School "Choice"

To the Editor (of the InterTown Record):

I’ve been reading the letters in this paper about the middle school debate with much interest and decided to offer a different point of view. You might call it an outsider’s perspective, since my children don’t attend the public schools (we homeschool). On the other hand, my property taxes have supported the KRSD for 12 years and we all have a vested interest in a well-educated populace. In fact, that latter item is the usual argument for why we must have compulsory public education. However, the increasingly strident arguments (often with embarrassingly hostile tones) have demonstrated that even in a relatively homogeneous region like ours, coming to a consensus on schools is incredibly difficult if not impossible. The KRSD has become a poster-child for the separation of school and state movement.

So many of the letters urge us to do “what’s right for the children,” and often imply, or outright state, that people who disagree with their particular opinion don’t want that. But everyone IS trying to do “what’s right” - the problem is, no one can agree on what that is. Even if a majority vote decides on a new school location, there will be a significant number of families who will be stuck with a situation that is not best for them. Families’ educational wants and needs vary so greatly that it is impossible for a central institution to address them all, no matter how well intended those in the system are. This is why parents are increasingly choosing to homeschool their children despite the fact that their tax dollars are still going to their local schools and a “free” education is available only a bus ride away.

A few months ago, a woman wrote in describing her positive experience with purchasing a new car as an analogy for the process of upgrading to a new school. The advantages of her new car made the expense and effort worthwhile to her. However, she had literally hundreds of models to choose from. I doubt she would have been as satisfied with her new car if she were forced to buy the particular model that was decided on by a 60% majority of people in a seven-town district (and that “choice” being made between 2 cars).

Many concerned people have been writing that children deserve the best education possible and that a new building and/or a particular location will somehow provide that. Certainly the safety and comfort of students and faculty are important, and the lack of them can be distracting. As a public school student I spent 2 years in old, crowded, un-airconditioned buildings (in Georgia!) then moved into a brand-new building. But the faculty and curriculum did not change, nor the bureaucratic institutional structure of the school. Other than being more comfortable, all the other flaws still remained. So it disturbs me that so much energy and passion is poured forth on these pages regarding the KRMS building and location rather than the larger and much more important issues of educational philosophy, curriculum, etc. Privately, I’ve heard many grave concerns expressed about our local schools, but rarely, if ever, in this public forum.

Homeschooling has its challenges and sacrifices, but the freedom you have to adapt for your child’s needs is profoundly liberating. I don’t have to meet with a committee or beg and plead with a teacher for my children’s needs to be met. I have heard stories from some of you describing these struggles. And while I realize this letter does little to help people decide what to do about the immediate issue of the KRMS, I think it’s critical to encourage long-term, radical thinking on education. That will only happen if more people begin think beyond the government-school model that is all we’ve known for generations in this country. Parents - imagine if you had the money currently spent on your child in the public schools to spend wherever you liked for their education. Imagine there were schools and homeschool co-ops of varying sizes and types for you to choose from. The current system isn’t working; we keep spending more and more, but America’s children are increasingly lagging behind students in the rest of the world academically. For the sake of future generations our school choices need to be real ones, which will never happen as long as the government monopoly continues and people believe that the “choice” between location A or B has any real consequence for their children’s education.

Stossel says...

Great article about our public schools ... Stupid in America!

(http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml)

Government Schools: The Failed Experiment

There has been a heated debate for some time now in our area over what to do about an aging, over-crowded middle school for our school district. Many are pushing hard for a large, expensive, central facility in the center of the district; others want two smaller schools at either end. Here is my contribution to the debate, submitted as a letter to our local newspaper. I imagine it was unappreciated by most, but this is an issue that needs to be discussed - and not just in our town.

-- Mrs. Samurai

The Middle School issue is heating up once more! But I think there is an important aspect missing in the debate. Before we potentially commit a huge amount of financial resources to a building, we should step back and look at the larger issue of public schooling - because there is a small but growing debate about its effectiveness that should influence the decision we as a community make now.

There is overwhelming evidence that public schooling has not been a successful experiment and should be dramatically altered, if not phased out entirely. I feel a little like the kid who claimed the emperor had no clothes in saying that because it is such an accepted institution in our country. But did you know that until the mid-1800's there was no compulsory schooling and yet evidence shows that the non-slave population in that time was nearly completely literate - including a large number of indentured servants? However, since compulsory government schooling began, literacy has steadily declined. In fact, over the span of the 20th century, functional illiteracy (unable to read or write a simple message) doubled to around 20%. No doubt you've all heard other grim statistics, and no matter how much more money or brand-new facilities we throw at the problem, it's only getting worse.

