deciding on their own lives, then there is no need for the term 'forced' at all I'm talking about choice. At the moment a child cannot choose to work on their parent's farm or apprentice themselves to a mechanic, they are 'forced' into a particular type of education on the grounds that the adults think it's best for them, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that it is not.

From the Human Rights Act you seem (quite rightly) fond of;

The right to liberty and freedom: you have the right to be free and the State can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime. - So why is it OK to imprison a child within the school building. To punish a child with detention without trial? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4424298/Dictatorship-school-puts-pupil-ISOLATION-skinhead.html
The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law: you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law. - Except of course if you're a child in which case you can be punished by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything because its all 'in your best interests'
Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry: protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and enjoy family relationships. - Except for the children who are now tracked at school to monitor them https://www.wired.com/2012/09/rfid-chip-student-monitoring/
Free speech and peaceful protest: you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views. - Except at school where you are forced on pain of further imprisonment to shut up and speak only when allowed. When was the last time you saw a peaceful protest being allowed at school?
No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion or age. - I'm not even going to add anything to this one, just highlight the last word.

What is your argument? What are you suggesting? That an education is the problem, or being sedentary? If it is the latter, as the study you show suggests, "the effectiveness of short but regular exercise breaks in offsetting the detrimental effects of uninterrupted sitting in young girls" which means you should be advocating for exercise at schools.

So what is your point?

Are you anti-education, pro-labour? The rest of your post aside from the following is not even worth responding to.

So you're suggesting that tribal cultures are socially underdeveloped because they don't have any books? That sounds like something out of Victorian colonialism.

It is outrageous to suggest that a child who isn't in school is in any way suffering the equivalent damage as a child who is the victim of such neglect as was seen in the Romanian orphanages. Plenty of people home educate, plenty adopt 'Free to learn' approaches such as advocated by Peter Gray at Sudbury School, there are thousands of children living in tribal cultures across the world who do not have a formal education but simply adopt their parent's role's as they grow up. Are you suggesting all these cultures are neglecting children to the extent seen in the Romanian orphanages? — Inter Alia

Do not try to use false ad hominems on me by purporting some connection between my argument about brain development as comparable to deriding cultures. The most pivotal aspect to early childhood health is access to good family care and a non-toxic home environment, but strengthening cognitive, social and language skills is furthered by an education due to brain development as I have already shown you. The acquisition of knowledge through an education strengthens cognitive abilities and practical skills for higher-order functioning later in life and notwithstanding your ridiculous examples (you do realise what moral reasoning is?) I am not suggesting that "tribal cultures are socially underdeveloped" as you claim as they too have access to an education - whether it is religious, cultural etc - in addition to the standard compulsory early childhood education that most governments around the world endorse - whether at home or through alternate approaches, but an education still.

So, I ask you again, what is the point of your argument?

What is your argument? What are you suggesting? — TimeLine

Simple - That education is not about sitting in a school room learning History and English Literature, that it can be about working at a rewarding job in a safe and nurturing environment, but that is currently illegal even if it's what a child wants. That it is a blatant denial of the child's human right by ignoring their stated wishes and instead forcing them to attend an institution, and allowing that institution to punish without trial and deny free speech just because they're children. It's not a complicated argument.

strengthening cognitive, social and language skills is furthered by an education due to brain development as I have already shown you. — TimeLine

No you haven't shown, you stated, I've shown two studies which demonstrate no link between formal education and generalised development of brain functions such as moral reasoning or domain-general ability. You have supplied no study to support your assertion that formal education develops anything in the brain that education on a farm or at a mechanic's workshop would not.

they too have access to an education — TimeLine

Actually they don't, children in tribal culture have virtually no pedagogic education at all https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iii-the-wisdom-hunter-gatherers
They learn in exactly the way I've outlined, by being free to make their own choices, engage in adult activity when they want and on whatever terms they want. Suggesting that such an approach would constitute neglect is insulting to the thousands of tribal cultures we still have across the world.

The point of my argument is that children should have the same human rights as adults. They should be free to choose their own form of education (through work, self learning or formal pedagogic teaching), and if institutions are set up to serve those children that choose formal pedagogic teaching those institutions should have no more right to restrict a child's freedom than they would an adult's.

We look back on the way we treated other races with disgust nowadays despite how normal it seemed at the time. One day (I hope) we will look back on the way we treated children with the same incredulity. Dressing it all up with 'It's in their best interests' I'm afraid just doesn't wash.

