Oh, those whacky Libertarians. Another proposal built upon a straw man. Nobody is compelled to attend public schools. (The tirteenth amendment -- puhleeeze.) With Doonesbury on the editorial page, I wonder if some letters shouldn't be in the comics.

You may not be forced to go, but you are forced to pay for it,whether or not you go. That's just as bad in my book.

Really, Roch101? No one MUST attend public schools? I assume you're referring to those wealthy enough to attend private schools or whose parents have enought free time to home-school them. Of course, I knew that. I was referring to all other students. As for that unlucky majority, here's what NC General Statue 115C-378 reads:

Every parent, guardian or other person in this State having charge or control of a child between the ages of seven and 16 years shall cause such child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time which the public school to which the child is assigned shall be in session. Every parent, guardian, or other person in this State having charge or control of a child under age seven who is enrolled in a public school in grades kindergarten through two shall also cause such child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time which the public school to which the child is assigned shall be in session unless the child has withdrawn from school. No person shall encourage, entice or counsel any such child to be unlawfully absent from school. The parent, guardian, or custodian of a child shall notify the school of the reason for each known absence of the child, in accordance with local school policy.

And NC General Statute 115C‑380:

Any parent, guardian or other person violating the provisions of this Part shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

Touche, Paul. Roch 101 can now open mouth and insert foot.

While I believe in evolution and know that the teaching of creationism violates church/state separation...

The First Amendment does not prohibit schools from teaching creationism. It only prohibits Congress from passing a law that establishes a national religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Establishment Clause says nothing about public schools.

In fact, our own state constitution says in Article IX, Section 1, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Did you catch that? In North Carolina public schools, religion and morality are to be included in the curricula. Who wants to speak up at the next Guilford County School Board meeting?

Teddy

And so you agree with the benighted politicians who put such language into the (very late in the game) state constitution (to appease anti-Catholic sentiment, by the way). It has unfortunately never been sufficiently challenged; if it were, I am hopeful it would be struck down as unconsttitutional in federal court, except that no state has ever had to face this. Federal courts prefer to let such sloppy contradictions muddle.

Thankfully, few contemporary school districts enforce the silly thing. I imagine a number of backward places probably assume everyone in their district is a Bible-believing Christian, and do encourage one nation under one particular god to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of a number of other belief systems.

In many of those, there may be other gods and perhaps even a kind of general spirit that does not fit in with the usual notion of a god at all. And that doesn't even allow for the small but equally protected population of outright atheists like myself who should be able to DIScourage my own children from feeling EXcluded. As a matter of reality, that means I have to give them a strong sense of reason and self-worth, to combat bigotry that may be directed at them. Happily, I don't live in one of those exclusionary areas of the state.

This does not imply, by the way, that all these atheists, polytheists, animists, Hindus, Buddhists and others want their kids to be raised immorally. There are, all beliefs to the contrary, ways to be moral and more importantly, ethical, without being a monotheist of Christian, Jewish or Muslim faith.

I agree that the historical and cultural importance of religion should be addressed in public schools, but do you honestly want various school boards, state legislators or superintendents deciding HOW and WHICH religion is to be "encouraged"? That is precisely the sort of thing the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was written to prevent.

I agree that the historical and cultural importance of religion should be addressed in public schools, but do you honestly want various school boards, state legislators or superintendents deciding HOW and WHICH religion is to be "encouraged"?

If government schools are to remain publicly funded, then yes sir I do. If you don't want your children exposed to Christian education, then I would think you, too, would be a proponent of school choice. As it stands, I support school choice because I don't want my children exposed to anti-Christian education.

One of our founding fathers, Fisher Ames, had this to say about the matter: "Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind." Who was Fisher Ames? He was the delegate who authored the House language for the First Amendment.

That is precisely the sort of thing the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was written to prevent.
The Establishment Clause only applies to Congress. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It says nothing about schools.

It's time to start following Article IX, Section 1 of our state constitution. It's time to bring Christian principles back into schools.

Paul, you're arguing against something I didn't say. You originally made your case secifcally and largely on "mandatory public education" -- your exact words and something that doesn't exist. I simply observed the absurdity of this claim.

You turned my observations into an argument about compelling people to pay for public education. Fine, let's look at compulsory funding of public education.

If we were to follow your advice for privatizing schools and also ended compelled public financing then where are those people who can't currently afford private school going to be? Somehow better able to afford privatized schools? Since you'll have also freed childless people like me from contributing to the cost of education the entire financial burden will then be on parents.

Of course, there is a way your plan would work. If you simply overturned any laws that require children to be educated at all, then those who can't afford school can simply not go. Might want to advocate for chilrens' rights to work while your at it.

