by Tammy Drennan bzpbooks@bellsouth.net

The problem with state involvement in education is the same as the one with state involvement in religion, only amplified because the subjects are children.

The government is prohibited from making any laws establishing religion or restricting the free exercise of it. But as it stands now, the government is not prohibited from making laws restricting the free exercise of education -- the pursuit of it, the content of it, the places and times it takes place, who imparts it, the schedule on which it is dispensed, what knowledge is required and what is prohibited or neglected. And it's getting worse. Schools may now prevent or discourage students from pursuing certain career paths or they may channel students into narrow choices. The time of students is so consumed by compulsory classes, activities, community service, attendance rules that apply regardless of grades, that students have little time outside school for additional learning, not to mention fostering relationships with family and volunteering in causes not approved for credit by their schools.

Okay, obviously there's a problem, but surely the answer is not to take schools out of the hands of government officials, to do away with the rules. What would be the alternative? We need educated citizens.

I'm not proposing an abrupt change in the school system as we know it -- something that's highly improbable anyway. The ideal would be for parents to start taking personal responsibility for their own kids' education. They would act on conscience and liberty, pull their kids out of government schools and enroll them in private schools or home school them -- or a combination of both. As more people took on their kids' education, opportunities and options would grow and abound. The government system would dwindle, though it would not likely disappear. Instead, it would just shrink and evolve into something different.

But, but... Yes, there are lots of buts. Let's try to deal with them one by one.

First the problems I see as greatest, then the common arguments. Most parents do not have a strong philosophical grounding about government controlled education. They went through it themselves and feel they came out reasonably all right, so why not their kids? Further, they can't bring themselves to feel strongly about something as abstract as the government controlling their kids' entire intellectual and philosophical (and often emotional) lives for thirteen or more years. It's hard to picture the implications of such control and equally hard to take it seriously. This is the most difficult part to address, because it involves thinking long-term and in deeper ways than most of us are accustomed to. Suffice it to say at this point that when the government controls the school, it controls the world view your child will likely embrace. This will vary from one school to another and one family to another. Some families will be able to counteract the negative effects more than others. Some schools will have a more aggressive ideological mission than others. But you can be sure that almost every school has one (or a hodgepodge of many) and most parents don't know what it is.

What many parents can more readily see is the damage schools do -- emotionally, socially, academically, spiritually. Some of this may have to do with the fact that schools are government monopolies, but most of it has to do with the institutional nature of the schools, and the problem exists almost equally in many private schools. The difference is that private schools can avoid or correct the damaging effects of institutionalization much easier than public schools can, because they are under more direct control of parents and are not wallowing in as much bureaucracy. Also, parents have more control over how much of their children's lives are monopolized by a private school, thus controlling the amount of time a child spends under parental influence. Finally, a private school is more likely to respect the primacy of the parents' role in a child's life, whereas public schools tend to be derisive or at least dismissive of parents and often actively discourage children from respecting their parents.

Next problem -- money. This is a three-parter. First, I pay taxes, so why should I also pay for my kids' schooling? Because you love your kids, you want what is best for them no matter how much money it costs you, you want them to see you doing the right thing regardless of monetary considerations, because a price cannot be put on the well-being of your child, nor on the value of freedom, which is eroded daily by government control of your children. You might also want to keep in mind that you pay taxes for many services you do not directly benefit from, and many people who have never even had children pay school taxes. If you feel strongly that you deserve a tax break for assuming the education of your own kids, work for it legislatively, but don't sacrifice your kids while you wait to become a few dollars richer.

Money: Part Two. Private school is expensive and I can't home school. Private school can be expensive, but so are new cars, computer equipment, eating out, much of our entertainment and clothing. So consider your priorities. You might want to read our article about affording private school. Also check The Alliance for the Separation of School and State for links and ideas. There are, of course, many levels of private school, some far cheaper than others. Many areas offer extensive classes for home schoolers to take the burden off parents and make home schooling a real option. Do some serious thinking before ruling out your ability to afford an education for your child (and read that article). Relatives might be willing to chip in, sacrifices can be made, scholarships applied for, and if worse comes to worse, loans secured (you do it for college, don't you?).

