Separation of School and State

Separation of School and State Education: Too Important To Be Delegated to Government Terry McIntyre Nov 18, 2013 Karl Hess Club karlhessclub.org

Karl Hess, Autodidact Karl Hess “loved education, which is why [he] spent as little time as possible in schools.” He and his mother believed that public education was a waste of time. She taught him to read, showed him how to use the library and how to access public records; and turned him loose; she’d write a note excusing his absence any day he wanted to spend at home or in the library reading, if he’d discuss what he’d read afterwards. He rarely attended school, officially dropped out at age 15, and immediately went to work for the Mutual Broadcasting System as a news-writer.

Nation At Risk - 1983 If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. This royal ”we” refers not to ”an unfriendly foreign power” but to the federal, state, and local governments which actually provide and control most education in America. ”Ourselves” refers to you and me and our children, all of us who are subject to these acts of government. We, the Federal, state, and local governments, have imposed on the children of America the mediocre educational performance which exists today.

How Mediocre Is It? Compared to what?  The United States spends more per student than all others, but international tests place it only in the middle of the pack. Those nations and individuals who do better may actually benefit largely from extra-governmental efforts by parents, efforts which are officially deprecated and seldom studied.

Historically, literacy rates and levels of competence in America have declined markedly.  Home-educated students score, on average, at the 85th percentile. Compared to this, today’s schools are not even close to what they could be.  When compared to exceptional teachers (Sergio Ju´rez Correa, John a Taylor Gatto, Jaime Escalante, Louis Benezet), most schools are just phoning it in. Many other hard-working teachers seem to be trapped in a system which works even harder in the opposite direction.

Are Our Measuring Sticks Dumbed-Down? Sample questions from the tests used to measure educational performance are hardly rocket science: John wants to put a fence around a rectangular garden 10 feet long and 6 feet wide. Ignoring the need for a gate, how many feet of fencing are needed? (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP])  Of the 9 year olds who took this test, only 9% got the right answer. Among the 13 year olds, 31% stumbled upon the correct answer.  The most popular wrong answers were 16 and 60.  Are that many children innately incapable of simple math?

Ju´rez Sergio Correa’s class a Previously, 45% of the students in Correa’s class had failed the math section on Mexico’s national exam. Not one made it to the “Excellent” category in math. 31% had failed Spanish. After spending a year with Correa, only 7% failed math, 63% were rated “Excellent” in math. Only 3.5% failed Spanish; even their lowest language scores were well above the national average. Ju´rez Correa’s top math student, Paloma Noyola Bueno, had the highest a score in the entire nation. Ten of Correa’s students had math scores in the 99.99th percentile. Three placed at the same high level in Spanish. Francisco S´nchez Salazar, chief of the Regional Center of Educational a Development in Matamoros: “The teaching method makes little difference.” http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/all/

The Method of Ju´rez Sergio Correa a Throw out the formal rules, plans, curriculum, procedures, and tests. Instead, ask interesting and challenging questions. Step back, let the students do the thinking. Explain nothing until asked. Answer questions when asked. Does this method work? Correa’s students didn’t just ace the national exams, they raced through, they reported that it was easy. How does this method work? Children learn best when grappling with interesting problems; Correa was working with their nature, not against it.

Schools Can’t Learn.  Larry Cuban, top educational researcher with decades of experience, surveyed more than 100 years of reform efforts in America, and concluded that they were like tossing rocks into a deep pond — impressive initial splashes which quickly faded from view. From time to time, truly exceptional teachers — including Benezet, Escalante, Gatto, and Correa — buck the system and show outstanding results, but the Departments of Education, far from welcoming such innovation, suppress it. The problems are deep, systemic, and worldwide. Bureaucratic institutions naturally have powerful tendencies to resist change. One reason for this reluctance to change is economic; another is deeply political.

