Customer Reviews

Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Sheldon Richman presents us with a fascinating story here. Why were public schools first founded? Because people were illiterate? No. Records from colonial times show that literacy rates were higher than they are now in some places. There were all kinds of instructors, schools, schoolmasters, tutors, and self-taught leaders like Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton, at the time of the American Revolution. There was tremendous resistance, well into the 20th century against government-owned, operated, and controlled "free schools." And no wonder. We now have an established school system that manifests all the problems the Founders saw inherent in an established church. The arguments the promoters gave are presented here, and some of then are pretty scary. The goals of the public school founders had more to do with the state's interests, than children's or family's interests. The idea was to indoctrinate children with the morality preferred by "politically correct" officials of the time. Compulsory laws came in when labor unions wanted to keep kids from competing for jobs. The opponents give their side here, too. Like a lot of people, I did not know much about the history of public schools before I started reading books like this one. I have come to agree with this author. This is an excellent argument for freedom of education, and giving control back to families and parents.

Most of the last three generations of Americans grew up attending public schools, therefore it is unsurprising that so few people question the premise behind it. After all, as Sheldon Richman poinst out in this highly charged book, why is it that we trust the free market to provide us with important things like food and clothing, while we think nothing of permitting education to be a government run enterprise? After reading Separating School & State, it will be hard to look at public education in America the same way ever again.

Richman discusses the origins of public schooling in America, how educators like Horace Mann were influenced by the public schools in Prussia, apparently unaware that the schools there served the function of molding children to be dutiful servants of the state.

My only fault with Separating School & State is that I would like to have seen more discussion about possible free market educational models, but that is probably a book to be written some other day.

Richman's book should be read in tandem with Myron Lieberman's Public Education: An Autopsy. Whereas Richman arouses the passions of those like myself with his take no prisoners approach and his libertarian perspective, Lieberman's prose is much drier as he explains that the public school model is inherently faulty because it is a model that is more concerned with protecting the education providers than in serving the real needs of the education consumers.

First of all, let me say that I'm a staunch Libertarian. I agree with all of Mr. Richman's ideas, I think American education is in drastic need of reform, and I do not believe in government schooling at all. Having said that, this is a horrible book. Most of it has nothing to do with education per se, but is rather a rehash of all of the classic, broad Libertarian arguments. He talks at great length about how privatizing education will give parents greater choice and control over their children's education, the superiority of the market over government control, yada yada. Yes, these arguments apply to education, but they are not specifically about education. Neither is this interesting writing. Anybody familiar with very basic Libertarian ideas will be bored to tears by this book.

Furthermore, Richman's main sources are "Education: Free and Compulsory," by Rothbard, and various works by Gatto. Half of the book is comprised of quotes from these and a few other sources. The other half is Richman's rephrasing of these quotes. I cannot emphasize enough how little Richman adds to the ideas he presents. The reviews below discuss how Richman talks about the history of education, the comparison of church and school, etc. If these reviewers had read "Free and Compulsory," they would have gotten the same discussion at a much deeper level from a much better author. One reviewer mentioned how the format of school, with children in desks being lectured, is a problem. If they'd read "Dumbing us Down," they'd have gotten a better discussion of that from someone with experience. Now, the two aforementioned books are certainly good works, and if you're interested in education, I'd recommend reading them, but you don't need to read Richman's glorified synopsis.

Finally, it's not surprising that Richman doesn't have any original thoughts on education. He's not an educator, he's a writer for a Libertarian think-tank. As such, I should not find it surprising that this book is a rehashing of familiar Libertarian ideas. If you're really interested in the problems of this country's education system, read Gatto, he was a public school teacher for thirty years, and he has very good, credible insights.

PS. The only reason I'm giving this book a second star is for its 20 page appendix that discusses some studies on standardized testing and the relationship between school performance and work performance. It's a good discussion. If the whole book were like it, I might not be so mad I spent fifteen dollars. As it is though, I must recommend emphatically, DON'T BUY THIS.

This is by far the best book on the subject. Richman brings forth the full weight of both history and libertarian theory to completely dismantle and ultimately destroy any justification for public education. Even if you already advocate the abolition of government systems of education, there is still much knowledge and insight to be gained from this book.

The very title of this book shocks many. The concept of education being free of governmental influence--or more bluntly, the idea that public schools are a harmful farce that should be eliminated--goes against everything most of us have been told, have accepted, and have grown up with. Yet the case is made, and the evidence is overwhelming.

The historical examination of education in this country is almost worth the purchase alone. What, we haven't always had public schools? What, people resisted public schools early on and had to have their children enrolled almost literally at gunpoint? This sets the stage for the examination of why we have public schools now, where the idea came from, how it works, what's wrong with it, and why it should be abolished. The points are ironclad; in fact, once you see how radically government involvement in the provision of education differs from that of other goods and services--such as health care, financial assistance, and even food--you'll begin to see how education in the U.S. has become the tangled, irrepairable mess that it now is.

