The editorial department at The Other Paper is becoming shrill now in fighting the idea of parents having greater choice in the methods by which their children are trained. The editorialists appear to be terrified at the thought of some small tax break for parents if they choose to home school or send their offspring to a non–government school. Their main concern has nothing to do with children. It is all about the volume of revenue for the education bureaucracy which spends almost half its revenue outside the classroom.

When have you heard a legislator or journalist call to question the content of middle school history courses or demand greater emphasis on language skills and grammar in elementary grades?

When have you read complaints from educators about the severely sanitized teaching materials that are required to adhere to ever– evolving standards of political correctness?

When, for that matter, have education professionals pointed out that SC established an expensive world–class system of educational television in the 1960s for the express purpose of providing access to superior teachers even in the most rural schools? Did the mission fail, or were the curricula ill–suited? SC pupils still dwell near the statistical bottom of national measures, and rural schools are still complaining.

No, the debate is about money, not curricula nor pupil training. The debate should center on the question of what’s expected of the billions of dollars that are poured into public education.

This squabble about putting parents in charge of their children’s schooling might be a perfect time to debate the basic mission of schools. To The Other Paper, schools exist “...to make sure we live in a decent society full of people able to live productive lives, instead of roaming the streets….” That’s the late Dr. John Dewey talking. He’s the rascal who set public education on the track of social engineering early in the 20th century. Today we suffer the expensive result of his scheme. SC bores its pupils so severely they drop out of high school at a shocking rate. Many would quit sooner if the law would let them.

“Libertarians don’t understand the role of government in society because they simply don’t understand how human beings are interconnected,” claim the editorialists who have been brought up to have immense faith in the ability of government to micro– manage individual lives.

In the matter of managing the education of the masses we libertarians believe government is a flop and can offer plenty of data to prove it, ranging from moral decay and crime rates, to a general population that’s hurling itself into debt at a rate history has never witnessed.

There may be a better way, and jarring government school administrators with a little competition would be a good thing for the important people in this squabble – the children. The basic mission of schools, after all, is to give children the tools with which they may learn. Once they know how to learn there will be no stopping them.

Should we start by resolving the question, “Who owns the children? Parents or the state?”