The problem with public education

Much has been said about the problem with charter schools. They aren't effective enough as a rule. They are inconsistent in the way they handle finances. Leaders don't always know what they are doing.

In some schools those things are true. In some schools all of those things are true.

However, since nothing is perfect, you have to contrast what exists with the alternative. In an interesting blog from about a year ago by Jeff Miller, Miller makes that point that state schools have a problem. Miller says that he came from an outstanding school district, but:

The problem with public education is that it does brainwash, and that it does this less by curriculum and lecture, and more by its mere existence, and the subtle bias that goes with it.

Most of us spend the bulk of our formative years in a public institution. We are told that the institution is essential for our development and that our attendance is compulsory. It becomes our social hub. We play sports there; we join clubs there. We develop our friendships, and later, our crushes there. The school competes with our family in the catalog of memories; for some, it probably wins.

Miller adds, "The State can teach math and science, I suppose; maybe English. It can teach gym, home economics, and shop. It can teach a number of things, sometimes competently, sometimes very well. But the State cannot teach about the State with the detachment necessary to do it right."

This is very interesting to me for a number of reasons. First, I don't like the term brainwash that he uses because that can be used against anyone who teaches. A parent cannot teach a child with detachment either.

However, the interesting point is what gives the state the right to teach about behavior, right and wrong. Some have accused charter schools founded by religious people of inculcating religious values as if there is some accepted group of non-religious values that ought to be taught or as if religious values necessarily contradict non-religious values.

Charter schools, by definition, have to teach values. as does any organization. Even if it doesn't teach values, its leaders and teachers model values. Because charter schools are state entities, they cannot (or at least ought not) teach specifically religious or theological truths as truths. Most of us understand that. However, coming up with the character education necessary to educate human beings (not automatons) is a challenge. It will involve disagreement.

Miller's point, I think, is that when you have the state determining those values, it is biased and will tend to promote values that perpetuate the state. It's clear the both the current president and our last president influenced the values taught to children (and to adults). That is the nature of many passionate politicians. The good ones are motivated by right and wrong. It may not appear that way some time, but their goal is to pass on their values to the rest of us. That's why we have debates about liberty both social and economic. That's why we have debates about whether or not government intervention in the market is a good thing.

If the state regulates the values taught in school, it's possible (likely?) that those values are merely what the state wants people to believe. So, you don't want socialism, you make sure that socialism is not acceptable. Oh, you can talk about it. You don't want libertarianism, you make sure that it's not acceptable. You can do that in many ways. Teachers can question a child incessantly or even make snide remarks or embarrass kids in class.

Years ago in The Naked Public Square Richard John Neuhaus made a similar point. I'm not sure why I remember it now, but he talked about how democracy is always a conversation within democracy. Therefore, there is never a real option for change. It's fine to even criticize democracy, but don't ever think about actually changing it. That would be revolution.

So, why am I rambling about this in a blog about charter schools (more importantly, why are you still reading this)? It's because charter schools give one level of separation away from the traditional state schools that Miller describes. In a charter school, it's fair to question things like democracy. While some charter schools have values that are "conservative," I know many whose values are "liberal"--more liberal than the average democrat would be willing to stomach. I know of a charter school in New York whose leader is an anarchist.

Miller's point is that state schools can't teach values from an objective standpoint. My point is that I don't believe anyone can. We are all conditioned by our own beliefs. Some would say, "That's the point. That's why kids have to be exposed to diverse populations." The problem is that itself is a value judgment.