The separation of school and state (LewRockwell, Jacob Hornberger echo RexCurry.net)

LewRockwell, Jacob Hornberger are echoing the sentiments on
RexCurry.net and becoming more explicit about the idea of
constitutional amendments to separate school and state. The following
has been on the website below for years ---
http://rexcurry.net/full_blooded_tampan.html

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS: the first and only website to argue that
government schools are unconstitutional and that the First Amendment
should be enlarged to prohibit educational as well as religious
establishments is RexCurry.net at
http://rexcurry.net/schoolsamendment.html. The web search looked for
variations on the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or education." A web search also reveals
that rexcurry.net originated the phrase "The separation of school and
state is as important as the separation of church and state"
http://rexcurry.net/schools2.html (a recent search indicated that the
oldest reference was from 1997, showing how my sentence had not been
picked up or repeated over the span of years since 1997) and my
website is either the first or second site to coin or use one or more
of these phrases (though I do not necessarily agree with these
statements): The separation of school and state is more important than
the separation of church and state, the separation of school and state
is much more important than the separation of church and state, the
separation of school and state is far more important than the
separation of church and state. To learn more see
http://rexcurry.net/schoolsmain.html

NEVER SAY "PUBLIC" SCHOOLS: Internet searches reveal that RexCurry.net
is the first site (or one of the first) to use the following phrases
and various similar phrases: "never say 'public' schools" and "always
say 'government' schools, instead." For similar phrases see
http://rexcurry.net/schoolwords.html It is remarkable that these
philosophical phrases have not been expressed before now on the
internet. To learn more see http://rexcurry.net/schoolsmain.html To
learn more on the related issue of "government property" (not "public
property") see http://rexcurry.net/property.html

----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 20, 2006
Subject: The Separation of Education and State

The Separation of Education and State
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Americans, like most people around the world, have become so accustomed
to the role that government plays in educating children that the idea
of separating education from the state usually comes as a complete
shock to them. While everyone is aware of the ever-growing problems
associated with public schooling, the answer for most people is the
standard one: "The system needs reform." Yet decade after decade, as
reforms are implemented, new bond issues passed, new schools built, and
new schoolteachers hired, the problems remain, only to be addressed
with the same answer: "The system needs reform." And since most people
attended public schools, the thought of bringing an end to the very
system to which they attribute their own success is, well, shocking.

But why not reject all the reforms and instead raise our vision to a
higher level? Why not end all government involvement in education, just
as our American ancestors ended all government involvement in religion?
Aren't the arguments for separating church and state the same, in
principle, for separating education and state?

What I am suggesting is amendments to the 50 state constitutions that
would read, "No law shall be passed respecting the establishment of
education or abridging the free exercise there-of." (The same type of
amendment could be added to the federal constitution, but this
discussion will be limited to ending state government involvement in
education.)

What would be the practical consequences of such an amendment? The same
consequences that accompanied freedom of religion. Just as we don't
have federal subsidies of religion, or public (i.e., government)
churching, or state-licensed private churches, or state-approved
home-religious education, there would be no more public schooling, no
more state-licensed private schools, and no more state-approved home
education. Education, like religion, would be left entirely to the free
market, where families would have the same sovereignty and independence
with respect to the education of their children as they have with
respect to religion.
Socialism and its consequences

Why has public schooling been riddled with so many problems? The answer
is that public schooling is an absolutely perfect model of socialism
and central planning. The entire system is based on the same top-down,
command-and-control system on which the military is based, with
political and bureaucratic committees planning the educational
decisions of multitudes of children under their jurisdiction.
Participation is mandated, with criminal penalties imposed on
recalcitrant parents. Funding is also based on coercion, with taxes
taken from everyone - even those who don't have children - to fund the
schooling of those who are sent into the system.

Nearly everyone knows that socialism produces shoddy products and
services. So why should anyone be surprised that public schooling does
so as well?