So, our country had an early educational system which basically centered around family choice and free-market schools. You may argue that if things were so great, why did public schools even get started? The short answer is that by the mid-1800's a lot of powerful people were getting nervous about the possibility of lower-class uprisings ("Red Scares") as well as the large influx of immigrants with their strange customs and religions (such as Catholicism!). What better way to exert influence over people than for the government to be in charge of education? Before you think I'm some kind of conspiracy nut, you should know that in Massachusetts, where this all began, the idea of compulsory government education was so abhorrent to most citizens, so against the ideals of our free society, that there was resistance from about 80% of the population and even armed uprisings in some communities. It took a few decades before the militias finally forced the last of the families to comply.

Alas, now we take it as a given that the government will have a complete monopoly on the education of our young people. This in a country where almost any other product or service is subject to the forces of the free market. We can go to the store and choose from a variety of good-quality and reasonably priced ball-point pens, but when it comes to the education of our children we are forced to pay more and more for schools that are increasingly failing to produce well-rounded and well-educated children. Even though we are "free" to homeschool or send our kids to private school, our choices are pretty limited and our taxes are still going to the government schools.

I don't have room here to really address another problem with institutional schooling - the harmful effects of keeping children segregated with their own peers and a handful of adults for such a huge chunk of their childhood. Of course, schools aren't the only thing wrong with our children's environment. For various reasons there has been a gradual decline in the life of the family and community, especially due to the influence of television and other electronic media. But whether schools are a cause or a symptom, we will never be able to restore some of what's been lost without dramatically changing the way we view education and acknowledge the importance of having children spend less time in an institutional setting and more time in the community and with family.

So how does all of this relate to our current debate? This is a huge issue, and even if the majority of citizens agreed with my position, how we could get from where we are now to a free-market system of education is obviously beyond the scope of this letter. My point is that if a financial commitment is made now to a large central facility, then for generations to come the future of schools in this area will not be up for debate. Even if, as I suspect, people increasingly question the method of institutional schooling we've been experimenting with, we would be stuck - too many resources would be tied up in that building to try a system that offers more freedom and choices to the families in our communities.

The Government Program that Saved Us from the Jungle

We recently received this email from a concerned citizen:

"The public school system is what made this country a world power instead of a thirdworld jungle. Remember, the clues have the little blue paw prints on them. Find one."

What a witty and informative email! I never knew that we had jungles in this country before public schools came along. Whew! I don't like humid heat and bugs the size of my foot.

Unfortunately, this clever fellow suffers from a common misconception regarding the history of public schooling. Most people don't even know when public schools started or why. The when is around the 1850's. The why is a bit more complicated, but had a lot to do with assimilating the immigrant children quickly and helping them to conform with the existing population. (A lot of the intellectuals of the time had grave concerns about the effect of the Irish and others on the quality of the U.S. citizenry.)

By the time public schools opened, the U.S. had already rocketed to premier first-world status and was an amazing financial success story. This was due to the unprecedented freedoms in our country at that time. Simply speaking, the government stayed out of its citizens' lives and the result was prosperity and relative peace. Most of you can look at our country's history since the mid-1800s and see that public schooling was just part of a pattern of increasing government intervention.

The result? Our literacy level has steadily decreased since the first public school opened it's doors. Many people mistakenly think that we had a bunch of barely literate country bumpkins in this country in the early years. Not so! As an example, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was estimated to have been read by half of the adult population at that time. Now, it is considered difficult reading for high schoolers. Furthermore, over the span of the 20th century as public schooling became the norm for the majority of children, functional illiteracy (unable to read or write a simple message) doubled to over 20%.

I see public education as an experiment that has failed. I look around me at all of the great services, products, and medical advances that exist because of free enterprise. Given competition and a profit motive, it is rare that a failing system will survive for long (the notable exception being Microsoft Windows). But given government protection, a mediocre (or worse) program can live on forever. Think of it - how does a private school increase it's income? By having a successful, appealing program that draws more students and justifies higher tuition. How does a public school get more money? By proving that they have failed to produce adequate results and therefore need more funds to address the problem. The quality of students continues to decline (the author of the above email excepted, I'm sure), yet we are expected to pay more and more. Is it just me, or is this insane?

