Showing posts with label purpose of education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label purpose of education. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Vouchers & the Death of Private Education

Recently I had the privilege of hearing one of my friends allude to his opinion that school vouchers are a good thing to have. Allow me to thoroughly debunk this idea by describing how school vouchers will efficiently annihilate private (and Christian) schools.

For those of you who are shaky on what vouchers are, here’s a summary. The program centers around the idea that one has a right to the best education possible. It also assumes (rightly) that some schools are failing to provide adequate, let alone satisfactory, academic program. Thus, parents of students in these schools blame the schools for their child’s failure and insist that their child be able to attend “better” schools. Hence, the school voucher program. Given that every person must attend school up to a certain age by law (varies by state), the voucher program allows parents to take their money that would be used to pay for their failing school and use it to pay for their schooling elsewhere, public or private.

Before I get to vouchers, I want to challenge the idea that we have a “right” to the best education possible, or even a state-administered education at all. The constitution neglects to mention education. Thus, the responsibility falls on the individual states to decide what to do with education. In essence, states can decide to have nothing to do with education or everything to do with education, but it is their choice and it was never meant to be a federal issue. The point is that we are not guaranteed an education, or even a good education, by the constitution.

Federal involvement in schools, including legislature, court decisions, and the appointment of the Department of Education as a cabinet level position, has yet to reap any benefits. Schools have never rebounded to the level they were at in 1963 as demonstrated by SAT math and verbal scpuores (even after the test was renormed in 1995 to make scores higher). Students leaving our schools today also leave with less knowledge of our country and the values for which it stood. To make matters worse, instead of repealing the unsuccessful attempts the government as made at correcting American education, they reform, either with money, fancy laws that seem noble (No Child Left Behind), or with politicky phrases that lie and try to tell us that we are among the most (and best) educated people in the world. The point of all of this is to show that vouchers were just the next bad federal reform in line.

School vouchers will mark the end of private education (and more importantly, of Christian private education). It is verifiable by any recent study that private schools are better than public schools. While some may debate me on this issue, let it rest to say that students in private schools, at the very least, perform better on the SAT and ACT.[1] When vouchers become a national commodity, parents will opt their children out of “failing” public schools and into superior private schools. Private schools, having an influx of students, will have to, as the cliché puts it, expand or die. Expansion will come in the form of increased teaching staff and administrators, and most importantly, more facilities. To afford these facilities (outside a generous outside donation), private schools will need to obtain loans. As time goes on, more public schools will be abandoned for the promised land of private schools. Private schools will experience a short period of prosperity due to the increased number of schools and students attending them.

Here’s the lynchpin point: Eventually, enough people in power will not welcome the idea of allowing federal/state funds (which is what vouchers are) going into religiously affiliated schools because of its “obvious” breach of church and state.[2] So what will happen? In order to not have federal money going into private, religious institutions, legislators will force schools either to become secular (that is, no longer religiously affiliated) or not accept voucher money. No matter what happens, the schools lose. Either the schools denounce that in which they believe or they die since they would be unable to repay the loans they took out to expand (apart from generous donations).

Here are some counterarguments I know are floating out there:

1. When private, religious schools can no longer accept federal money while remaining true to their faith, they can simply raise the cost of tuition. This is exactly what the people behind vouchers want to happen. Vouchers, proclaiming the right to the best education, also proclaims that this best education also ought to be as cheap as possible. The rising cost of tuition will cause parents to move their children either back to public schools or to another, cheaper, private, voucher-accepting, secular school.

2. Another counterargument will claim that religious private schools can simply drop their religious affiliation but maintain their mode of operations, including expression of faith. The one who argues this point has too much faith in government. Trust me, when federal money pours into recently unaffiliated private schools, the government will earmark it in such a way that no expression of faith on school grounds will be permissible.

Even if these two counterarguments hold true, they still do not get at the overall purpose of vouchers: to make private schools public. It’s taking the better education of the few and giving it away to the many. And we obviously cannot and should not allow this to happen because public education in America has failed us.

