There's a struggle in California between legislators and homeschooling parents that came to a head last week. The linked article, by Vin Suprynowicz, is an alarming critique of government schools and their stated (and sometimes unstated) purpose.
Suprynowicz mentions that California courts have ruled that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children. Parents who desire to school their children at home must first pass a state-sanctioned accreditation program before being allowed to teach. The reason? Not because parents are doing a lousy job of educating their children. Statistics show that homeschooled children score between the 30th and 37th percentile higher than children educated in government-funded schools. The real reason? Check out the scary quote, from a judge who recently ruled on the case:
Judge Croskey obligingly explained: "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."Wow--this is incredible! Parents who do not comply with this ruling can actually be prosecuted for educating their own children. What's more, despite higher test scores, parents are now forced to adhere to a government program that both violates individual rights dumbs down their children. But I'm sure this ruling was passed with the best of intentions...
I spent my formative years before a government-funded blackboard and I turned out average. I'm not trying to play the victim card when I say that my education could have been better in many respects, certainly I am the one who ultimately took the tests. But to deny the choice and, ultimately, the exposure of children to a highly successful program such as homeschooling because it doesn't meet government criteria seems downright absurd to me.
I don't have children, but a good friend of mine has a young son who is near the age where he and his wife will have to choose the right schooling for their child. They live in California, and both parents are some of the smartest people I know. I sincerely hope they leave California and its shameless loyalty-to-the-state mentality, and fast.
2 comments:
Thank you for welcoming to your blog. I hope that I can become a contributing author as soon as I prove my worth in the fight for a return to "liberal" America: an America of truly liberal economics and the Jeffersonian ideal of minimal government.
As I cannot yet contribute as an author, my comment will be somewhat unrelated to the piece on government schools (although I unashamedly take credit for providing the impetus for the topic!) At any rate, read this story.
In a conversation at my place of employment, the recent demise and trouble of some investment banks led to a coworker's diatribe lamenting the the high compensation the CEOs of these banks are receiving, and expressing sorrow for the "poor" employees that were inevitably going to get the shaft. The implication here, of course, is that the CEO is screwing over his employees while he takes the proverbial golden parachute when times get tough. He's fine, the poor investment banker employees (and shareholders) are left holding the bag. When confronted about his statement, my coworker said that it's not illegal for a bank to tank and the CEO to still receive a large compensation package, it was just unethical.
I couldn't help but wonder: what happened to our country? When did we become such a country of whiny, complaining welfare receipients looking for a hand out? What is ethical or unethical about a business making a bad decision and tanking? That's the way it WORKS! It's not that I necessarily disagree about certain CEOs being compensated well beyond their value, but the perspective is different. Do you look at it from the perspective that someone else is getting rich at your expense, or do you look at it from the Taylor Battencourt perspective: how do I feel about my CEO's compensation as a partial owner of the company's equity?
The last time I checked my common stock holdings, I did not see any government backed guarantees or FDIC insurance. I always thought it was my responsibility to research the companies I invested in to ensure their goals were aligned to my investment objectives. If I'm unhappy with the board's compensation decisions, I can exercise my proportional right to vote in new board members, or I can dump my stock. Furthermore, last time the Battencourt thought about it, most employees aren't forced to work somewhere in the U.S. by gunpoint. What ethical obligation does a business have beyond not falsifying their financial statements, not stealing property from other businesses or individuals, and not murdering people? Discuss. Battencourt out.
I think the more enlightened people who disagree with the Battencourt's perspective on a bank/business' ethical responsibility to its shareholders would reason that the insolvent investment bank WAS stealing your property by using your money to fund the CEO's golden parachute when the bank met its demise, but of course that isn't true. I'm no expert, but I'd be willing to guess there's a stipulation within the contract you signed to become a member of an investment bank that clearly states the cut that bank will take out of your capital before investing it. This happens everywhere, and when times are good we call it a commission; in bad times, we call it robbery.
I agree with your perspective. When you examine how you feel about your CEO's compensation as a partial owner of his or her bank, the argument that the bank has some "responsibility" to its shareholders falls apart. Banks are businesses, they should be allowed to fail (or succeed) based on their own merit.
The same argument applies to a situation near my residence in DC. The SW side of the city is notoriously run down, and people are now being forced to move as homes are being bought out and newer (read: nicer) condos and apartments are springing up around the new Nationals Stadium. Inevitably, people have started to complain about DC's policy of "moving out the poor people so the rich can enjoy their condos and baseball." While there's some truth to that argument, I have a counter-question: when did improvement become a bad thing?
The owners of those city homes/developments have every right to sell out to the highest bidder in order to improve the value of their land. Some of the poorer homeowners have maintained their residences, refusing to sell out and leave their property. That is their choice, and as far as I know no homeowner has left the area empty-handed.
Where I will draw the line is eminent domain. The government has no business owning land of any sort (that is the very definition of wasted capital) and certainly has no right to claim any new lands in order to build stadiums, roadways, canals, etc. Even if the owners of such lands are compensated, the fact that government pays those bills with taxpayer dollars further diminishes the relevance of the program, not to mention expands the government-owned, capital-wasting lands.
Post a Comment