If you are interested in learning more about the history of education in this country from someone who really knows about it, read the excellent books written by John Taylor Gatto.

Louie the Miracle Dog

Louie is overweight, blind, deaf, severely arthritic, and prone to seizures, but he never seems to let that get him down. He's a sweet dog who belongs to our next door neighbor, Bill, who hasn't been able to bring himself to put Louie to sleep, although he knows it is time. On Christmas Day, Louie wandered off into the woods behind our house and, despite a search by many of the neighbors, he was not found. After a few days, everyone assumed that Louie had gone off into the woods to die. Bill feared that my kids, who spend a lot of time there, would come across his body at some point. And today, 17 days later, the kids did find Louie -- alive!

The Phillips Preserve is about 70 acres of woods that abuts our property. There are hiking trails in it, but this time of year the snow clears away all of the underbrush and you can go just about anywhere you want. Ivey, Stephen, and Sam went out late this morning to take Ouzo for a long walk in the woods and after about 15 minutes of hiking ... there was Louie curled up next to a tree! He was thinner and very weak, but otherwise seemed okay. Ivey ran back home and told the Samurai who, of course, could do nothing about it being only 24 hours post-surgery. (I was in town running errands.) So she got a big sled and dragged it back to where the boys waited with Louie. They got Louie onto the sled and took turns dragging him home over hilly terrain. Once here, they covered him with a blanket and gave him food and water.

Bill and his wife were away for the day, so when I got home we loaded Louie in our van and drove him to the vet. They were amazed! They couldn't believe he had survived so long without food or medication and was in such relatively good shape. Finally, Bill returned home and heard the news. He rushed over to see Louie, then I saw him afterwards. He said Louie was strong enough to walk. Bill's not an emotional guy, but he told me to tell the kids that he was forever in debt to them, and that they had made an old man happy.

There's so much that's amazing about this story. First of all, that Louie survived for so long. Also, that he happened to be in the area that the kids were hiking in so that they would find him.

Many of the neighbors are calling this a miracle and saying the kids are heroes. The kids feel kind of funny about that - they just did what had to be done. Louie is the one who did the hard part.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Democrats' reactions to President Bush's re-election have been extreme, to say the least. People are seeking therapy, researching Canadian residency requirements, and even committing suicide. But if they are feeling depressed, perhaps it should be from a sense of guilt. The Democratic Party, more than any other group in our country, has worked tirelessly for decades to increase the scope and power of government to shape our society according to their vision. And they succeeded - at least in the 'increasing government' part.

But there's a catch. For all of their talk of smaller government, the Republicans are always more than happy to take the reins of the Federal leviathan and steer it in the direction they want - to the utter horror of those very people who inadvertently put the power in their hands. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate this whole big Federal government thing.

The colonists overthrew a tyrannical government, set up a system based on liberty, and quickly became a prosperous nation and beacon of hope for the world. It's important to recognize that America was a tremendous success story not because of what the government did, but what it DIDN'T do. It didn't treat citizens as property, overly tax them, disarm them, over-regulate them, wage imperial wars around the world, interfere with freedom of speech and worship, circumvent due process, and so on. I speak, of course, in the past tense.

George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force." While you might agree with the way one group uses that force, you never know whose control it will be in next. Washington went on to say, "Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." Not sure you agree? Think of how you'd feel if you received an IRS audit notice in the mail tomorrow.

Next time, vote for Liberty.

Eeyore and Mrs. Samurai

Mrs. Samurai recently found out that a very nice friend was planning to vote for John Kerry. When asked "My heavens, why?!", this friend, whom we will call Eeyore, responded with her concerns (to put it mildly) about the Republican party. Mrs. Samurai responded to these concerns in the hopes of opening Eeyore's eyes to the truth of the two-party scam. We thought you might enjoy this interchange as well. Can you handle the truth?

Eeyore: The Republican Party, in all honesty, hasn't got an inch of ground to stand on when they talk about standing up for life. This government cares only for the richest people in our society, and is willing to sacrifice everything and everyone else in the attempt to ensure that the interests of that top percent are protected.

Mrs. Samurai: In theory, Republican policies would benefit most of society by minimizing government interference, thus allowing a vibrant economy so people have decent jobs, and minimizing the tax burden so a one-income family can live comfortably. Charity would stay where it belongs - in the community. Unfortunately, Republicans do not live up to their supposed philosophy of minimal government.

