National School Choice week takes place from January 26 to February 1, and during this week education freedom activists around the country will be participating in events highlighting the need for parental control of education. I wholeheartedly endorse National School Choice Week, as parental control of education is a prerequisite for a free and prosperous society.
When government usurps control of education from parents, education can easily become indoctrination. Centralized, top-down models of education are also doomed to failure as there is no way a bureaucrat in DC can design an education system capable of meeting the needs of every child in the country. The failure of centralized education is shown by the correlation between American students’ declining tests scores and the growth of federal control over American schools. Education reforms that further, or expand, the Department of Education will prove fruitless. The only effective education reform is to restore parental control over education.
The key to restoring parental control is to give parents back control over the education dollar. This means shutting down the Department of Education and returning the money currently spent promoting schemes like “common core”. Ideally, this would be accomplished by eliminating all federal taxes on American families. However, if the political support for outright abolition of federal taxes is not available, education tax credits can also serve as an effective way of getting control over education back into the hands of the people. Unlike taxpayer-funded vouchers, private tax credits do not open the door to government control of education. This is because tax credits allow parents to use their own money on their children’s education, rather than relying on funds provided by the federal government. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” federal funding of education—whether in the form of federal grants or taxpayer-funded vouchers—inevitably means schools will spend more time trying to please federal bureaucrats than parents.
One educational model that I am particularly interested in is homeschooling. Many of the most devoted and most effective advocates of liberty I have worked with come from homeschooling families. This might be because many homeschooling families have personal experience with government harassment, ranging from having to comply with government regulations to being threatened with the loss of their children for the “crime” of homeschooling. It is ironic that government would attempt to force homeschoolers to conform to its regulations considering that homeschoolers constantly out-perform their public school-educated peers.
In order to encourage the growth of homeschooling I have developed my own homeschool curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum consists of a rigorous program of study in history, economics, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences.
Older students will also have the opportunity to get practical experience creating and running their own on-line businesses. Frequent written assignments will ensure students have the maximum opportunity to develop strong communication skills.
Giving my strong belief in liberty, the history and economics curriculum will provide a good grounding in liberty, including the principles of Austrian Economics. However, the drafters of the curriculum took great care to never sacrifice intellectual rigor and accuracy.
Education is one of those things that is simply too important to be left to the government. The best way to ensure quality education is to ensure that parents have the ability to pick the education option that best fits their child’s unique needs and abilities. Everyone who wishes to see America remain a free and prosperous society has an interest in parental control of education.
You can find out more information about my homeschool curriculum here. You can get a copy of my book The School Revolution here.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.
47 comments
The Man Who Should Be President
It’ll never, ever happen.
So?
I did not mean it in a mean way. I understand the appeal of Dr. Paul. You must admit he has been a candidate quite a few times. I think that identifying himself as a Republican has been his downfall.
He received more votes and more national recognition as a Republican the last two cycles than he did as a Libertarian in 1988. He was very close to pulling off an upset the last go-around.
But yes, being a Republican is a double-edged sword. He refused, has he had his entire career, to be a stooge of the special interests. They punished him by using their influence in the party and the media so as to hide him from the public eye, smear him as a racist and an extremist, and deny his right to speak at the 2012 convention. I’m convinced there was a concerted, covert effort to prevent Ron Paul from being the nominee.
Still, the fact remains- Ron Paul is the man who should be president.
Ron Paul for mayor of crazy town!
President of what….Iran?…He seems to value their security, more than the US’s…..
You appear to be a patriotic American, with your flag, but complacently endorsing government to provide all encompassing “security”, then you are betraying the American ideal of individual liberty, which is treacherous.
To many big words for GT. If you want to engage him in debate, a mistake, you need to move down about 5 grade levels. Try
Obama good! He will take if from there and you will get the hang of it. Mainly listening to a stream of consciousness in GTese.
OK, ha ha.
Every week has been School Choice Week for as long as I can remember. It is just the ones who want the “choice” that Dr. Paul refers to want the rest of us to pay for it. How about calling it Voucher Scheme Week?
And go figure – the ones touting “choice” here are against “choice” on just about anything else.
It will not be choice for the poor. It’s the new socio-economic segregation plan. Let’s call it what it is.
Amen! You got that right.
Pretty funny considering this site’s insistence that if you don’t support school “choice,” you’re really hurting the black kids, or something. Yes, I’m sure all these illustrious private schools will welcome minorities by the droves when they can suddenly afford private schooling due to these tax credit thingamabobs, and nobody will stay in public schooling unless they absolutely want to. Kitten giggles and unicorns shitting rainbows and all that jazz.
The thing is that the poor, even with vouchers, can’t afford to take off work or drive miles away from home to deliver and pick up their children. Hell, many don’t have a car. The problem with a lot of these pie in the sky segregation plans is that they are thought through past the rich/middle class (what there is left of it) and they are SEGREGATION Plans. Period.