Don’t believe me? Our schools today are full of disinterested students from disinterested and often broken families who have lost all sense of purpose in education (and life!) outside the future material wealth they will acquire as a result of them enduring thirteen years of school. Society demands young people of character in its workplaces but fails to acknowledge what exactly good character is. Schools promote a postmodern view of moral relativity, relying on programs such as Values Clarification, which shamelessly admits that there is no Right and that any student’s guess at Right is just as good as the teacher’s. Addicted to the dancing colors of the television and the Internet, students expect to be entertained and amused instead of being instructed in the great subjects of the past. This fact alone has led to an entire shift in educational philosophy from teacher-centered learning to student-discovery “learning.” Not only do students today “discover” their own morality, they also “discover” their own education. Since students are in charge of their own learning, they decide what they will allow themselves to learn based on how it will best serve them in the future, not how much it will better them as American citizens. So the student who wants to learn about the business world will tune out in Western Civilization class and the scientist-to-be will only study enough Shakespeare and Bunyan to perform adequately on the test.

I would almost be so bold as to suggest that all of the ailments of American education can be summarized in one word: Progress. Death to the past and present! We have learned all we need to learn from the past; now is the time to move forward! History isn’t applicable anymore. Only a handful of people ever need to know Mathematics, not me. What does someone writing a book hundreds of years ago have to say to me today; I’ll gather all I need to know from the TV and movies. The morality of my grandfather is not for me; I will create my own! Look at the previous paragraph and try to prove that progress is not tied to each and every of the listed failures of American compulsory schooling.

But that was all just a parenthesis to my main thesis, and that is this: If private schools become public, we will have lost all hope for American education. As just described, public schools have failed us. Why would we want to bring private schools, which are clearly superior, down to the level of public schools, which are failing and deteriorating? This is truly the establishment of equality in its cruelest form: if public schools cannot be made better, then the next best thing is to make private schools worse. And when private schools become increasingly public, its students will inevitably achieve (and become) like public school students.

Though not having done too much research on the matter, I would be inclined to suggest that we ought not to make all private schools public, but make all public schools private. Don’t charge a property tax and keep the government out of education. This means that the government will have to do a lot of repealing, but frankly, it would be quite easy.

There is much more to say on this matter, and I admittedly am not very organized in my argument, but I hope that this at least has made the reader think about the perils of school vouchers. I wish readers will comment on this matter, not so much on my proper bashing of public schools, but rather on the argument of vouchers killing private religious institutions in the long run.

As a postscript, I anticipate someone will point out that I (or they) graduated from public school and do not exhibit all the ill effects of public schools. True; not everyone leaves public school as a monster (massive use of hyperbole). I submit that the best way to combat the ugliness of public schools is with involved parents. In fact, parents ought to be more influential in their child’s education than the schools themselves…but that is another topic.


[1] Notice the phrase “at the very least.” Better performance on standardized tests is about the last thing I would care about in a school because those tests have a very utilitarian purpose. I use this argument simply because it is the easiest to prove and will enable me to proceed with my argument without the reader arguing that private schools are not necessarily superior to public schools.

[2] It is not a breach of Church and State. The Founding Fathers did not include this phrase in the constitution and allowing money to go into religiously affiliated schools does not constitute a breach of the federal “establishment of religion” clause. Those who think schools, public or private, can have nothing to do with religion should reexamine the constitution before making such a ridiculous claim.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

It has been a while since I've looked at a news website, so I've decided tonight to take a gander at my personal interest: education.

Story One:

Harvard approves biggest curriculum change in 30 years

Western civilization took another hit last week when Ivy League member Harvard University, one of the leading institutions of higher learning in America, overhauled its curriculum to place a higher emphasis on discussing "societies of the world" and the sciences (and the moral implications of advances in science). This is merely a continuation of the progressive philosophy of American education that is already so prevalent in our failing public schools. Call it what you will, but the moves by Harvard University are moves toward Multiculturalism and Scientism in higher education.

Multiculturalism centers around the idea that Western Civilization has failed as a model for society and so modern societies should seek values and ideas from other cultures to fill this void left by the West. As Wikipedia puts it, "Multiculturalism is the idea that modern societies should embrace and include distinct cultural groups with equal social status." The only true difference in these definitions is my part about the failure of the West, which is an assumption of Multiculturalist thought.

