Why does the State compel attendance at school? This "why?" question has three interpretations: 1) The historical "why?". What events coincided with the State's entry into the education business? 2) The welfare-economic "why?". What does society gain from a State role in the education industry? 3) The political science "why?". What do those politicians who support the State's presence in the education industry gain from their support. Today we consider the third version.
Two legislative sessions ago, the Democratic majority of the Hawaii State legislature passed Act 51 in response to Governor Lingle's (R) proposal to decentralize Hawaii's State-wide school district. Under Act 51, the system, already the most centralized in the US, assumed responsibility for payroll and pensions from the Department of Budget and Finance, and assumed responsibility for Repair and Maintenance from the Department of Accounting and General Services. Until the ascent of a Republican to the Governor's office, the majority (D) had indicated no sense of urgency to move these functions under the DOE wing. With Republican appointees exercising oversight of DAGS and B&F, suddenly the majority (D) recognized a need to move these functions into the union-dominated DOE bureaucracy.
For reasons the Agenda's author will discuss later, he does not expect to see honest coverage of the DOE budget from The Honolulu Advertiser, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, or The Honolulu Weekly.
Just go here.
5 comments:
It's a plausible argument for the State school monopoly that parents might prefer something beneficial to their children (or to themselves) but harmful to society. The bogeyman of the messianic Muslim school or something like it is the threat, in this argument. It's analogous to the argument for litter laws: we all surrender some freedom so that we may prevent some anti-social individuals from degrading our common environment.
Against the likelihood of anti-social religious or ideologically-oriented independent schools is the certainty that Colleges of Education teem with theorists of "Critical Pedagogy", who see their job as indoctrination into views hostile to the US legal system. Consider:...
http://www.uclaprofs.com/profs/mclaren.html
Also, the State monopoly system inflicts great harm on students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers.
The sociologist David Reisman (__The Lonely Crowd__) recommended that social studies not be taught pre-college, as he supposed that the temptation to indoctrinate would be too great. This may be the case, but policies which give to parents the power to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the State's K-12 education subsidy and disqualify institutions which preach anti-social violence would address the problem while preserving the advantages of a competitive market in instructional services.
If people are allowed to drive their own cars, there will be accidents. This is an argument for State-operatd transit systems or for enforcement of speed limits and red lights. Drive where you wish, but not as fast as you wish, and you don't get to hurt people. Socialists like fixed-rail systems. Free marketeers prefer cars, mororcycles, and bicycles.
Typo.
Seems to me you accept the Jihad High argument but do not estimate the downside as significant. It's an empirical question. As regulation becomes increasingly intrusive, the difference between a regulated industry and a State-operated industry vanishes. I accept the Jihad High arguiment, as well as the more likely Fagin High argument, that children will learn to be parasites (consider how many people aspire to positions as $400/hr. College of Education faculty). The reason I consider the downside risks an insufficient arguiment is, as I said, that minimal regulation (teach Math and Reading, don't teach hatred) reduces them, and the current system aggravates them. But I do see the risk.
Why School? The "Jihad High" argument for a State-monopoly system.
We appear to agree but take the same words to mean different things.
Allen wrote:...
"Does that mean there won't be any of them? No, there'll be some. Here and there you'll find a concentrated enough population of some particular mindset to support such a school. But they'll be in day-to-day competition with schools that don't state that the purity of the white race is their central theme. And ultimately, they'll be self-defeating."
...and...
"So, I don't see the Jihad High scenario as credible, short-term or long."
That's fairly close to my position as well. So I would say: "Jihad High is a consideration but it's not decisive." It's more persuasive to grant the opposition some of their argument, and to show that their (purported) concern can be addresssed within the policy you recommend, than to deny that there is any argument on their side, seems to me. It only took 19 guys to kill 3000 on 2001-09-11. That's a pretty small graduating class. The rebuttal is that Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and John Walker Lyndh attended government ("public") schools and that juvenile hospitalizations and juvenile violent crime arrests --fall-- when school is not in session.
"juvenile violent crime arrests --fall-- when school is not in session. "
Such may be the case in Hawai'i, Malcolm, but it is not true across the entire United States. Look at Boston, for example, where violent crime, especially murder, skyrockets during the summer.
(Why are we using an agrian school calendar in a post-industrial country?)
Post a Comment