here's one problem with our authoritarian approach to education (and look, you can't make something compulsory and then enforce that compulsion and not be taking an authoritarian approach; but this is only one detail of the gulag; the whole machine of public education is dedicated to behavioral control): it is actually not wrong to defy, sabotage, or cheat a coercive social order, or one that you're embedded in but not by your own voluntary choice. it cannot be a violation of your personal responsibility to violate the percepts of such an institution: your consent isn't even sincerely solicited; you can have no obligation to hold yourself to arbitrarily imposed external standards. so, for example, it is not wrong for a slave to shirk, correct? it is exactly what you'd expect, because you're not worried in the whole system about the slave's internal motivations. if a slave escapes, that is right, not wrong, see? even if the master is relatively benevolent. this is why these institutions get into a spiral of sabotage/vandalism/slacking and crackdown. everyone understands that the most you can reasonably expect from a slave is a simulation of cooperation. the institution, precisely because it is authoritarian, or to the extent it is coercive, can impose no true responsibilties on the people embedded in it. this is a generalizable argument. but think also of what this means in terms of each person's relation to their own education, which becomes something external to themselves as opposed to a self-development. ignorance itself is a morally defensible response to pervasively authoritarian educational institutions.