Economic Calculation Problem Socialist economies — Government ownership and control of the means of production of goods and services — are like robots in old TV shows: Cannot compute: insufficient data. Worse, this problem cannot be fixed by throwing more people and money at it. The richly detailed and widely distributed information needed to plan production and distribution can only be discovered by entrepreneurs and consumers in a genuinely free market. It is inherently contextual, constantly changing, dependent on particulars of time, place, knowledge, incentives, and individual values. It is discovered as people make economic decisions based upon assessments of value and risk, which lead to voluntary exchanges. The data needed is not and cannot be collected in one place; it is distributed in millions of minds, which differ in important ways. These differences are an important part of the data, and cannot be abstracted or aggregated away, without losing information vital to the calculation of what people want, and how to deliver it efficiently and effectively.

When central collectivist connivers try to “nudge” or “improve” outcomes via guaranteed funding, mandatory attendance, mandated curriculum, Common Core, and other regulations, they interfere with and degrade this free flow and discovery of information. Some argue that it is useful to introduce certain (political) information, but such political information is inferior to market information for many reasons, not least of which is that the ends of politicians are often far from the ends of individual consumers. So-called “public-private partnerships” can only imitate markets; they can’t be markets. To be efficient and innovative and effective, to have the right data to make good economic decisions, we must have voluntary choices of what and how to produce; and of what to purchase, from whom, at what price.

Central Planners Need More Brains Take away those voluntary choices, and you have something like Soviet stores in the former USSR in the 1970s - low quality goods and services, frequent shortages, combined with high costs of production. The entire supply chain from raw materials to store was owned and operated by the government. Stores and other institutions had little incentive to improve; they were almost never shut down for poor performance. In such a forced economy, the planners do not have access to the widely distributed information implicit in freely-made choices. In an economic union of 293 million smart and industrious people, the Soviets behaved as if a few thousand planners could manage everything, even when operating blind – but economic decision-making cannot and should not be collectivized. In the same way that the Soviets abolished farm collectivism, we should abolish educational collectivism; we should separate school and state.

Too Radical? Is complete separation of school and state “too radical?” Would smaller steps — such as vouchers and tax credits and charter schools and local control — get the job done? No, absolutely not! Such incremental efforts sidestep the question of whether central planning can work better or worse than voluntary exchange; worse, they treat that question as if it were definitively settled in favor of political interference with our lives. Minor details of that interference might be tweaked, but not its fundamental nature. Your choices will be restricted by the arbitrary diktats of central planners; the mutually-beneficial entrepreneurial process will be corrupted and degraded; the vital information needed to make good decisions will be lost; the value and efficiency of education provided to you and yours will suffer, compared to what you might otherwise have been free to choose.

A Deeper Question What sort of society do we wish to live in? Do we want to live in a free country? When, exactly, should that freedom begin? At the magic age of 18? Why not 81? Should teachers and parents and administrators also enjoy freedom? Should we not begin by making our fundamental institutions, including schools, free–as–in–freedom? After twelve years of carefully regimented compulsory education, can we even imagine what real freedom would look like? You might ask “are there any real-life models of schools which begin with freedom as their organizing principle?”

Democratic Free Schools There are about 40 Democratic Free Schools in the U.S. and U.K. Perhaps the oldest is Summerhill, a British school founded in 1921 on the radical premise that children should be free to decide what to learn, or even whether to learn. While Sumerhill does have a schedule of classes in the usual subjects, children are never required to attend. Summerhill attracted some disruptive children who weren’t doing well in other schools. The founder, A.S. Neill, used to give these students private therapy sessions, but stopped when he discovered that freedom and a healthy variety of voluntary options were all the therapy needed. The children mend on their own. The rules at Summerhill are minimal, and are voted on equally by all, whether adult or child, in democratic assemblies.