^^Aren’t thought through….
“It will not be choice for the poor. It’s the new socio-economic segregation plan. ”
You seem borderline honest here. So let’s say I agree with what you’ve written to some extent.
If you don’t allow for economic stratification, that makes everyone economically the same, right?
If you are honest is wanting that, good for you for being honest.
The only problem is that you have to eliminate freedom to allow that to happen. You have to support non-productive people with money from those that have it to get this equality.
Again, if that idea favors your thinking, kudos for being honest. But let us all be clear on what you want. You want the same conditions for everyone, crappy or good…as long they are the same.
I see that somewhat demoralizing for those that can do more, better, etc. than others…but I’m sure it is comforting to those who can not.
Those that can and do more will excel, if they choose. If we ever want to help the poor and middle class we must provide an equal educational basis. Otherwise we will have more of the same with the numbers of the working poor increasing. There is nothing demoralizing about helping those who need help.
“There is nothing demoralizing about helping those who need help.”
If it comes at personal expense, then you would be wrong.
There’s no “magic” line that separates the middles class & working poor in terms of their ability to spend on their child’s education.
The problem is that there are parents that if helped via “subsidy”(meaning some of their own tax money in some cases), since society has decided it will pay for children’s education, that some of those parents that could afford to send their kids to a private school(say middle class) and now unable to do so because their tax dollars(as well as others) are prevented to flowing to that form of education by those have decided that it’s only the same(lackluster in many cases) education available to all.
I would say having money taken from you and stops you from putting your kids in a private school in the name of equality IS DEMORALIZING.
I think you assume that many that would send their kids to private school are “rich”.
I know many people that are not rich who send their kids to private schools. Many of them tell me that they don’t want their kids in public school because of their exposure to “riff-raft.” To many of them the riff-raft are the poor and minority kids in most cases.
“I would say having money taken from you and stops you from putting your kids in a private school in the name of equality IS DEMORALIZING.”
That is just part of the Voucher Crowd propaganda. That is not happening. The average taxpayer in SC pays less than $1500 per year for public education. That is not preventing anyone from sending their kid to private school. If it is, then I suggest they get a part time job. Even at minimum wage they can earn that in 4 hours a week.
Many of the families who want the state to help them pay for their kids private school have a stay at home mom, and they want the money so mom can continue to stay at home.
“Many of the families who want the state to help them pay for their kids private school have a stay at home mom, and they want the money so mom can continue to stay at home.”
So running with your informatin, you are saying they are not entitle to their $1500 back to contribute to a different method of education? Correct?
No more than I am entitled to a refund of the taxes I pay to build bridges I will never use. How about taxes I pay that support public transportation, which I do not use. Can I get those back. How about my share of the money the state gave Boeing. I don’t work there and I don’t want to buy any of their planes, can I get my share back?
Don’t get all touchy Tom, you could have simply answered, “No, they shouldn’t get their money back.”
Tough to answer that one though, isn’t it? Deep down, don’t you feel even the slightest bit bad, endorsing the taking of their money and then telling them that they can’t use it for its intended purpose(educating kids)?
i do not feel the least bit bad, because their money is educating kids. Just like my money is educating kids, even though I have no children in school. We all help pay for a lot of things we don’t use. Your belief is I should have to pay for public schools and help parents of private school children pay for their kids as well.
School choice is one thing: parents should (as they do) have the right to homeschool their children or send them to a private school. However, in no way should they receive government funded vouchers, tax credits, etc., to do so. I’m sorry if some of the public school districts may not be performing as well as expected, but that’s the problem of the local school district, board, etc. Those districts may need to take a long, hard look at themselves and work on fixing it.
Wow, it’s incredible that commenters don’t seem to know we are required to pay for the indoctrination we receive in public schools. All Paul is saying is if you want to opt for a different education your taxes should not be forced to pay for both indoctrination in the common gulag and the education of one’s choice.
Of course, if you’re anti-freedom, you’re going to hate that people have that choice.
All Paul is saying is if you want to opt for a different education your
taxes should not be forced to pay for both indoctrination in the common
gulag and the education of one’s choice.
Except that -everyone- pays taxes that fund public schools, including people whose kids have long since graduated, and including people who don’t even have kids.
You’re also forgetting public schools have to be available for private schooled or homeschooled kids at any time. Public schooling doesn’t cease to be a “choice” for those kids, it is always a backup if mommy or daddy require it.
So no, I don’t hate people that have a choice, I hate people who have a choice and bitch about not being treated special because they do. Pay your fucking dues like the rest of us.
No, they don’t. It is the choice of our illustrious overlords that public school be provided whether we wish to be indoctrinated or not. Not that I think you’re a real person. I know what a government sock puppet sounds like – you say things no taxpayer would say.
