I've heard quite a few Christians advocate this model for the
United States. They believe that if parents had some investment in their children's
schooling they would be more pro-active in managing their conduct and making
sure they take time to study etc.
Of course for this to take place the Department of Education
would have to be eliminated as well as most state requirements.
They would point to these examples in Africa as demonstrating
how this principle works. They would then wish to apply it to both US inner
cities and poor rural areas, the parts of the country that are clearly ailing.
While I'm not sympathetic to government bureaucrats trying to
keep a piece of the pie and maintain control of a rather lucrative portion of
the public sector, nor am I at all inclined to consider the desires of
teacher's unions...
Yet there is something obscene about those who would profit
from things that many people consider basic to life. While education isn't
quite the same as water, food and even medicine, the reality is in these poor
struggling places education is the one shot many of these kids will ever have
at getting out and making something of their lives.
I'm assuming worldly categories of 'success' for the sake of
argument.
I think the question of forcing people into debt and then
capitalising on it is really the issue at stake. And when one considers the
nature of this service, there is certainly an exploitative and usurious element
at work here.
But then of course capitalising on the debt of others is very
much at the heart of the modern Western system, the very paradigm many
Christians deem as reflective of Scripture. The ideas of borrowing, investment
and return are at the very essence of what Capitalism is.
On the one hand I fully understand the argument for public
schools. I can even make a case for their necessity. For such a system to
function within a social (as opposed to individualistic) context there must be
resource equality and equilibrium. For some parents this will mean their
children attend schools that do not meet their expectations. For others the
public school will exceed anything they could hope for otherwise.
What is problematic (to me) is when the state seeks to
restrict those who wish to opt out. To some degree the system only functions
well when everyone participates, i.e. when all kids attend the public school.
And yet this is not like the present argument and dilemma
faced by the insurance industry. The public education model does not collapse
if there's less than 100% participation. We're raising our kids outside the
public school system and yet we pay taxes to support it. I'm not complaining.
I'd rather have the public school there, than not there.
I don't expect others to homeschool as we do, nor do I think
the majority of them can even possibly understand why we homeschool.
We'll pay the taxes but we want to be left alone. We're not
and yet despite the frustrating bureaucracy, additional costs and paperwork...
it's not too bad. And I say that as one who lives in one of HSLDA's poorly
rated states.
The final line indicates that in the end the state may opt
out of public education and hand it over to the private sector. Some also wish
this would come to pass in the United States. I think handing over education to
exploitative profiteers would be tragic.
Of course this has already all but happened in the realm of
college education. One can still get a really good education but the costs are
almost beyond comprehension.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.