Education and the Current Healthcare Debate

[Frank_Schnorbus]

I am Frank Schnorbus and am the Chair of Nevada Homeschool Network. I was encouraged earlier today to hear Sean compare the healthcare bill to education; as far as I know he's the FIRST nationally known host to do so! Below is a post I wrote a week or so ago for our statewide email loop that I'd like to pass along to this audience. The day I wrote it I was especially motivated because our own Senator Reid had just announced that the public option was back in the bill. The post below is my own and is not officially endorsed by Nevada Homeschool Network.
-Frank Schnorbus

I am troubled by the current healthcare debate for a number of reasons, but mostly because of the similarity of the arguments used 100 plus years ago when individual states were considering making education compulsory.

Our own Senator Reid’s “solution” to “allow” states to opt out is nothing new. Remember that Massachusetts was the first to pass a law requiring school attendance in 1852, and Mississippi the last in 1918 (Alaska was 1929, but was a Territory at the time). One by one all of the States will eventually “opt in” to this “public healthcare option” as fiscal pressures to comply are applied by Washington DC, and Senator Reid knows it.

One hundred or so years ago there were publicly funded “common” schools, but attendance wasn’t required. Private and charity schools, which had dominated the landscape previously, had to try to compete with these free or comparatively inexpensive common schools, driving a significant percentage of them out of existence.
Making education compulsory then gave states an excuse to regulate the remaining private schools, and most states attempted to either regulate them out of business altogether, or force them to be very expensive clones of public schools that only wealthy people could afford.

Note that the current healthcare debate includes the “public option”, where all people will be required to have insurance and those who can’t afford it will have it given to them. Any remaining private insurance companies will be very highly regulated. This sounds chillingly like compulsory public school to me.

I know there is a percentage of people who think that government can do a better job at anything, but there are many of us who don’t think so. I got an email today that showed a sign of all the “broke” government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Post Office, Cash for Clunkers); I was surprised that education wasn’t listed because it should be #1! Maybe it’s because it isn’t seen as an explicitly Federal program, but we all know that the Feds drive every decision in every single pubic school system in the country.

I then watched a segment on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer with the new AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. As the chief spokesman for organized labor, including teacher’s unions, Trumka was shown in one clip as he was being briefed on organized labor’s lobbying efforts for “government insurance for all, the so-called public option”, as the reporter described it. I immediately recalled a 1985 quote by Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Could you imagine a nurse’s union uttering that in a medical system where there is no real choice in healthcare? It somehow seems that government mandated programs become bad for the common man as special interest groups work to monopolize and extort.

It also becomes an issue of freedom. As I read histories and stories of our country’s founding and the westward expansion, I often wonder how it would have happened if we had compulsory education, mandatory healthcare, cops on every corner, and a Gestapo-like mentality where today we call the authorities whenever we see a car that’s smoking, or worse, a person that’s smoking.

Nowadays we have authorities that second guess your every decision, especially in the area of child-raising. The Soviets encouraged children to turn in parents who were, hold your breath, Christians! Recently there have been accusations of educational abuse for parents who teach Intelligent Design instead of the state-approved Evolutionary Theory.
These bureaucratic mental midgets now want a healthcare system that will effectively stifle innovation by eliminating all real choice, and force every living American to be part of it. I personally feel it should be my choice if I want to go to a doctor or not, or have healthcare or not.

Of course I have compassion for those who have needs, be they medical, physical, spiritual or emotional needs. But I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where the Federal government should be involved in meeting those needs. I know that we have a lot of precedence for Federal intervention, and there are cases where I might agree that the program has done some good.

But given the government’s track record in education alone, I am certain that we are dangerously close to making a colossal mistake in healthcare that we will forever regret.