Is the situation any different in private schools or home-schooling? It
has to be, if for no other reason than that the child is not under the
direct supervision and control of a government employee who is filling
his mind with government-approved doctrines. But the situation is still
far from ideal, given that the state, through licensing of schools and
certification of home-schooling curricula and results, still wields
ultimate control over the education of everyone's children.

What is amazing is that after so many years of government involvement
in education, with all its dismal results, so few people ask basic and
fundamental questions about the education of their children, such as:
Why shouldn't families have the same sovereign and independent control
over the education of their children as they have over religious
matters? Given that the free market produces the best of everything and
socialism produces the worst of everything, why are people willing to
submit their children to a second-rate product in an area as important
as education? Why should providing education to people be considered a
legitimate function of government?

What is also fascinating is that most parents hardly pay any mind to
the potential damage that educational socialism wreaks on the mind and
life of a child, especially after 12 continuous years of mandatory
participation in such a system. All that seems to matter is that
parents have a "safe" state-run place to park their children every day
for 12 years, a place in which they will supposedly be taught the
basics of a good education. Some parents have even embraced the state's
suggestion that resistance to such a system by their children reflects
dysfunctional conduct that can be remedied only by state-administered
drugs (e.g., Ritalin), ignoring the distinct possibility that such
resistance is instead a very healthy and normal reaction to a
dysfunctional socialist educational system.

Why are people so unwilling to look at such potential damage to the
mental well-being of their children? Because they operate under the
assumption that, despite its many problems, public schooling can be
relied on to educate their children. After all, the argument goes, if
it was good enough for parents, it's good enough for their children,
ignoring the quite obvious point that the state's position is that
generation after generation of public-school graduates cannot be
trusted with making educational decisions for their family because they
lack the competence to do so.
The methodology of education

The teaching methodology that characterizes public schools (as well as
many licensed private schools) is one that is based on cramming and
memorizing. Education is viewed as a process by which information is
fed into the minds of the students, who are then expected to memorize
and regurgitate the information on tests that are given to judge
whether the student has become "educated." Students are then judged by
a grading system that informs them whether they are "A"-, "B"-, "C"-,
or "D"-level students.

Permit me to share with you a bit of my personal life to show how
different education and education methodology are in a free market.
Like most adults, I have had occasion to take educational courses
simply "for the fun of it." For example, I have taken ballroom dance
classes as well as foreign-language classes here in the D.C. area. The
difference between those classes and public schooling is night and day.


My dance and language classes have been composed of people of all ages,
including high-school students. In a beginner class, everyone pretty
much starts out as a complete novice. Over an 8-week course, however,
everything starts to change. Some people study harder than others. Some
practice what they're learning while others just show up to class every
week. Some people excel much more quickly than the others. Sometimes
people skip class, returning the following week. No one is given
mandatory homework but everyone seems to know that practice is key to
getting better. Everyone has a very enjoyable time even though the
sessions can be tiring. Whenever a teacher asks whether people mind if
he goes over the allotted time, no one objects and most stay to take
advantage of the "free" teaching.

At the end of the course, everyone is at a different skill level, but
such a determination is entirely subjective because no test or final
exam is given. The decision to move to the next level is entirely up to
the student. Many decide to repeat the beginner level and others
immediately move up to the next level of difficulty. No student is ever
criticized or demeaned for having an insufficient skill level but
usually figures out for himself that he might be in "over his head" at
a higher level and voluntarily decides to stay at a lower level. No one
is "graded."

The teachers treat everyone - even the worst dancers and linguists -
courteously and considerately. In all the private classes I have taken,
I have never heard an instructor insult or abuse a student for having
poor dance skills or not speaking the foreign language well.

In this type of educational system, one of the big differences is that
the customer is paying the school directly for his education, unlike
the public-school system which relies on taxes from everyone, including
people who don't even have children. Thus, like any business that
strives to survive and prosper, the private education company must be
nice to its customers, especially because satisfied customers can bring
in other customers.

