Posted on 01/15/2005 6:39:11 AM PST by wgeorge2001
The Education Liberator, Vol. 3, No. 2, February/March 1997
Twenty-one ways "public schools" harm your children by R. C. Hoiles, c1957
R. C. Hoiles was the publisher of the Santa Ana Register, now the Orange County Register, the flagship of media giant, Freedom Communications. We are commemorating the 40th anniversary of Mr. Hoiles publication of his great vituperation against "gun-run schools." It has been edited for length, a process newspaperman Hoiles would understand.
Now, what are the things that government schools dare not teach?
They dare not teach the spirit of the Constitution as set forth in the first official document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence. They dare not teach it because it says that all men, not just the majority, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A man isn't free to pursue happiness when the majority in any school district, state or nation can coerce him to pay for a school that he believes violates the principles upon which this government was formed.
The school teachers dare not emphasize this part of the Declaration of Independence. They dare not explain the true meaning of this statement. If they were successful in explaining and teaching the true meaning of these ideologies, there would be no gun-run schools.
Again, they dare not teach that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. They have to completely repudiate the ideas of the American way of life. They have to teach the old-world philosophy of the divine right of governments, only now they call it the divine right of the majority rather than the divine right of kings.
They dare not teach in government schools the meaning of liberty. It is doubtful whether any teacher in gun-run schools dares define the kind of liberty the Founding Fathers mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to support. If the government schools successfully taught the meaning of the liberty our Founding Fathers had in mind, there would be no government schools that starve the intellects of our children.
The government schools dare not teach the meaning of the Golden Rule. If they were successful in getting their pupils to understand that they should not force other people to pay for something they did not want, then they could see that it was a violation of the Golden Rule to force others to pay for their schooling.
They, of course, dare not teach their pupils to believe that if it is wicked and a violation of the Golden Rule for one man to do a thing, it is still wicked and a violation of the Golden Rule if 49 per cent or 99 per cent of the people do the same thing. They, thus, dare not teach the youth that the ideal government, the only kind of government that can be of value to mankind, is one that is limited to the use of defensive force and never has a right, under any circumstances, to initiate force. I want to continue suggesting things that tax-run schools dare not teach.
They dare not teach the First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" because they are bowing down and worshipping the will of the majority rather than the eternal laws of God that no man made and no man can unmake.
They dare not teach "Thou shalt not covet," because they are violating the Coveting Commandment.
They believe they do not need to teach well enough that people will voluntarily pay their salaries. They get their pay by violence rather than by rendering service well enough so that those who pay them believe they are benefited by their employment.
They dare not teach discipline and self-reliance because they are not disciplining themselves enough to render such service that they can be paid voluntarily. The teachers take the shortcut and use a police club to get their money. That certainly is not discipline, nor is it self-reliance.
They dare not teach thrift and the harm that comes from getting into debt. They dare not do this because the government burdens every child and every person in the United States with a monstrous debt.
They dare not teach respect for individual initiative because government schools are based on lack of respect for other people's initiative. They are based on the theory that "We've got the power and the individual is helpless and we're going to make him pay for anything our agents think is education."
They dare not teach humility and meekness because the means used by government schools are the exact opposite of humility and meekness. Are believers in tax-run schools so sure they are right that they are willing to initiate force to make people support their ideas of education? They see themselves as so exalted that they have lost all humility and meekness. And remember, "He who exalts himself shall become abased."
They dare not teach children to reason. They have to teach them not to recognize a contradiction or a dilemma. If the pupils were taught to reason, they would recognize the tyranny that is bound to follow making people pay for things and ideas they abhor.
They dare not teach the harm that follows socialism, communism, collectivism and fascism for to do so would let pupils realize that aggressive force is part of socialism, communism, collectivism and fascism.
"Hitherto the plans of the educationalists have achieved very little of what they attempted, and indeed we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses, and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still posses."
C.S. Lewis
They dare not teach that what man wants must be obtained on a voluntary basis. They dare not teach this because they get what they want on an involuntary basis.
They dare not teach the difference between socialism and private ownership of property. They dare not explain that under socialism the only way a man can benefit is by injuring another, as in the case in compelling people to pay for schools they think will destroy the country.
They dare not explain that in free enterprise, including free enterprise in education, the gain of one is the gain of all.
