Liberty-Based Education

Reference is made to James Ronald Kennedy's book, Reclaiming Liberty, pp. 147-161.

The Declaration of Independence states, "These truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is a basic American core value that every citizen has a God-given inalienable right to guide and direct his/her own life as he/she sees fit, free of government interference, so long as he/she does not inflict physical injury upon the persons or properties of other people, and does not financially pick other people's pockets or bank accounts. Implicit in free choice is the understanding that individuals must take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and not shift blame or responsibility to other people.

Compulsory government public education violates this basic American core principle, especially in that education establishment officials prescribe certain academic courses as "necessary" for children grades 1-12 to take, ostensibly "for their own good". In so doing, education establishment officials also violate the students' U.S. Constitution First Amendment freedom of assembly/association, by making students of incongruent personalities and social values to associate with one another, also ostensibly "for their own good". Such arrogance presumes parents to be too lacking in academic and intellectual acumen, i.e. stupid, to decide for themselves the education of their own children. Involuntary servitude in violation of the U.S. Constitution 13th Amendment? Maybe. But suffice it to say at least that the proposition that children are a gift from God to their parents is abrogated by the public school education establishment. This scenario is not consistent with American values, it is more like Nazi Germany, in the which Adolf Hitler and the Nazis told adults, "We do not care what you think, because we have your children."

Public government schools eventually do benefit society-at-large, not only those having children who make use of them. Nevertheless, what of the future of individual students? There is a valid debate between the desirability of a "well-rounded education", versus that of high-powered specialization in one discipline. Nevertheless, the decision concerning this debate should be made by children's parents, not by any government education officials. Parents, not government education bureaucrats, are ultimately responsible for the education of their own children. In some cases, parents can and do pass on to their children all the necessary skills they(the children) will need, to economically survive and prosper in the future. Other parents may pass on to their children but some useful skills, and may wish to use public schools as a complementary tool, to guarantee their children's future financial success and survival. But this decision must be made exclusively by parents. In cases where students wish to seize academic initiative by studying through private resources topics similar to those taught in public schools, public schools must accept as academic credit towards graduation the private study of the student, pending the successful passing by the student of an exam in the academic subject designed and administered by the public school. Many universities and colleges in America already do this. Public schools should do likewise. The requirement for graduation from high school should be determined only by numbers of academic credit-hours taken, and not by completion of specific academic subject courses "for students' own good".

"The Lord loves a cheerful giver", states the Bible, in II Corinthians 9:7. So it must be with education: we want children in class-rooms who want to be there and are eager to learn, and not those who view education as a dreadful drudgery of abject abomination. Indeed, the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue studying independently his/her academic subject, long after they have left his/her classroom. Persuasion, not coercion, will get this job done. Any idea requiring coercion for its realization is most likely a strongly undesirable one anyway.

"No child left behind" also sounds like no child can get ahead. It is a socialist concept mandating that all children march lock-step together academically, because as soon as some get ahead, others by definition will be left comparatively behind. Is it not true, that the greatest minds have been those of "up-stream swimmers" who went against the crowd? Where would America be today, had Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Thomas Alva Edison been placed in a socialist educational environment in the which they were forbidden to "get ahead" of the common masses?

Public education must not be totally abolished, but perhaps placed into partnership with private education, in guaranteeing to each individual student his/her right to decide and direct his/her own future. Especially in times of severe budget cuts and restrictions to public schools, partnership with private supplementary education is key to successful achievement of this goal. In any event, it is time for professional educators themselves to go back to school, and learn that ours is to be a government by the people, and not a people by the government.

-Lawrence K. Marsh