I am a taxpayer, and I agree with Smirks. We provide public education. It should be good education. If you are a parent you can choose to use the public school, homeschool, or go to private school. You have complete 100% choice. Why should a parent who sends his kid to private school, no have to pay his fair share of the cost of government? There is no benefit to the taxpayer of paying money to someone who has his kids in private school.
You perceive indoctrination to be a good thing, having been indoctrinated to believe so. Note that I say believe since there is not a shred of fact to corroborate your postulate that what your children receive is education, not indoctrination. My children go to public school, and I have to spend hours every night tutoring them to make sure they can actually THINK as opposed to regurgitate facts.
I’m certain it doesn’t matter to you, but I think for a living and critical reasoning skills are the key to success in most fields of endeavor. If you’re not willing to teach that (and they aren’t, or they’d lose control of us) then at least don’t make me pay twice to get one education.
“There is no benefit to the taxpayer of paying money to someone who has his kids in private school.”
Craftily worded by Tom. Notice he completely disregards the possibility that a reallocation of said education money would allow parents now sending their kids to public school the option of sending them to a private school they might normally not be able to afford.
Further, he also disregards the substantial cost savings to the taxpayers. (cue the bullshit about “overhead”)
Not craftily worded at all. The average taxpayer does not pay enough for public education that a reallocation of his money would allow him to send a kid to private school. The average South Carolina family pays less than $1500 per year for public education and many significantly less than that. Especially people who say they cannot afford private school. Further, how will tax credits help people who are poor send their kids to private school. They don’t pay enough in state taxes to take advantage of them.
Further good private schools are not looking for an influx of new students. They have as many as they want. This money would simply allow them to charge more, or would make it easier on their customers wallet.
Taking a few kids out of a school does not reduce the cost of operating a school, and will not reduce the cost of public education. Additionally there are 60,000 kids in private school in SC. Paying money to the tens of thousands of families who already have their kids in private schools will not reduce the cost of public education one red cent. Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to believe if we gave a couple of thousand dollars a year in tax credits for private school that enough children would leave publics schools to make up the 50+ million dollars we would give to parents of kids already in private school. If so, I want you as my customer.
This has never been about making public education better. This is all about money for people who already have their kids in private school. It is no different than food stamps or welfare, except its going to people who don’t need it.
It seems to be difficult for you private school folks to realize, but when you don’t pay your share of government the rest of us have to pay more.
So I assume you think state employees do not pay taxes.
The way I see it, they get paid with my tax dollars and then some of their pay is taken back.
So they are net tax consumers, not payers.
What extraordinarily stupid commentary. It lacks in such logic that I can’t even formulate a response, let alone explain the borderline mongoloids that gave you 4 thumbs up.
It really is hopeless for some people. Society will wrestle to control government for the duration of mankind, all in the name of forcing their viewpoints upon others.
You know Socialism as a philosophy is a failure when its very foundation is predicated on the basis of first taking something from someone else.
It’s not that anti-choice people are against education, they just believe that everyone should have equal access to shitty education instead of equal access to choices that include a possibly better one.
If the most destitute family can’t afford to pitch in money to send their kid to private school then from their viewpoint everyone should have to suffer the same consequences.
Philosophically, they want equality of condition, not opportunity-which is very Marxist of course-which they will deny completely for the most part except the most honest of them(which aren’t many).
I have no issue with people sending their kids to private schools. They should not require that others pay for their choice. No public school money should go to pay for private education. Period.
“They should not require that others pay for their choice.”
Yea, see that’s not the thing. The SC government has decided that it’s in everybody’s interest for everyone to pay for everyone who has kids(their education).
So there is a requirement on ALL of us. This isn’t even up for debate, it’s fact.
The question is whether the SC government allows parents to have a say so in where the confiscated tax dollars go to educate their child.
You’ve framed the debate improperly. Instead, you should be explaining why those people with kids must only have a government school choice in order to have access to confiscated dollars.
It isn’t confiscated dollars. It’s taxes for education. By your reasoning, people without children should not pay for education as they don’t “use” it. The whole society benefits when all are afforded an education. If you want your kids in private school, learning creationism and Bible verses, fine. Pay for it yourself.
“If you want your kids in private school, learning creationism and Bible verses, fine.”
See, you start with the demagoguery and then lose all credibility.
On the other hand, if you really believe the quoted above, you are just ignorant.
I would be ignorant if I agree with you.
Every week should be “Fix Public Education and Let Private Education Do Its Own Thing” week.
“Every week should be “Fix Public Education”
It is, and you can count on it going on year after year.
Can we have OUR money back, for private sector solutions…The trillions that you’ve already wasted by telling us you would fix it, if we lavished BIG money and exorbitant spending for liberals to FIX public schools?????…and you only make it worse…
Ron Paul: SOCIALIST.
Where can I sign to abolish this monkey ass socialist bullshit?