Still Chewing on Public Schools

In my view, the two core issues related to education are content and method: What is taught, and How. This is true when looking at the issue of education through a purely functional lens.



When considering education from a political perspective, there is only one issue for me: am I forced to pay for it (through taxes)? If the answer is yes, then I'm against it. If the answer is no, then I'm for it. That is all--issues of content and method are irrelevant.



In the current culture, the two primary concerns seem to be access and quality, where quality is defined differently by different people. The Progressives (most of the bureaucrats and education faculty) tend to define quality in terms of how well the students are prepared for social and political life; or to use a differnet term, how well the students are "socialized." The rest (mostly parents, election-hungry politicians) tend to define quality in terms of how well students are prepared for work life, usually measured in terms of standardized tests. Neither group seriously challenges whether public school should exist at all. Neither group seriously considers the role of force in education.



Access is nearly a non-issue, since education is not only provided to everyone free of charge, but is also compulsory. However, even though the issue of Access is practically non-controversial, it is still of primary concern to most people. If you don't believe me, simply suggest that we should do away with government controlled schools entirely, and see what kind of reaction you get. Why do people regard Access as such an important value? Because they believe in a right to education. "Everyone has a right to an education."



No they don't--not if they can't pay for it. I certainly agree that you need an education--but needs qua needs do not translate into rights. It is this belief in a right to education (similar to the quasi-Marxist belief in a right to a job) that makes the issue of dismantling the public schools so testy. It's also interesting to note that this "right" is forced on everyone.



Another issue at contest in the realm of education is control over content and pedagogy. In state-run institutions, parents and children have only the amount of control that is granted to them by the state. The teachers usually fight for control as well, on the premise that their expertise in the field entitles them to some decision-making rights. Whether, in a particular district, the parents or teachers have more or less control, it is by permission of the state that they have any at all. The State Giveth, and the State Taketh Away.



Parents and teachers also battle with each other for control over content. Evangelical Christian parents want Creationism taught in schools alongside or instead of evolution. Other parents want a total separation of church and state. Some parents want the Pledge of Allegiance and/or the Ten Commandments taught to school-children. Others want "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments to be removed altogether. Still others think that requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance smells too much of blind nationalism and would rather see individuals take such a pledge as adults, after they have understood the meaning and context of the Pledge.



Note that control in either of the above contexts means "control of the power of the State," which means force. Each person desires to impose their own vision of how schools should be run, and what should be taught on everyone else--and no one sees anything wrong with this.

Chewing An Idea

I've been reading Market Education, which is an excellent book on the history of public education as an institution, and as an idea throughout history. One of the charges that the author levies (and supports) is that the purpose of public schools is not, and indeed has never been, the education of its students. The purpose is to indoctrinate them with the approved State Ideology. Indeed, the history of government schools has been one conflict after another between parents that want to teach their children knowledge and values that will prepare them for leading a happy and productive life vs. the government bereaucrats that see it as their duty to mold the children in their charge into "Good Citizens."

Whether it's converting the children of Irish Catholic Immigrants to Protestantism in the 1840's, or training children in the dogma of Environmentalism in current era, the conflicts have remained the same in their essentials. Whether it's illegal to teach Evolution in science class (as it was in the early 20th Century), or illegal to teach Creationism in sciense class (as it is now), it remains that groups are fighting to use political power to get their particular world view presented to other people's children through the power of the State.

I'm starting to see the issue of public schools in the same light that many in this country already see the issue of the separation of Church and State. The State should not endorse a particular religion, nor should any religious organization wield state power. The individual administrators may themselves adhere to a religion in a personal sense, but not as an agent of State authority. Should the line between church and state be breached, the effect would be a State Religion. Whether this religion is an official State Religion codified into a dogma, or an unofficial hodge-podge of randomly selected ideas doesn't matter. The State simply should not be in the business of approving ideas.

But if the State is going to pay for the education of the nation's children, then it must take an interest in the quality of the education is pay's for. Whether the schools are administered by the State or payed for by vouchers doesn't matter; the State has an obligation to ensure that its money is being spent wisely. This necessarily means that the State must set standards for both the content and method of educational systems. This means that the State must take on the role of approver of ideas.

Who decides what content and methodoligcal approaches should be used in the public school? Castro, in Cuba; whichever political faction happens to have control of the local, State, or National education bereaucracy in the U.S..

Conservatives and Libertarians often advocate vouchers to allow private schools to "compete" with public schools on the premise that "competition" will make public schools better. This is a bastardization of the concept of economic competition, and will only result in the government extending its power over any private schools that accept the vouchers, and destroying any private schools that are left. This will happen, not from any particular malice or conspiracy on the part of government bereaucrats, but as a natural consequence of government money in the realm of education. Further, the next time conservatives get a grip on the education system, they'll drop vouchers and implement their own version of the State Ideology just as they have done in the past; and don't think that they're not trying.

I'm beginning to think that the issue of public education is the single most important domestic issue that this country is facing. I'm struck by how the existence of public schools is so throughly non-controversial in our culture. I'm struck by how many students coming out of public schools, and even colleges without basic critical thinking skills. I'm struck by how difficult it is for people I talk to even imagine an alternative the public school system, or any other politically correct idea. The very concept of political correctness demonstrate what I was talking about earlier--an implied State Ideology; not currently enforced as a matter of law, but certainly taught as a matter of law.

I've got more reading and thinking to do. Thanks for reading.

Global Warming: The Miracle Disaster

Is there anything it can't do?
Now it's responsible for the fighting in Darfur. Oh that Mother Nature--she's sure a bitch!

To summarize: there was less rain, which obviously is the result of man-made Global Warming since there's never been a such a thing as a draught before, so the black farmers closed in their land to prevent over-grazing from arab herders. "For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,'' he [UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon] said.

I love that--"Fighting broke out." Just like that--like it's the next logical step in the chain or reasoning. Why? No answer. Why couldn't the people there find other ways to resolve their differences? No answer. This is the quality of thinking in people who supposedly are our World Leaders.

Check out this guy...

... playing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on the ukelele--pretty impressive.