Money: Part Three. But if all the caring parents pull their kids out of public schools, won't that hurt the schools? They won't have enough money or support. Then what about all the poor kids and the kids of parents who couldn't find another way or who didn't care enough to? The system is already failing these kids -- big time. Could it fail them even more? Maybe, but it would be hard to imagine. Time and experience have proved that money does not translate into school success -- or even much improvement. But money is of primary importance to public schools, so the myth must be propagated -- take away our money and the kids will fall through the cracks. The kids have already fallen through the cracks and are wallowing in the dirt beneath. You're being asked to sacrifice the future of your children to prop up a huge bureaucracy and jobs program, not to save kids. No doubt, there are many caring people, including many teachers, who truly believe the propaganda about the danger of people deserting the schools, but that doesn't make it true. If anything, the desertion and collapse of public schools would create more opportunity for the underprivileged. The collapse of the public schools would open doors for the thousands of people who truly care about these kids and would love to help but have their hands tied by the current system.

Yes, you say, but it would also open doors for charlatans. No more than exist now. The public school system is full of them -- all trying to trick parents into thinking they're the only ones who can equip their kids for the future, all feeding at the public trough and producing zero results, robbing their prey of a decent future.

I want to emphasize here that I know there are many, many caring and good teachers and others who work in the public school system. Some of them see the problems, some don't. They are dedicated and effective to the degree the system allows it. But they are swimming against the tide. They could be freed to make a real difference.

Is there a day in the future when the government will have nothing to do with education? Not likely, though not impossible. Most of us accept the idea that the government has a vested interest in the education of its citizens. This is true, of course. It's just not necessarily the interest we think it is and is, like so much in life, somewhat complex. First, there are many levels of government that affect what is taught in schools, and many people within government and influencing government who have particular agendas for schools. I'll outline some of their motives, but the important thing to understand is that because of the governmental, authoritarian nature of schools (and because of compulsory attendance laws), your child is captive to whatever ideologies the authorities choose to impose upon him.

The government's influence on public education comes in many shades. First, there are the official mandates -- things that must be taught to avoid loss of funding. Some of this is state level and some federal. Then there are the myriad individuals and groups that government at all levels allows to influence textbooks, supplemental material, special programs and general school policy. These individuals and groups range from college professors to professional societies (of scientists, for example) to politicians to general members of society to special interest groups (animal rights, environmental and religious groups, for instance) to social "scientists" to curriculum reformers, and more. Many parents would be especially surprised at the variety of special interests allowed access to their children. Further, special interest groups target individual teachers in their efforts to spread their message. Teachers are offered free literature and lesson plans for their classes. There is always some Cause clamoring for access to school children, because the kids are sitting ducks -- captive audiences, easy to influence and easy to reach. In private or home settings, parents would have the primary influence over what their children were taught, who was allowed to pitch their wares to them, how much they could be exploited for a cause. In government schools, parents have precious little control over these matters, and generally never even know about them.

The important thing to remember about government control of education is that it is not the best interests of your child that win the day -- it's political expediency, favor and gullibility. Government officials at all levels want to make certain people happy. If groups want access to an audience the government controls and those groups have something to offer officials in return, they'll get their access. If groups or individuals can convince government officials that their educational or social theory is critical to the well-being and development of children, they'll gain access. You, the parent, have virtually no control. These are government schools, not your schools. And you might be surprised at how many officials and teachers feel that once your children step through those hallowed doors each morning, your opinion is of no importance whatsoever.

The government sings a pretty song about its interest in an educated citizenry, and we buy it because it makes sense to us -- and because it comforts us. Reality is more complicated. Between greed-motivated officials and gullible officials, our captive children hardly stand a chance. The only cause that loses is true education and liberty of thought.

Even if many people came to understand and stand against all this, it's still likely the vested interests would manage to keep some control of education -- for a while anyway. They'd probably specialize in programs for the disadvantaged (thus depriving them of many real opportunities). They'd also set up a cry about accountability, standards, etc., though the irony of it would be monumental (imagine the surgeon with a fatality rate of 50% demanding that other surgeons be accountable to him). It's likely grants and other government money would be funneled into starting government "private schools" -- maybe similar to charter schools that now exist. These people are monetarily dependent on and often ideologically married to government compulsory school, and they will not let go readily. Which is why it is all the more important for us to practice our liberty while we still have it. The longer we let it lie dormant, the more the educrat moths will eat away at it while we're busy having fun and ignoring the most precious gifts in our lives.

In summary, if caring parents act on the liberty they still have to take back control of their children's education, opportunity will increase for everyone. More school options will develop. As more people act on their liberty and responsibility, changes in the status quo system and the tax structure will naturally follow, just as expanded opportunity and options will. Action does not follow liberty. Rather, liberty follows action. On the other hand, tyranny follows inaction, even the inaction of simply not practicing existing freedoms -- and extreme action is required to regain our liberty.