Print

---

Tom,

 

The purpose of universal education is that it allows all children, regardless of their parents' economic status, to have access to the same education system. Even if they build and ran their own school, then they would still be entitled to collect the set fee per pupil -- if parents can afford to provide additional educational opportunities for their children then there is nothing wrong with that, whether to build additional sports facilities, or whatever, but they would still have to contribute their share to the collective pool.

It is the same with police and military. Just because some local community can afford to hire private security or organise its own militia does not immediately give them a right to opt out of contributing to federal police or national defence.

 

And, yes, different children will learn different skills to different levels of compentency, but what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that children should not be given opportunities to have a good education because not all children will be able to seize those opportunities? I hope that you not saying that it is pointless to teach poor kids because they are likely to waste their education!

 

It is essential for the health of a democracy that its citizens are well educated. Most social ills could be addressed very easily by improving the societal level of education and, in my view, that should be left to parents, teachers, and children to do for themselves. The only legitimate role of the State is to help all children afford a good education.

 

In a democracy, children should have general constitutional rights that trump particular parental decisions regarding upbringing. Parents must respect the constitutional rights of their children. One of those rights would involve the right to an education.  As a parent, providing you respect your child's right to an education, the content and standards of that education should be the local decision between yourself, your partner (should you have one), the school, and, eventually, your child.

 

Also, any education in a democratic society should allow people to educate their children at home. Personally, I do not like the idea because I think that socialising with other kids is an important part of education, but what I think is neither here nor there. If people wanted to teach their kids at home then this would cause complications, given that there would need to be some check to see whether they were actually teaching their kids or neglecting their education, but these complications would be the same as the current situation. 

 

Home educators would still have to pay their taxation contribution though -- discretion extends to content and standards, not to contribution, but I think that if they demonstrated that they were educating their kids, then they should be able to claim school fees for them (minus the cost of the assessment of whether they were educating their kids). Like I said, home education would cause complications, but there is no reason why it should not be incorporated as an option.

 

Once again, there is no such thing as "government money" -- it is all government adminstered taxpayers money. Universities are reluctant to accept federal funding in the current US system because then the government has the right to control content and standards -- my system would not allow that. There would be no reason why universities would not accept fees from the centralised pool; given that they would be unable to set their own fees, but they have jurisdiction over entry standards and content.

 

Karl.

 

p.s. Tom, please do not take offence, but could you do me a big favour and stope writing "thoughts?" after everything you say. I am starting to find it annoying and it distracts me from what you are saying.