Tax-run schools dare not teach love and charity because they are using aggressive force. They seem to think that aggressive force is better than persuasion by love and charity.
They cannot teach patience because they are so impatient about getting what they seem to believe is an education that they dare not wait to persuade those who should employ them to pay their salaries.
They cannot teach peace and goodwill because they are an example of the opposite of peace and goodwill. They are an example of initiating force, of threatening to get from others by aggressive force what they think they should get.
They cannot teach that the government is a servant of individuals because they believe it should be supported by giving it a monopoly to use aggressive force to make people pay. They can only teach that it is a master of the individual.
They cannot teach justice because their method of supporting the schools is based on injustice — arbitrary, initiated force.
They cannot teach that each man is responsible for his own life because they deny that by using force to take part of man's energy against his will, and man cannot be responsible for his life unless he has the right to choose. There is nothing more important for parents than their duty to see that their children are treated fairly and have an opportunity to learn from schools that can teach these great moral principles and axioms. It is not the money we're wasting in our tax-run schools that is so important, but it is that our children are not being taught the moral laws that tax-less schools can teach.
It is because children can be taught what is right in tax-less schools and they cannot be so taught in tax-run schools that I am obliged to do what little I can to get parents to see that they are not doing their duty to their children by sending them to tax-run schools.
What we need above everything else is more people devoting more time to seeing that the youth of the land are instilled with belief in the great moral laws, the Golden Rule, and the Declaration of Independence. Government schools cannot teach successfully the will to learn. The best way to teach anything is by example. But the superintendent and managers of the schools themselves are not enough interested in the will to learn to be willing to answer questions as they would before a court to determine whether what they are doing is in harmony with what they profess to believe. If there is anything a man of integrity should want to learn, it is whether what he is doing is in harmony and consistent with what he says.
[top]
You are forgetting that the parents are products of the schools. The children are in the school FAR longer than they are with their parents during waking hours. Toss in homework and that disparity increases. Thus, if the parents were the problem and the schools the remedy, we would be seeing generational improvement.
We are obviously seeing the converse at an accelerating rate of decay.
I don't believe parents are the problem and schools are the remedy...what do you propose to do? many of my parents are over 40-not exactly recent high school grads...Is there any hope for humanity at all??? Dear Lord close down the schools now and then we can.......(sarcasm!)
Honestly-by saying the problem is public schools and the time spent there-what is the remedy? The problem with students, parents, schools, hell-society itself is so multifaceted-we just have to fight the good fight on ALL fronts...not just nail schools! Thats too easy.
Me: PARENTS are often the larger problem at home.
You: PARENTS are usually products of public schools.
Me: I'm a mixture of both but still even I can see where public schools have become public sewers. Mothers that I see everyday while dropping my daughter off to school also went to public school and they won't have there kids there for the same reason.
You're right and I thank you fro your reply.
"One of school's most important effects is to ensure that most people never develop a working vocabulary of morals, liberty, and knowledge, because school preempts all these things in it's day-to-day operations, and it has to conceal that fact from the vast majority of people so that it can survive as an institution."
WOW! what school do you teach in. Thats some wild stuff. I must remember to ensure that my students don't "develop a working vocabulary of morals, liberty, and knowledge" next week when I get back to work.
Your points sound as etheral as some liberal crazy talk in universities!
I know their are many screwed up teachers, schools, etc..but you know what? Its like the ENRON thing..people here about corporate screw ups and then they make blanket statements about all corporations...people hear about some wacked out liberal loony school story on Rush, Hannity, or O'reily and they think "boy, all schools are screwed up-its just not the case! If it was we would be in worse shape than we are now. We have to combat the libs-I personally know many who are fighting against the wackos!
bttt
I agree with BRMG. I would like to see how you defined good. I went to a very small public school growing up. I was not challenged until I got into highschool, which means I spent a lot of time in trouble in the lower grades.
Secondly, I had some phenomenal teachers in highschool. They wanted more than anything for me to learn, and to open doors & horizons for me. But, I still had to deal with the social antics of peers, which completely offset what the teachers were doing.
Teen pregnancies were rampant (and this was a small school, everyones' parents went to church); drug and alcohol use were everywhere. Just run out to someone's pickup.
