Debating the role of government in education

The frustration and anger over
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s proposed budget that contains $1.1 billion less
for education is caused not because Mr. Corbett is a skinflint who hates kids,
but because of the nature of the public school system and the dependence on the
state and federal government.

Indeed, it may be said that
dependence on any level of government for education is dangerous.

In all too many cases, the
standard K-12 public school system—as established by state government—is not
much more than a 12-year sentence that forces kids into a one-size fits all teaching
model.

This is not to say the model
doesn’t work for some. It does, and very well—but only for some. There are some
brilliant kids who learn well in the standard model. Others, though, merely
learn how to score well on tests while still others still are bored to death or
otherwise lost in the shuffle.

A typical response to that last
comment would likely be to throw more money at the problem, to spend it away.
That doesn’t work, however. It’s not the fault of the teachers or that there
are too few teachers. It’s the nature of a government system.

Consider the fact that Chadds
Ford Elementary school students, a few years ago, were writing book reports
about cereal boxes while a private school in Delaware had its students—at the
same grade level—reading Supreme Court cases.

Money spent on education has
actually gone up over the years. States used to handle education funding
themselves, but then the feds got into the mix when former President Jimmy
Carter established the Department of Education in 1980.

Since then, the federal
government has intruded itself into curriculum matters with unfunded mandates
and spent money it doesn’t have to give to states. That last part sounds great,
but now that the $1.1 billion in federal money Pennsylvania had been getting has
run out, people are up in arms, blasting the governor.

Everybody seems to want a piece
of somebody else’s money. And on the local district level, paying for public
education creates generational warfare. Public education, now at least, is
based on property taxes. Retirees, however, want that changed to an earned
income tax. Those who are still working argue that type of change would shift
the entire burden to them.

What would ultimately be fair
is that parents foot the bill for their children’s education, as some already
do because they send their kids to parochial or private schools. It is their
responsibility, after all. Private—secular or religious—and homeschooling must
not be ignored.

It may also be said that
government involvement in education is not necessarily good. Government doesn’t
educate; it socializes and creates obedience. Government is, after all, force.
More telling is that the United States built itself into an industrial and
economic leader in the world, and raised the standard of living to new heights,
well before Jimmy Carter and the Department of Education. Going back even
farther, men like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin only had a couple of
years of formal education.

It’s likely there will be
little agreement with what’s been said here. So be it, but consider that
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that while it may not be time to
legalize marijuana, it is time for an open and honest debate on the matter.
This holds true for education. It’s time for an open and honest debate on
getting government, at least the federal government, out of education.

About CFLive Staff

See Contributors Page https://chaddsfordlive.com/writers/

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Comments

comments

Leave a Reply