Those who know me know that I am unequivocally opposed to public education and any kind of state control of education and children. With that being said, I would like to discuss implications pertaining to the 2008 election, particularly with regard to the alleged candidate chosen by God Himself, Mike Huckabee.
A few months ago, I discovered that the evangelical based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has made an early endorsement of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I am not entirely surprised at this move as they have become more of an organ of the religious right, especially since the conception of their PAC in 2003. Despite the connection to the religious right, I nonetheless believe that the HSLDA is a beneficial resource for homeschoolers, especially Christian homeschoolers. They provide valuable legal help/resources and information pertaining to homeschooling that the mainstream press often conveniently ignores.
I think that it is reasonably obvious why the religious right lends support to Huckabee on numerous other issues (i.e. he is a statist and a warmonger who believes that Israel is really the 51st state). What fueled my curiosity is why the HSLDA and other religious conservatives might support Huckabee based solely on his education platform.
Here is a portion of what the HSLDA PAC endorsement reads:
Mike Huckabee, as governor, was the first to appoint a homeschooler to the Arkansas State Board of Education, and to our knowledge the first to do so in any state. He is adamantly opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is committed to stopping the erosion of parental rights.
I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.
As soon as I read this, I forthwith became skeptical about his entire education platform. To the Huckster's credit, he does mention homeschooling but I was nevertheless mystified concerning the way in which the he might reconcile his position on homeschooling with a seemingly obvious declaration or allusion to a universal right to public education (for those who do not see why there is room for concern, I am currently blogging on this issue at my personal blog). My skepticism has since then multiplied when I recently took a proverbial stroll back to the holy one's campaign site to find the following, in place of what was written previously:
I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.
Why, one might reasonably inquire, did he mollify his original statement by changing his use of language? Some folks might believe that this is just an honest revision and perhaps it really is. But I am slightly more skeptical. Firstly, the remainder of the text in his platform appears to be relatively unaltered from the original. Secondly, he did not make the changes due to grammatical or otherwise syntactical ambiguities. He only changed and removed a few key words. If one considers the changes that were made, it seems reasonable for one to deduce that he is trying to keep himself from sounding too much like a socialist or a Democrat.
There are those who might be apt to believe that I am extrapolating too much from all of this and making a nuisance of myself. Yet in response, I am forced to again inquire how one may genuinely be interested in protecting parental rights while at the same time deliver multiple promises, as Huckabee does, to remedy the very same system that facilitates their violation.
To elaborate, lets consider some of the more fine points on the Huckster's platform.
Firstly, he seems to suggest that all children have a universal right to education and I see no further need to comment on that (actually, I am copiously commenting on this in general on my blog).
Next, there are only two occurrences of the word “homeschooling” on the Huckster's education platform. The first occurs on his bulleted list at the top of his platform on education (nothing has been altered here from it's original appearance like the previous statement was):
I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.
The next occurrence appears to be the point that was summarized at the top:
As Governor, I fought hard for more charter schools, with their strong parental involvement and their unique ability to serve as laboratories for education reform, and for the rights of parents to home school their children. I am a strong supporter of public school choice. I am proud that my three children attended public schools from K through twelve, as did my wife and I.
Thus, while Huckabee does mention homeschooling, he couples it with either public school choice or charter schools. He says nothing about genuine private solutions and nothing about the issue of homeschool regulation. The overall emphasis of his platform is focused on what the state can do to supposedly improve education. To put two and two together seems to reveal a paradox. How does homeschooling fit within his idea that all children ought to receive a public education (or all children should receive an education, as the revision goes)? If one is to receive a "quality" education there must be some way of making such a judgment. Incidentally, I am amused at the way he puts the purpose of charter schools: laboratories for education reform. Are children these days nothing more than little lab rats to be experimented on by a plethora of self-righteous educrats?
Furthermore, would he compel parents to send their children to public schools if all of the problems he perceives to exist have been resolved? That is, does Huckabee believe that homeschooling is merely a temporary solution justified by what he perceives to be problems with the public schools or is it something more?
He goes on to note that:
In addition, I want to provide our children what I call the "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - art and music - the secret, effective weapons that will help us to be competitive and creative. It is crucial that children flex both the left and right sides of the brain. We all know the cliché of thinking outside the box: I want our children to be so creative that they think outside the cardboard factory. Art and music are as important as math and science because the dreamers and visionaries among us take the rough straw of an idea and spin it into the gold of new businesses and jobs. It is as important to identify and encourage children with artistic talent as it is those with athletic ability. Our future economy depends on a creative generation.
I again find his use of language rather interesting: he wants our children to be creative. It's important to him that our children can do this or that or that our children can play the hurdy gurdy better than the Islamo-Fascists. I also like the way he thinks it's his duty to inoculate our children with his WMI's. If you want creative solutions, then here is a suggestion: I dare you to get on camera and discuss a workable plan to eventually abolish all government involvement in education. But alas, I surmise that only certain kinds of creative solutions are permissible. Also, I think that his allusion to WMD's is rather morbid. Perhaps we can simultaneously drop them on children who live in the countries we invade and occupy (I wouldn't put it past this guy).
He continues by enumerating the usual list of actions with which we may occupy ourselves to 'improve' the government schools. Each U.S. State ought to set benchmarks, he writes. We need to hire competent teachers, he writes. We need to expose children to more art and music, he writes. We need to hold teachers and administrators accountable, he writes. Blah blah blah, I passed this law and did that, blah blah blah, pay teachers more, focus on real education, set benchmarks, blah blah blah. The same rhetoric that politicians have been using for decades concerning education is therein mentioned but decades of spewing lofty goals has not managed to ameliorate poor academic performance. Yet why should this be surprising? I would contend that the schools are operating within the parameters under which they were conceived.
Most importantly, in the midst all of this discussion about education policy, it seems that we have failed to consider the fact that the Federal Constitution has little to say on this matter (i.e. efforts to abolish compulsory education should be directed at the states). While Huckabee does mention states' rights, he does so very superficially. However, this will be of little consequence if the Democrats get their way (I wonder if this amendment would be illegally ratified like the many that will precede it if so).
Finally, here is a video of the Huckster himself speaking at the NEA Annual Convention this past summer. Anyone who knows anything about the NEA knows that they are most certainly not friendly to those who homeschool nor to anyone desiring educational freedom (they essentially view everyone's children as job insurance for their members).
Outstanding post! Great to have you back with us!
ReplyDelete