The thing which secures the fifth star for this book however, is its raising of another, almost revolutionary thought: that the current day model of education (teacher lecturing to seated students, grading papers, and so on) is part of the problem, and less than ideal. The concept actually fits hand-in-hand with his call for free-market education, as unfettered innovation in the educational field should naturally yield new and better methods of teaching children what they and their parents want to learn.

Five stars for bold, clear presentation of a controversial viewpoint, fresh historical revelations, solid defense of the viewpoint (with rebuttals to key objections), and examination of the idea taken to its logical conclusions.

Separating School & State provides a clear, yet sobering analysis of the roots of the American public school system. Parents who wonder if they should home school their children would be well advised to read this, and then pass it around to anyone who questions their decision to home school.

The author traces the ignoble history of
imposed schooling from Sparta, through
Prussia, to the United States. He makes a
compelling case for why schooling should not
be funded, compelled, and defined by the state.

This is a very well written book about why government should not be involved in educating children.

One of the author's main points is that the public school system is failing because it is based on a socialist model. The author points out that most everyone agrees that the public school system is not performing well and it is very, very broken. Sheldon Richman argues that people who try to fix the public school system by keeping it as a government school system are doomed to fail.

For me one of the most fascinating parts of the book was when the author took a step back in time and reviewed the bloody history of the middle ages when government and religion were intertwined, and war after war was fought "to save souls." A fundamental problem was that by having a state religion, people felt justified in trying to force other people to believe a certain way. Naturally the minority groups opposed supporting the state religion and being forced to support repugnant beliefs. Sheldon Richman says one of the great breakthroughs in civilization was the separation of church and state. As long as people behaved in a reasonable way, they could believe whatever they wanted to believe. The author makes the analogy that one of the main problems with public (government) schools is that once again the state is forcing people (children) to believe certain beliefs. And sometimes these beliefs are repugnant to the students and the parents.

The author reviewed a number of other problems with the public school system. For example he pointed out that school bureaucracies are not flexible and have little incentive to improve. Another point was public school systems are a one size fits all, which is not good for most children.

The author briefly covers the history of education in America. He provides some of the main arguments other people have put forth against government supported schools. He explores some ideas of how people could get an education without government schools, and how competition might provide some interesting options.

This is a very thoughtful book. There are a number of good insights about the problems of public education. If you are interested in the fundamental question of should government be involved in education, this is a good book to read.

I would like to second Paul Dunlop's comments regarding Education: Free and Compulsory by Rothbard, and An Underground History of American Education by Gatto. These are both excellent books on a subject that most Americans, sadly, never even consider - that is, why public schools are "free" and "compulsory". I would also like to point out that both of these books can be read in their entirety online, for free. Underground History is available at www.johntaylorgatto.com and Free and Compulsory is available at www.mises.org. The Mises website is a generally excellent resource for all manner of libertarian writings, especially in regard to economics. As a result of these writings (and many others), we have pulled 3 of our 4 children out of government schools and are teaching them at home. The 4th is a senior this year. I would also like to recommend that if you do have kids in public schools, esp high school, ask them to bring home their text books. Look through them carefully, esp history, government, and economics texts, but also science (few actual labs, lots of PC science), math (no proofs in geometry) and English (no term papers, but we film plays instead, and we have a grammar book, but have never opened it-although it has been issued to students for 4 years, the pages are in mint condition). My whole opinion of public schools can be summed up in four words - I had no idea. And my kids were in the gifted and talented program at the only academic magnet school in the city. My experiences were not even with average public schools, but with the supposed best. I am sorry that it is too late for our oldest(a National Merit Finalist this year, one of the 22 in his class), but needless to say, we will not be sending him to a public college.

It is difficult for me to write a review of this book without stepping onto my soapbox about the public school system and identifying how it is indeed the vector for teen pregnancy, violence, ignorance, gang activity, social disorder, materialism, drug use, divorce rate and familial dissolution. Churches, schools, politicians, parents and corporations have tried/continue to try many different programs to intervene with the vertical, and epic, ascension of the above odious trends in society, but nothing seems to mitigate the infection. It does not take acuity to expose the fact that public school has been the one constant in society (for nearly two centuries) without the prescription for ablation. At this revelation I would move that we obviate the system altogether, whether that be private or public, and return the children to the best place for their moral, intellectual and familial integrity-HOME. Public school is a manufacturing plant that utilizes stamps and dies for the product of education, and homeschool is the handcrafted, intricate, personal and articulate design for a better product. While any form of education will have its set backs and defects the public school's defects are preponderant, ubiquitous, consistent, commensurable and malignant to society due to its "die and press" approach to education. The truth is that there are those who "need" the system so at least give it back to the people to control through a free-market enterprise. Can you imagine a society that has NO government owned and operated schools? What about the same society, but with "public" schools that are privately owned? Is that coin really a paradox? Sheldon Richman takes a sojourn upon a subject that I had never actually thought of, a FREE-MARKET SCHOOL SYSTEM. Interestingly enough, free-market and capitalism is the underlying principle of this nation and it is obvious that impediments and barriers prevent the emergence of more inexpensive private endeavors.

