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.