eric@reed.UUCP (Johnson) (12/31/84)
.
The question of rights with regard to education of children is a
hard one for the Libertarian.
Or at least it should be.
When Libertarianism says persons are autonomous agents, and hence
*should* act following their perceived interests and reap the
consequences thereof, I have no particular quarrel.
But children are not commonly considered to be fully autonomous agents;
though it seems distasteful to have someone/thing else
acting coercively for one's good when she is an intelligent adult,
it is generally accepted that this "paternal" coercion has
some place when those being coerced are children (or mentally
incompetent).
The question then arises where, if anywhere, does the legitimate
exercise of such coercion reside?
With the parents? With the government?
I highlighted the word 'should' in the paragraph above because a
lot is going on in that word.
It is a word of morality; of rights.
I believe that some Libertarians feel there is some ethical
foundation for Libertarianism based on deontic or analytic
principles beyond simple Utilitarianism.
Of these people, I think it is fair to say that
the principles they espouse make it hard to pick Libertarianism
over Anarchy.
One example of a work along these lines is
_In_Defense_of_Anarchism_, in which Robert Paul Wolff starts with
the notion of man as autonomous in Kant's ethics and concludes
that it is an unethical deviation from autonomous behavior to
attribute legitimacy to an institution that monopolizes the use
of force.
My ethics is predominantly utilitarian.
If some course of behavior makes people in the world generally
less well off, it already has a strike against it, and someone
had better give me a pretty good reason that I should favor it if
she wants me to accede.
Accordingly, I will offer some utilitarian considerations with
regard to the question of education of children.
I have just finished spending a great deal of my effort and my
family's money acquiring a liberal arts education.
(Thanks to Reed for a fine education and for continued access to
the net after my graduation.)
I find the skills in thought and research which I learned at Reed
to be very valuable, both personally and professionally.
At home I hold no cows to be sacred; I pick and choose among
possible lifestyles and accouterments with a well-balanced
approach that I have found to produce quite a pleasant life.
At work I am able to approach large problems with the confidence
that, if other work has been done on them, I can find it and
profit by it; and if none has been done, my approach will be
reasonable.
In other words, I have bought a product which has served me well
in many parts of my life.
One of the factors which I feel contributed strongly to this
positive interaction between me and the education-service I
bought is that, at least after the first couple years, I was an
active consumer.
I was buying ways of thought and living, and I wanted to get my
money's worth.
I don't think all students who profit from education necessarily
think of education in such "crass, consumeristic" terms,
but I do think that virtually all of them took an active part in
their own education.
For whatever reason, they shared the school's interest in
educating them.
As I think about the things I learned at Reed and the things I
learned in the government schools, I value the things I learned
at Reed more.
And <WARNING: heresy to follow!> I don't see any reason that I
couldn't have been taught good, useful critical skills at a much
younger age.
Nor do I see any reason that *any* student interested in learning
ways of thinking and acting could not have been taught them as
early as third or fourth grade.
The Libertarian response to this testament to a liberal arts
education is to find out whether the demand is high enough, and
then go out and sell liberal arts to youngsters if it is.
This does not address the question of whether the government
should tax its citizens to provide its own shadow of an education
for those who would prefer to spend such money as they have on
other things (food and clothing for those poorly off; ski trips
and cars for those more well-to-do; it doesn't matter to me).
As I think about the things I learnt in the government schools
after about fifth grade, I find little of value to me in either a
personal or professional nature.
By that time,
I had learned how to read and write and do elementary mathematics.
All that I remember from later years of school which has made me
a better person now is the things I could *do*.
I got regular exercise in P.E., and I was given
the opportunity to *do* art in a number of forms.
I chose song and French horn.
School gave me a place to meet and interact with my peers.
Most of the effort on the part of the school, and of my own in
dealing with the school was directed toward two goals:
1) giving me practice in dealing with a relatively regimented
situation where one is more-or-less obligated to do what others
say, and
2) giving me the ability to read and remember other
persons' generalizations about the world around me.
As I went to get a liberal arts education, it took me two years
to un-learn the second habit and learn to read texts critically,
attributing value to what I read only insofar as it is based upon
things which will, or at least could, affect me in my life.
And I don't have too much respect in general for the first goal.
I did find it necessary to have appropriate skills in
"subordinacy" when I entered the professional world, but I
basically learned those skills on-the-job.
My general motiviation for this discursive, semi-subjective
semi-attack on American public schools is to suggest that we
don't get much for our money when we coerce ourselves to pay for
the public education of each other's children,
and to motivate my sympathy with parents who wish to remove their
children from the government schools and educate them
themselves.
I think that the predominant value that we get from the public
schools is the last two skills I discussed.
For as pleasant as the opportunity to *do* things in school was,
it is clearly peripheral to the thrust of the public schools, and
attention to that area is spotty.
If you feel I have not done justice to the public schools'
treatment of English, Science, History, Sociology in my
characterization of the schools' treatment of these subjects,
then I invite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
All I can remember is learning that such_and_such was *the* cause
of the so_and_so war.
The atom *is* a little solar system with little balls going
around a bigger ball.
A verb is a word of action.
The swan in this poem means the author's dead wife.
I contrast learning these facts with reading about experiments
that suggest that the atom is so_and_so; learning what would make
someone say that a verb is a word of action, why we care, and
what we could do if we disagreed.
If you accept my general characterization of what goes on in
public schools but feel that I have overlooked some value to
those endeavors, that too seems to be a coherent position and one
I'd like to hear.
But in any case, I urge you to form an opinion on these issues.
They seem broad enough that those of us who are not experts in
the field can justifiably hold opinions.
And I guess that believing as I do suggests that one make noise
at one's local politicians or school board members.
{teneron | teklabs}!reed!ericfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/08/85)
In article <771@reed.UUCP> eric@reed.UUCP (Johnson) writes: >. >If you feel I have not done justice to the public schools' >treatment of English, Science, History, Sociology in my >characterization of the schools' treatment of these subjects, >then I invite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. >All I can remember is learning that such_and_such was *the* cause >of the so_and_so war. >The atom *is* a little solar system with little balls going >around a bigger ball. >A verb is a word of action. >The swan in this poem means the author's dead wife. > It depends largely on *where* you went to school. I was lucky, my high school was a large, well-funded school. It offers "advanced" courses in many subjects. I graduated knowing calculus and the beginnings of college level biology.(There were also college level physics and chemistry). I had also learned how to program a computer(in fortran!!). For those of less intellectual bent the school offeres such courses as Auto Shop, with actual hands on training in automobile repair (the school offered free "no gaurentees" repair to anyone who cared to risk thier car). And the "english" courses were literary critism courses like college english courses. I short a *well designed* curriculum *can* provide a good, useful, general education in public schools. And all of this at a far lower annual expense to my parents than at a private school. The *big* problem with not having publically funded schools is the *incredible* operating expense required for a good education. I would never have gotten such a good education if my parents had been required to pay for it out-of-pocket at a private school. > >If you accept my general characterization of what goes on in >public schools but feel that I have overlooked some value to >those endeavors, that too seems to be a coherent position and one >I'd like to hear. > >But in any case, I urge you to form an opinion on these issues. >They seem broad enough that those of us who are not experts in >the field can justifiably hold opinions. >And I guess that believing as I do suggests that one make noise >at one's local politicians or school board members. > >{teneron | teklabs}!reed!eric -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen