In today's Salt Lake Tribune, the Sutherland Institute's Paul T. Mero made a clumsy and ill conceived (not to mention just plain wrong headed and insensitive) effort to compare the current arguments advanced in opposition to vouchers with the arguments used to support slavery through the mid 19th century. At least he had the good sense to begin by stating "Certainly the common experience in our public schools in Utah is far removed from anything comparable to the inhumane experiences of slavery." Unfortunately, he didn't let the degree of public education's removal from the slavery experience stop him.
In comparing the current educational system to the plantation system, even if a far more humane version of it, Mero demonstrates once again voucher proponents fail to understand the purpose of public education and the ideals that inspired its establishment in the first place. Our public education system gave immigrant children a means of learning our language, system of government, and of assimilating into their new home with other children their age. Every child was guaranteed access to learning regardless of income, enhancing access to the American Dream by opening doors that otherwise would have been shut without a universal public education system.
The public education system was never set up to deny a private education to those that enjoyed access to it, but rather to open up educational opportunities to those that did not enjoy such access. By arguing those opposed to putting tax dollars to work subsidizing a private education are in anyway equivalent to slave owners that prevented their slaves from receiving an adequate education and other basic rights, Mero intentionally misrepresents the purpose of a universally available public school system.
A private education is and always will be available to those with the means to afford it. With average tuition running over $10,000 a year and only eight Utah counties with any qualifying private schools, that isn't going to change with a $3,000 voucher. The purpose of our public education system is and always has been to provide an education to everybody else.
Voucher supporters have turned this concept on its head, arguing every parent has a right to place their child in a private school at public expense cloaking their argument in the mantle of "freedom." Society is obligated to fund an education system that will be available to all children, regardless of their racial, religious, or financial background. Having done that, society is under no obligation to finance the education of children coming from families with the means to educate their children elsewhere.
In attempting to preserve and build upon America's tradition of providing a public education system universally available to every child, public education advocates do not deserve to be compared with plantation owners attempting to deny an education and other rights to slaves. Those fortunate enough to have the means to put their children in a private school should they choose are not so downtrodden they can reasonably be considered even remotely similar to slaves, and public school teachers and the majority of Utah parents that do not support vouchers are hardly the equivalent of plantation owners. Mero owes them all an apology for implying their position on the voucher question brings them even into the same sphere as these horrible relics from the past.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thanks Craig. You have a very romanticized view of the long and hard history of public education in America.
Here is a link to the full essay:
http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/southcarolinaslavery.pdf
Your comments above are actually factually, legally, and historically incorrect. Another way for me to say this with more sensitivity, which you seem to desire, is that a lots of eggs were cracked to make the public school omlete.
Best, PTM
Finally, someone else noticed that Craig is a romantic. Who knew it would be Paul Mero?
If by romanticized view you mean I believe this country couldn't have gotten far without a public school system, even with all its flaws, I plead guilty.
I am well aware public schools do not have a history of always meeting the ideals that led to their creation. Heck, it took a civil war to get rid of slavery in this country, so you could just as easily say a number of eggs were cracked to build the American omelet as well, but that is no reason to disregard the ideals that led to its creation in the first place.
I would be happy to review the document you link to, but everything but the title page is blank. I could say something about the nature of conservative think tanks here, but will restrain myself and settle for requesting you try posting the link to the PDF file again.
The link is good. Perhaps I copied it to you incorrectly or your system does not accept inspired reason and truth!! :)
Sutherland home page, Publications, Essays...and you'll see it under the Education tab.
PTM
Craig,
You also prove my point. Slavery was an abomination and we cracked a few eggs justifiably to make it go away. The freedom of families to assimilate or not is hardly an abomination on that scale, and yet the ideology of early public school advocate (including the KKK who was part of a US Supreme Cout ruling requiring public school for all back in 1925)cracked a lot of eggs including Irish Americans, Native Americans, and Mormons with the heavy club of public schooling.
I understand the value of public schools. I just don't see the universal value you ascribe to it...it has hardly been the bulwark of democracy in so many cases. And yet its value lies in its service to families that need it. For that we can all be thankful...for trying to impose it on everyone, we should all be fearful.
