Wednesday, February 04, 2004

FOOD OR EDUCATION ?

What’s more important in life, food or education?

People who insist that the government must provide education for every citizen do not argue that the government should provide them food, although any reasonable person would agree that food is more important.

The old saying give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime would be a decent argument for government provided education if they were teaching kids to fish. Only, public education in this country is not designed to make people think or make them smarter. It’s not even provided to teach them the basic skills they will actually need in the real world.

It doesn’t teach them how to provide for a family. It doesn’t teach them to manage money. Many kids graduate and yet they can’t balance a checkbook. They don’t know how to obtain a loan. They don’t understand the danger of usury. Wouldn’t these be the first skills you’d teach a young person who would someday need to function in the real world?

Public schools somehow teach English composition without teaching Logic. Students are expected to write brilliant compositions without being taught to form a proper argument.

They do have time to teach students to conform to today’s version of social enlightenment. It usually boils down to a brand of political correctness designed to make children feel guilty for the alleged sins of their parents and grandparents. Just the kind of education that parents would order right off the menu.

The government can’t provide everyone food, because people are picky about their food. Some people are vegetarians, some people like seafood, while others prefer land animals and still others just want pizza every night. People like and need different things and wouldn’t stand for the government to tax them equivalent to their grocery bill and then provide a random dinner. And yet, this is just how politicians have designed public education.

Bill Buckley once suggested that we rid ourselves of food stamps because it would be cheaper to provide every citizen, not just the needy, enough bulgar wheat and powered milk to feed them for an entire year. No one would starve, but people would have to pay for luxuries. That proposal has some things in common with current education. We’re offering every child the bulgar wheat and powdered milk equivalent of education, but still charging them gourmet prices.

Those who argue against school choice say there aren’t enough schools for these kids to choose from. How many grocery stores and restaurants do you think would exist if the government provided food for everyone? The supply will always meet the level of demand. This kind of competition may doom the public schools or it may force the public schools to compete in the marketplace. Either way, the consumer wins. The opponents always threaten that evil corporations will use education to make “profit.” Don’t evil grocery stores and restaurants use our hunger to make a “profit”?

In this country the very poor get food stamps to eat, but even they can buy their food at the private grocery store. Why will the government let poor people choose where to buy their food, but won't let taxpayers choose where to educate their kids? And why do we stand it?

No comments:

Post a Comment