Education is a hot button issue in contemporary American politics. George W. Bush addressed it soon after he was granted the Presidency by Supreme Court edict. In a manner that would come to characterize him as one of the more endearing presidents in recent memory he asked "Is our children learning?"
To many the answer is a resounding "no." Our children isn't learning. The oft cited Exihibit A is a detailed list of society's woes. And why not, schools have become a de facto guardian of the nation's youth.
It is a dangerous affair to compare the present with the past, but if there was a time in which schools were intended to merely correct illiteracy and general ignorance, then those days are gone my friend. To answer Bush's question, the players in this game no longer test basic reading comprehension and arithmetic skills. Schools are expected to resolve racial conflict, produce courteous automobile drivers, combat recreational drug use, provide reproductive training and extra cirricular athletics. They feed the poor and provide health and human services. The public school system has become a surrogant parent. So if mass media provides annecdotal evidence of societal decay, then expect an accusatory finger aimed at public education.
In the climate of percieved cultural erosion, parents have deemed public school an inadequate nanny. Rather then actually devote time and interest in their local school system, the affluent have shuffled their children off to what they consider a better surrogate, a private school of their choice. Thus the wealthy pay twice for the guardianship of their children in local school taxes and private tuition. To reduce the burden they offer a recurrent request for a tax remittance in form of a voucher for private education. The less affluent, unable to afford this double expenditure, repeat justifications employed by the wealthy in an effort to obtain a similar tax deduction.
Tactics employed by both groups are similar. They cite freedom of choice and the virtue of privatization to justify a personal tax reduction. But it is not the role of democratic government to provide personalized education. Power is vested in the people. And if the people are prone to err, the recourse is not to remove power from their hands, but to help improve their judgement through education. Thus a democratic government is required to provide public education which is free, universal and compulsary while it is designed to produce adequate guardians of political power.
It is not the role of democratic government to provide the educational means to place young Johnny in the Ivy League or instill in Sally the morality of the Southern Baptist Church. The betterment of children is the bane of parents, not of government. Public education is necessary to ensure that the guardians of democratic power do not destroy that which they were entrusted. The politician who argues in favor of vouchers on the grounds that public education has failed undermines his standing as a representative
of the people. If the system has failed to prepare its charges for participatory democracy, then what does that say of their chosen representatives?
Political efforts to "improve" public education must be prefaced with an apt introductory clause. "By placing me in office, my constituents have demonstrated the inadequacy of public education, therefore..." While some public school systems are flawed, the case that free universal education has failed is harder pressed.
Government has served its role by by constructing an educational infrastructure. Every student has access to school buildings, teachers and administration. Quality assurance is the role of concerned guardians. If parents are too lazy to take an interest in their children's education, do not take my money to supplement their deficiency.
Alas, the case to forcibly redistribute wealth to the hands of lazy parents was strengthened by the Rhenquist court. In a 5-4 decision last year, the Court helped to undercut the value of universal education. If propopents of vouchers are correct, if public education is flawed, then it is hardly assisted by moving tax dollars away from them toward private instituitions. Despite vouchers, private education still requires disposible income. The Rhenquist decision will ultimately help to create an education caste system once the standard is subsidized private education.
--
Like a two-bit singer in a gin soaked bar, I take requests. This column is one such fulfillment...
It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday
And the manager gives me a smile
'Cause he knows that it's me they've been coming to see
To forget about life for a while
And the piano sounds like a carnival
And the microphone smells like a beer
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
And say "Man what are you doing here?"
