Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Boston Globe Columnist Calls for Ending Government Control Over Schools
This is a first: a major syndicated columnist, Jeff Jacoby, writing for the Boston Globe, surveys the mess that characterizes "public schools" and recommends an end to the state monopoly. Following the article itself is a letter to the editor from Marshall Fritz of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Courtesy of Alan Schaeffer of the Alliance.
Separating School and State
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
June 12, 2005
THREE RECENT dispatches from the education battlefront:
* Kansans have been debating how the development of
life on earth should be taught in public schools --
as the unintended result of random evolution or as
the complex product of an evolution shaped by intelligent
design. The board of education is to decide this summer
whether the science standards should be changed. Kansas
is just one of 19 states in which the Darwinism vs.
Intelligent Design contest is being fought. Emotions
have been running high, as they often do when the state
takes sides in a clash of fundamental values and beliefs.
* In Massachusetts, a father named David Parker found
himself in a war with his local school board when he
objected to a kindergarten “diversity" curriculum that
depicted gay and lesbian couples raising children.
Parker, a Christian opposed to same-sex marriage, showed
up at Estabrook elementary school in Lexington to request
that he or his wife be notified -- in keeping with
state law -- when homosexual themes were going to be
brought up in their 6-year-old's class. School officials
wouldn't agree to do so and “urged" Parker to leave.
When he didn't, they had him arrested.
* Luke Whitson, a 10-year-old at the Karns Elementary
School in Knoxville, Tenn., liked reading the Bible
with his friends during recess. But when a parent complained,
the public school's principal “demanded that they stop
their activity at once, put their Bibles away, and
. . . cease bringing their Bibles to school." That
language is from a lawsuit Luke's parents have filed
in federal court, where they are asking a judge to
rule that school officials cannot prohibit religious
expression during a student's free time.
Once there was a solid consensus about how public schools
should be run. In 1911, the Encyclopedia Britannica
could assert that “the great mass of the American people
are in entire agreement as to the principles which
should control public education." But as these battles
and countless others make clear, that day is past.
From issues of sexuality and religion to the broad
themes of US history and politics, public opinion is
fractured. Secular parents square off against believers,
supporters of homosexual marriage against traditionalists,
those stressing “safe sex" against those who emphasize
abstinence. Each wants its views reflected in the classroom.
No longer is there a common understanding of the mission
of public education. To the extent that one camp's
vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered.
And there is no prospect that this will change -- not
as long as the government remains in charge of educating
American children.
Which is why it's time to put an end to government
control of the schools.
There is nothing indispensable about a state role in
education. Parents don't expect the government to provide
their children's food or clothing or medical care;
there is no reason why it must provide their schooling.
An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course.
But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive
private sector can do a much better job of supplying
it than the public sector can.
Imagine how diverse and lively American education would
be if it were liberated from government control. There
would be schools of every description -- just as there
are restaurants, websites, and clothing styles of every
description. Parents who wanted their children to be
taught Darwinian evolution unsullied by leaps of faith
about an Intelligent Designer would be able to choose
schools in which religious notions would play no role.
Those who wanted their children to see God's hand in
the miraculous tapestry of life all around them would
send them to schools in which faith played a prominent
role.
Rather than fight over whether reading should be taught
with Phonics or Whole Language, parents who felt strongly
either way could choose a school that shared their
outlook. Those who wanted their kids to learn in single-sex
classes would send them to schools organized on that
model; other parents would be free to pick schools
in which boys and girls learned together. Some schools
would reflect a Christian or Jewish or Muslim philosophy;
others would be quite secular. In some, athletics would
have a high priority; in others, there might be an
emphasis on music, language, technology, or art. And
no doubt many parents would stick with schools that
resembled the ones their children attend now.
With separation of school and state, the education
battles would come to a peaceful end. Robust competition
and innovation would dramatically lower costs. Teachers,
released from their one-size-fits-all straitjacket,
would be happier in their chosen profession. Children
would be happier, too -- and, perhaps best of all,
better-educated to boot.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/12/separating_school_and_state?mode=PF
MARSHALL FRITZ'S PUBLISHED RESPONSE. Cool, huh?
Government Involvement Hurts Schools
Boston Globe June 14, 2005
BRAVO TO JEFF Jacoby for getting to the root of our
education woes: government involvement.
It is gratifying irony that the first major columnist
to call for ending compulsory attendance, compulsory
financing, and compulsory content in the public schools
should be from that very Commonwealth where Horace
Mann set the course that has led to today's mess.
Government doesn't run, compel, or finance Sunday school.