Best always, PTM
Paul,
I was able to download your white paper using another computer. It is not inspired reason and truth my computer filters. :-)
But seriously, when it comes to educational freedom it is not "restrictive schooling laws" as your paper argues that restrict access to private schools, but the ability of parents to pay the tuition they require. This is especially true given Utah parents are already free to enroll their children in any public school, including charter schools, of their choice.
In order for vouchers to truly provide parents the freedom you argue for the voucher must be large enough to cover up to 100% of the tuition depending upon the economic status of the family seeking to enroll their child in a private school. In other words, if the 14th amendment is interpreted to require the government to remove all economic barriers to a service provided by both the public and private sector, the voucher or other assistance provided must eliminate that economic barrier, not simply minimize it.
Voucher proponents argue the residents of 21 counties in Utah should be required to subsidize a private education for some of the residents in the eight counties where private school opportunities exist. They also argue $3,000 is sufficient for a low income or middle income family to get over the financial burden a private school education places on the family. Low to middle income families, especially those with more than one child, are not given "equal" access to private schools with this level of subsidy. Therefore, the equal protection argument you rely upon in your white paper is inconsistent with the substance of the voucher reforms you advocate.
But even if you were advocating a subsidy of up to 100% of the cost depending upon income, the question when it comes to the 14th amendment as it applies to government programs is whether or not a government program, in this case public schools, is denying access to certain members of the public based upon income, race, religion, etc. Private schools, because they are private, enjoy greater freedom to discriminate but public schools do not, unless of course the private school starts relying increasingly on public money. You do not argue public schools are denying access to members of the public based on any of the criteria listed above currently, only that some public schools have a checkered past when it comes to discrimination. I think we can all agree we have come a long way in this regard in recent decades.
You quote the 14th amendment in your paper. You point out the 14th amendment reads in part "No state shall make or enforce any law which sall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Given Utah has not passed a law denying families access to private schools, and the barrier to access is tuition and the enrollment standards private schools may impose that public schools cannot, I fail to see how not having a voucher law violates the 14th amendment. Money, not law, may be keeping some families out the private school system, but then it is also keeping me from buying a new car and you don't hear me demanding a government voucher.
Best regards,
Craig Axford
Craig,
Very thoughtful repsonse, and thank you for reading the full essay.
The purpose of the essay was not to claim that the 14th Amendment is being violated by not allowing vouchers. The purpose of the essay was to draw a "freedom analogy" between the loss of control over families shared by slaves of yesteryear and many modern instances of "underprivileged" families.
The importance of the 14th Amendment in this analogy is that its creation stemmed, in large part, from the loss of familial rights among slave families and its subsequent citation by the US Supreme Court favoring parental rights in education.
What does that have to do with the voucher debate?
At Sutherland, much to the chagrin of many of our pro-voucher friends, we champion educational freedom, not just vouchers. The essay is championing the greater cause while applying the very human story of familial freedom among slaves to the very human story of poorer Utah families "stuck" in an educational system not of their choosing.
BTW,the issue truly is about "restrictive" schooling laws...as long as the compulsory attendance law is on the books, all school-age children are accountable to the public school system...ALL of them. That alternatives exist in the law is only an important reminder that the "system" allows them to exist.
For us, at Sutherland anyway, this debate isn't about money. Hell, we're the ones who initiated and then championed the idea of the mitigation money in the bill (again, much to the chagrin of many of our friends). It's about freedom. That state law, which requires "compulsory" attendance, makes it about money, isn't my doing.
The voucher debate is a human story that is unfolding. It is about "underprivileged" families having what "privileged" families have to the degree that the state allows them to have it.
Far from a poor analogy (I'll spare myself all of those unkind adjectives you guys used to describe the op-ed), it is a great analogy for an honest, heartfelt, intelligent debate about what is at stake...and what is at stake in the voucher debate is not money (although it is exactly that for the public ed folks...ironic isn't it?)...what is at stake is freedom within a system of laws that requires everyone to be somewhat educated.
