This book is from the early 70s and alot of what is said is still holds true today. Paragraphs will be staggered, as I am simply summarizing his points. State education also forces minorities groups into mainly English speaking schools. This can strip away earlier generations of different nationalities in any given district area. Basically anyone who controls the schools can injure other nationalities and benefit his own. Also, how do the other nationalities see it. The seemingly growing school power in a given district pushing out different different nationalities, the ones being pushed out still yet are coerced into paying for the school, that doesn't even speak their language. They will see each other as enemies...is this how you bring a community together? Government bureaucrats must propose a large set of uniform rules to the schools. If he did not and looked at everything from an individual case, he would cast out as someone who doesn't respect all the taxpayers in an equal/uniform manner. And then to further this, he would be looked at as discriminatory. Because of this, it is MOST efficient to simply throw down a blanket rule set in the given district. If we analyze these rules at a micro level, we see that they are derived from what should and should not be specifically taught. For example: Sex ed or not? Free markets or socialism? Traditional or Progressive? No matter what is decided, including all the different parts within each of these questions, someone parent/student is going to feel they are deprived of the specific education they want. So, based on this logic, let me add the multiplier effect, The bigger the public education, the more unpleasant families. Also another point, if these questions of what should be taught are STRICTLY in the hand of the state, then those who want the children to be taught a specific way will always be fighting state control. Yet again separating the community, not bringing anyone together. So lets draw another conclusion from this, the more the state has the power to make these decisions, the more divided a community will be. Let me use an analogy to show how a free market education system, would essentially work. Lets take another form of education: Books and magazines. In fact, these are very important forms of education. Both the magazine/book markets are very free. We have liberal, conservative, all-purpose, and all kinds of different genres. Same goes for books. If you were to free the the schooling education and abolish public schools, the free (varied) book/magazine market, would be parallel by the "school market." So, if there were only one book/magazine per city or state, What would it be about? This would end up in battles about what should be put in these books/magazines. But yet again, as I said earlier, NO MATTER what was agreed upon to put in, it would deprive numerous people of they want to read. So let the school system be as free and varied as the book/magazine market. After all, both these are simply forms of education. Also, think about this----What if we decided that the magazine and book system were to be setup like the current public education system. Lets say federal or state taxpayer money was used to setup a public nationwide magazine. And then, it became compulsory for all the citizens to read it. What would you think of this proposal? And than on top of this, the state decides to outlaw (or heavily regulate to keep the analogy as close to current school system) any other magazine. Maybe better said, if the magazine doesn't keep up with the states standard, they are kicked out, and we all know this is by the monopoly power on legislation. What would the nation think of this proposal? --------the ENTIRE NATION would deem this with HORROR. YET, this is EXACTLY what the state does with the current day school system. Following this, a compulsory press would been seen as an invasion to freedom of the press. And yet scholastic freedom is MORE IMPORTANT than press freedom simply because the schooling system has the ability to shape unformed minds. Also, think about this----What if we decided that the magazine and book system were to be setup like the current public education system. Lets say federal or state taxpayer money was used to setup a public nationwide magazine. And then, it became compulsory for all the citizens to read it. What would you think of this proposal? And than on top of this, the state decides to outlaw (or heavily regulate to keep the analogy as close to current school system) any other magazine. Maybe better said, if the magazine doesn't keep up with the states standard, they are kicked out, and we all know this is by the monopoly power on legislation. What would the nation think of this proposal? --------the ENTIRE NATION would deem this with HORROR. YET, this is EXACTLY what the state does with the current day school system. Following this, a compulsory press would been seen as an invasion to freedom of the press. And yet scholastic freedom is MORE IMPORTANT than press freedom simply because the schooling system has the ability to shape unformed minds. And if we examine, post world war 2, we see a large amount of the population want to move to surrounding suburban areas. As more younger families move to the suburbs, the largest cost seems to be the cost of the public education. So how are these schools financed? An ever growing property tax. Property tax largely falls on suburban residents. The more expensive your house is, the greater your contribution to the local school district will be. Because of this we see the current suburban individuals encourage the inflow of wealthy residents and buy expensive homes. On the flip side, they discourage an inflow of poorer citizens. Basically this leads to a break even point in which the residents will pay for the children's education in its property tax. So, what happens if families in newer houses dont pay the tax needed to finance their children's education? The other residents will pick up the tab, by means of the exiting residents. Because of this, we see suburbs develop zoning laws, that prohibit the erection of housing below that minimum cost to finance the children's education. This essentially stops any poorer families from moving out of the city, into the suburbs.. Since statistically, the black population is poorer than the whit population, blacks are unable to make the suburban move. Through this we see a lot of inner city jobs have now moved to the suburbs. This results in an increased pressure on the unemployed black community. Essentially, the abolition of of public schools would end the property-school burden property tax link. Therefore zoning laws would be removed. And also bring the whites and blacks together instead of separating them. Along with the public school system we see a complex network of coerced levies and subsidies. Most of these are networks cant be justified on any ethical grounds. Parents who send their children to private institutions are coerced into paying for the public system while paying for the private tuition. The heavily regulated private firms are thrown out by the VERY competitive tax financed high salaries. Since the public school, must be secular, yet religious parents are forced into subsidizing them. This also brings up unmarried and childless couples, who are coerced into subsidizing the public school. Where are any of the ethical principles here? We see poor single individuals and poor childless couples coerced into subsidizing the wealthy families education. Does that make any ethical sense? EVERY CHILD HAS THE [b]RIGHT[/b] TO AN EDUCATION, at the expense of the coerced. This is in fact not what a right is. A right is something that is embedded in human nature and reality. Something that is universal and can be preserved/maintained at any age or any time. It is also that is practically achievable. Something that is compatible with the necessary presuppositions of argumentation. Examples of these rights would be [b]self-ownership[/b] and the defense of you body and property. "A right to a job" "A right to three meals a day" "A right to 12 years if schooling" These can not be guaranteed and are not rights. Also, the right of [b]self-ownership[/b] is one that is compatible with the criteria listed, but also requires no special coercion upon others. As I have said before now many times, schooling is only a fraction of your total life education. If everyone truly had the "Right" to an education, than the state shall subsidize newspapers, books, and any other form of education. Many private schooling firms are operating "illegally" due to failure to meet the requirements of the state. The oversupply of children into these compulsory schools by families who don't have to pay for the education, end up showing no interest or who are unsuitable in school. These kids could be better off at home or working. The result of this mass schooling is the imprisonment of children who are under the impression that they must finish high school to become employed. I quote Arthur Stinchcombe [quote]Is there anything that a high school can teach which employers of manual labor would be willing to pay for, if it were learned well? In general, the answer is no. Neither physical abilities nor reliability, the two main variables of interest in employers of manual labor, are much influenced by schooling. Employers concerned with securing reliable workers may require high school diplomas as evidence of good discipline. Otherwise they can train workers better and cheaper than a high school can, on the job.[/quote] Part of the blame for compulsory attendance and mass public schooling must also be laid at the door of the labor unions which, in order to reduce competition from young, adolescent workers, try to force the youth out of the labor market and into education.