Sudbury Schools Sudbury Valley School was founded in America in 1968, on the principle that “children are already extremely good at creativity, imagination, alertness, curiosity, thoughtfulness, responsibility and judgement. What children lack is experience, which they can gain if adults stay out of the way. All people are curious by nature; the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; all people are creative if allowed to develop their unique talents; age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility.” (statements from their web site)

What if we free the teachers? Home Schooling/ Unschooling About 1.5–2.5 million American children are taught at home by parents who are far too many, too widely–dispersed, and too independent for bureaucrats to manage in detail. Left free to experiment, these parent–teachers often discover that what works at home is nothing like the schools we have grown accustomed to. Children do not need to be schooled for 6 or 8 hours per day. They do not need bells every 45 minutes. Just about everything done in schools–as–we–know–them turns out to be superfluous. On average, home-schoolers test at the 85th percentile. Even those of “low socio-economic status” average at the 80th percentile. Home schooling looks like that long-sought Great Equalizer of education. For those who still go to regular schools, some of the best predictors of success have much to do with a home culture of education, which may actually be responsible for more educational attainment than we realize — and which looks a lot like what home–schoolers do.

Elevators or Tar Pits? Schools cannot eliminate the racial academic achievement gap because schools did not create it. This gap comes to schools with children from their homes, families and communities. The gap, which is well-established before kindergarten, widens during the first three years of schooling. Philip Jackson, Black Star Project, Chicago

One Mother’s Story I studied his IEP, and saw no way for Jimmy to get off the short bus for “developmentally retarded” children and rejoin the others — so I mainstreamed him and worked with him in the evenings to bring him up to speed. Today, he’s a lawyer. Private communication with Alice Sheets, Dean of Department of Education, CCAC.

What If We Free The Schools? Not every parent is willing to home–school. Nor can all parents afford Sudbury schools — it can be hard to come up with $4000 tuition out of our own pockets, even if this is much cheaper than the “free” government schools. Is there any hope for them? To answer that question, let us go abroad and look in places where governments are poor, where government schools are much worse than ours, and where governments do not have SWAT teams to back up their regulations and stifle innovation. In these places, an educational revolution has been sliding right under the radar: small, affordable, parent-funded government-free schools in huge, ever-growing numbers.

The Beautiful Tree - Top of Reading List

The Beautiful Tree James Tooley was studying private educational alternatives in Hyderabad, India, and felt he was being steered toward the most expensive, elite schools. But he was looking for a way to help the poor, not the elites. He asked if there were any private schools for the poor. Politicians and bureaucrats admitted that private schools existed for the middle class — their own children went to such schools — but as for the poor, it was unthinkable. He found similar denials everywhere he went.

The Three Denials It is widely believed by politicians and bureaucrats in India and all around the world, that ◮ The poor can’t afford to educate their children ◮ The poor don’t care. ◮ The poor don’t know enough to evaluate the quality. However, when tested in the real world, all three claims were false.

What Tooley Found: The Reality ◮ Thousands of parent-funded, government-free schools, where some of the poorest people in the world pay about 10% of their income to educate their children — who are 50-80% of students in some provinces. About 90% of these schools were run for profit, and provided 10-20% of their seats for free. The remaining 10% of schools were subsidized completely or partially. Some few schools also accepted small portions of government aid. ◮ James Tooley, Pauline Dixon, and their researchers tested over 32,000 students, and found that the results of private education were superior to competing government schools. ◮ Compelled by economic necessity, these numerous and highly competitive schools were deeply responsive to the needs of students and parents. Wherever children and tuition move freely, market choices swiftly reward good schools and punish bad schools. ◮ Governments were oblivious. In one province, the government claimed that only 60 private schools existed; Tooley’s team found over 1200. ◮ Since so many students went to non-government schools, the “cream-skimming” theory could be tested, and was found wanting.