Best, PTM
Paul,
So, if I understand you correctly, at least so far as the Sutherland Institute is concerned “restrictive” schooling laws deny parents freedom because the state requires “compulsory” attendance by minors under a certain age at either a public or private school, with exemptions provided for home schooled youth. In your view true “freedom” for parents would mean no requirement to provide their children with educational opportunities at all, or any educational opportunity they see fit, even if in reality their choice denied their children an education that prepared them for life in the modern world.
It seems to me, such a broad definition of “educational freedom” amounts to little more than freedom to neglect a child’s education. While I suspect you and I share at least somewhat similar views on such educational issues as standardized testing, the complete educational freedom you seem to be advocating is freedom from all educational standards, giving parents complete control over their children’s education but simultaneously leaving them with absolutely no minimum requirements as to what amounts to an education in modern society.
Can’t we all agree the state has an interest in making some minimum degree of education “compulsory” regardless of where a child receives his/her education? I guess not. To the extent possible shouldn’t we mandate parents educate their children, whether at home, in a private school, or at a public institution so they can at least read by the time they complete said education? Does such a standard amount to denying parent’s the freedom to raise an uneducated or under educated child? I guess so, but given the price the rest of us would have to pay for having too many illiterate children and adults running around, it is hard for me to care.
Perhaps you should clarify to what degree you are seeking to completely liberate parents from the legal obligation to provide for some kind of education vs. simply giving them the maximum amount of freedom possible within a system that requires them to do something when it comes to raising a reasonably educated child. We cannot find common ground on this issue if you are arguing a compulsory education of some sort is unreasonable, especially given the nature of our increasingly complex and competitive economy.
However, if you agree it is not whether a minimum level of compulsory education is okay, but simply the degree to which parents are faced with certain restrictions when complying with state laws making education compulsory, that changes the entire nature of the debate. Of course, if you agree a degree of compulsion with regard to education is okay, your slavery analogy remains totally inappropriate in my view.
Craig Axford
I think where we differ is in our sentiments about humanity broadly and parents specifically. I suppose why I am more "conservative" than you, or you more "liberal" than I, has to do with our views of human nature.
Compulsory anything assumes the worst in human nature. Compulsory education assumes that parents won't provide an education for their children. It is not simply society's way of establishing a priority...that can be done without coercion.
Thomas Jefferson had it correct...encourage education, don't coerce it. For instance, he wanted a system of locally-controlled schools, but not compulsory attendance.
He knew the value of an educated citizenry in a free society, but disdained the concept that government would provide the education. He had just put his life on the line against such notions.
So, to suggest that all schooling would disappear if we repealed the compulsory attendance law is wrong-headed. I certainly wouldn't quit educating my children. Would you? And if not, why not? And if not us, then why not other parents?
Civic education is crucial, essential, for rising generations. I would argue that all of the politics surrounding education today (and everything else that is politicized) only cools the rising generation's interest in becoming a "good" citizen.
Another point that needs a critical airing is the purpose of education. While that discussion is for another time, I do think it is central to even thinking about policy issues such as vouchers, curriculum, the role of teachers, etc.
While I recognize the downside of human nature, I do respect the autonomy of parents to educate and rear their children. Yes, freedom is a risk. But the risks can be mitigated through the institutions of civil society, not government.
The "requirement" to educate ones children would be "imposed" culturally, not statutorily. Admittedly, this would require folks like you to embrace the power of civil society, not government, and I know that would be a stretch for you.
I err on the side of freedom not coercion...and I am surprised that a good Democrat would disagree.
Note to all Democrats: the world would get along just fine with limited government and the strong influences of civil society.
Think of it this way: if you hate NCLB, then you'll agree with my thesis of educational freedom. If you insist on a complulsory requirement in education, then you must settle for its consequences, such as NCLB and heavy-handed state guidelines. After all, if education is so important as to make it compulsory, then certainly no one would object to any cost or any intrusion to make it happen...would they?
The state interest in education in a free society is in having a vast majority of citizens literate, functional, and historic in their wisdom to maintain freedom. Compelling people to become such belies this noble interest. It smacks of Rousseau...people must be forced to be free.
Let me stipulate, I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative. I do beleive in ordered liberty, not the abstract kind. Education is crucial for a free society to function...so crucial I would not leave it solely to governments to provide. I would leave it to the people who love the rising generations most: parents.