In a free country, the same should be true for Monday
school.
MARSHALL FRITZ
President
Alliance for the Separation of School & State
Fresno, Calif.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/06/14/government_involvement_hurts_schools?mode=PF
Separating School and State
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
June 12, 2005
THREE RECENT dispatches from the education battlefront:
* Kansans have been debating how the development of
life on earth should be taught in public schools --
as the unintended result of random evolution or as
the complex product of an evolution shaped by intelligent
design. The board of education is to decide this summer
whether the science standards should be changed. Kansas
is just one of 19 states in which the Darwinism vs.
Intelligent Design contest is being fought. Emotions
have been running high, as they often do when the state
takes sides in a clash of fundamental values and beliefs.
* In Massachusetts, a father named David Parker found
himself in a war with his local school board when he
objected to a kindergarten “diversity" curriculum that
depicted gay and lesbian couples raising children.
Parker, a Christian opposed to same-sex marriage, showed
up at Estabrook elementary school in Lexington to request
that he or his wife be notified -- in keeping with
state law -- when homosexual themes were going to be
brought up in their 6-year-old's class. School officials
wouldn't agree to do so and “urged" Parker to leave.
When he didn't, they had him arrested.
* Luke Whitson, a 10-year-old at the Karns Elementary
School in Knoxville, Tenn., liked reading the Bible
with his friends during recess. But when a parent complained,
the public school's principal “demanded that they stop
their activity at once, put their Bibles away, and
. . . cease bringing their Bibles to school." That
language is from a lawsuit Luke's parents have filed
in federal court, where they are asking a judge to
rule that school officials cannot prohibit religious
expression during a student's free time.
Once there was a solid consensus about how public schools
should be run. In 1911, the Encyclopedia Britannica
could assert that “the great mass of the American people
are in entire agreement as to the principles which
should control public education." But as these battles
and countless others make clear, that day is past.
From issues of sexuality and religion to the broad
themes of US history and politics, public opinion is
fractured. Secular parents square off against believers,
supporters of homosexual marriage against traditionalists,
those stressing “safe sex" against those who emphasize
abstinence. Each wants its views reflected in the classroom.
No longer is there a common understanding of the mission
of public education. To the extent that one camp's
vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered.
And there is no prospect that this will change -- not
as long as the government remains in charge of educating
American children.
Which is why it's time to put an end to government
control of the schools.
There is nothing indispensable about a state role in
education. Parents don't expect the government to provide
their children's food or clothing or medical care;
there is no reason why it must provide their schooling.
An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course.
But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive
private sector can do a much better job of supplying
it than the public sector can.
Imagine how diverse and lively American education would
be if it were liberated from government control. There
would be schools of every description -- just as there
are restaurants, websites, and clothing styles of every
description. Parents who wanted their children to be
taught Darwinian evolution unsullied by leaps of faith
about an Intelligent Designer would be able to choose
schools in which religious notions would play no role.
Those who wanted their children to see God's hand in
the miraculous tapestry of life all around them would
send them to schools in which faith played a prominent
role.
Rather than fight over whether reading should be taught
with Phonics or Whole Language, parents who felt strongly
either way could choose a school that shared their
outlook. Those who wanted their kids to learn in single-sex
classes would send them to schools organized on that
model; other parents would be free to pick schools
in which boys and girls learned together. Some schools
would reflect a Christian or Jewish or Muslim philosophy;
others would be quite secular. In some, athletics would
have a high priority; in others, there might be an
emphasis on music, language, technology, or art. And
no doubt many parents would stick with schools that
resembled the ones their children attend now.
With separation of school and state, the education
battles would come to a peaceful end. Robust competition
and innovation would dramatically lower costs. Teachers,
released from their one-size-fits-all straitjacket,
would be happier in their chosen profession. Children
would be happier, too -- and, perhaps best of all,
better-educated to boot.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/12/separating_school_and_state?mode=PF
MARSHALL FRITZ'S PUBLISHED RESPONSE. Cool, huh?
Government Involvement Hurts Schools
Boston Globe June 14, 2005
BRAVO TO JEFF Jacoby for getting to the root of our
education woes: government involvement.
It is gratifying irony that the first major columnist
to call for ending compulsory attendance, compulsory
financing, and compulsory content in the public schools
should be from that very Commonwealth where Horace
Mann set the course that has led to today's mess.
Government doesn't run, compel, or finance Sunday school.
In a free country, the same should be true for Monday
school.
MARSHALL FRITZ
President
Alliance for the Separation of School & State
Fresno, Calif.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/06/14/government_involvement_hurts_schools?mode=PF
