Despite the reality of widespread failure, public schools retain an aura of the sacrosanct. When I argue with friends about vouchers, I always say that the competition might be the only thing that will save our public schools.
In the new Weekly Standard, David Gelernter stakes out a more provocative position:
“Should America have public schools, or would we do better without them? Nothing is more important to this country than the transformation of children into educated American citizens. That’s what public schools are for, and no institutions are better suited to the role–in principle. They used to fill it with distinction.
“But there’s no reason we must have public schools. Granted, the public has a strong interest in educating America’s children, at a cost that’s divided equitably among all taxpayers and not borne by the parents of school-age children alone. But these requirements don’t imply any need for public schools. We need an Air Force, and the Air Force needs planes. Taxpayers pay for the force and the planes. But the pilots are supplied directly by the government, the airplanes by private companies (with government oversight and assistance). Schooling might be furnished on either model: mainly by public or mainly by private organizations. We know that private schools are perfectly capable of supplying first-class educations. So the question stands: Why have public schools? How should we decide whether to have them or not?”
Acording to Gelernter, it is not only the mostly woeful academic performance of public schools that should be considered. There is also no national agreement on what a public school should be. The Age of Consensus about the role of a school lasted from the early 19th century until the 1970s, according to Gerlernter: “During these years there was broad agreement on skills-teaching and character-building (or the teaching of worldviews and moral frameworks). The two areas were intertwined. Since the 1970s, consensus in both departments has fallen apart. Both areas are important, but not equally. Disputes about the teaching of skills can be patched up or compromised. Disputes about morality, worldviews, and character-building make public schools untenable.” I think that, if we have this debate, we must keep one thing in mind: the goal is the education of citizens. All citizens who’ll take an education. Schools exist to educate, not just to be schools. If another system accomplishes what the public schools once did… This will be a hard issue.
“During these years there was broad agreement on skills-teaching and character-building (or the teaching of worldviews and moral frameworks). The two areas were intertwined. Since the 1970s, consensus in both departments has fallen apart. Both areas are important, but not equally. Disputes about the teaching of skills can be patched up or compromised. Disputes about morality, worldviews, and character-building make public schools untenable.”
I think that, if we have this debate, we must keep one thing in mind: the goal is the education of citizens. All citizens who’ll take an education. Schools exist to educate, not just to be schools. If another system accomplishes what the public schools once did…
This will be a hard issue.
“During these years there was broad agreement on skills-teaching and character-building (or the teaching of worldviews and moral frameworks). The two areas were intertwined. Since the 1970s, consensus in both departments has fallen apart. Both areas are important, but not equally. Disputes about the teaching of skills can be patched up or compromised. Disputes about morality, worldviews, and character-building make public schools untenable.”
I think that, if we have this debate, we must keep one thing in mind: the goal is the education of citizens. All citizens who’ll take an education. Schools exist to educate, not just to be schools. If another system accomplishes what the public schools once did…
This will be a hard issue.