Reclaiming Education If we want education to be of the highest quality, inclusive of all children and all their varied needs, and to respond to the needs of society and encourage life-long learning, then our current system simply cannot deliver it. There is no point in looking any further to the State. State intervention in education has been a cul-de-sac, a historical experiment with the lives of children. - James Tooley, Reclaiming Education. James Tooley began as a liberal who wanted “better” government schools. After decades of research, he concluded that inherently socialist institutions cannot be reformed; they must be abolished. Government ownership and control of schools is, in short, a serious design flaw.

Market vs. Government Andrew J. Coulson Andrew J. Coulson, Cato Institute Fellow and author of Market Education: The Unknown History and many papers, including a meta–analysis: Comparing Public, Private, and Market Schools: The International Evidence. Across time, countries, and outcome measures, private provision of education outshines public provision according to the overwhelming majority of econometric studies. It is in fact the least regulated market school systems that show the greatest margin of superiority over state schooling. Solutions now considered in the U.S.A. — vouchers, charter schools, and tax credits — are already common in several Western nations, and have led to increased regulation of private schools, due to the competing interests of school unions, and a rather limited degree of improvement in government schools, due largely to the need to compete with private schools. Freedom for our schools, teachers, and students would be much better.

Market Education: Historical Norm The demand for mass education arose when people were no longer scratching bare subsistence from the soil, and had leisure time. Governments first resisted mass education — the Stamp Act was designed to increase the cost of printing books, pamphlets, and papers. Nevertheless, demand for education kept rising. When it became too great to stifle, governments began to co-opt the process. Prior to the first compulsory attendance laws (1850), Alexis de Toqueville (author of Democracy in America) and other contemporary travelers were astonished by the world–class quality and quantity of education in America. Perhaps such travelers interacted only with wealthy elites? Publishing statistics for James Fenimore Cooper, Noah Webster, and Nathaniel Hawthorne belie this theory; J.K. Rowlings would cut off her right arm to have such deep market penetration. Of note is one of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s occupations: Editor of the American Magazine of Useful and Entertaining Knowledge.

History: Less is More When studying mass education in early America and Britain, many people look for evidence of students sitting at desks for twelve thousand hours in isolated, regulation–bound cloisters. But today’s modern conventions exist purely for political reasons. Time spent warming seats is not an adequate measure of quality of learning. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin describes his own education: two years of formal classes, one in grammar school, one to learn “ciphering” (arithmetic). He did poorly at ciphering, dropped out of school, and went to work at the age of 12. Franklin and his friends were autodidacts; they taught themselves fluency in writing, computation, foreign languages, and many other things. Franklin became a printer, writer, publisher, editor, inventor, scientist, and Ambassador to France. His drive and attainments were exceptional, but his methods were not.

Education in the United States, a Documentary History. That education should be regulated by law and should be an affair of state is not to be denied, but what should be the character of this public education, and how young persons should be educated, are questions which remain to be considered. As things are, there is disagreement about the subjects. For mankind are by no means agreed about the things to be taught, whether we look to virtue or the best life. Neither is it clear whether education is more concerned with intellectual or with moral virtue. The existing practice is perplexing; no one knows on what principle we should proceed - should the useful in life, or should virtue, or should the higher knowledge, be the aim of our training? . . . Again, about the means there is no agreement; for different persons, starting with different ideas about the nature of virtue, naturally disagree about the practice of it. — Aristotle, Politics

Aristotle, Politics, Book VIII - What is Not Said No one will doubt that the legislator should direct his attention above all to the education of youth; for the neglect of education does harm to the constitution. The citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives. For each government has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. The character of democracy creates democracy, and the character of oligarchy creates oligarchy; and always the better the character, the better the government. And since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private — not as at present, when every one looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best; the training in things which are of common interest should be the same for all. Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the state, and are each of them a part of the state, and the care of each part is inseparable from the care of the whole.[emphasis added]

