Saturday, May 9, 2009

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-three)

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-three)

By William Pressgrove

“A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 249)

Although this seems like a somewhat benign principle, it turns out that it is the foundation of all the others. Without it, the Founding Fathers would not have been able to gather the information from scholars like Moses, Locke, Blackstone, and English Common Law to formulate the principles that appear to be much more significant to the founding of this country.

From the annals of history as far back as 1647, as chronicled by Cleon Skousen, there are accounts of legislatures passing laws like in Massachusetts where it was established that wherever there was a body of 50 families it was required for them to set up a “free public grammar school to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing, ciphering, history, geography, and Bible study.” Skousen quotes John Adams considerably on this subject, but ends with this quote, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...They have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded in envied kind of knowledge—I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” (Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 239, as quoted by W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p.250.)

“In the American colonies the intention was to have all children taught the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic, so that they could go on to become well-informed citizens through their own diligent self-study. No doubt this explains why all of the American Founders were so well read, and usually from the same books, even though a number of them had received a very limited formal education. The fundamentals were sufficient to get them started, and thereafter they became remarkably well informed in a variety of areas through self-learning. This was the pattern followed by both Franklin and Washington.” (Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p.252)

There are many more points covered, but for the sake of brevity, I’d like to weigh in the balance the educational philosophy of the era of the Constitution and that of our day.

Back then they made it mandatory to have grammar schools, but there were no compulsory attendance laws. Those who went to learn did it to improve themselves and their knowledge and understanding.

Today, it is mandatory to have the schools, and it is mandatory for students to attend. Many go because they want to learn. There are those who go because they have to but don’t want to. When they are forced to attend, more often than not, they disrupt to get attention and monopolize the time of the teacher. They draw so much of the teacher’s attention that the education of those wanting to learn suffers.

Back then the subjects were sufficient to facilitate self-learning so those who attended could continue learning while they weren’t at school. There was a desire for self improvement.

Today, don’t even think of requiring students to do homework (self-learning). I require it but, even when if the student’s grade depends on them doing their homework, they just complete the bare minimum required or don’t even do it at all. Procrastination seems to be the standard of today, “if I don’t pass this course this year, I’ll just take it in summer school. (Many parents today prefer them being in summer school because they have to work and there wouldn’t be anyone to watch the children during summer vacation if they didn’t send them to summer school.)

Back then morality was taught in school in the form of Bible study. The moral character was one of the most important issues.

Today, many students have been denied character building instruction to the point that they feel that if they don’t get caught, they have done nothing wrong. This can be contributed in large part to the fact that schools live by another principle, the principle of see no evil, hear no evil. So the foundation of moral training is basically where there are no consequences, there are no rules. Oh, the rules are all written down, but “It’s too much of a hassle to enforce the dress code.” “If I respect them (even if they don’t follow the rules), they respect me,” seems to be all the moral training they get from some teachers. How detrimental to moral character are these philosophies!

Schools today, because legislatures require some sort of “quantifiable justification” for spending money on them, have become more or less “diploma mills” because the “quantifiable justification” hinges on the percent of graduates the school puts out. It doesn’t matter that 20 percent of those graduates are functionally illiterate when they graduate or not, just as long as they get the diploma, the state is happy.

With that tidbit of information, how easy will it be for politicians to manipulate these “graduates” when it comes time to vote? Who benefits by an illiterate populace? After answering those questions, it should be easier to see why politicians aren’t so interested about what comes out of our high schools but how much money goes into them.

That is why this is one of the most important principles even though it seems to be either a foregone conclusion that people get an education, or a matter of insignificance when compared to the other principles, yet all the other principles hinge upon it.