Simple - That education is not about sitting in a school room learning History and English Literature, that it can be about working at a rewarding job in a safe and nurturing environment, but that is currently illegal even if it's what a child wants. That it is a blatant denial of the child's human right by ignoring their stated wishes and instead forcing them to attend an institution, and allowing that institution to punish without trial and deny free speech just because they're children. It's not a complicated argument. — Inter Alia

I agree but when you previously stated:

but physically imprisoning then in a school building, forcing them on pain of further imprisonment to sit down and shut up (all of which does actual medically demonstrable harm to their well-being), just so that they can be force-fed some useless crap about the Roman Empire is absolutely fine is it? — Inter Alia

This came following my argument that children aged 10-13 should not be working as labourers but should instead be at school and playing. Do you feel that a child at that age is capable of understanding what he/she wants vis-a-vis this so-called 'rewarding job' that smells of a privilege not available to many people? Can you provide me with an example of what this rewarding job for a 10-13 year old is and whether such a job is the norm in relation to the millions of children currently working as laborers - particularly in the global south - where conditions are usually not safe neither nurturing? If you believe that a 10-13 year old has the cognitive capacity to ascertain their rights and responsibilities and articulate a free agreement, are you able to provide me with justification for this capacity?

While I agree that there is a threshold - in Australia, for instance, we offer optional or alternate studies such as Vocational Education and Training (VET) that combines effective TAFE studies and practical work placements for secondary school students who may not want to do further studies but prefer to work, but this is only when they reach the age 15.9 and with the full advice of careers counselor, school and their family. We have even established unique alternatives for school leavers and those in the juvenile justice system along with numerous options for traineeships and apprenticeships. But again, all after a certain age.

No you haven't shown, you stated, I've shown two studies which demonstrate no link between formal education and generalised development of brain functions such as moral reasoning or domain-general ability. You have supplied no study to support your assertion that formal education develops anything in the brain that education on a farm or at a mechanic's workshop would not. — Inter Alia

A formal education is a part of a triad of requirements that strengthen early childhood brain development as the stimulation strengthens their cognitive, social and emotional capacity among others.

Do you feel that a child at that age is capable of understanding what he/she wants vis-a-vis this so-called 'rewarding job' — TimeLine

Yes, that is exactly what I think, the only evidence that has ever been put forward to suggest otherwise is that they make decisions they later regret, well who doesn't?

Can you provide me with an example of what this rewarding job for a 10-13 year old is — TimeLine

Yes, working on a parent's farm or in a trusted family friend's mechanic shop are just two. As are learning how to hunt and gather by taking part in adult activities in a tribe.

whether such a job is the norm in relation to the millions of children currently working as laborers - particularly in the global south - where conditions are usually not safe neither nurturing — TimeLine

No, I cannot, I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm making an ethical argument about what should and should not be illegal, not suggesting that working conditions for child labourers are generally fine. I don't think the working conditions for adult labourers are generally fine either, what's that got to do with a child's right to choose?

With regards to your evidence, I appreciate the links. We could exchange studies all day, I don't think the studies you've cited show what you think they show. None have any proper control group. They're showing the effect of education on brain development but not demonstrating that such an effect would be absent (or perhaps even larger) from vocational training at a young age. Nor could they ever, as no such control group would be considered ethical (i obviously disagree).

So firstly there are a few studies that actually have some kind of control. The first one I cited used a measure of cognitive ability unrelated to the subject matter. Another by Benezet (I don't have the link to hand) removed formal maths education from young children. It concluded "At the beginning of their sixth grade year, the children in the experimental classes, who had not been taught any arithmetic, performed much better than those in the traditional classes on story problems that could be solved by common sense and a general understanding of numbers and measurement. Of course, at the beginning of sixth grade, those in the experimental classes performed worse on the standard school arithmetic tests, where the problems were set up in the usual school manner and could be solved simply by applying the rote-learned algorithms. But by the end of sixth grade those in the experimental classes had completely caught up on this and were still way ahead of the others on story problems."

There are studies carried out by Sugata Mitra in Indiahere, which show pretty clearly how much more quickly computer knowledge was obtained just by leaving the kids with a computer than hours of IT classes could ever do.

I've got masses more if you're interested, but I don't want to completely hijack the thread with a 'Free to Learn' pitch. The ethical point is that formal education is incredibly restrictive of a child's human rights so it would need to have an extremely solid and exhaustive evidence-base to justify forcing children into it against their will, and it just doesn't. No matter what you believe, the evidence is at the very least 'contested', and that's just not good enough to justify the harm done to autonomy.