A Letter From The Teacher #17: Big Government vs. Big Government

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Bob, My Most Esteemed Colleague
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Big Government vs. Big Government

Dear Bob:

I hope you have a bit of time to read and consider this and get back with me. I'd like to see what you have to say about the issues I'll raise.

Conservatives oppose big government. Most conservatives would agree with that statement without reservation. Perhaps they shouldn't, for many conservatives seem willing to embrace the stultifying power of government when it comes to educational issues such as mandatory, high-stakes tests or vouchers, among others.

"But these are truly important issues," they say. "We have to do it for the children," they say. Does that sound familiar? Aren't those statements exactly what leftists say to justify the unjustifiable?

Indiana has embraced the most ambitious voucher program in American history, and conservatives around the nation are enthusiastically applauding. They shouldn't. In many ways, they don't realize that they are supporting big government at its worst.

A good article at Cato.org (here) deals with a real problem that always crops up whenever government is involved in anything: Red tape and regulations that inevitably "fundamentally transform" what works into what doesn't. Go here to see a brief but disturbing summary of the rules and unfunded mandates being imposed on any Indiana private school accepting voucher money. Ronald Reagan was right. The most horrifying words in the English language are truly: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." By all means, read these brief articles and then return; I'll wait. Oh yes, and as you read, remember that Gov. Mitch Daniels is a Republican, ostensibly a conservative.

Do you see what I mean? One of the great advantages of private education has always been its freedom from governmental regulation. While there is no convincing, continuing evidence that private education is uniformly superior to public education, I can certainly understand its attraction. But if by accepting government money, private education becomes indistinguishable from public education, what's the point? Who doesn't understand that government money always comes with conditions, or do some just prefer not to notice in order to get their hands on taxpayer loot?

If the money for vouchers didn't come directly out of public education funds, I would still have concerns on philosophical grounds alone. I spend an average of $2000 a year on school supplies, and I'm sure you do about the same. I currently get a $250 federal tax credit, which is better than a poke in the eye with a pointed stick, but not that much. Due to the economy, our district has reduced the supply budget by 60% this year, but at least we don't have to lay anyone off—for now. Of course, that also means that we're not getting any raises in the foreseeable future, so I'm going to be spending more and making less. It's a good thing our state doesn't have a voucher program, for it if did, we'd surely be seeing mass layoffs with all of the problems that implies. I know that in your district as well as mine, "doing more with less" is nothing new; it's standard operating procedure day in and day out.

I've often written about how alarmists rattling on about the abject failure of the public schools are all too often taken at face value. Few stop to apply a bit of common sense, which should tell them that most schools are actually doing very well indeed. There are, of course, some individual schools and some entire school districts that are truly terrible, but those districts and schools tend to be in Democrat controlled enclaves such as California, Washington DC and Detroit. In such places, the condition of the schools is merely a symptom of the complete corruption of the political and social system that drags down everything and everyone.

It is these places—thankfully a minority—that are probably the strongest argument for public school alternatives. The citizens of these failed polities may be immune to constitutional government and free enterprise, their schools impervious to professional teaching, discipline and management that does not enrich cronies or support a political machine. Even actual (Detroit) or imminent (California) economic collapse cannot divert the members of such recipient, victim classes from their downward spiral. Yet, vouchers aren't the answer for them either.

It is our civic duty, where government ignores the consent of the governed, where it becomes a criminal enterprise, where it seizes powers it is not authorized to have to reform it. If a school doesn't work, fix it! That's the American way. Running away is for Monty Python.

I've always felt that the public schools exist, in part, because we need common, civic education. Our future adults need not only practical knowledge but a belief in the ideals of our democracy, of our unique and indispensable American culture based in the respect of the life of the individual and of his equality before the law. If we abandon even part of a generation, if they don't embrace American ideals, we ensure division and chaos.

Even in schools where a generally leftist philosophy controls the faculty, all is not lost. Even some leftists can teach professionally without constantly injecting socialism into the curriculum. But even in schools where socialism is an integral part of the curriculum, it's worthwhile to remember an old aphorism, attributed to a wide variety of sources: "One father is worth a hundred schoolmasters."

I see my students less than five hours a week for about 180 days—a part of one year of their lives. While I know I have a positive influence on many of them I have no doubt that compared with the influence of their parents, my influence is small indeed. This is particularly true where they have engaged, serious parents who accept their parental role rather than trying to be adult buddies to their children.

Engaged parents know that there is no such thing as a right never to be exposed to thoughts and ideas with which they might disagree. Where children are exposed to misguided ideas in school, where teachers cross the line between imparting the best professional information their discipline has to offer into political indoctrination, parents have a wonderful opportunity for discussion and the presentation of convincing ideas grounded in common sense and an appreciation for American democracy. Of course, this requires parents who see themselves—as I do—as the primary, life-long teachers of their children. I have my students on loan from their parents for a short time and for very specific purposes. I consider it an honor and a great responsibility, a sacred trust.

Conservatives should work to ensure the proper educational opportunity for all children. Isn't it self-styled elitists who send their children to "elite" private schools, caring nothing for the quality of education of others? Isn't this anti-democratic? Doesn't it contribute to civic division and discord? Does Mr. Obama, a product of elite private schools, support American values or the politics of class warfare and the abuse of his authority?

Private schools are expensive and vouchers cover only a fraction of the yearly tuition. If vouchers are truly a balm for educational failings, why not fully subsidize private education for all who might choose it? Conservatives understand, unlike leftists, that it would completely bankrupt the public schools, so vouchers remain a political token, which only wounds the public schools, allowing them to limp along.

Let's not forget the Constitution, for most private schools are religious schools, and whenever a sectarian school is involved, the Constitution is violated. Vouchers aren't for truly elite schools; they're for people who need not ask about the cost of tuition and who summer on Martha's Vineyard with the Obamas. Vouchers are for local private schools, most often sectarian schools, schools whose identity and practice is inescapably religious.

Some voucher proponents dishonestly work up various schemes whereby public money is given to citizens first, then to sectarian schools, claiming that since the money wasn't given directly to private schools, the Constitution isn't involved. Of course it is. Pretending otherwise is a leftist ploy in the grand tradition of Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of "is." It's fundamentally dishonest and conservatives should have no part of it. If conservatives truly support the Constitution, there can be no picking and choosing: isn't that what leftists do?

It is certainly harder to reform a troubled school or school district than leaving it, but that's what American ideals call us to do, unless we really want to create a two-tiered society of those steeped in American values and those indoctrinated in the culture of victimhood, eternal grievance, all-encompassing political correctness and absolute governmental control over every aspect of life. That's a recipe for conflict and the decline, perhaps even the fall, of America. And it all begins with something as simple and seemingly harmless, perhaps even positive, as vouchers.

Well, what do you think? There is no danger of our state going for vouchers in the foreseeable future, and I don't think that's true of yours either, but I'm looking forward to hearing about what you have to say. Take care and give your lovely wife my best.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher