Indoctrination is alive and well.

On a trip up north late last week, I decided to pick up two local Rivertowns weeklies just for fun. I read both the Hudson Star Observer and the New Richmond News focusing primarily on the Letters to the Editor section of both papers. Lori Bernard had a letter that appeared in both publications.

I would like to send out Kudos to Lori (County Board member and Chairman of the St Croix County Republican Party) for her precisely written (and very polite) letter regarding what many of us know to be one of the inherent problems with government schools - unapologetic statist indoctrination. Lori states in her letter that, "As parents and taxpayers, it is critical that we speak up when controversial or political issues are presented in a skewed fashion by our government schools, simply because it is wrong. Our students should be taught how to think critically about issues when presented all the facts. The public is best served when students are taught how to think, not what to think."

I truly appreciate the precision Lori's text referring to "our government schools" and not mindlessly using the term "public schools." The latter, correctly interpreted, implies not merely the government schools but also every private educational institution, home schools and independent learning. This point is critically important but nevertheless pervasively missed by virtually all who write about education issues. In addition, and with all due respect to Dr. Bernard (Lori has a doctorate in Chemistry), her conclusion, although precise and well stated, implies something more in my view.

The real bottom line is this - the government schools are incapable, by design, to serve the public in training students "how to think critically." Fact is, by design, government schools simply do not desire to train children principally and specifically "how to think." They are not designed to do that, rather their goals (just read their mission statements for proof of this) encompass so much of the superfluous that it precludes the rigor necessary to produce, as a principal product, children that can think rationally or critically.

There are several reasons for this and not surprisingly a major one is that those who are doing the teaching have little experience outside of government proscribed and designed training schemes - teachers are, by and large, products of teacher's colleges. Furthermore, they are required to pass government certifications which include a heavy dose of the statist ideaology. Additionally, as I have pointed out here on prior occasions, the government education system has an incredibly influential union work force, as well as being fully funded by tax expropriation - this combination of factors has had the obvious result in a system resembling more of a social jobs program than an environment where children are trained to think critically and rationally.

Clearly, children in the system are (in the very least) influenced to act in various ways by virtue of the environment in which they are immersed that is unique to the government schools. Every act must include some thought process, all of the acts combined comprise this "environment," and taken as a whole this is the crux of the issue. Who and what is influencing that thought process (or lack of process) from the point when the kiddies climb on the bus until they return home? Well, the answer is other students, bus drivers, counselors, teachers, administrators, district administrative personnel, and last but not least school board members. Teachers may be very nice folks, many of whom I deeply respect and some are good friends (and family), and althought there may be some who strive to train kids to think critically and rationally they are few and must swim against a very strong current.

It should come as no surprise that the ills to which Lori alluded are continuously surfacing in the government run, taxpayer subsidized schools. Remember, when the government controls the means it will eventually, and pervasively, control the content. When the government controls the content, that is the end of a free society premised upon the government being subservient to the individual - the whole of the vision of our Founding Fathers.

What Lori's letter meant to me is this, parents should have the economic freedom to choose where their children are educated be it at home, in a private school, or in the government schools. Given that the government schools are incapable of refraining from indoctrination, then the citizen should clearly have the right to leave those schools and not be financially penalized, period. The solution is clear, there can be no compromise on this point.

In my view the government schools are incapable to serve the public as Lori states ought to be. The fact is that, by design, indoctrination is alive and well in the government schools - they simply do not want to nor can they, train children principally and specifically "how to think critically." Such a goal can only be accomplished in a market educational system - this is the solution.

As a parting piece of food for thought, I think it is revealing to note why parents choose to home school their children (enlarged graphic here). Please keep in mind this does not address the reasons why parents send their children to private schools. I am currently compiling both, but it should not be surprising that when combined what you find is that parents in America opt out of government schools not because of religion primarly, but rather due to the "environment" in the government schools. If you include in the concept of "environment" the cirriculum (which in many subtle ways influences the environment) and cirricular antecedents you find this to be the overwhelming reason.


bildanielson @ OnTheBorderLine