The idea of considering ideas from other cultures doesn't sound too bad on the surface, but its implications on American education are huge. The trend of American education today says that we should teach our students to be, above all things, tolerant. It teaches students about other cultures under the presupposition that all cultures are equal. So the West is as good as the East, African culture is as valuable to us as Irish cultures, and the Jewish faith has accomplished exactly as much as Buddhism. The world is nothing more than a smorgasbord of equal cultures and all the modern student must do is have his fair share of each to be "educated."

This is obviously wrong. All cultures are not alike, nor are all cultures equal. The religion of China and the religion of the West are not the same nor comparable. The Irish have not accomplished as much in their history as the English or the Greeks. We live in a world of unique, individual cultures just as we live in a world of unique, individual people. If teachers are to teach children to be American citizens, they must become, above all things, experts in American history, and the history of America is not found in Africa or Latin America or the East, but in the West.

The effects of Multiculturalism already are apparent today as American students today leave schools with less knowledge of their country than ever before. However, what's most dangerous is that they leave school skeptical of their own heritage. Sure, every history has its dark moments, just as all people have fallen short of the glory of God, but that does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater; despite our efforts to eliminate our heritage, America is a product of the West.

I will leave Scientism for another day, but briefly, I will lay out the following argument. When we begin to emphasize the sciences in school, it tends to endorse the philosophy of materialism - that all we are is that which we can observe. While scientific observation is a way to better understand God's created order, it has its limits, especially in the realm of faith, ethics and morality. Science does not leave room for morality or religion. There is no quantitative measure for God or morality. If educators teach education outside its Christian context, science becomes an excuse to endorse a purely materialistic way of life. And I don't want to carry out this argument now, but this endorsement of materialism makes education's purpose purely utilitarian; that is, a materialist view of education makes students believe that the only purpose of education is to help them in getting more material wealth in the future instead of education being the means by which students become well-rounded people capable of being active citizens in their respective communities.

Stories Two and Three:

Louisiana school district sued over Bibles in school

Advocacy groups sue to halt Bible classes in Texas schools

There's nothing more refreshing than reading yet another story about the ACLU defending American "Freedom" from the poisons of Christianity. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued an eastern Louisiana school district for distributing Bibles on school property. As the story goes, students were instructed to pick up copies of the New Testament near the school's office. The fifth-grade student (whose parents filed the suit at the bidding of the ACLU) soon found herself in line with her class waiting to receive their Bibles from two men. Said the ACLU representative Joe Cook, "With her classmates and teachers looking on, Jane accepted the Bible out of a feeling of coercion and fear that she would be criticized, ridiculed and ostracized." This is the fifth time in thirteen years that the school district has been sued over religious issues.

In regards to this story, it's about time we get those nice gentlemen handing out Bibles out of our schools so we can concentrate our attention more fully on the secular humanist philosophies we cling to so dearly. I love this story. It's an example of a public school district (a parish school district at that) sticking it to the man by ignoring laws in order to teach the truth as they see it. And this isn't even the first time they've done it!

The only reason the ACLU cares is because the school took time that would normally be spent proclaiming its agnostic views in favor of Christianity. This is not an issue of freedom or about adherence to the constitution, it's an issue of a school not fitting into the standardized mold the government has put in place.

Did you read the quote from Mr. Cook?! Poor Jane was "coerced" into accepting a Bible from two men with her teachers and peers looking at her every move. You could make up a similar story about a Christian child in public schools being forced not only to accept but to read a Biology textbook proclaiming evolution as truth! But you will never hear of the ACLU fighting against the Scientism and Secular Humanism so prevalent in schools because its exactly what they want.

Jane may have accepted the Bible because the rest of her peers did, but no one made her read it. Not an ounce of Biblical teaching was disseminated during school hours and Jane still has her religious freedom. What this Louisiana school district does realize though, and unfortunately more school districts do not, is that it's what inside those Bibles that offer freedoms reaching above and beyond any freedoms man himself could ever legislate.

And now the third story. This one, another ACLU gem, is about two advocacy groups who have sued a Texas school district for offering a Bible course as an elective. The ACLU and the American Way Foundation (what euphemistic names!) have hailed the Bible course as "basically a Sunday School class within the walls of a public school."

This is a sticky subject. It is first necessary to recognize that the Bible class is an elective. Students attending the school are not required to take the class and can opt to have nothing to do with it. For that reason alone, this law suit will fail.