Sir:
You have based your opinion on a couple of false premises. You have made the assumption that somehow there is a positive correlation between copulation and being a good parent (magic maybe??). Wrong. You have also made the assumption that there is a positive correlation between being a parent and knowing what constitutes a quality education (more magic??). Wrong. There are no correlations, positive or negative, based on either of these premises. Period.
Our founding fathers saw the need for an educated populace(in order to provide for an informed electorate). The privatization of the educational system has created a class-based society, and only those with economic clout achieving a quality education. Mandatory public education was the great equalizer in our society. Now, anyone with enough money can opt out of the system, for whatever reason, leaving only the working poor to try and prop up the system. Every child, including the senator's son, little Lord Fauntleroy, and the orphan, should have to attend public school together. Once you have removed your children from the public school system, you no longer have a vested interest in the success of public schools. Are you going to vote for any bond referendums? New Schools? New Textbooks? Get real. If you're some Jesus freak and home school your children so you can brainwash them, do you think you're going to care what goes on in the public school system?
If public education were mandatory, then EVERYONE would have a vested interest in the success of our system. There should not be ANY private schools, military schools, prep schools, parochial schools, home schools, etc., and etc.
The founding fathers got it right the first time.

Justin, I think you're right about only Congress being forbidden from establishing a religion. However, even if the states are allowed to establish one, that still doesn't change the fact that mandatory public schooling equals involuntary servitude.

Roch101, when you said that I, "turned [your] observations into an argument about compelling people to pay for public education," I think you confused me with Rusty Sheridan. Go back and look.
Secondly, what the hell are you talking about concerning public education not being compulsory? I showed you the exact NC General Statute that makes it mandatory to send your children to school. Look it up for yourself if you want. Again, it's NC General Statue 115C-378.

Bill, why would you get the idea that I'm a Jesus freak who wants to brainwash my kids? I said in my original letter that I believe in evolution and church/state separation. But even if I were a Jesus freak who wanted to brainwash my kids, that would be my business and not yours. I consider you to be a communist who would brainwash everyone else's kids in addition to your own. If you want your kids to be communist-minded, that's fine, but you have no right to determine what everyone else's children will learn.

Paul,

You are correct. I conflated your post and Rusty's. Since Rusty is also a Libertarian, I think the point of my post still stands: privatize education and end compulsory public funding of education and you are begging for something right out of a Charles Dickens novel.

Please though, let's get real about the silliness upon which you based your original article and which you try to defend as accurate: your erroneous notion that there is such a thing as "manditory public education."

When I pointed out that there is no such thing you referred us to a statute that mandates "education" -- not PUBLIC education, but only that a child receive SOME type of education for the same amount of time that public schools are in session. (If public education where mandatory, parents who send their kids to private schools or home-school them would be in violation of the law. Clearly they are not.)

The foundation of your orginal argument is false. There is no such thing as manditory public education and the "evidence" you offer only serves to show the absurdity of your insistance that there is. Surely you are smart enough to see that. Your readers are.

What a great topic of discussion! I've really enjoyed the comments so far. Here's my take: mandatory public education is only necessary if we value an effective democracy as our form of government.

Paul, you are absolutely right to criticize the problems in current public education. But am I understanding you correctly to say that you don't think that every child of our country is entitled to an equal opportunity to learn and advance themselves? You used the term "brainwashing" in reference to what public schools do to our children, and while I agree that this is something we should always guard against allowing to occur in schools, I think measures of accountability, testing, and public discourse are the best ways to avoid negative teaching practices.

Sure schools have problems, but to advocate for ending public education would ultimately be the same as calling for the end of democracy in the United States. Throughout history, populations without equal education have relied on other forms of government. What's made our democracy work is that we have an informed public that values its nation's history with a vested interest in seeing America continue successfully.

Bill,

As I read your post, I am struck by what seems to be your lack of understanding regarding the history of education and more, specifically public education in our country.

You state that our founding fathers got it right and foresaw the need of an educated populace. I'm not sure where that is documented as the rise of the common school (public schools) didn't occur until the mid-1800's prompted by the work of Horace Mann and other "school reformers". Prior to and at the time of the founding of our country, education was primarily the province of the wealthy and accomplished in private and religious schools. The common man had little-to-no opportunity for an education. Indeed, education was left as the province of the various states. The federal government was not responsible for, nor had any authority or responsibility for education.

So, I would argue that your statement: "The privatization of the educational system has created a class-based society, and only those with economic clout achieving a quality education" is inaccurate. Private education preceded public education, so it is inaccurate to say that it created a class-based society. Public education was created to give the common man an opportunity to an education, create good citizens and unite society. The various states and local comunities are primarily responsible for public schools, financed primarily through state taxes and local property taxes.

I agree with Roch 101's statement that there is no mandatory public school attendance. A 1925 Supreme Court ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead. So, attendance in schools to a certain age is mandatory, but it can be public or private.

