Forced Government Schooling

If you were wondering why we must have a public education system, you can thank these folks for providing some answers: The Center for Education Policy, “a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools.” Fortunately, they produced Preserving Principles of Public Education in an Online World which contains “a list of key questions for policymakers to ask about major education reforms, grouped according to what we believe are six essential purposes and principles of public education.”

Here are the "key questions" and my comments:

1) Effective preparation for life, work, and citizenship. Will the proposed reform produce an education of the quality needed to effectively prepare young people: (a) to lead fulfilling and contributing lives, (b) to be productively employed, and © to be responsible citizens in a democratic society? 

Who determines what constitutes “fulfilling and contributing lives?” The second point is job training and the third is primarily a moral issue.  Are these things best accomplished through coercion and control by government?  The implications of government control in such personal matters are explored in my post Education: Free and Compulsory.

2) Social cohesion and shared culture.Will the proposed reform promote a cohesive American society by bringing together children from diverse backgrounds and encouraging them to get along? Will it help to form a shared American culture and to transmit democratic values?

Public schools tend to produce social division, not cohesion. Per the Cato Institute’s policy analysis paper titled Why We Fight, How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict: “Such clashes are inevitable in government-run schooling because all Americans are required to support the public schools, but only those with the most political power control them. Political — and sometimes even physical — conflict has thus been an inescapable public schooling reality.” See my post Social conflict - your school tax dollars at work.

3) Universal access and free cost. Will the proposed reform guarantee a public education that is universally accessible to all children within the governing jurisdiction and is free of charge to parents and students?

If you define “free of charge” as no tuition, then it is “free.” However, taxpayers ultimately pay for the cost. Does having government provide this “essential service” make sense?  See Free groceries and other analogies  for a comparison with another essential service not provided by agents of the state.

4) Equity and non-discrimination. Will the proposed reform provide the same quality of education for poor children as for non-poor children? Will it treat all children justly and without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religious affiliation, or economic status?

Equity, in this sense, is defined as the quality of being fair and impartial. Forcing all children into a rigid age-based program of instruction is certainly not fair. Children naturally have different aptitudes and interests that are simply ignored and often crushed by the system. Boys and girls develop physically and mentally at different rates, yet every day they are herded into classes based simply on their date of birth. Ignoring these biological differences is not only unfair it is harmful. For a look at learning and gender see Smart boys, dumb system.

5) Public accountability and responsiveness. Will the proposed reform ensure that education supported with public dollars remains accountable to taxpayers and the public authorities that represent them? Will the reform be responsive to the needs of local communities and afford citizens a voice in the governance of their schools?

Public schools are notoriously deceptive about the true costs of the service that they deliver (see What do you expect for a mere $600 billion a year?).  It is also difficult to determine who really controls the system.  The controlling group includes state and federal government agencies, teacher unions, colleges of education, private foundations and various special-interest lobbyists.  Local school boards may oversee local schools but they are primarily managing personnel, buildings and budgets, and in the end, they implement what the education establishment dictates. Citizens may have a “voice in the governance of their schools"  but they have very little input for things that really count: choice of schools, curriculum, teachers, or attendance. 

6) Religious neutrality. Will the proposed reform provide a public education that is religiously neutral and respectful of religious freedom?

The supposed religious neutrality of public schools is one of the most outrageous yet generally accepted myths in the public square. How can any institution that claims to teach children to "lead fulfilling and contributing lives” and “to be responsible citizens in a democratic society” possibly be religiously neutral. The following is from my earlier post Conceptual problems with the system:

Any system of knowledge is based on some sort of worldview.  A worldview is an “overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.”  As it relates to the big questions of life, a worldview is essentially a religious framework. To see if schools inculcate a religious viewpoint, all one has to do is examine the four big questions that any religion must answer: 1) origin of man and the universe, 2.) the meaning of life, 3.) morals, and 4.) a person’s destiny.  Although many religious concepts are taught in government schools, much of the basic message seems to be a mixed bag of atheism, existentialism, relativism and perhaps nihilism (for those students who dig a little further toward the core - although few can live in that dark place).

As usual, absent from the discussion about public education is a fundamental principle that used to be important in our country: freedom.  In a truly free nation, there would be freedom for parents and children to determine what is an appropriate education and freedom to determine when, where and how it is accomplished. We have not had that freedom for a very long time.