Replies

"...once home and private schools become part of government-financed facilities or programs, they can no longer remain “private,”..."

This is not true. It's dishonest propaganda. Does the government force poor parents to spend their "earned income credits" (or whatever those are called this year) in any particular way? Of course not. Poor parents can discriminate in whatever way they wish with that money. How vouchers are spent depends on whether or not we allow left/liberal teachers to get laws through Congress to that effect.

Folks, Susan B. Anthony and her friends pushed for public education to control each next generation, and their kind eventually had legislation passed for pub. ed. by handing anecdotes of poor children in testimony to Congress.

We must honestly defame the use of sorrowful anecdotes to Congress and inhibit Congress from listening to anything but hard facts from objective research.

In general, children are safer being reared in their own families than by government influence/"protection." And there's no in-between, because the fight over the hearts and minds of the next generation is always on.

"Far from failing in its intended task, our educational system is in fact succeeding magnificently, because its aim is to keep the American people thoughtless enough to go on supporting the system. And it is easiest of all if you can convince the ignorant that they are educated, for you can thus make them collaborators.”

So true. And that's exactly what the libs want.

I have seen two homeschool families "fail", int their own eyes. Both of them started out strong, but lost their will in life's struggles. After a year or two of almost doing NO schooling for their children, both families gave up and had their children tested to be placed in public school.

The results were astounding. All four children from these two families tested YEARS above their peers in reading, language arts and math. One young man (11 years old) tested highschool senior level in math and second year college in reading and language arts. The lowest tested child (a girl) only tested a year above her expected grade level. (The other two children tested two and four years ahead of their peers.) It's almost like these children came out ahead just by the fact that they were removed from the system. I hate to say it, but after witnessing these two examples I feel that the public school system actually retards the learning process. From what I've seen, children would be better off being raised in the home (with mom home full-time) while being given a minimal education (reading, writing and math) than cooped up in a school house.

This article, although wide ranging and accurate in it's assessment of our situation, makes a central, erroneous, assumption about the nature of education.

Only a few are driven by the need to understand what is going on around them, how people work, how machines work, how history writing both changes constantly and remains always humans telling stories about the past. The old timers talked about wisdom as the goal of education, where there is an actual search for truth, which leads to humility and compassion as well as social effectiveness. That is, wisdom was seen as the proper goal of the superior sort of man, and formal education a part (usually small) of the superior man's road. Education in this world is self education once the basic tools are mastered.

Most people instead see education as the formation of group identity through inculcation of shared mythology. They are not interested in "seeking the truth" as individuals but instead the formation of smooth running social constructs. "Public education" has always been firmly a project of this second sort, promising a reduction in "crime" and "immorality", never mentioning "aristocratic" goals like independence of mind and the building of character. It is interesting to compare the education programs used by classical Greece, the fourth century Roman system described by Augustine, the Benedictine schools, the changes that came with printing, the invasion of Prussia by Napoleon, and the resulting development of modern "public education", which had some very good points, since discarded, naturally!

The problem in a nutshell is that only perhaps one in ten or less people are educable. What then is to be done with the rest? Give them "degrees" and let them run about demanding undeserved respect and income? Seems to be the plan, see the results everywhere! Incredibly foolish people, modern politics, the Democrat Party, Leftism generally, moral equivalence, and "all opinions are equally valid." All about us are the fruits of education provided by bureaucrats and promising social climbing instead of understanding.

Many years ago someone observed that many parents raise their children but do not educate them. People sup together, play together, travel together, but they do not think together. Hardly any homes have any intellectual life whatsoever.

This is by design. Compulsory government education began in Prussia in the early 1800s.

The Prussian mind, which carried the day, held a clear idea of what centralized schooling should deliver: 1) Obedient soldiers to the army; 2) Obedient workers for mines, factories, and farms; 3) Well-subordinated civil servants, trained in their function; 4) Well-subordinated clerks for industry; 5) Citizens who thought alike on most issues; 6) National uniformity in thought, word, and deed.
John Taylor Gatto
The Underground History of American Education