Best, PTM
Well, I would take issue with the notion "liberals" assume "the worst in human nature" or that making certain things compulsory is necessarily the result of such an assumption.
I agree the vast majority of humanity is basically good doing the best they can with the information and resources available to them. They are generally motivated out of love for their children and basic respect for their fellow human beings. I also agree that both you and I, in spite of our differences, would no doubt do our best to educate our respective children even if receiving some sort of education were not compulsory.
But when a people decide through their representatives something is of such incredible value to both the individual and society that it should be compulsory, the law making it so is not directed at people like you or I or the vast majority of good people out there. It is directed at the few that would neglect their child's education, health, or other basic needs for whatever reason.
Would you argue a law making it compulsory to feed a child "assumes the worst in human nature"? Would you assume a law requiring parents to immunize their child against childhood diseases, some of which may be deadly, "assumes the worst in human nature"? Apparently you do given your statement "compulsory anything" assumes just that.
Such laws are not aimed at the vast majority of people that do not neglect their child's health or education, but at the few that do. There are a few parents and other adults who, unfortunately, do not represent the best of humanity and do neglect or abuse children. Compulsory laws, when it comes to a child's welfare, are aimed directly at the few bad apples, not the basic goodness most of us fortunately possess.
Do I wish we lived in a world where we did not have to compel anyone to do what is right by the most innocent among us, our children? You bet. Does recognizing we don't live in such a world make me a person with a dark view of human nature? Hardly.
What is getting lost in this debate about whether or not parents should be free from any requirement to provide their children with at least a basic education (a debate I can hardly believe I am having at the dawn of the 21st century) is the question of whether a child has an inherent right to receive it. Children have rights too, and nowhere in this discussion about whether education should be compulsory have you asked what the consequences are for their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" should a parent or other adult guardian exercise their alleged right to deny them an education.
As in all important questions involving rights, we must all be vigilant and recognize the need to take a balanced, reasonable approach. As adults charged with the care of children, parents do have the right, even the obligation, to make choices involving education, health care, and other issues important to our children. Whether a home school, charter school, the public school down the street, or a private school is the best choice should be left to parents to decide. The resources at our disposal, the size of the classes at the schools we are looking at, the performance of the schools in question all factor into our decision. However, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE NO CHOICE leaving our child uneducated and therefore unprepared to face the world when they reach adulthood.
We cannot reasonably resolve what the best educational choices are for our children either collectively, or as parents, if we do not first accept our obligation to educate them. Education enables freedom, it is not something we demand freedom from in the name of reform.
I wonder if wisdom dictates that we create laws for the few bad apples, as you say, and not distrust the "vast majority" of parents who do act responsibly?
Laws in and of themselves, you are correct, do not always assume the worst in human nature. But the state is only one kind of "law." And very often it is a brutal sort when it, too, "neglects" people.
It is intersting that you would ask me questions about the care of children by parents...feed them, immunize them...because the law (US Supreme Court as well as UT Supreme Court and UT statutes) is actually very parent-friendly in that it gives parents the benefit of the doubt. In other words, you are a fit parent until your behavior demonstrates otherwise. It does not say that "the state will let you have your children as long as you do what the state says." Two different sentiments entirely.
I hate to break the bad news to you on another key point...there is no fundamental right to an education. There isn't one for food, or clothing, or shelter either. Our State Constitution simply mandates it availability for anyone availing themselves of it; it is statutory law that creates compulsory attendance.
In America anyway, children have "rights" only in the context of family. I know many liberal thinkers who wish it weren't so, many of them over at DCFS, but wishing it so doesn't make it so.
In this state, "neglect" does not include educational neglect...for one huge obvious reason: our public schools might be held responsbile for educational failures.
You cannot assert a "right" to something as individualized as learning. The state can insist that children be "educated," but again, that is a pretty ambiguous term. My guess is, in the aggregate, that home school children are better educated (in that full spectrum kind of way that includes citizenship) than public school children. Under your "rights" scenario does that mean that public school parents could take the Jordan School District to court for neglect?
