In my comment on Jamelle Bouie’s New York Times op-ed What the Republican Push for ‘Parents’ Rights’ Is Really About, I got numerous replies, all of them critical. In my comment, I advocated for universal school finance choice, based on the idea that education tax dollars should follow the child, rather than go directly to the district school of the child’s residence.
Well, the reactionary defenders of the monopolistic status quo came out in force. This is great, because they gave me the chance to address many of the opposition arguments. I’ll address these critics in turn in a series of posts. To avoid using the “[sic]” notation for every erroneous or misspelled word or phrase, Let me simply state that respondents’ comments are reposted exactly as written. In some instances, the rebuttal begins with an excerpt from my comment.
You can read my entire comment here, and the article here. None of my replies were posted because the comments section was closed. Let me emphasize that I am a proponent of the complete separation of education and state
Earthling wrote:
Parents directing the course of education? What about your opinion differ from another parent’s? What if one parent wants to ban a book but another parent wants a book to be mandatory reading? Let the teachers decide, they are the professionals. If the parents don’t like it, then they have the freedom to take their kids out and go to a religious or private school.
The teacher is an expert, worthy of consulting, assuming they’re any good. But she’s not a dictator. Educational freedom and choice is about more than a particular book. It’s about overall curricula, philosophy, and methods. Being a professional doesn’t make you right or good. Parents are perfectly capable of consulting experts to determine the course of their child’s education, and choosing accordingly, just as they do regarding a child’s nutritional needs, or in choosing a doctor, auto mechanic, or bathroom remodeler. Every field has experts. Your argument implies that parents are not qualified to make any decisions about any aspect of their child’s upbringing, and that only the state’s designated experts should dictate. This is the school world of the Soviet Union, or of Anthem.
The “freedom” you speak of is disingenuousness in the extreme. Freedom means the right to “vote” with your feet AND your money. When the parent chooses an alternate school, and the government-assigned school keeps your child’s allotted funding, the parent has to pay twice, which few families can afford. That’s a hollow “right.” It is not justice. If a private business attempted such a scheme, it would be prosecuted for fraud and theft. Give me one reason why the child’s education tax dollars shouldn’t be at the disposal of the child’s actual education, rather than the district.
Related Reading:
Education Funding: Let Taxpayers Direct Their Own Education Dollars
Educational Freedom, Not Just Education, ‘Has to Be the Top Priority for Candidates'
DeVos Could Advance the ‘Civil Right’ of School Choice Across America
A Newark, NJ Mother Demonstrates the Educational Power of Parental School Choice
Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits?
Charter Schools – Good, but Not the Long-Term Answer
Newark's Successful Charter Schools Under Attack—for Being Successful
Contra Congressman Donald M. Payne, a ‘For-Profit Model’ is Just What Education Needs
Pacific Legal Foundation on Education: We Need Choice, not More Money
The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment