You work hard and take the test and get an "A." But the teacher says that's not fair to the other kids. So little Johnny who didn't study and got an "F" gets to take part of your grade, and you each end up with a "C." Her first reaction was "that's not fair."
We said, "Yes. But that's socialism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Very effective teaching. She's 39 years old, and understands socialism still.
Carolyn
Let's explore others, shall we?
How about, when the teacher gets the class prepared to observe one of the holidays (that aren't really celebrated as "holidays" any more, but we'll skip that for now) which are scattered through the school year. Say, Hallowe'en.
"Now class, we live in a democracy, which means the majority rules. We're going to vote on whether to decorate the room with witches and goblins or skeletons and jack-o-lanterns. Everyone in favor of witches, raise your hand . ."
Does this oft-repeated voting exercise explain Americans' willingness to put almost everything to a vote? Including things that should by rights be none of the government's business, such as deciding how a person can use his property?
It all begins in kindergarten.
Then, we have the lunch room. There wasn't a school cafeteria where I went, but these days it's mandatory -- because something like a federal school lunch program (and a breakfast program in some areas) requires every school to have one.
And who gets a deeply-discounted, nearly free, lunch?
That would be the children of parents whose income falls below a federal threshold, qualifying them for a cheap lunch, sometimes breakfast too.
Everybody else pays full price.
Is this socialism, or merely welfarism? Who cares, the kids learn it.
Once students get into high school, the socialist nature of the schools is even more apparent. Student "activity fees" go into a common pot, divvied up for the common good by elected commissars (the "student council"). Anyone who's ever served will conclude the game is rigged in favor of the school administration which, through its "faculty advisors," makes sure the students' money goes to the most deserving undertakings, at least in their own estimation: sports, usually, and other activities typically enjoyed by a minority of the student body.
But it isn't until students graduate and get out in the work force that they finally learn the most socialist aspect of the government schools.
That's when they first notice that it costs a lot of money to run these operations -- money collected by force from parents, singles, young people trying to earn a living, old people hoping to have enough to retire on, even dead people (estate taxes) who may have died without ever having any children for the public schools to "educate."
Neil Boortz is in favor of vouchers, I believe, as a way to give public schools some competition, give parents a "choice," and (never stated this way, but it's true) desemboweling the teachers' unions.
Well, I'm sorry. As long as schools are financed by taxes, they will continue to be socialist, no matter who runs them. With vouchers, some schools will be better than others, just as some are better today.
But the taxpayers won't be getting their money's worth, especially those who don't have children. And the next generation of kids in schools, whether public or private, will continue to be indoctrinated that "education" is a public good, therefore we must all pay for it.
And pay, and pay . .