public schools
Posted: 3/6/2003, 1:43 pm
The Unconstitutional Public School
Rob Lundy
America was founded by men who knew men were entitled to the rights of all properties that would, in turn, allow them to live happily. Since then, their visions have been twisted into a stew of socialistic and communistic swill. They held that the government's only task was to guard the rights that were given by their "creator" (whomever the individual believes their creator is, be it man or God). Shortly after, a public school system was established. Thus began the degradation of the founding father's vision of a capitalistic utopian country, the individual man's rights to his own lively hood, and the minds of the children of America.
During the past few decades, international studies have shown that America is among the very last in education. This does not mean America is lacking in the provision of education, but in quality. Children are failing to learn to read, not only in elementary, and not only in middle school either; teenagers actually graduate high school easily without learning how to read. This is not an unusual occurrence; it is happening more and more in the recent years. This is just a single example of the shortcomings of the public school system. Children who know nothing about math are graduating with high marks. Children who couldn't tell John Steinbeck from Steven King are passing directly through the English classes. Children with a 40% margin of error are passing high school. 40% is failing almost half the time. 40% is nothing more then an excuse to keep the flow moving. 40% should be considered abuse in the fact that smarter children are dragged down by the teachers who feel it necessary to help the children who are too lazy or on the children who have given up on learning.
The above is a very serious problem. It is a plague that threatens America. At the current rate it will not be civil war or revolution that causes America to cease to exist, it will be ignorance. When men who can't actually spell America are voted into office, that will be the end of its potentially great reign.
The antidote is simple. It is the bureaucrats that decide the curriculum. It is the bureaucrats that decide whether a school is doing good or bad. It is the bureaucrats that decide the funds for individual schools. It is the bureaucrats who's children attend private schools or are privately tutored. The antidote is to remove the power from the bureaucrats and to give the power to the parents. The antidote is to let the parents choose which schools will be funded. With choice, parents have the option to decide on the curriculum for their child. If a parent wants their child to learn mostly about science, they have the choice to send their child to a school that is known for its science department. If a parent doesn't want their child in a certain environment, or disapproves of a certain school policy, they may transfer their child to a different more suitable school.
Such a system requires schools to participate in competition with one another. Schools will hire better teachers, or train their existing ones, they will raise their standards, they will provide better educational services for the parents who decided to send their children to them. If they fail to recognize this requirement they will go bankrupt very quickly. Furthermore, when competition is introduced, the administration will be inclined to manage their finances better then they were before. Thus lowering the cost of tuition allowing for more choice within the school. As is common with many competitive markets, the quality of the goods (education) will raise, and the cost (tuition) will lower.
The students who do not wish to attend school, who are bored or mischievous or even dangerous may choose freely to not attend. If their parents decide that their child's grades are not acceptable they may discontinue their child's attendance to the school. If the school finds that the child is a potential emotional, physical, or mental threat to other students, they may discontinue the child's attendance. (ie. the class clown who's main goal for school is not to learn, but to keep others from learning. The child's attendance is pointless until the child comes to know that school is a good thing, and not something to be fought. When this day comes, he may attend another school.) When a student goes through a full year of high school, it costs the taxpayers around seven thousand dollars. When the student fails every class, that is literally seven thousand dollars wasted. When there are a million students failing all the classes, that is seven billion dollars. Why then are people who are not responsible for the failing students held responsible by their government to provide the failing students with funds that they will in turn waste.
The beauty of competition lies in the fact that it's an extremely democratic system. When a parent enrolls their child in a school, it is a vote for the success of the school. Therefore only the truly effective schools will survive. The bad schools with bad teachers, and bad administration will go bankrupt.
One may ask: "what about those who cannot afford private schools? What about mentally challenged children?" Every parent has the right to school his or her own child. Every neighborhood has the right to organize a system where they alternate week by week and teach the children. Every individual has the right to open a loan company to give money to those who cannot afford school. Every individual has the right to donate money to families or schools whom they wish to succeed. It is, after all, the parent's responsibility to either educate or have someone educate their child.