Furthermore, Republicans want to be re-elected. That can't happen if they only "help" the top few percent. Even if it's self-serving, every Republican administration tries to help the economy be better so lots of people - including the non-rich - are doing well and will vote for them again.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to care for the little guy, but the social programs they institute backfire. We now have a multi-generational welfare class. We also have the minimum wage, NAFTA and GATT, which put so much burden on businesses located in our country that jobs have flown out across our borders. The Democratic party has seriously betrayed the very people they claim to be helping. The Democratic party doesn't like to talk about it, but, there are more big businesses who support Democrats than Republicans. Even Martha Stewart is a Democrat!

Eeyore: I don't think Bush or the people around him care, underneath the pro-life hype, for the person that that fetus is. When the baby is one day old does she have that same right, even if her parents don't have health care? What about at a year? Does she have the right to eat and have a roof over her head?

Mrs. Samurai: I have to agree with the Founding Fathers here. We have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Not the GUARANTEE of happiness (or health care, or a roof over our heads, etc.). Before there were so many government programs, there were lots of charity hospitals and free clinics. These places are closing down under the weight of government regulation. I have a doctor friend (a Republican, by the way) who was told he would get in trouble if he treated the occasional poor patient free-of-charge. Outrageous!

Eeyore: What if her father has a minimum wage job at Walmart and her mother, with two other preschool children, is unable to work?

Mrs. Samurai: Minimum wage laws have actually forced a decrease in the wages that could be earned by people who are not brand-new to the work force (i.e., teenagers). Our awful tax burden has created the situation where many families cannot survive well on one income. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to the decline in real wages over the last few decades. I don't know which party has been the most deceitful.

Eeyore: If a child, heaven forbid, is not American, does she have the right not to be bombed in an attempt for America to secure the oil that lies under the earth by her home, so that people can continue to drive SUVs and other new cars?

Mrs. Samurai: We do not belong in Iraq, but I don't buy that we went there over oil. It's bigger than that. There are a lot of forces in our government pushing for increased involvement in the Middle East, particularly the pro-Israel-at-any-cost segment. And don't forget that the Democrats got us into Vietnam and also bombed Kosovo and aspirin factories. Again, neither party makes us or the rest of the world safer.

Eeyore: Does a child have the right not to have to breathe foul air or dirty water that's been polluted by the companies owned by those fat cats who found it so much to their advantage to sing her praises in the the months before she was born?

Mrs. Samurai: Be sure you include many Federal politicians of both parties in your "fat cat" moniker. I was an environmental engineer for several years before having kids, so I've got some background here. A large amount of the pollution to date has occurred because government has ALLOWED industries to pollute government property. The U.S. government has been a terrible steward - under both parties. Private property ownership encourages cleaner practices because people want to protect what they own.

If you still suspect that we need government to make sure we don't pollute, consider this: Cars built in the 1960's polluted less than those in previous decades. Did the EPA come down on the auto manufacturers? No - the EPA didn't exist yet. The cars became cleaner because that's what people wanted, and that's what they got as soon as the technology existed.

Big corporations are a problem in many ways. But it's important to know that they have flourished in our country precisely because there is a powerful Federal government. There is an incredible regulatory burden on business, and smaller businesses are at a decided disadvantage when trying to keep up with them. Big corporations have tax advantages over smaller businesses as well. The reason big corporations give so much to BOTH Democrat and Republican campaigns is that politicians at the Federal level have a lot of power to grant favors. If we could significantly scale back the Federal government, then these people would have no big favors to bestow and smaller businesses would have more of a chance to flourish. As citizens and consumers, we would in turn have more influence over them.

Eeyore: In other words, you can't be for life if you protect the first nine months of a person and then damn to hell all the months and years that follow.

Mrs. Samurai: Just because someone doesn't think a government program should take care of a lot of these needs doesn't mean they don't care about these people. Many of us know from experience that government programs hurt a lot of the people they are supposed to help and that private charities are generally more efficient and successful. As Harry Browne said, "If there seem to be ten thousand people who can't help themselves, pass a law to help them and there will suddenly be ten million who can't help themselves. The new law will provide the incentive to qualify as needy."

