Public schools are destined for mediocrity simply by existing as institutional extensions of the state. The abominable marriage of education and government fails because it disconnects cost and benefit, thereby severing learning from the powerful forces of scarcity, freedom and competition.

Public schools are a virtual monopoly on education. As a parent, do you send your kid to the local, free public school or pay to send them to a private institution of your own liking? Unless you're wealthy, the choice is clear. Sidenote: if monopolies are so bad per the government, one wonders why the government is okay with a virtual monopoly over education.

As a virtual monopoly, public education must be tailored to all constituents. Though magnet schools are starting to proliferate (from what I can tell anecdotally), education tends to be leveled at the average student. Though the difficulty of subjects taught may be useful for a majority (assuming the average lies within one standard of the mean - call it 70% of the population), they can only poorly meet the needs of the other 30% who require either less or more difficult material.

But perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the state's entanglement with education comes when answering the unavoidable question of what to teach. In keeping with the notion of "separation of church and state", religion, as a stand-alone subject, is easy enough to avoid. However, religions exist to deal with reality, and as a result, knowledge, or the information that works to explain reality, will unavoidably encroach on religion.

And how does the state determine what to teach students with regard to the government? As a graduate from public schools, my peers and I were never taught critical thinking skills. We were never encouraged to question authority. We never received competing views on history. And I attended top public schools!

I'm sure there are any number of other criticisms I could levy on the public school system, but perhaps it's better to teach through example. The following three news stories are recent examples of the consequences of state-run education.

Nude art is not for 5^th graders:

A New York Times article highlights how Sydney McGee, a teacher from Texas with 28 years of experience, has been laid off -- apparently, for taking her students to an approved field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art. Why? Because the art museum contained nude art pieces:

One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child’s parent complained, the teacher was suspended.

Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and “bashed.”

She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson, wrote: “During a study trip that you planned for fifth graders, students were exposed to nude statues and other nude art representations.”

It is shocking that parents would be upset about art that contains nudity. Can you imagine forbidding your 10-year-old child from seeing Michelangelo's David? Do these parents think their kids haven't seen private parts before? Should students not be exposed to human anatomy in science classes?

As maddening as it may be that parents are so dense (likely products of the public school system, themselves), how does this incident relate to the state's entanglement with education? It's simple: public education is a virtual monopoly that is predominantly affected by political manoeuvering -- not free market mechanisms. If education was private, parents who objected to nude art could simple take their kids to another school. With state-run education institutions, parents have little choice but to bicker to school superintendents to remove objectionable content. As a moral gray area, what can teachers do over time but acquiesce?

Fahrenheit 451 should be removed from the curriculum:

In a wonderful example of life imitating art imitating life, Alton Verm is calling for the removal of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 from his sophomore daughter's public high school curriculum. Per the article:

"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it," Diana Verm said. "It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."

Alton Verm filed a "Request for Reconsideration of Instructional Materials" Thursday with the district regarding "Fahrenheit 451," written by Ray Bradbury and published in 1953. He wants the district to remove the book from the curriculum.

"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451." "The words don't need to be brought out in class. I want to get the book taken out of the class."

He looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs. The Verms go to Grand Parkway Church in Porter.

Alton Verm said he doesn't understand how the district can punish students for using bad language, yet require them to read a book with bad language as part of a class.

I could probably fill a post on this article alone, but I'll try and be brief. That certain people want Fahrenheit 451 banned from the curriculum because of a few bad words, references to the Bible, and a few other things Diana Verm likely hears on a daily basis is infuriating. I can only hope that most people would read this article with as much disbelief and contempt as I do. I wonder what books are acceptable to Verm. Does he realize that the Bible has some pretty kinky stuff in it? I wonder if he's even read the Bible.

All of this is moot. The Verm's dilemma is a shining example of public education at work. What is the state to do but accommodate? And truth be told, as ridiculous as their beliefs are, the Verms have a right to learn what they want. It is the nature of public education that is the problem. With the virtual monopoly firmly in place and nowhere else to go, what else are they to do but complain until school officials cave?

Judge recieves death threats for striking down intelligent design:

Finally, a federal judge recently recieved death threats for striking down the Pennsylvanian School Board's decision to teach intelligent design:

John E. Jones III (in photo), told a Lawrence audience Tuesday that he spent a week under protection of federal marshals due to death threats.

...

Jones added another good caution: “As we spend time, as we did in the Dover case, debating what to put in the science curriculum in our schools, we had better start paying attention to the curriculum of civics and government, as well as history.”

Jones is right on. It's only a matter of time before everything is on the cutting block. With public education, such is unavoidable: it is truly the nature of the beast.

Despite these blatant problems with public education, it's for the greater good of society that all can recieve it -- at least, that's what we keep being told. And as we have all grown up with public schools, we can't imagine life any other way -- in fact, we were never even taught to imagine life differently. The institution of public education rests soundly on a thoroughly oppressive regime of dogmatism.

Such is just one more damning consequence of the unholy union of government with school.