Utopian Vision vs. Practical Reality Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers known to the world, was not taught in schools of the sort which he claimed it “is not to be denied” and “no one will doubt,” would be right for the world. He was describing a utopian ideal, perhaps telling his employer, Phillip of Macedonia, what he wanted to hear. 2400 years later, passages like these are stripped of context and fed to teachers as if they were indubitably true. Schools in Athens were free–wheeling discussion groups, not the rigidly programmed and structured cloisters of today. In fact, the Greek word σκηολ; meant “leisure; free time; that in which leisure time is spent, especially lecture, disputation, discussion; philosophy”

Athenian Regulation of Education Schools shall open late enough, and close early enough, that students may travel during daylight hours. That’s it. One regulation imposed by the Athenian government. For its five–hundred-year history from Homer to Aristotle, Athenian civilization was a miracle in a rude world; teachers flourished there but none were grounded in fixed buildings with regular curricula under the thumb of an intricately layered bureaucracy. There were no schools in Hellas. For the Greeks, study was its own reward. — John Taylor Gatto

Beware the Context — Cui Bono? The very power of [textbook writers] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is “doing his English prep” and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all. — C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 1943

Educational texts are necessarily selective, in subject matter, language, and point of view. Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered . . . Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the “supremacy of the state” as a compulsory philosophy. But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the “divine right of kings”, or the “will of the people” in “democracy.” Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. — Isabel Paterson, God of the Machine, 1943

The aim of the Prussian Model of Education The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever pretensions of politicians, pedagogues other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else. If any contrary theory is cherished among us it is simply because public schools are still new in America, and so their true character and purpose are but little understood. The notion that they were invented by American patriotism and ingenuity, and go back, in fact, to the first days of the New England Puritans — this notion is, of course, only hollow nonsense. -H.L. Mencken, Review of Upton Sinclair’s The Goslings, in American Mercury, 1924 http://www.ralphmag.org/menckenI.html

After thirty years teaching in both “good” and “bad” schools in NYC, John Taylor Gatto had a deep sense that the school system was working against all efforts to provide real education. He wrote that schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic – it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell . . . Gatto wrote several books to explore why schools and teachers — teachers who want to do well — seem to be working at cross–purposes. He went back to the sources:

In 1520, Martin Luther sought to revive Aristotle’s ideal, with a twist — to conscript the young in a war with the Devil. If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military service to bear spear and rifle, to mount ramparts, and perform other martial duties in time of war, how much more has it a right to compel the people to send their children to school, because in this case we are warring with the devil, whose object it is secretly to exhaust our cities and principalities of strong men. In this unholy alliance, Martin Luther sought the aid of earthly States in a spiritual war, in exchange for teaching compliance to the State. Martin Luther thought one hour per day would be sufficient to educate children in the essentials: reading, the Bible, and civics. Once initiated, people were expected to take charge of their own education.

Researchers E.G. West and Andrew J. Coulson found that education in America and the United Kingdom was voluntary and widespread up until late in the 19th century. Compulsory attendance was demanded in different times in different states, starting in 1850 in Massachusetts, and culminating about 1910 in others. School reformers discovered that children would tolerate only so much preaching and blather and “reform” before they’d go back to their own endeavors. 2000 years after Aristotle’s observations, people still had divergent Ideas about education. In England, there was a strong tradition of individual liberty; education grew from the bottom-up, provided by parents, churches, and independent ”private venture” secular schools. Parents usually started the process, but could also delegate, just as today’s parents might hire a ballet class or karate class. From an early age, individuals were expected to take responsibility for their own education. On most of the Continent, education tended to flow from the State downward, an instrument used to shape the people. In America, this tension between competing ideas persisted at both local and larger scales.

“Father of Education” in North Carolina The state, in the warmth of her solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of these children, and place them in school where their minds can be enlightened and their hearts can be trained to virtue. In these schools the precepts of morality and religion shall be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience will be formed. — Archibald D. Murphey, 1816 When did parents become superfluous? Did I not get the memo? Who will decide these precepts and virtues? Note the “habits of subordination and obedience” to the State — a common theme among advocates for government schools. Historically, enlightenment comes during periods when neither State nor Church could (or would) limit educational innovation.