This is not a new idea. Recently, one has heard a lot about voucher programs. However there is a major flaw built into it. This program does advocate school choice. However, it is still money out of the pockets of the taxpayers that do not have children in school. Why is it their responsibility to pay for the education of children who are not their own? Why is it not in their jurisdiction then to scold a child who is not their own? Or a more extreme question: why is it wrong for an individual to steal from a person, but not wrong for a large group of individuals (the government is, in fact, nothing more then a large group of individuals) to steal from a person?
It is said that man has the right to his property. Is money not a property? If man is revoked from his right to all of his money, then he has no right to it. If he has no right to it, he has no right to what he buys with it. If he has no right to what he buys with it, he has no right to a life by means of the items he buys. If he has no right to food, water, clothes, or a home, he has no means of survival. This is why public schools are unconstitutional; because the constitution guarantees the right to property, and the right to life. Such a system that taxes men for something they do not benefit from revokes the rights to both.
Public education is not a moral right. Over the years, it has become something the majority of the people have come to consider it as such. However, it was a very new idea back when it ruined a major part of our country. What if today, the government began to manufacture shoes on the basis that they all their citizens should have shoes on their feet? They declare it as a controlled monopoly (much like the postal service or the utilities), so that the current shoe manufacturers may not compete against the government. In two hundred years, when someone challenges the idea of privatization of public shoes, they will be met with the same opposition.
The public school system is doing more harm then good. Furthermore it is unconstitutional. The system is completely run by bureaucrats who decide which schools to reward, and which to penalize. The power is in the wrong hands. By privatizing schools, it will allow the parents to decide.
Rob Lundy
America was founded by men who knew men were entitled to the rights of all properties that would, in turn, allow them to live happily. Since then, their visions have been twisted into a stew of socialistic and communistic swill. They held that the government's only task was to guard the rights that were given by their "creator" (whomever the individual believes their creator is, be it man or God). Shortly after, a public school system was established. Thus began the degradation of the founding father's vision of a capitalistic utopian country, the individual man's rights to his own lively hood, and the minds of the children of America.
During the past few decades, international studies have shown that America is among the very last in education. This does not mean America is lacking in the provision of education, but in quality. Children are failing to learn to read, not only in elementary, and not only in middle school either; teenagers actually graduate high school easily without learning how to read. This is not an unusual occurrence; it is happening more and more in the recent years. This is just a single example of the shortcomings of the public school system. Children who know nothing about math are graduating with high marks. Children who couldn't tell John Steinbeck from Steven King are passing directly through the English classes. Children with a 40% margin of error are passing high school. 40% is failing almost half the time. 40% is nothing more then an excuse to keep the flow moving. 40% should be considered abuse in the fact that smarter children are dragged down by the teachers who feel it necessary to help the children who are too lazy or on the children who have given up on learning.
The above is a very serious problem. It is a plague that threatens America. At the current rate it will not be civil war or revolution that causes America to cease to exist, it will be ignorance. When men who can't actually spell America are voted into office, that will be the end of its potentially great reign.
The antidote is simple. It is the bureaucrats that decide the curriculum. It is the bureaucrats that decide whether a school is doing good or bad. It is the bureaucrats that decide the funds for individual schools. It is the bureaucrats who's children attend private schools or are privately tutored. The antidote is to remove the power from the bureaucrats and to give the power to the parents. The antidote is to let the parents choose which schools will be funded. With choice, parents have the option to decide on the curriculum for their child. If a parent wants their child to learn mostly about science, they have the choice to send their child to a school that is known for its science department. If a parent doesn't want their child in a certain environment, or disapproves of a certain school policy, they may transfer their child to a different more suitable school.
Such a system requires schools to participate in competition with one another. Schools will hire better teachers, or train their existing ones, they will raise their standards, they will provide better educational services for the parents who decided to send their children to them. If they fail to recognize this requirement they will go bankrupt very quickly. Furthermore, when competition is introduced, the administration will be inclined to manage their finances better then they were before. Thus lowering the cost of tuition allowing for more choice within the school. As is common with many competitive markets, the quality of the goods (education) will raise, and the cost (tuition) will lower.