A few years ago, I interacted with my nephew going thru the same school. His skills were minimal compared to what I had by his age. And all of the rest of the "fun" stuff still existed.
Comparing my experience to his, I would say the public school I went to was good. Yet, I left it knowing I would never subject my kids to that atmosphere. And, when I left, I had teachers who knew I would never support public schools again. I had one teacher in particular who wrote a message in my senior year book to not give up on public schools yet.
There was a period when I had the occasion to read the Colorado Springs newspaper. (Owned by the Orange county paper, I believe?) It was astoundingly pro-liberty. Later it changed - to become milquetoast and boring.
Really, if you people have such a problem with public schools, do what I did. Send your kids to private schools. If it is really that important you will find a way to afford it.
My school was good in 1963 as well, it is a mess today. When I was there they fired a known communist on the staff for bringing her views into the classroom. Today a teacher who brings his/her liberal views into the classroom receives commendations for social activity. Wear your pink ribbon, fly your rainbow flag, post a sign that homosexuals have a place of refuge in your room, you are mainstream. Complain about standard tests, mandatory flag salutes you are in. The only hope for kids in these schools is help from knowledgable parents at home.
"Schools should be renamed Socialist Indoctrination Centers."
That's S.I.C.
8^)
I guess my definition of good is this. I just recently graduated (2003), so I'm not sure what the standards were when most of you other people went to school. I'll start with my elementary school. I don't know what they did but when the four schools eventually funneled into the high school, my elementary school usually had at least five students in the top ten of the class. My graduating year we had four of the top five, including the top three. So I guess you could say that part was good.
Then with my high school, the teachers really tried to make it so that they weren't spoon feeding us answers or information. We had a lot of hands on work and a lot of group projects to come up with our own conclusions. They said that they wanted to make it like a "college experience". And when the state rankings for public schools came out, we were always one of the top schools. They went based of cumulative grades and standardized testing and such. Property values were also more in my school district just because everybody wanted their kids to be in that district.
You can take it how you want it, but that's why I figured my public school education was good.
Crush the system. Defunding the union by both an IRS bust for tax evasion and cutting off the flow of political funds makes for a good first step. This is a war to save our kids. We don't have to be nice about it.
Here is my program:
Yeah, well, in my high school and town it wasn't very diverse. I think we had like 3 minorities in our school and they were only there because we had one of the only special needs classes. So the kind of liberal things that happen in other places, like praising alternative lifestyles, absolutely didn't fly over in the classroom.
hmmm..ok-how about letting W and Paige in on this...you should have submitted your name for the education cab position!
They're too busy doing deals with Teddy Kennedy.
Of course we want to fight on all fronts, but the school system maintained by the liberals is a liberal voter creation movement. Students today believe lots of stuff that they are told and much of it is not true.
I was taught that conservatives are thiefs and poluters and that liberals were supporters of the poor and the working classes. This is not true. Liberals if anything want to keep the poor and working class poor to enhance their collective political power. Many of conservative approaches would work better to help the poor and the working classes.
Schools now teach that all cultures are wonderful and no one should place one class/culture over another. This is not true. While all people are endowed by their Creator with inaliable rights, all cultures have not led to the same development and wealth for their people.
Schools teach that hatred for the homosexual has led to his/her being bullied and asaulted. The schools teach that the solution is to accept the homosexual lifestyle as one of many normal lifestyles and the problem will cease to be a problem. This is not a valid use of the school system. The solution to a crime is to arrest and convict the criminal. No change of social culture is really required. The schools don't teach this.
Schools teach group learning is as good as individual learning and that same grade for differing amounts of effort is acceptable in school and should become increasingly acceptable in industry. The system has few if any redeaming characteristics.
old saying: "the hand that rocks the cradle controls the world."
new saying: "the hand that writes the school textbooks controls the world."
Yes I generalize and I realize "all generalizations are false, including this one". But I taught and had a child go through school in a blue state (blue area) so I am more sensitive to the problem. If things are better in other states that is all to the good. Libs are running colleges to a great degree as well, and I believe the teachers unions spread this drival everywhere they have any influence at all.
Recently the text book commission of Texas rejected several social studies texts because in the discussion of family and marriage the books used gender neutral terms that would be useful if say a teacher wanted to make the point that a two male parent family was a normal environment for the rearing of children. This was the first move in the right direction that I know of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.