Saturday, February 15, 2014

One Less Brick in the Wall

Of all of the dastardly deeds imposed upon us by the elite, two stand at the top of the heap: central banking and public funding of education.  This post is about the latter.

I have written before about this topic – perhaps not often enough given its importance.  I cite from an earlier post:

[Gatto] quotes H.L. Mencken: “The aim [of public education] is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality”

Professor Arthur Calhoun wrote that the fondest wish of utopian thinkers was coming true: children were passing from blood families “into the custody of community experts.”

R. J. Rushdoony: “They have tithed their children to the State, and then they complain against how much the government is costing them.”

The state will educate your children.  These words should be poison to every thinking and caring parent.

A few factors will slowly, but certainly, move society from a model of structured schooling to a model of open education.

First is the demonstrable failure of the public schooling model.  I’m not merely referring to the failure to properly educate – meaning the success of indoctrination into the politically-acceptable narratives; sadly, most parents have no concern about this – state-approved brainwashing is acceptable to many, it seems.  I mean the failure to teach the basics – reading, writing, and arithmetic. 

Second is the slow but sure drumbeat of failing government finances.  Where will the resources come from to continue to advance a failed model such as public schools?  Note, I write “resources,” not “money.”  They can print the money.  They can’t create the resources.  And eventually, the ratio of dependent to independent will grow too large…and topple.

Third is the power of the internet.  Again, not just in the fact that it unleashes all sorts of information to counter the politically-acceptable narratives.  The internet offers solutions to the two factors above: the failure of the public schooling model, and the failure of government finances.

The public school model is a top-down, one-size-fits-all model.  It is inherently bureaucratic and inherently expensive.  It is not market-driven, and therefore cannot meet the variety of needs of the market.  The internet inherently offers solutions to market-identified needs – and can do this irrespective of geography.

If only 300 people in the world have the ability and desire to learn a specific subject via a specific method, they can be served via an internet solution.  They can never be served via the traditional solution – bricks and mortar in 300 different hometowns.

As to the failure of government finances: who needs bricks and mortar?  Who needs 16:1 or lower student : teacher ratio?  Who needs one administrator for every teacher?

The internet removes the need for bricks and mortar.  The internet makes laughable the current relationship of student to teacher – and certainly student to administrator?

So, now I get to the story:

After missing multiple school days because of snow this winter, Hun School history teacher Lynn McNulty wasn’t going to let a series of chain-reaction car crashes and a miles-long traffic jam on the Pennsylvania Turnpike yesterday keep her from school another day.

Bridging a distance of miles through technology, McNulty yesterday used the school’s electronic resources and her tablet computer to teach her class from her car that was stopped on the turnpike…

She was able to teach class without bricks and mortar.  She was able to reach her students; they could see her, she could see them.

The topic of yesterday’s discussion was Napolean [sic; shocking, I know] III and the Crimean War, McNulty said.

They were able to have a discussion.

Why not more students?  I am certain there are thousands in the world that would be interested in this subject.  I am sure there are dozens of teachers who are infinitely familiar with the topic.

Why can’t the teachers compete for the students?  Why can’t the students benefit from this competition between the teachers?

They can, and they will.  The best teachers and best students will take advantage of these possibilities because they can – because they do not want to remain stuffed in a box (literally and figuratively).

The average students will eventually be forced to move this way – as government finances continue to be stretched beyond any ability to offer repair.  They will now get access to the best teachers.

Average teachers will struggle for employment.  They will be left fighting for the jobs teaching the worst students in the current bricks-and-mortar fashion – those students who do not demonstrate either the ability or desire to learn.

As to the multitude of administrators?  How many administrators does it take to screw in a light bulb?  Thankfully, justice will be served as these will suffer the most.

These possibilities raise dozens of questions – the “what ifs” raised by those who have no understanding of free markets and human action.  The markets have a good way of resolving these – here is one; here is another; here is a third.

However, I will not go down all of the rabbit holes – you won’t be able to accuse me of being a central planner!  We are in the infancy of this movement.  It will sort itself out, as all questions of human interaction do if left alone.

Tear Down the Wall!

1 comment:

  1. Bionic, do you like Pink Floyd? I'm a cultist.
    This LRC article paid tribute to Roger Waters with this quote: "I was somewhat surprised that Roger Waters would attach himself to such a tawdry, canned show considering he’s been a brave, outspoken opponent of the endless wars launched since 9/11 and a critic of Israel but..."
    Roger Waters is a god/godess. (Can't think of a gender neutral word for gods.)
    Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn mentions Procrustes. Sounds like American education.