Among the biggest misconceptions concerning educational freedom is that it does nothing more than provide families with the choice between different vendors for the same product. This view tacitly accepts the parameters set by the education establishment and presumes that the competition between public, charter, and private schools is about which of these institutions is simply better at meeting their benchmarks.
The purpose of educational freedom is not simply to produce schools that cost less to maintain and get better test results. Our public schools are failing because their underlying educational philosophy is inherently flawed. If all school choice accomplished is the creation of privatized versions of the status quo, then they would fail, too. We do not just need new schools; we need an entirely different approach towards education. Therefore, the goal of educational freedom is to provide real alternatives in the education sector and spur the development of superior institutions with different academic cultures, curriculums, methods of instruction, and metrics of success than are currently found in our public schools.
As it stands, the education establishment is divided into two camps. One side has been captured by a radical, subversive ideology that seeks to undermine our nation’s fundamental values by indoctrinating our children with the tenets of critical theory, known more commonly as cultural Marxism. The other side wants to put their head in the sand and pretend that the only problem with our education system is the need to re-align instruction with the demands of the global economy. Put simply, one is in the business of indoctrination, and the other is in workforce development.
In Idaho, our establishment primarily falls into the second camp, though the first all too often finds its way to the table. As one government webpage helpfully elucidates, the purpose of education, according to the establishment, is to assure that students “enter the world after graduation confident in their ability to meet their employer’s needs” — at least, so long as that need does not involve being able to read at grade level.
This philosophy underpins the creation of the Workforce Readiness and CTE Diploma, the Idaho Career Ready Students (ICRS) Program designed to prepare students in rural districts to “meet regional industry and workforce needs,” and last year’s controversial Launch grant program. It is also evident in the proposed social studies content standards recently put forward by the Department of Education, which fail to mention the Mayflower Compact or federal regulatory process but require students to “identify Idaho’s role in the global economy.”
The education establishment fails to understand the true purpose of education in a republic, which is to create citizens capable of self-government. Undoubtedly, a core feature of self-government is economic self-reliance, which our Founding Fathers called the virtues of industry and frugality. However, a stark difference exists between creating self-reliant citizens and “workforce development.” One recognizes that frugality and industry are simply two characteristics of a “moral and religious people,” and the other reduces citizenship to participation in the global economy.
Prior generations can be forgiven for their naive preoccupation with “workforce development” at a time when the nuclear family was still intact, Sunday church pews were never left empty, and we could still agree on the definition of a woman. In this day and age, however, this educational philosophy is both misguided and harmful, as its laissez-faire approach to value formation simply enables the radical ideologues of the other camp.
There is no such thing as value-neutral education. We either defend the moral and intellectual tradition of Western civilization on which this country was founded, or we allow our education system to remain captured by a subversive ideology that is antithetical to the American way of life.
Increasingly, a new generation of educators, parents, and students understands the gravity of our current moment, inspiring a growing interest in classical education. In stark contrast to the workforce development model, classical education focuses on developing the whole person by cultivating intellectual and moral virtue. To this end, classical education instructs students in foundational knowledge through engagement with a content-rich course of study rooted in the great intellectual tradition of Western civilization, from the geometric proofs of Euclid to the tragedies of Shakespeare.
In seeking to promote alternative models of education, it is imperative that we do everything we can to support the growing demand for classical academies, as their utility to society extends far beyond improved academic outcomes. To restore the health of our republic, we must once again cherish our moral and intellectual heritage. In support of this end, the proliferation of classical education is central to the civic and cultural renewal of our nation.
Fortunately, such a policy requires very minimal effort on behalf of the state. There is no need for the Legislature to manage some blandly named initiative or expand our state’s education bureaucracy.
One of the best features of the classical education movement is that it is an organic development. The boom in K-12 classical academies was neither first conceived as a bullet point in a politician’s campaign platform nor the product of some top-down government initiative. By and large, civil society has stepped up to fill the void left by our modern public education system.
All Idaho must do to be at the forefront of this renaissance is stop subjecting millions in public funds to the arbitrary whim of whatever bureaucrat decides what careers are “in demand” and have the government step aside. Allow the money to follow the student and let parents decide whether they would rather their children “identify Idaho’s role in the global economy” or develop good moral character and civic virtue.
