Libertarians are quick to defend the "rights" of homeschooling parents against violations by the state. I can only half-heartedly get behind such a cause. Yes, the state should get out of the way of parents, but just as important, maybe even more important, is that parents should get out of the way of their children. Contrast Ron Paul's defense of homeschooling, that is parents controlling their children's education, with John Holt's defense of unschooling, or children controlling their own education. The relevant question for libertarians: which is more in line with the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression?
Everything-Voluntary.com: Homeschooling vs. Unschooling
Our daughter is in a charter school. While I recognize that these schools are still reliant upon the state for redistribution of wealth without consent, they do provide some flexibility in the curriculum and choice for parents. Our daughter likes it more than public school, and we know of another opening next year that focuses on the classical method. My preference is decidedly free market; I believe that public schools' existence is immoral (involuntary taxation, forced redistribution of resources), and that private schools are the only real choice in the long run. Parents and students should have the ability to choose from a variety of learning institutions, or to choose to take the autodidactic route, rather than being forced to conform to a system that was designed for a different world, one that even its creator quickly abandoned.
I'm keen on aspects of both homeschool and unschooling, but I believe that it is more a mix of these ideas than one system over another. The perfect system to me would be dependent on the learner's abilities, and their pace, as well as their interests and passions. The NAP wouldn't support forcing someone to do something that they simply do not agree with, would it? Why should the act of learning be any different?
No comments:
Post a Comment