[Apatriot]

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

I am Frank Schnorbus and am the Chair of Nevada Homeschool Network. I was encouraged earlier today to hear Sean compare the healthcare bill to education; as far as I know he's the FIRST nationally known host to do so! Below is a post I wrote a week or so ago for our statewide email loop that I'd like to pass along to this audience. The day I wrote it I was especially motivated because our own Senator Reid had just announced that the public option was back in the bill. The post below is my own and is not officially endorsed by Nevada Homeschool Network.
-Frank Schnorbus

I am troubled by the current healthcare debate for a number of reasons, but mostly because of the similarity of the arguments used 100 plus years ago when individual states were considering making education compulsory.

Our own Senator Reid’s “solution” to “allow” states to opt out is nothing new. Remember that Massachusetts was the first to pass a law requiring school attendance in 1852, and Mississippi the last in 1918 (Alaska was 1929, but was a Territory at the time). One by one all of the States will eventually “opt in” to this “public healthcare option” as fiscal pressures to comply are applied by Washington DC, and Senator Reid knows it.

However, that is not why the states adopted mandatory education. They adopted it for the right reason--the public demanded it. States are well in their powers to provide education or healthcare, as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it. The feds, on the other hand, have no business in either field as there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing it.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

One hundred or so years ago there were publicly funded “common” schools, but attendance wasn’t required. Private and charity schools, which had dominated the landscape previously, had to try to compete with these free or comparatively inexpensive common schools, driving a significant percentage of them out of existence.

You just contradicted yourself. In the paragraph before you said that by 1918 (89 yrs ago) all the states had mandatory education.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

Making education compulsory then gave states an excuse to regulate the remaining private schools, and most states attempted to either regulate them out of business altogether, or force them to be very expensive clones of public schools that only wealthy people could afford.

Most states that I have examined (primarily the SE) have almost no regulation of private schools beyond attendance requirements.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

Note that the current healthcare debate includes the “public option”, where all people will be required to have insurance and those who can’t afford it will have it given to them. Any remaining private insurance companies will be very highly regulated. This sounds chillingly like compulsory public school to me.

I know there is a percentage of people who think that government can do a better job at anything, but there are many of us who don’t think so. I got an email today that showed a sign of all the “broke” government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Post Office, Cash for Clunkers); I was surprised that education wasn’t listed because it should be #1! Maybe it’s because it isn’t seen as an explicitly Federal program, but we all know that the Feds drive every decision in every single pubic school system in the country.

No, they don't. We don't even have a federal curriculum. The feds mainly drive special ed and vocational training.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

I then watched a segment on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer with the new AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. As the chief spokesman for organized labor, including teacher’s unions, Trumka was shown in one clip as he was being briefed on organized labor’s lobbying efforts for “government insurance for all, the so-called public option”, as the reporter described it. I immediately recalled a 1985 quote by Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

His job is representing the teacher's interests, not anybody elses. They pay him to represent their interests.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

Could you imagine a nurse’s union uttering that in a medical system where there is no real choice in healthcare? It somehow seems that government mandated programs become bad for the common man as special interest groups work to monopolize and extort.

Yes, a nurse's union would utter the same thing. The union's responsibility is the worker.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

It also becomes an issue of freedom. As I read histories and stories of our country’s founding and the westward expansion, I often wonder how it would have happened if we had compulsory education, mandatory healthcare, cops on every corner, and a Gestapo-like mentality where today we call the authorities whenever we see a car that’s smoking, or worse, a person that’s smoking.

Different times, different emphasis. You sound like the liberals that judge the settlers by today's standards.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

Nowadays we have authorities that second guess your every decision, especially in the area of child-raising. The Soviets encouraged children to turn in parents who were, hold your breath, Christians! Recently there have been accusations of educational abuse for parents who teach Intelligent Design instead of the state-approved Evolutionary Theory.
These bureaucratic mental midgets now want a healthcare system that will effectively stifle innovation by eliminating all real choice, and force every living American to be part of it. I personally feel it should be my choice if I want to go to a doctor or not, or have healthcare or not.