The real issue to me is if the Bible ought to be something taught in public schools or in private schools without Christian affiliations. I find it hard to make a judgment for all schools; that is, I would probably leave it in the hands of the parents, teachers, and school board members of each individual district and school to determine the best course of action.

Obviously, I would love Christian morality and Biblical teaching encouraged in a school setting. The Founding Fathers of our nation even thought that this was the best course of action in our schools. But the teaching would have to have a rherotical approach, meaning that the teacher would have to be laying out the thesis that Christianity or the Bible is indeed true. Many secular universities today offer courses on Christianity and the Bible, but the professors are adamate atheists or agnostics. They teach religion and Bible courses using a dialectic approach, laying out every religion as equal, every Biblical teaching as something Christians believe. Their approach is "here are the facts, but that's all you need to know so that you can interact with those people if the moment arises." Does this remind you of Multiculturalism? If schools are to teach the Bible, they must start with the presupposition that the Bible is true. If teachers desire to instill Christian morals in their students, they themselves must believe Christian morality is true and necessary.

Thanks for muscling through this series of essays. Please comment and raise counterarguments and I will answer on this forum.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Forced Education Damages School and Students

Preventing students from dropping out of school may not be such a worthwhile goal. While the goal of keeping students in school is certainly a worthwhile aim, the method by which experts and legislators have attempted to fix the dropout situation is a flawed proposition. To combat the nation’s “Silent Epidemic,”[1] experts are trying to convince state legislators to pass laws that will raise the minimum age for mandatory schooling, forcing students to remain in school until they are 18 years old. It is a dangerous proposal, one that could undermine school and student alike.

To understand why forced schooling will not work, one must fully understand why students are leaving. According to a recent study by research firm Civic Enterprises, as many students drop out for not being challenged enough as those who quit because of lack of academic dedication.[2] In addition, researchers found that dropouts felt “too much freedom” in their school experience, a key factor according to 38% of dropouts surveyed.[3] High school students on the brink of dropping out are not always the teen moms, drug dealers, or neglected children society makes them out to be. They are sometimes the average or above-average students who have learned that school is purely about future monetary success.

Something students do believe is that more education will help them earn more money in the future. The statistics are clear: dropouts earn less than graduates.[4] Experts such as those at Civic Enterprises boast that one solution to the multi-faceted problem is to raise the minimum age for mandatory school attendance from 16 in most states to 17 or 18. Two additional years of mandatory schooling, according to experts, would allow more time for teachers to reach out to struggling students, but moreover, would help the students obtain the all-important diploma that will suit them better financially in the future.

This is a faulty conclusion. Forcing students to remain in school against their will en route to securing a diploma merely for the sake of the title cheapens school. If state legislators passed minimum age laws to ensure that every child is required to graduate, the value of a high school diploma will suffer. If schools force-feed students diplomas, they becomes valueless. School becomes a mere factory where students clock-in upon entrance, do their work, and then clock-out upon dismissal for thirteen years until they receive a piece of paper qualifying them as an “educated” person, when in reality, they have learned nothing more than to hate learning.

The way to prevent students from dropping out of school is not legislative, but philosophical. Teachers must teach students early, often, and throughout their school careers the importance of education in regards to the development of the person, which includes aspects of life that are more than economic such as character. What the student needs is a purpose for education, not laws or authorities telling him that he must become educated because that is what everybody else does. If done under the philosophy of education centered on the development of the person, it will make him a greater, more valuable member of society able to adapt and interact effectively with all aspects of life. The purpose of education is not to graduate, but to educate. Substituting false achievement in the form of spoon-fed diplomas does not develop the student in the least.

A majority of teachers in schools today teach students that education is a means of gaining material things out of life. However, if the student realizes that he can gain something greater without the assistance of school, it will become useless to him. Students must see a purpose in school.

There is yet hope for those who think of dropping out, or already have; a sense of purpose installed in the correct area in their life will infuse the student to learn. Schools and communities must reach out and help those students in need of attention. Teachers must challenge the gifted – and all others even more – so that they might see the value of education as a betterment of the person, not merely the improvement of their résumé.

Man cannot legislate achievement. Forcing kids to attend school will fix the dropout problem, but it will not ensure that students are getting a purposeful education.



[1] Civic Enterprises, “The Silent Epidemic”, http://www.civicenterprises.net, 26 March 2006

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.