of parents did not care enough to educatetheir children well, they would have the power politically to elect representatives who would strike down all such laws. Rather, the only way that such laws get passed is because the majority of voters believe that the state does have legitimate authority in establishing compulsory attendance laws and regulations regarding the kind of curriculum assigned to students. This is a case in whicheducational bureaucrats blame a nonrepresentative group of parents, who in fact constitute a small percentage of the members of the community. On the basis of defending the children of these households, the bureaucrats persuade politicians to pass comprehensive compulsory education laws and other regulations governing private schools that meet the standards of the compulsory education laws.
Compulsory education laws and other regulations rest on the assumption that the state has a moral and legal obligation to supply benefits to specific groups of citizens. In this case, the citizens are not yet of voting age. This is an extension of the idea of the state as a healer. The state is supposed to intervene to make things better for certain groups inside the state’s jurisdiction.
When we see these kinds of laws, we also see the expansion of state power into areas of our lives that ought to be left alone. If there are individuals in the community who are not providing a proper education for their children, the question then arises: Who has the legitimate authority to determine what constitutes a proper education for children? Also, what power should the state transferto these people who claim they have the ability to determine what constitutes a proper education for children?
By establishing criteria of academic excellence, the bureaucrats have been granted the power to stifle educational innovation. There may be all kinds of programs and technologies available to educators that are not being used by the tax-funded school system. These technologiesand innovations do not conform to the established criteria of the regulated school systems. They may rest on completely different theories of how children learn. They may use different technologies than those accepted and mandated by the tax-funded school system. They may constitute a true breakthrough in education. But schools are not allowed to adopt these technologies or approaches because theseinnovations do not meet the standards promulgated by state bureaucrats in the name of the legislature.
Government compulsory education and the associated regulations that define acceptable education restrict the freedom of parents to make judgments about the best educational programs for their children. Compulsory education and other regulations substitute a completely different hierarchicalsystem over education. Bureaucrats make the rules, and force them on children under the jurisdiction of their parents. This assumes that bureaucrats, who seek to feather their own nests, possess wisdom regarding the education of children whom they have never seen. More than this, politicians assume that these bureaucrats have better insight into what is good for children in general than parentshave for their particular children. This system assumes that the information available through bureaucratic chains of command is more relevant to the education of children than the information available to parents.
Why do we accept this as okay? Shouldn’t the parents and local educators who actually know these children have the final say in this?
* * *
The libertarian position is simple: parents have the authority to determine what kind of education is best for their children . This means that the state should not interfere in the lives of parents and children with respect to the content and structure of their education. There should not be anything resembling a government monopoly of education. Standards that govern thepublic school system locally should not be imposed on
Compulsory education laws and other regulations rest on the assumption that the state has a moral and legal obligation to supply benefits to specific groups of citizens. In this case, the citizens are not yet of voting age. This is an extension of the idea of the state as a healer. The state is supposed to intervene to make things better for certain groups inside the state’s jurisdiction.
When we see these kinds of laws, we also see the expansion of state power into areas of our lives that ought to be left alone. If there are individuals in the community who are not providing a proper education for their children, the question then arises: Who has the legitimate authority to determine what constitutes a proper education for children? Also, what power should the state transferto these people who claim they have the ability to determine what constitutes a proper education for children?
By establishing criteria of academic excellence, the bureaucrats have been granted the power to stifle educational innovation. There may be all kinds of programs and technologies available to educators that are not being used by the tax-funded school system. These technologiesand innovations do not conform to the established criteria of the regulated school systems. They may rest on completely different theories of how children learn. They may use different technologies than those accepted and mandated by the tax-funded school system. They may constitute a true breakthrough in education. But schools are not allowed to adopt these technologies or approaches because theseinnovations do not meet the standards promulgated by state bureaucrats in the name of the legislature.
Government compulsory education and the associated regulations that define acceptable education restrict the freedom of parents to make judgments about the best educational programs for their children. Compulsory education and other regulations substitute a completely different hierarchicalsystem over education. Bureaucrats make the rules, and force them on children under the jurisdiction of their parents. This assumes that bureaucrats, who seek to feather their own nests, possess wisdom regarding the education of children whom they have never seen. More than this, politicians assume that these bureaucrats have better insight into what is good for children in general than parentshave for their particular children. This system assumes that the information available through bureaucratic chains of command is more relevant to the education of children than the information available to parents.
Why do we accept this as okay? Shouldn’t the parents and local educators who actually know these children have the final say in this?
* * *
The libertarian position is simple: parents have the authority to determine what kind of education is best for their children . This means that the state should not interfere in the lives of parents and children with respect to the content and structure of their education. There should not be anything resembling a government monopoly of education. Standards that govern thepublic school system locally should not be imposed on
Similar Books
