Ed Shultz recently blasted Glenn Beck for suggesting we should abolish a public school system that engages in outright indoctrination. Beck is correct that the government monopoly on schools is (and has for some time) creating uninformed, juvenile citizens dependent on the Nanny State. But instead of offering any kind of logical counter argument, Shultz responds thusly:
“This guy’s dangerous! He’s a huge supporter of home-schooling and private-school vouchers. And this is an admission that he really does want two Americas . And I think it’s pathetic that somebody’s on the airwaves in this country that’s allowed to say this kind of garbage. It’s against the foundation of this country and everything that this country has stood for when it comes to opportunity in education. And he wants to take that away?”
Notice how Ed objects to the fact someone is “allowed” to be on the airwaves advocating liberty — how dare Glenn! Maybe Obama should appoint a Media Czar to stop any criticism of government. Oh wait, he has. FCC “Diversity” Czar Mark Lloyd is a big fan of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his Soviet-style control over the media.
Despite Ed’s delusions, there is nothing “dangerous” about supporting home-schooling or vouchers. Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that there will be “two Americas ” by supporting parental rights and school choice, nor is it “against the foundation of this country.”
Government control over education is a bad idea because it corrupts the system by conditioning citizens into sacraficing liberty and adopting a statist agenda. This is likely a reason the Constitution grants no authority to the federal government over education. Most aspects of life are to be governed at the local and family level.
Progressives like Shultz want ‘one’ America in which everyone is indoctrinated to see government and the progressive elite as the answers to virtually everything. Not unlike the old Soviet Koasomol, Ed and his cohorts would like the government to have exclusive control over what children are taught, and history has already shown that course to be far more dangerous than home-schooling or vouchers.
Powered by FireStats
You nailed the key point here, that Schultz would rather have all children be indoc’d into service to the State in the PS system rather than permit parents to homeschool their children or vouchers for parents to escape poor-performing public schools.
Also Schultz fails to realize that there are as many reasons for parents to homeschool their children as there are parents. Not all homeschoolers are right-wing reactionary zealots…many many are left-wingers and independents.
Lastly, Schultz’s outburst betrays the true intent of diversity…a superficial head-count of different skin tones by superficial bean-counters, rather than a diversity of opinion and methodology which is where any benefit to be gleaned from diversity lays.
James Tooley in his book The Beautiful Tree studied schooling around the world and found that although there were government schools available, even poor people often turned to private schools for a better education for their children.
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Tree-Personal-Educating-Themselves/dp/1933995920/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277514023&sr=8-1
Very true. Some of the poorest areas often have the highest spending on education per student, yet some of the worst test scores on standardized testing (e.g. Washington DC).
i was also home schooled when i was younger and it is also a great weay to get your education.:::
i was home schooled too but i would still prefer regular schools.~..