The students who do not wish to attend school, who are bored or mischievous or even dangerous may choose freely to not attend. If their parents decide that their child's grades are not acceptable they may discontinue their child's attendance to the school. If the school finds that the child is a potential emotional, physical, or mental threat to other students, they may discontinue the child's attendance. (ie. the class clown who's main goal for school is not to learn, but to keep others from learning. The child's attendance is pointless until the child comes to know that school is a good thing, and not something to be fought. When this day comes, he may attend another school.) When a student goes through a full year of high school, it costs the taxpayers around seven thousand dollars. When the student fails every class, that is literally seven thousand dollars wasted. When there are a million students failing all the classes, that is seven billion dollars. Why then are people who are not responsible for the failing students held responsible by their government to provide the failing students with funds that they will in turn waste.
The beauty of competition lies in the fact that it's an extremely democratic system. When a parent enrolls their child in a school, it is a vote for the success of the school. Therefore only the truly effective schools will survive. The bad schools with bad teachers, and bad administration will go bankrupt.
One may ask: "what about those who cannot afford private schools? What about mentally challenged children?" Every parent has the right to school his or her own child. Every neighborhood has the right to organize a system where they alternate week by week and teach the children. Every individual has the right to open a loan company to give money to those who cannot afford school. Every individual has the right to donate money to families or schools whom they wish to succeed. It is, after all, the parent's responsibility to either educate or have someone educate their child.
This is not a new idea. Recently, one has heard a lot about voucher programs. However there is a major flaw built into it. This program does advocate school choice. However, it is still money out of the pockets of the taxpayers that do not have children in school. Why is it their responsibility to pay for the education of children who are not their own? Why is it not in their jurisdiction then to scold a child who is not their own? Or a more extreme question: why is it wrong for an individual to steal from a person, but not wrong for a large group of individuals (the government is, in fact, nothing more then a large group of individuals) to steal from a person?
It is said that man has the right to his property. Is money not a property? If man is revoked from his right to all of his money, then he has no right to it. If he has no right to it, he has no right to what he buys with it. If he has no right to what he buys with it, he has no right to a life by means of the items he buys. If he has no right to food, water, clothes, or a home, he has no means of survival. This is why public schools are unconstitutional; because the constitution guarantees the right to property, and the right to life. Such a system that taxes men for something they do not benefit from revokes the rights to both.
Public education is not a moral right. Over the years, it has become something the majority of the people have come to consider it as such. However, it was a very new idea back when it ruined a major part of our country. What if today, the government began to manufacture shoes on the basis that they all their citizens should have shoes on their feet? They declare it as a controlled monopoly (much like the postal service or the utilities), so that the current shoe manufacturers may not compete against the government. In two hundred years, when someone challenges the idea of privatization of public shoes, they will be met with the same opposition.
The public school system is doing more harm then good. Furthermore it is unconstitutional. The system is completely run by bureaucrats who decide which schools to reward, and which to penalize. The power is in the wrong hands. By privatizing schools, it will allow the parents to decide.
they need to come to texas....in the Laredo Independent School District alone there are 8,000 uncertified teachers that are holding teaching jobs right now. over 100,000 uncertified teachers statewide. that's insane how did you all get those teachers? no wonder we look for expirienced teachers and you guys dump them. in the state teacher retirement fund there is 90 billion dollars for retired teachers. (and they had stock in Enron, so it was alot more) In the schools i went to (most small schools) there were never any classes that were over 25. and almost every teacher had 10+ years expirience. my dad is a teacher, but has been a school superintendent and princpal, so thats how i get these numbers. (PEMIS and TEA) in these smaller schools you won't be shocked to see a teacher or two get behind the wheel of a school bus or coach something too. that's because if you get your CDL license, in most small schools you will get rembersed for that licence and will get paid additional monies for driving a bus route. now the way retirement works down here is they get your top 3 years where you got paid the highest and they multiply it with a multiplier number. when you add on another grand to one of your top three years, it helps your retirement. one of my old teachers told me that he used to teach in a large school and there you have mulit-ethnic children and it's hard to teach some of the kids because they speak a language you don't know. in a small school in texas you'll see a kid from only one ethnicity most of the time.