We do agree there is an obligation to educate children...a moral one for our own children, and a civic one for the children of our neighbors. But getting there certainly does not dictate, by any stretch of the imagination, coercive laws to get us to do it.
So I accept the obligation to teach my own children, and I am deeply interested that my neighbor's teach their children as well (I don't want them throwing rocks through my window when they are young, nor do I want them cheating me in a business deal when they are adults).
The question, or disagreement if you will, is method. And I do think our methods have a lot to do with our basic political philosophies which stem from our understanding of human nature.
Best, PTM
Paul,
As I recall, a couple of posts ago you concluded by denying you were a libertarian. I have a hard time believing that.
You are correct, we do have a different take on human nature, or maybe it is just a different outlook on life. Usually when the state passes a law, at least a reasonable one, whether it limits my speed on the highway to 65 miles per hour or requires me to feed, clothe, and educate my child I don’t get all worried the state doesn’t trust me personally. Even their all too frequent laws of the unreasonable variety I don’t take to be targeted at me personally, just at intelligence or freedom generally. Apparently you do take such laws to mean the legislature doesn’t trust YOU, Paul Mero, to be a good parent. I am truly sorry for what you must go through every legislative session.
You are also correct in arguing in the eyes of the law you “are a fit parent until your behavior demonstrates otherwise.” Isn’t this just another way of saying that when it comes to our legal responsibilities as parents, as in all other matters, we are innocent until proven guilty?
You dismiss the example of requirements we immunize our children (and it is compulsory with only rare exceptions) on the grounds this somehow represents an entirely different “sentiment” than laws requiring we provide for the education of our children. How exactly? You also seem to take the view the US and Utah Supreme Courts along with Utah statute at least don’t frown upon parents failing to feed, immunize or otherwise care for their child’s welfare. While I agree the courts and the legislature generally should not substitute their judgment for that of parents when it comes to what parents feed their children, I would like to think they would not uphold a parent’s supposed constitutional right not to feed them at all, the fact food is not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights not withstanding.
You are incorrect that “neglect” in Utah does not include educational neglect. Title 78 of the Utah Code specifically states a “Neglected Child” includes a child “whose parent, guardian, or custodian fails or refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, EDUCATION, or medical care…”(Title 79-3a-103, emphasis added)
You argue I “cannot assert a right to something as individualized as learning.” Why not? How can I effectively exercise my right to speech if I do not have a right to learn? If we separate the right to learn from the right to speech we will all sound like Rush Limbaugh, and who wants that?
The fact the word “learning” or “education” do not appear explicitly in the US Constitution, though education is referred to in the Utah Constitution, does not mean my rights are limited to those enumerated there. Indeed, Article I, Section 25 of the Utah Constitution states “This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution states essentially the same thing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, when in Title 62 of Utah Code the people through their representatives articulate the “Rights of parents – Children’s rights –Interest and responsibility of state” I can argue we the people of Utah have retained certain additional rights for both parents and children perhaps not articulated as fully in the Constitution. Here it states “a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, educate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parent’s children.” The state defers to the parent, recognizing as their child the right to make educational and other decisions rests with them first except in cases when they are actively doing the child harm. However, the statute also states a parent has an “obligation” and “responsibility” to exercise that “right” on the child’s behalf. If the parent fails to exercise their right to decide for their child what the educational, medical, etc. choices will be, then someone else must step in and make these choices for them. Again, the parent has the right to make the decision from among the various and extremely generous legal options, but does not have the right to forego making any decision on the child’s behalf. This fact is reinforced by the inclusion of failure to provide for the education of the child in the definition of neglect cited above.
When you say our difference goes to method, not the goal of seeing to it every child receives an education, I am not entirely sure what your method is. You seem to simply and naively assume that if everyone is free of any compulsion on the part of the state to educate their children, then they will. Most will, just as most parents won’t ever beat their children or sexually abuse them. Recognizing there are, unfortunately, a few parents out there with an entirely different agenda when it comes to their children I guess makes me pessimistic about human nature, but it makes you, like libertarians everywhere, incredibly naïve. You could even say you have a very romanticized view of how all humans will behave if only laws promoting generally accepted things like education didn’t get in the way.
