< PREVIOUS ] [ 1989 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
As another school year looms, we can expect continued arguments between the Forcers and the Choicers.
Choicers contend that parents should be able to send their children to a school they choose. Depending on the fervency of the Choicer, the options range from any school in the local district, such as target or magnet schools, to a full-fledged voucher system, whereby a student's share of public-education funds can be applied at any institution, public or private.
Forcers, who are in general professional educators, insist that society is best served if children troop off to their assigned school, no matter how bad it is. The Forcer argument runs like this:
Assume we have Terrible Junior High. Parents who care will want to send their children somewhere else. If they do, Terrible will lose the beneficial influence of those concerned parents and students, and will get even worse. The children at Terrible whose parents didn't care will be even less literate than the average school products. They will drop out, get welfare, join street gangs, shoot passers-by, perhaps go to prison. Thus society as a whole will suffer, although the students who avoided Terrible may do well in the future. Parents who even think of doing that to their children should feel guilty for their anti-social and elitist attitudes.
I am not aware of any evidence that the Forcers' argument is correct -- that the presence of dissatisfied parents results in the improvement of a school and thus a better society in the future -- but let us presume that they are right.
In that case, a parent faces two conflicting obligations:
1. An obligation to society which can be satisfied by sending his children to an inferior school run by Forcers who fear honest competition. His children may suffer now or later, but he is comforted by the Forcers' contention that America will be a better place, even if his children are worse off.
2. An obligation to do the best he can by his children, satisfied in part by offering them the best education he can afford. His children may become a source of pride and comfort, but he might be plagued by momentary twinges of guilt. He may even be assaulted and robbed by the frustrated drop-outs from Terrible Junior High, who weren't educated sufficiently by the very same professional educators who assured him that his children should go to Terrible.
Which is greater, the obligation to one's family, or to society? American tradition is clear.
Society has a compelling interest in discovering facts during a criminal trial -- but husbands and wives cannot be ordered to testify against each other. Preserving marital privacy is deemed more important than arriving at the truth, even though some people will be unjustly acquitted. The familial obligation supersedes the social obligation.
Society sometimes claims an interest in defending the nation by conscripting soldiers. But exemptions are granted for sole surviving sons, fathers, sole supports of families -- that is, certain familial obligations can override even the demands of national defense.
In essence, then, the Forcers are claiming that their unproven sociological theories carry more weight than American tradition in vital matters like justice and defense. It is acceptable to put family obligations first in a courtroom or even in wartime, but to the Forcers, you have no right to put your family interests first when you're considering your children's education.
That's an argument that few people would buy. It's easy to see why the Forcers avoid honest discussion, and instead prefer to try making parents feel guilty.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1989 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >