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. I’ll expose their disingenuousness, double standards, evasions, and confusions. 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. I’m taking them in turn. Here is another in the series.
Mathew Reynolds wrote:
“Publicly financed education is the standard of all nations.”
Yes, and I'm not challenging the public financing element in U.S. education. I am challenging the monopolistic administration and control of the schools by the government and its proxies, like the teachers union. District financing is framed as “per pupil” cost. If the per-pupil tax allotment follows the student, and all schooling, including private, would still have publicly financed education. Charter schools are parent chosen, yet are publicly funded. That is a start. To be fair and impartial—that is, equitable—would be open to the parents’ choices. Publicly financed education, we must never forget, is taxpayer funded education, and all parents are taxpayers.
Public—that is, tax-funded—funding is not morally ideal, because it involves forced redistribution of wealth. But it would be a huge practical and moral improvement over the monopolistic governmental system we have now.
“The overuse of hyperbole, such as "vicious, slanderous . . .”
If parents challenging school books, curricula, and “information” based on educational value and/or age appropriateness at school board meetings labeled “book banners,” “censors,” “bigots,” or even terrorists for their concern is not “overuse of hyperbole,” then what is? And then you have the nerve to call me out for words like vicious and slanderous? In my usage, these terms factually fit.
There is an elected civilian oversight of every school district, known as a school board. These "parental rights" policies are intended to allow bigots and blowhards to bypass elected officials.
And what happens when those bigots and blowhards win control of the school board? That’s precisely the problem. Any form of socialism, including democratic socialism, is bound to create conflict, because in any such system—and public schooling is just such a system—the most politically powerful faction that gains control gets to impose its agenda on everyone even if they don’t consent. “To bypass elected officials” is precisely what a free republic is all about. Freedom is not defined by the right to vote. It is not the “right” to seek permission from some dictatorial board, and then wait and hope for months or years to get what you want. Freedom is fundamentally the right to act on one’s own judgment—within the context of objective rule of law—regardless of the outcome of any election or anyone else’s vote. This most definitely includes choosing one’s child’s educational course, regardless of any election or elected board. I stand with the parents’ right to bypass the elected school board, pull their child and their child’s education tax allotment out of that school, and choose what they judge to be a better educational opportunity.
Educational freedom is the civil rights movement of our time. Redirecting public funding to the direct funding of the child is a huge civil rights reform.
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