Yours liberally,
Craig Axford
Thanks for the correction on the "neglect" language. I suppose I should say, then, that many public school parents could be charged with neglect for sending their children to receive "sub-par" educations in public schools...the voucher being one remedy to that experience for porrer families.
Compulsory education laws are quite different than the statute you cite creating a threshold for neglect. I can be under the responsibility to feed and clothe my child, but the state does not assume the function of a central authority (as it does in education) to tell me where and how I must feed and clothe my child.
While not constitutionally driven, the state does through statute function as a central authority to tell me where and how I am permitted to educate my child.
You speak of "reasonable" laws. Very subjective language. And, yes, I do mind that the state tells me where and how I am permitted to educate my children. That you don't mind doesn't make me hypersenitive (nor you uncaring).
(Moving down the text of your last posting...) No, being a fit parent is not the same as innocent until proven guilty. The law (the "fundamental liberty interest" of parents) clearly means that the state has not permitted you to be a parent until you are shown to be unfit. In cases of true abuse or neglect, existing laws simply reflect the reality that sometimes parents mess up and society needs a way to help clean up the mess. These are two vastly divergent ways of looking at the parental rights.
Regarding immunization and education...there is a big difference between being exposed to a potentially deadly virus from your neighbor and being exposed to his "stupid" son in the normal course of life. Education is subjective; a deadly virus is not. Hence, we can easily justify a case for compulsory immunizations (although some people would even argue against that), but making the same case for compulsory education isn't as strong, in my opinion.
And you only make my point when you say that you would like to think that the legislature would not uphold a parent's "right" to neglect their child. The point? You don't need the heavy, intrusive hand of the law to enforce such a moral obligation. In fact, the existing laws covering neglect apply after-the-fact...only in cases the state wants to make to deem a parent unfit. The neglect law is not prescriptive, it's proscriptive.
And again, the "enumeration" argument only makes my case stronger about leaving matters in the hands of the people. Compulsory attendance law is positive law, not leaving anything to parents to decide about the education of their children, except what the state allows them to decide.
My "method" is to let people work out their lives on their own with the help of the institutions of civil society (family, church, local neighborhood, voluntary associations, and the market place), not to mandate every little aspect. It seems that a Democrat would understand this.
And, yes, in Utah especially, even if we got rid of the compulsory attendance law, nearly every parent would still have their children educated one way or another. I really do believe that and believe in Utahns.
The voucher debate is relevant to what we are dicussing because its "policy momentum" is away from centralization and toward respecting 1) the unique nature of all children in their capabilities to learn, and 2) a parent's right to determine where and how their children will be educated.
The "policy momentum" of the status quo is to lump everyone together in this mass we call public education...standardizing, norming...all in a way that brings children down, not lifts them up.
If we can both agree that the vast majority of parents take care of their children, then why do we have a compulsory, standardized system of education that doesn't simply settle on helping those families in need of help, but demands that everyone be treated as if they need help?
Even our welfare programs don't do this. We don't demand that everyone get on the welfare program just because some families need it. Is education more important than feeding people, clothing people, sheltering people? It must be because our welfare laws don't universalize citizens. And yet we universalize the unique situations of all Utah families regarding education...all must report to the state...check in first and then we will tell you what you can and can't do.
How do you explain that anomaly?
I promise you that my view of humanity is far from romanticized. I just like living in a free society.
And just for grins and giggles, you are far more closer to being a libertarian, than I. A libertarian beleives that the individual is the fundamental unit of soceity. A conservative, on the other hand, like myself, believes that the family is the fundamental unit of soceity...meaning the family is the filter through which all sound public policy is measured. On this note I would refer you to Sutherland's Defining Conservatism series on our web site, under Essays.
Very respectfully, PTM
Paul,
I really do enjoy debating this subject with you, and no, I am not being facetious when I say that. However, I suspect the three or four other people actually following this discussion are probably getting bored and there is a holiday weekend coming up, so perhaps we should wrap it up. On the other hand, other people’s boredom has never stopped me before.
