CRAFT Article - To Destroy Public Education

[EagleDad]

I thought you might all get a little enlightenment out of some articles that were posted in May on the CRAFT blog:

To Destroy Public Education, part 1: Die Monster Die

Public education is one of those phrases that is now almost exclusively used in combination with the word "reform". Unfortunately, by the time something is so screwed up that the sheep realize that reform is necessary, it's too late, and the only satisfactory remedy is to destroy the thing and start over (or leave it behind and create an alternative, like the Puritans who originally set out to reform the Church of England, then gave. All new hope comes from despair, the death of old hope). Since systems tend to perpetuate themselves (actually most of them don't, but the successful ones are the ones that do, and that's what we're left to deal with), there is much more resistance to this than would seem to be warranted by the possible negative consequences of replacing the system, considering the supposed purposes of the system and whether it has ever filled these purposes better than an entirely different system (or no system at all) would. Even such a no-brainer as abolishing the Department of Education is considered too controversial for a politician to even mention, even though no one has ever gone so far as to come up with a reason for it to exist in the first place (Maybe there was something, I think it had to do with Sputnik...).

Next to the table I type on is a pile of books, topped with one by Major General John Stanford (foreword by Albert Gore),
subtitled "We CAN Give Our Children Excellent Public Education" (OUR children? Never mind). It is not made clear therein exactly why it is so important that education be public as well as excellent. One of the noteworthy premises of the book is that public schools ought to be run as if they were private enterprises. I've never been entirely clear about the meaning of the phrase "begging the question", but if that isn't it then it isn't a very useful expression.

The burden of proof is placed upon those who would eliminate public education, although it belongs on those who defend it, since what they defend is expensive, and their position concerning it is affirmative (this is why someone on trial is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor is saying that he DID do something. That he DID NOT is a negative statement, so it does not have to be proven.) When one tries to figure out why some feel public education is the only possible answer, one is almost forced to guess.

Original Post at:
citizensforreasonableandfairtaxes.blogspot.com/2006/05/to-destroy-public-education-part-1-die.html

[EagleDad]

To Destroy Public Education.
Part two: The Munger Plan.

To review: the current educational system must die a violent death:
• Because the things that are accomplished by the government controlled system are either unnecessary, harmful or could be accomplished in other ways.
• Because even the proponents of the status-quo concede that the coercive, monopolistic bureaucracy would work best if it was run AS IF it were a private enterprise.
• Because it is so resistant to change that any reform profound enough to make a difference would be destructive anyway.
• Because an education system based on socialistic premises necessarily teaches socialistic values, and can't maintain neutrality on any issue, since socialist ideology is dogmatic on every conceivable issue.
• Because of numerous flaws in the system that are inherent and proverbial.

Glad we could get that out of the way in a hurry.

Post-literate America demands that whenever the elimination of a government institution is proposed, the party making the proposal must present them with an alternative government program to replace it. Catch-22: the only way to remedy this would be by educating the populace under a different system, one enforcing standards alien to the society we've got now; hence, one not likely to spring forth organically.

As odious as this sounds, in order for an alternative to be put into practice in the atmosphere and for the foreseeable future, it has to be passed into law at the federal level. A solution that requires initiative from the people acting independently of politics will have to wait for a later, less political era. The solution will have to provide education free of charge to the children of "the poor," as the current system purports to do.

Original post at:
citizensforreasonableandfairtaxes.blogspot.com/2006/05/to-destroy-public-education-part-two.html

[EagleDad]

Self explanatory, and speaks volumes for who we were dealing with (and who still endorses 2 memebers of the district 203 board).

Does this make anyone else want to throw up? I just thought you should see if for yourselves.

[bob]

Don't forget that CFO is a CRAFT affliate.

[momof3]

I actually think that Davitt & Caulfield have a decent idea every once in a while, but I think their affiliation with the CRAFT loonies has destroyed any credibility they may have had.
Same with CFO and WDTA.
We need to archive these extremist posts for reference in '09.

[wvhsparent]

What I find amusing about this article is while they state the Public School System we have in place today should be destroyed, they also state it needs to be replaced with a different system, but no mention of this replacement system. Personally I really think we could do without about half of the government acencies we have now, but that will never happen.

FYI - Illinois has more units/agencies of government than any other State......

Maybe CRAFT should work on those first.....


WOO HOO!!! ;D ;D my 1000th post!!!!

[bob]

We must kill the patient in order to save it. They sound very Aryan.