To Destroy Public Education, part 1: Die Monster Die

To Destroy Public Education, part 1: Die Monster Die
by Dave Munger

Public education is one of those phrases that is now almost exclusively used in combination with the word "reform". Unfortunately, by the time something is so screwed up that the sheep realize that reform is necessary, it's too late, and the only satisfactory remedy is to destroy the thing and start over (or leave it behind and create an alternative, like the Puritans who originally set out to reform the Church of England, then gave. All new hope comes from despair, the death of old hope). Since systems tend to perpetuate themselves (actually most of them don't, but the successful ones are the ones that do, and that's what we're left to deal with), there is much more resistance to this than would seem to be warranted by the possible negative consequences of replacing the system, considering the supposed purposes of the system and whether it has ever filled these purposes better than an entirely different system (or no system at all) would. Even such a no-brainer as abolishing the Department of Education is considered too controversial for a politician to even mention, even though no one has ever gone so far as to come up with a reason for it to exist in the first place (Maybe there was something, I think it had to do with Sputnik...).

Next to the table I type on is a pile of books, topped with one by Major General John Stanford (foreword by Albert Gore),
subtitled "We CAN Give Our Children Excellent Public Education" (OUR children? Never mind). It is not made clear therein exactly why it is so important that education be public as well as excellent. One of the noteworthy premises of the book is that public schools ought to be run as if they were private enterprises. I've never been entirely clear about the meaning of the phrase "begging the question", but if that isn't it then it isn't a very useful expression.

The burden of proof is placed upon those who would eliminate public education, although it belongs on those who defend it, since what they defend is expensive, and their position concerning it is affirmative (this is why someone on trial is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor is saying that he DID do something. That he DID NOT is a negative statement, so it does not have to be proven.) When one tries to figure out why some feel public education is the only possible answer, one is almost forced to guess.

The most obvious rationale is that since universal education is so necessary, we must make it "free" so that even very poor people will at least be taught to read. Public education is allegedly free, being paid for exclusively by those with no need for it. These people are compelled to do so by force. Calling this "free" is a bit of a stretch, although concerns that an alternative education system would leave even more of the least wealthy Americans illiterate must be addressed. Vouchers, of course, are a way of having the government pay for education without monopolizing it.

When I mention to friends within the public education establishment that the system ought to be abolished, one other objection is raised that most of my readers will consider beneath consideration. It is that public education imposes necessary uniformity on schools. Apparently, without federal control (which these people seem to assume now, no one remembers locally controlled public schools), schools will teach students random information without regard to it's pertinence, and people educated at different schools will be unable to relate to one another as members of the same culture. This argument is easily dealt with by pointing out a few things. Private schools exist now, and do not produce aliens. The Internet, and screwdrivers for that matter, demonstrate that when compatibility between the products of different enterprises is needed, private businesses will coordinate on their own. As a matter of fact, the places where you can't plug in a normal appliance are the ones in which government committees decide what power outlets should be shaped like. The current system is more inconsistent that anything private is likely to be.

Two different types of reform are proposed regarding public education: rotating reform and actual reform. Rotating reform is a sophisticated technique that public schools have been utilizing for most of their history to maintain the status-quo by a kind of homeostasis, something like a thermostat. Rotating reforms are minor ones that can later be reversed. The reversal is the next reform. This can go on forever, and each swing of the pendulum is given a new name. For instance, less money is put into music education so that more can go to academics to shut up the sane people who consider it a higher priority. Then the tie-dyed coots kick up a fuss and the money is redistributed again. Standards are lowered, letting students advance more easily, until this policy becomes controversial, then standards are abruptly raised, which is unfair and severe, and thus must be reversed. These reforms might be called "reasonable prioritization", "holistic framulization", or "logistical colostomy", but never the same thing twice.

The best way to tell the difference between rotating and actual reform is that anything other than rotating reform will be opposed by the NEA on the grounds that it will destroy (their word) public education. This raises the question of why it should not be destroyed, besides the fact that the word "destroy" has a negative connotation in a culture hopelessly feminized by the current education system (creating and preserving are widely considered good things in themselves, without regard to what cancers are created or preserved). In fact this makes the case that it can not be effectively reformed without destroying it; that it must be destroyed.

Another unreasonable rhetorical burden that is placed on those who call for the abolition of the public education system is the demand that we provide a replacement for it, and argue for the adoption of the replacement. To destroy something bad is a good thing in itself though. If someone figured out a way to eliminate the Mafia, they would not be obligated to answer the question of who would then run Sicily. Nevertheless, in my next column I will describe a plan to replace the current system. It will provide a gradual transition from a centralized socialist arrangement, to a pluralistic capitalist method. It will provide education free of charge.

In the meantime, our best move is to enact every reform that anyone considers destructive, in the hopes that some of them actually might succeed.