I think the reason people are not and cannot be charged with “neglect” for providing their children with a “sub-par” education is because the definition of “neglect” I cited earlier says nothing about the quality of the education being provided. It merely requires parents to provide one. Yes, there are some standards, but I have never picked up the paper in the morning only to find the state had started rounding up children or prosecuting parents on the grounds the education they were providing was “sub-par”. You show me an isolated example where this has happened and I suspect we will also find it is an extreme case.
In attempting to educate our daughter both through the choice of charter school we made and other educational decisions, the choices we made may very well be quite different from the choices you and your wife made for your children. We do have different philosophies and values, and if I got to know you a bit better, I may conclude I strongly disagree with the educational choices you have made for your family. However, even if I were to conclude your educational decisions left your kids with a “sub-par” education, I would have absolutely no grounds for calling the State Board of Education or whomever and demanding you be punished or your kids be removed for neglect because you had fulfilled your duty to provide them with an education.
Education is at least somewhat subjective. There will always be a great deal of debate surrounding exactly what children “need” to learn vs. what they “should” learn. And, given the choice between being exposed to a neighbor carrying a deadly virus vs. one that is merely “stupid”, as you put it, I suppose I would prefer to live with the “stupid” neighbor. However, as unpleasant as living next to a “stupid” neighbor might be, education is not something society places a great deal of emphasis on because we all want our neighbors to be as intelligent as we have a tendency to think we are, but because we want our neighbors to have the basic skills necessary to at least be adequate, productive citizens that can share the responsibility of supporting our civilization instead of dragging it down. Representative democracy depends on a reasonably well educated citizenry, and we all have an interest in not learning the hard way exactly how uneducated collectively speaking we have to become before we reach the point our democratic institutions begin to collapse.
Without getting off on another discussion about Utah Code, the Constitution, etc. I think our respective positions can be summed up quite simply. Under the current system, with whatever imperfections it might have, a parent is required to provide for their children’s education and has essentially three means of doing so, with a number of variations in curricula and methods existing within each of these choices: 1) Public schools including a choice of “traditional” schools within the area where a family resides and charter schools; 2) Private schools including both “secular” and religious schools, and; 3) Home schooling which provides the parent with the most direct control over the child’s learning experience.
I generally support this system, recognizing there is always room for improvement. I believe parents should be required to provide for their children’s education choosing from the menu of options above and all the additional possibilities that may exist within these three major categories to decide how best to accomplish it. I simply do not believe that they have a right to deny their child any education at all given the consequences long-term for both the child and society are too great.
If, hypothetically we accepted your view and eliminated the mandate a parent provide for the education of their children, parents would have the same three options listed above plus one more, no education for the child at all. The increase in freedom you advocate is purely and simply in increasing freedom for parents to do nothing, or say they are home schooling when really all they are doing is putting in a movie for the kids and taking a nap. Given the stress of having two working parents struggling to make ends meet in so many homes these days, this might be a far more common outcome than you think.
If you believe current educational choices for parents is too limited, and vouchers and other programs are really simply about increasing choice within the current system, we can increase said choice without eliminating society’s expectation as expressed in the law that as a parent you have the “obligation” and “responsibility” to provide for your child’s education. We can also increase said choice without subsidizing private education.
Besides, as you point out in your latest response, vouchers are merely a means to an end. They amount to “policy momentum”. They are, I fear, one more step in an effort to essentially undermine the public school system in the name of turning education into just another thing subject to the whims of the market. By pumping state money into private schools the irony is vouchers do amount to “policy momentum”, just not in the way you think. With every additional public dollar private schools rely upon, they become less private and more public.
At what point will they be required to give up control over which students they do or don’t accept on the grounds they are now receiving enough public money for the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to kick in? At what point does a religious school receive enough money for the Utah Constitution’s very strict prohibition on state money going to religious education come into play? All this “policy momentum” is going to lead to, assuming voucher proponents succeed, is a two tiered public system with private schools subject to most if not all of the same state control you claim is undermining public education in this state and country.
I will try to read some of the essays you refer to over the weekend and beyond as time allows. If I don’t get the chance to respond once again before my holiday weekend begins, I wish you and your family a great Memorial Day weekend.
Craig Axford
A refreshing dialogue. Thank you.
I look forward to more in the future.
PTM
Post a Comment