Murphey, Regarding Discipline and Subordination The amusements of youth may also be made auxiliary to the exactness of discipline. All students should be taught the manual exercise, military evolutions and manoeuvres, should be under a standing organization as a military corps, and with proper officers to train and command them. There can be no doubt, that much may be done in this way towards enforcing habits of subordination and strict discipline — it will be the province of the Board of Public Instruction, who have the general superintending care of all the Literary Institutions of the State, to devise for them systems of discipline and government; and your committee hope they will discharge their duty with fidelity.

The Prussian System Comes To America If a regard to the public safety makes it right for a government to compel the citizens to do military duty when the country is invaded, the same reason authorizes the government to compel them to provide for the education of their children — for no foes are so much to be dreaded as ignorance and vice. A man has no more right to endanger the state by throwing upon it a family of ignorant and vicious children, than he has to give admission to spies of an invading army. If he is unable to educate his children the state should assist him — if unwilling, it should compel him. Calvin E. Stowe, The Prussian System of Public Instruction and its Applicability to the United States (Cincinnati, 1830)

Contrast with Thomas Jefferson It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible transportation and education of the [child] against the will of his father. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

School as Church When calls to military ardor are insufficient, there’s always the religion of Statheism: Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God. — John Dewey, Pedagogic Creed, 1897 Perhaps this was the inspiration for “One school to rule them all, one school to find them, one school to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” — which JRR Tolkien didn’t quite say.

The Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, Reloaded Thomas Jefferson was justly pleased with the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. A brief summary of the main points: ◮ Our minds should be free. ◮ It is wrong to force us to pay for the propagation of ideas with which we disagree. ◮ Those who presume to rule and to govern the contents of our minds, do not have superior knowledge. Their coercive efforts deprive us of better alternatives, and also deprive teachers of the benefit of our freely-made choices. ◮ Truth itself is strong enough to defend against error Don’t these same principles apply to schools just as much as to churches?

Don’t need (much) Education if you teach yourself Samuel Blumenfeld researched the 117 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, and discovered one out of three had had only a few weeks of formal schooling, and only one in four went to college. Even the elites seldom spent 4 years in college. Thomas Jefferson, one of the most learned men in America, went to William and Mary for only two years. Those who did go to college usually started at 16 or even 13 years of age. Who starts college that early today? Only our homeschoolers. One did not have to be a member of the elite to be well-educated. Benjamin Franklin was one of 13 children; his father was a candlemaker, a poor but highly-regarded man. Benjamin had 2 years of formal schooling; after this, he taught himself, often in study groups with friends. He became a highly respected publisher, writer, inventor, scientist, and ambassador. Self-education was expected and widely practiced by every American.

Summary Government departments of education cannot calculate what people want, nor how to deliver it effectively and efficiently. Reform efforts fail for deep institutional reasons, which include a deep conflict of interest. Cui Bono? Who benefits? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? Why are the very people who vote for politicians and policies actually taught so little that is useful about politics, history, and economics? High rates of dropping out, home-education, and supplementary education are indicators that government schools are not satisfying the needs of students, who may be correct in perceiving such schools as major impediments to learning. Many high school graduates are unprepared for college, and colleges themselves have been dumbed down. Top-down educational collectives neglect, marginalize, misuse, and abuse millions of intelligent, creative brains — the brains of students, teachers, parents, and administrators.

Liberate our children from the game. “The only way to win the game is not to play the game” —War Games  It is time to withdraw, to liberate our schools and the minds of our children from the State.

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/legalizeliberty/separation-of-school-and-state-28457189

Separation of School and State Education: Too Important To Be Delegated to Government Terry McIntyre Nov 18, 2013 Karl Hess Club karlhessclub.org

Separation of School and State Presentation Transcript