Bill, your statement that "Mandatory public education was the great equalizer in our society." is just wrong. It was the establishment of the public or common schools that was intended to be the great equalizer. One can argue all day whether our public schools are actually accomplishing the worthy goals for which they were established (the great equalizer), but public schools and private schools both exist for valid reasons to serve different constituencies. By law, children must attend school until a given age and the citizens and taxpayers must support public education. Parents should and do have the right to decide which form of schooling best suits their children's educational needs. For the government to mandate the ouster of a private schooling option and every child's attendance at a public school is not supported in the constitution of this country and to remove that choice would not be in the spirit expressed in the founding of our country.

If anyone would like a primer on the history of public education in our country, refer to teh following link: http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html

Well, Roch101, you obviously didn't read one of my posts, for if you had, you'd have read the part in which I mentioned that I know that private or home schooling is an option. But you know as well as I do that those two options simply aren't options for most parents because they have to work and can't afford it. With those two options gone, public schooling is mandatory. To continue to deny this is to make a fool of yourself. If a parent unable to exercise the private/home-school options did not send his or her child to a public school, he/she would be charged with a crime, and the government would see to it that the child gets to a public school.
Besides, even more importantly than the above points, even forcing someone to attend private school or to be home-schooled in involuntary servitude. Just because you're given a choice of WHERE you MUST work doesn't make it cease to be involuntary if the parent doesn't wish for his child to be educated at all.

Richard, I do NOT value democracy in this country, and yes, I am calling for an end to it. This country is absolutely not supposed to be a democracy, although we've pretty much turned it into one. We are supposed to be a Republic. Democracy is evil.
Yes, I do believe that every child is entitled to an equal opportunity at an education. But the key word there is OPPORTUNITY. No one is by any means simply entitled to an education any more than you're entitled to walk into a restaurant and demand that they serve you for free.
As for talk of equality, I don't want people to be equal. I want all people to have the full freedom to live up to their full potential.

Teddy, thanks for taking the time to explain the early days of education.

Actually, the letter's title, "Privatize..." is a very good idea. Schools should be run a little more like businesses, from dumping the approved state contracts for supplies (let them take advantage of sales at Staples, et al), the lack of privacy or breaks for teachers (one of the things that drove me from teaching), the fact that you're legally liable if you go to the rest room without coverage (did *you* ever have a sudden need?), but most of all, get a BUSINESS MANAGER for every building. Repairs will be done when there's someone responsible for them. Buying power - let the schools use it. Teachers are the *professional class* that we treat like they are, well, kids. Privatize and make hiring teachers subject to free market - if you need science teachers, pay them more. It makes sense to me (the 13th amendment notwithstanding). Maybe acting like a business will force "the schools" to decide finally just who their customers are.

Paul,

I agree that education isn't a right for every citizen any more than free food is. Education for all is a privilege - granted, I think it is an absolutely necessary privilege if a country values having an industrious and peaceful society, but it is a privilege nonetheless. If education were treated as a privilege instead of a right by those who receive it, and supported as a civic duty instead of a financial penalty by taxpayers then we'd all be better off... but that's just idealism talking. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate just throwing a bunch of money at the problems in public schooling because that's not a solution, it's just a salve. But I much prefer my country to be populated by educated voters that can compete in a global economy. And if that means that there should be mandatory education, I'm all for it as long as the education process is held accountable and regularly evaluated.

As for your antagonism with democracy, I'd enjoy hearing how you define the difference between a democracy and a republic, especially with respect to how one of these things is "evil".

Hi, Richard E. If we would just allow free markets to run their course, then we would certainly be the most prosperous industrial nation in the world. And that's why schools should be privatized. Just as you said, school isn't for everyone. Some people would be much happier simply learning a trade. Skilled 14-year-olds could enter the workforce and help improve the economy rather than having to spend more time in school, where they don't want to be.

Democracy is evil because allows for tyranny of majorities. In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote to violate the rights of 49%. In a republic, on the other hand, 99% of the people can't violate the rights of 1% because they wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything that would violate the rights of anyone. Note Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The Founding Fathers knew the evil of democracy and therefore prohibited it.

Paul,

Free markets certainly have value for the way that a good idea can develop and an honest day's effort net earnings. But free markets fail to serve the common interest when greed takes precedence over honesty. Absolute free markets can be dangerous when individuals or corporations are left to seek their greatest level of profit without considering the potential ill effects of their methods. For example, the Enron scandal used illegal accounting practices to inflate stock prices. Hundreds of workers made honest investments in their company's stock only to lose millions of dollars when their company bottomed up when the bad accounting was discovered. Another example is Love Canal. When a company realized it could save money by just dumping its toxic waste instead of cleaning it up, lots of people got sick. A free marketplace is valuable, yet it needs to be regulated by impartial regulators to insure that individual commerce doesn't infringe on society's best interests.