Richman gives the reader an opportunity to review the studious erection of the government controlled schools from another perspective of history. Within the realm of reality the truth only emerges from these Infowars(.com) that we have in society, and we find ourselves only receiving the arbitrary truth. With that in mind it is imperative that we have investigative reporters on our side for a change. Richman creates a vista of the colonies, with accredited sources, wherein the school systems were marveled by scholars, effective and available to a wide range of social disparities; but, the schools were privatized! He also elicits with validated sources a statistical review of the interest in reading during the colonial days compared to today`s society by per capita and book sales. This may not have much pertinence to some people, because he only referred to the sale of four different books, but the sales where exponential in comparison to today. But, for me it is explicitly obvious that an intelligent and informed society is a society that has the cerebral fortitude to interject where it is not considered affable for them to do so (i.e., politics).

Some other salutary points that stuck with me were:

Have you have ever read the harbinger named 1984? It said that the children will be raised by public institutions and will be trained to monitor their parents. This indeed could be severely debated, but I can see where this is being either studiously or inadvertently manifested now. Further elaboration is not necessary, for I need not convincing.

One topic that elicits an exponential level of exacerbation for me is the Therapeutic State. It seems to me that the pharmaceutical corporations and their sentinels, The "Experts" (i.e., physiologists, medical doctors, etc.), have a close viral affinity with the public school system. ADD and ADHD is promulgated and diagnosed by our public schools, with that diagnosis they refer you to a specialist that informs you that your child indeed needs to be pharmaceutically induced. Is there any wonder why the diagnosis of ADD or ADHD has increased severely over the past ten years? It is less tolerance, so the proclivity of ascension is inevitable. The avenues of opportunity is multifarious for pharmaceutical sales in the public school system with new, nearly annual, "disorders" that are identified, and thus marketing ensues the general population by the nefarious public schools. A perfect example is the novel manifestation of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or ODD-do they have to be so blatant now?! This new disorder is obviously an avenue to stifle all political dissent and any unorthodox style of thought-so say au revoir to the free thinkers of our society. If a child fidgets in a desk, where they are expected to sit for 5 to 6 hours a day, or if they are just not interested in the subject at hand and makes poorly on a subsequent test the answer to that quandary is to place them in a trance. I have to laugh, but it is indeed simultaneously odious, because to hear the psychologist of today stating that they have figured out the "early" signs for ADD and ADHD so they can intervene before it becomes a problem. I personally do not believe that these disorders exist and it is obvious through research that there are psychologist that disagree with those diagnoses. I deride at those that say, "Well I have a child that is ADHD," or, "I am ADD," because they are a product of manipulation. This is not the primary reason why I disagree with ADD and ADHD, but nonetheless a perfect example: I home school my son, he is 4, and while we are learning he is jumping all over the couch and turning flips while I am teaching him. At first it frustrated me, because I had that general public school mentality that this was unacceptable (which there, I guess it would have to be to sustain order), the more I tried to obviate that behavior the less he learned. I realized that if I liberated him and allowed him do those things the more he learned. So I would just recommend trying homeschool (if you can) before you concede and enroll them in the pharmaceuticopia.

The existence of public school itself is a core of the socialist philosophy. What ultimately happens is the intelligent children are dumbed down and the ignorant children are brought up slightly to neutralize intellect and have average citizens of "equal" intellect-so much for Capitalism!

Society as a mass has become so tolerant and dependant upon what the Fed can do for them that they have indeed forgot their ability to be independent and do for themselves. Freedom's definition is an aberration, community is lost, state government and other municipal bodies are nearly emasculated, our Federal government has become a fusion between Fascism and Communism, family is dissolved, crime is a pandemic, ignorance is a pestilence and people like me are the ones that are labeled as intellectually destitute or completely inane because we have principles adhering to the true CONSERVATVE roots and we actually have the audacity to ask critical questions. Sometimes I lament, because I fear that one day I will forget to remember.

One of the only true disagreements I have with the book is that on page 24 he accuses the public schools of teaching "pagan style worship of Mother Nature." This irritates me, I am not a Christian, but I have a very ornate spirituality comprised of many different philosophies from a diversity of spiritual paths, one being Paganism. I personally agree with our children's awareness being calibrated back to understand that Gaia does exist and the Earth is a living breathing organism. Our relationship to her should be a form of deep respect and not of abuse by abundance of what has been bestowed to us. I by no means, genuflect knees and bow to her, but I understand that she is family. From a more universally applicable perspective, regardless of spiritual path, Earth is our home and we should respect that and not participate in behaviors that cause its denigration.

I will leave the reader of my review with one quote that is now engrained as my vanguard of attack against the public school system, and as well identifies the nefariousness behind public school's conception: Richman says on page 39, "After all, when proponents of government activism wanted to subsidize the purchase of food, they did not propose that government build a system of state grocery stores. They instead created food stamps. So the question is: Why are there public schools rather than "school stamps"?"