I should also mention, however, that not all the dance and language
courses are provided by for-profit companies. Some are provided by
nonprofit educational foundations. In fact, one nonprofit dance studio
offers students free lessons in return for helping with dance classes.

One of the crucial differences concerns the mindsets and attitudes
among the students. In the private classes, students are engaged in a
seeking process rather than being subjected to a cramming process. That
is, they are there because they want to be, because they are interested
in the subject, and because they want to learn that subject. They (or
their parents) are paying for it directly. Therefore, they listen
intently, soaking up every word the instructor speaks.

Most important, the course is fun for everyone, even those who clearly
lack the skills of other students. Everyone enjoys himself primarily
because he has chosen to be there to learn something that he wants to
learn.

Did I mention that no one cares that everyone is of a different age in
such classes, even though the ages range from the teens to the 70s?

That's how a free-market educational system works. The sovereignty is
with the consumer, and businesses pop up in response to their wants and
interests, serving them and, in the process, bettering their own
economic lot in life.

While it is impossible to predict the marvels of a free-market
educational system that would arise from the separation of education
and state, these types of adult-education classes give us a hint of how
a free market in education would work for children. No longer would
children lose their natural sense of awe and wonder that the
regimentation of state schooling slowly but inevitably grinds out of
them. Instead, that sense of awe and wonder and love of learning that
they have to age 6, when they enter the public-school system, would
continue to be nurtured and cultivated as parents and children worked
together to figure out which educational vehicles would be best suited
for them at their different stages of growth. My hunch is that in a
free-market educational system, children would continue to badger their
parents with "Why? Why? Why?" throughout their entire pre-teen and
teenage years.

Finally, let's examine the funding mechanism for public schooling - the
taxation imposed on everyone to fund the schooling of those who have
children. Where is the morality of such a system? That is, under what
moral authority does the state take one person's money and give it to
another person, even to fund the education of his children? We wouldn't
do that to help a person attend a church, would we? To put it another
way, why shouldn't people be free to keep their own income and decide
what to do with it?

"But people wouldn't educate their children if they weren't forced to."
Balderdash! But if that's true then what better argument to rid
ourselves immediately of public schools, given that that's the type of
parent that public schooling has produced? The fact is that the parent
who doesn't care about the education of his children is a rarity. The
problem is that everyone has become so accustomed to the "one size fits
all" public-schooling system, they have a difficult time accepting the
idea that families should be free to fashion their own particular
educational plans for each of their children. In other words, we need
to develop the same degree of tolerance in education that we have
developed in how people raise their families generally, including in
religious matters.

One of the finest gifts that the American people could bequeath to
their children and to the world would be a free-market educational
system. Just as our ancestors benefited themselves and future
generations by separating church and state, Americans today should
follow that path of liberty by separating education and state

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger86.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "No Child Left Behind" is a Hurricane Katrina aimed at public schools
    ... hopes that the law's goal of saving American education by punishing ... schools, students, and teachers can be made to work without degrading ... private sector, have been sapping the people's support for their ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: The separation of school and state (LewRockwell, Jacob Hornberger echo RexCurry.net)
    ... The separation of school and state (LewRockwell, ... For instance, Sheldon wrote "In America, state education ... "government schools." ... home-religious education, there would be no more public schooling, no ...
    (talk.politics.libertarian)
  • Re: OT - gimme that old time religion ....
    ... >>>education was fulfilled at about 50% of the price to the public. ... even if they have no kids at all. ... if it is unfair for parents who stay home to pay taxes then ... job of the schools or the teachers. ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Ann Coulters Godless
    ... for murderers, and, on occasion, they support the making of war. ... Oh yeah, in the argument we had about books in education, ... charge of the schools, then you have missed the main point. ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • Re: When even a Republican can see it....
    ... but they aren't going to keep most kids from graduating. ... scarce funds and time away from teaching, and makes education boring. ... increased federal control over the public schooling ... that claim is only valid if one includes religious schools. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)