To not teach evolution to a child is educational abuse. That doesn't mean that intelligent design can't (or shouldn't ) be taught by the parents, but anybody who doesn't know the basics of evolution (whether they agree with it or not, which is a different issue) is not getting a decent education.

In terms of healthcare, then, I'm sure you will sign something that says you won't accept government healthcare should you be incapacitated.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

Of course I have compassion for those who have needs, be they medical, physical, spiritual or emotional needs. But I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where the Federal government should be involved in meeting those needs. I know that we have a lot of precedence for Federal intervention, and there are cases where I might agree that the program has done some good.

I agree with you in terms of federal intervention. I do think that a state can provide universal healthcare as part of their governmental powers.

Originally Posted by Frank_Schnorbus

But given the government’s track record in education alone, I am certain that we are dangerously close to making a colossal mistake in healthcare that we will forever regret.

Most people are happy with their local schools.

I agree with you on healthcare, but disagree totally on education. I don't disagree that we should stop mandatory education earlier (14 instead of 16, maybe), but I think kids should be provided with education by the state until that point. I think it is the basis of our revolution (MA (as a colony) was the first place in the world to make public education a required function of government. Many of our poorer founders (i.e. Ben Franklin) were products of MA public schools).

[RWReaganfan]

Originally Posted by Apatriot

Many of our poorer founders (i.e. Ben Franklin) were products of MA public schools).

Ben Franklin only attended school until he was 10 years old.

[markakleive]

This is a really good article. It is very informative. Thank you!

Dentist in Maplewood

[buflineks]

Originally Posted by Apatriot

However, that is not why the states adopted mandatory education. They adopted it for the right reason--the public demanded it. States are well in their powers to provide education or healthcare, as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it. The feds, on the other hand, have no business in either field as there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing it.

The Federal intervention into education was a result of WWI.

The Federal Government realized that with modern warfare, it was necessary to have militaries that the common conscript have a basic education. During the massive draft of the "Great War", the military was calling upon citizens and then realizing that many of these individuals, while physically capable, did not have some basic educational skills such as reading and basic mathamatics.

It was because of this that the Federal Govt. became involved in trying to establish a loose model of uniformity in education for the nation.

It didn't have anything to do with "public demand", it had to do with National Security.

In the Words of Dewey, " A democracy with an uneducated electorate is doomed to failure." (The Problems of Men c.1930)

[Apatriot]

Originally Posted by RWReaganfan

Ben Franklin only attended school until he was 10 years old.

Yes, but those years he did attend was in public schools.

[RWReaganfan]

Originally Posted by Apatriot

Yes, but those years he did attend was in public schools.

The fact that the man had many accomplishments despite having a limited education is the point. Where he went to school for a short period of time is irrelevant.

[prof8]

Originally Posted by Apatriot

However, that is not why the states adopted mandatory education. They adopted it for the right reason--the public demanded it.

No, actually, the public did not. The educationists did... repeatedly (kind of like the radical leftists and regressive income extortion, the socialist insecurity abomination, medicare, medicaid...).

For that matter socialist educationism was written into the Articles of Confederation and the NorthWest Ordinance, before "the public" had any option to reject or demand it.

[Apatriot]

Originally Posted by prof8

No, actually, the public did not. The educationists did... repeatedly (kind of like the radical leftists and regressive income extortion, the socialist insecurity abomination, medicare, medicaid...).

If the public didn't like it, they would have said so. As it was, most voters were for the idea of public education, as they are now. It's a good idea. There are some duties of government. Most of us feel that education is one of those, just like police protection, fire protection, building roads, etc.

[Apatriot]

Originally Posted by RWReaganfan

The fact that the man had many accomplishments despite having a limited education is the point. Where he went to school for a short period of time is irrelevant.

Other firebrands of the Revolution, notably Samuel Adams, were also the product of Massachussetts public schools. What anti-public education folks forget is that public education is an American idea, and it is part of what made us unique up until the 20th century.