Hm. From John Adams's A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765:
But the wisdom and benevolence of our fathers rested not here. They made an early provision by law, that every town consisting of so many families, should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people ancient or modern.
So John Adams, in 1765, maintained not only that grammar schools in every sizable community had been established by his time, but that the "care and expense" of such schools were charged to the public.
But yet, see what the results of this were:
The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake. It has been observed, that we are all of us lawyers, divines, politicians, and philosophers. And I have good authorities to say, that all candid foreigners who have passed through this country, and conversed freely with all sorts of people here, will allow, that they have never seen so much knowledge and civility among the common people in any part of the world.How far have we fallen from this standard?! And, if all the most motivated people, and their resources, leave public schools for private ones, then what will happen to the part of the population that doesn't leave? Perhaps something like this:
It is true, there has been among us a party for some years, consisting chiefly not of the descendants of the first settlers of this country, but of high churchmen and high statesmen imported since, who affect to censure this provision for the education of our youth as a needless expense, and an imposition upon the rich in favor of the poor,
Gee, have we heard this last on FR before?
and as an institution productive of idleness and vain speculation among the people, whose time and attention, it is said, ought to be devoted to labor, and not to public affairs, or to examination into the conduct of their superiors. And certain officers of the crown, and certain other missionaries of ignorance, foppery, servility, and slavery, have been most inclined to countenance and increase the same party. Be it remembered, however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees. And the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. It is even of more consequence to the rich themselves, and to their posterity. The only question is, whether it is a public emolument; and if it is, the rich ought undoubtedly to contribute, in the same proportion as to all other public burdens, — that is, in proportion to their wealth, which is secured by public expenses.
So, says John Adams, the reason you are rich is not only because of your own efforts, but because America affords you the liberty to pursue wealth. Is that not true enough? Try being rich on your own efforts in Russia, or Indonesia, or Iraq, or any country where the main qualifications for gaining wealth is having relatives in government.
And then, says John Adams, that liberty is dependent on having a populace educated well enought that it can enquire into the actions of it's rulers and judge them, and that finally has the wisdom to either replace the rulers, or the form of government itself, until liberty is once again preserved.
And, so, in the end, it is necessary for the preservation of liberty to ensure that all people are educated, and it is therefore justifiable to tax the wealthy to do so.
So I too criticize the state of public education in some areas of this country (I live in the suburbs of Chicago, and our schools are in pretty good shape). But to me, the remedy is not to withdraw from them, but instead to engage them and restore them to what they should be. School boards are elected every year in this country.
Yes, the problem is that the kind of speech engaged in by John Adams undercuts your use of his quote, because his kind of talk is no longer allowed in government schools except where it is regarded as historical anachronism, devoid of meaning:
"Be it remembered, however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
Can you imgagine a govenment school teacher telling children that that they are created? That liberty is derived from their Maker? That they have knowledge because it is given to them by their Creator? That they have divine, inalienable rights because those rights come from the Creator? Come now, that would be regarded as teaching religion, wouldn't it?
Cordially,