Eeyore: I cannot support all of the Democratic positions (the stand on abortion, and stem cell research, for example). But I do not support the Republicans on anything. Even the way they talk about abortion seems to me to be so hypocritical that I feel offended by their rhetoric. They use the emotional issue of abortion to mask their true feelings about the value of human life.

Mrs. Samurai: I think your condemnation goes a bit too far. I know an awful lot of Republicans personally who are amazingly compassionate people. Granted, there can be a big difference between the upper echelons of a political party and the rest. That's true for both parties. The guys at the top get their supporters to believe they are going to help them, but it's a lie. I am offended equally by the rhetoric of both parties!

Eeyore: Our country is in the most dangerous position that it has been in during my lifetime, if not in its history. If Bush gets in again, I don't think we will ever recover as a nation or as a world.

Mrs. Samurai: The Democrats are great at scaring people with their rhetoric, but Bush is simply the result of more than a century of the centralization of power in the Federal government by both parties. We have a professional class of politicians and bureaucrats whose main goal in life is to keep their positions, not to do what's actually best for people. The Democrats and Republicans play a game where they pretend to have huge differences so we feel like we're making a choice when we vote, but things never really change for the better under either party. I always thought everyone accepted the axiom that "power corrupts." How can we keep giving them more and more and expect something better to come of it?

Vote Libertarian!!!

The Pro-Life Movement - Not Just for Religious Nuts Anymore!

A common argument in the pro-choice crowd is that determining when life begins is solely a religious issue, and therefore each person should be free to make their own "choice." This commonly-used argument oversimplifies the abortion issue by ignoring the fact that there is compelling scientific reasoning against abortion. After all, there are even atheists who are pro-life.

Science, not religion, tells us that from the moment of conception a fetus has a complete set of human genetic material. We have identified no point in the pregnancy or birth at which something else is added to transform "tissue" to "a human being." To allow abortion assumes that there is at least a period in a pre-born's time in the womb that it does not deserve the same protection as an older fetus or someone who is outside of the womb. This is a serious assumption! Particularly when scientific advances have consistently moved our ideas of when a fertilized egg becomes a full human-being in one direction only - towards the point of conception. There is the life of a (potential, to some) human being in the balance, and we err on the side of murder?

That the pre-born baby needs the "life support" of the womb for awhile shouldn't affect her status as a human being. After all, an infant is still completely dependent on others for survival, and that doesn't make it our choice whether or not to let her live. To use another analogy, let's say a person is on life-support in the hospital, but it's almost certain that he will fully recover within 9 months' time. Most, if not all, would agree that it would be unthinkable to unhook him from that life-support.

Just because pregnancies sometimes occur in difficult situations doesn't change how we should view our options. Lots of humans can cause difficulties in our lives - mentally ill family members, special needs children, elderly parents with dementia, etc. There are various ways we can cope with these situations, but murder is not an accepted one. I think we've only gotten away with abortion all of this time because, unless we have an ultrasound, we can't see the baby, so we can pretend it's not a real person. Unfortunately, many young women who undergo abortions never hear these arguments, but later realize with guilt and sorrow the truth about the "choice" they made.

Thousands of Spam Accomplices -- Revealed!

An article in the paper today announced that a brother and sister in Virginia were convicted yesterday in the nation's first felony prosecution of spammers. The brother was sentenced to nine years in prison! Like most people, I loathe spam, and thus felt no sympathy for these people. But then I read more. One of the items these siblings offered was a fraudulent "FedEx refund processor" that supposedly allowed people to earn $75 an hour while working from home. The article briefly mentioned that in one month alone they received 10,000 credit card orders for the processor at $39.95 each, then went on to other details about their conviction.

Hold on, there! 10,000 people ordered this junk in one month? This is why we have spam! This is why we have telemarketing! Because numnutzes out there actually buy the stuff from them! If spamming and dinner-time sales calls didn't bring in a profit, they would've stopped a long time ago. These are the people we need to target. Instead of spending all this money to prosecute one two-bit pair of spammers, let's get the customer databases from these guys and publish them in a "Don't Be a Dufus" educational campaign. I'd love to have the chance to let some of these people know how much I appreciate them supporting the spam industry.

Worst of all, to me, is the utter lack of critical thinking evident in the thousands upon thousands of people who keep these scumbags in business. They have the ability to purchase and operate a computer, but believe all of the bunk that they see on the screen. (Yep, our government schools are doin' a fine job.) Think of these people the next time you see a celebrity on TV urging "everyone" to go out and vote!