My feelings for education are similar to my feelings for the economy. Yes, education should be mandatory but it should also be regulated by impartial regulators to insure the learning experiences in schools are serving the needs of society.

By the way, I looked up Democracy and Republic in my dictionary last night and the only difference that Webster mentioned was that a Democracy is form of government that is served by all citizens participating in regular free elections. On the other hand, a Republic is a form of government that is served by a select group of citizens participating in regular free elections. I still stand by what I said before: Democracy only works when the whole of the populous is made up of educated voters.

P.S. I'm trying to be clear, but misunderstandings do happen: Just when did I say that "school isn't for everyone"?

Hey again, Richard E. As for the problems you mention with Enron and Love Canal, certainly! Free-market capitalism doesn't hinge on committing crimes. Enron committed fraud, among other things. That's a crime that should be punished. Love Canal committed the crime of pollution, which should also be punished. The fact that some people disrespect the law doesn't invalidate capitalism. Most capitalists respect the law.

But how can you say that education should be mandatory? Where do you get the authority to force someone else to do something? From the fact that a majority of people voted to do so? That's democracy, and that's why democracy is evil. As long as there's a majority, the majority can make the minority do whatever it wishes.
If you can force someone to go to school, then logically you can force them to work for you for free. No, you say? Why not? Because forcing them to work for you for free is a violation of their rights? Why is that? It's because you're depriving them of their freedom to do what they choose. So it goes with making education mandatory. If I'm not free NOT to go to school, then you have deprived me of my freedom to do whatever else I choose. That's slavery.

Yes, I'm afraid the definition of democracy has taken a new tone of late. Today most people think of "democracy" and "republic" as virtual synonyms. Around the time of the Revolution, however, they meant two different things. They Fathers despised democracy, which is why they specifically guaranteed every state a Republican form of government.
Of course, the problem is that a Republic can so easily be turned into a democracy or something even worse, which is what has happened to us. That's why when Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government they'd created in the Constitution, he replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Paul and Richard,

Acting as a third-party in your two-way dispute, let me say that our country is a republic. It was founded as a republic, not a pure democracy. You'll recall that our pledge of allegiance says "I pledge allegiance...and to the republic for which it stands".

In a democracy, everyone has a vote, and the winner is a simple majority. This type of government is often found in the small towns and villages of New England. All residents go to town meetings and vote, with the winner being that which receives the most votes. That is a form of pure democracy. In a democracy, there might not be a governmental head.

A republic has a governmental head, usually a President, and citizens vote to elect representatives, who in turn vote on measures, and they are responsible and accountable to those that elected them. These elected representatives do not always vote exactly in the manner in which their constituents would vote, thus, it is not a pure democracy.

So, our form of government might well be identified as a democracy within a republic. Now, that we have established the definitions, you two may return to your discussion on the merits of a democracy.

Well said, Teddy, about democracy.

One of the advantages to having representatives instead of pure democracy is that if any measure is ever passed which violates people's rights, the victims know who voted on the violation, whereas in a pure democracy held by secret ballot, no one knows who voted for the violation and who didn't. And when you know who your tyrant is, you know who to remove from office.

Paul,

Hello again. You ask why I could possibly want mandatory education because the process of schooling is the modern equivalent of slavery. Wow. You relate mandatory education to slavery because it is a forced process. To hear you discuss education, you make it sound like it’s a penance that must be served rather than an opportunity to meet one's fullest potential. Paul, what kind of education did you receive that has lead you question its basic merits so much? On the other hand, maybe you've had a wonderful education and it's lead you to think powerful thoughts like these. Whichever case (I hope it's the latter), let me sum up my belief for the necessity of education one more time with this analogy:

What benefit comes from having drivers on the road who have learned the rules of the road? When you drive around town you trust that you can drive through a green light while the red light traffic stops to let you pass. Before you're legally allowed to drive, you have to earn a driver's license. If you're over 18, you don't need to go to drivers Ed, but you still need to learn the rules of the road to pass your test.

Now let's imagine that there's a person out there who doesn't think the government has the right to make him do anything that he doesn't want to. So he gets in his car and drives whichever way he wants without regard for the drivers around him. At some point, this freedom driver is going to be more likely to hurt not just himself, but other people too because he didn't learn the proper way to drive with the rest of society.

I realize this story is simple, but my point is this. If we don't have educated citizens, then we can't trust that we have law abiding citizens that would respect the rights of others, not to mention the lack of knowledge and understanding that they wouldn't possess when they make their voting decisions, go to work, or just plain pursue their happiness. So who gets to decide what is a “proper education” you may ask? We all do. Every time we vote in democratic elections to send leaders to our Republic in Washington, to the statehouse in Raleigh, and to the local school board here in town.