Arthur Camins writes in Huffington Post about the importance, the necessity of caring about the education of everyone’s children, not just our own. This is the basic premise of public education. We educate all children because it is our respomsility as citizens. We provide fire and police protection to all, not just to those who can afford to pay for it. We supply clean drinking water because it is a public responsibility, unrelated to ability to pay (unless you live in Flint, Michigan).
Camins writes:
“It is time to care about the education of other people’s children. Other people’s children are or will be our neighbors. Other people’s children– from almost anywhere in the United States and beyond– could end up as our co-workers. Other people’s children are tomorrow’s potential voters. How, what, and with whom they learn impacts us all. That is why we have public schools, paid for with pooled taxes. They are designed to serve the public good- not just to suit individual parent’s desires.
“My granddaughter Ellie is almost two. With each passing day, my wife and I worry more and more about the world in which she will grow up. We worry about what appears to be a celebration of divisiveness, ignorance, helplessness, and selfishness among too many people. We are particularly concerned about whether her education will help prepare her for a happy, successful life in troubled times. I know we are not alone.
“In school–either by intention or by omission– children learn to make sense of the world around them. They learn how to treat other children and adults and how to regard others in the wider community. They learn whether or not they can participate in shaping their lives and that of others. They may or may not learn how to live, collaborate and respect all the different people whom they will inevitably encounter in their lives.
“We can’t avoid it. What other people’s children learn affects each of us….
“The easy short-term answer is, “Just worry about your own child. Do whatever you must to find the best school for her.” That is the thinking behind the current bipartisan embrace of three key features of charter schools and the renewed Republican push for vouchers: Schools competing for student enrollment; Parents competing for their children’s entry into the best-fit school of their choice; Schools governed privately rather than through democratically-elected school boards. As these strategies gain acceptance and spread, the result is to undermine education as a collective effort on behalf of the entire community. Divided parents and their communities end up with little collective voice. Similarly, without unions, teachers have no unified influence. Millions of personal decisions about what appears to be good for a single child at a moment in time is a recipe for divisiveness, not collective good.”

This is the most important argument. Thank you for this post. May the whole world read it. “The strength of the pack is the wolf. And the strength of the wolf is the pack.”
LikeLike
Because even if your daughter is a doctor …
LikeLike
A Happy and Successful Life in a Troubled Time, really hit me. Happy and Successful problem-solvers, trouble-shooters, dream-weavers, independent-thinkers, body-healers and more. What a curriculum we could be experiencing right this very minute.
Everyone’s offspring learning from the Dutch and the Cubans the low and high tech methods for dealing with Climate Change or interning with landowners and Native brothers and sisters on the geology, biology and chemistry of pipelines.
It goes on and on doesn’t it? All the goodness we could be nurturing in the Troubled Time Curriculum.
LikeLike
All young people need a quality education. Everyone’s children need a good education in order to provide for their future families. In order to participate in an democracy, every democratic republic needs an informed electorate. Our public schools provide the civics instruction to all those that attend, and this is a benefit to our country.
Public schools perform a great service by bringing different types of young people together, many of whom would normally not travel in the same circles. Segregation breeds mistrust and misunderstanding. Public schools offer a big tent for all. There is room for scholars, glee club members, artists and jocks. Differences promote a wider world view that will better serve the future. It seems to me people like DeVos want to wrap some children in a cocoon to keep them away from other young people that are different from them. This is a naive idea. Young people learn more about themselves and others through exposure to those that are unlike them. Everyone benefits when we learn and work together.
LikeLike
Maybe the point to understand about DeVos and her ideological supporters is that their policies rest on different values and goals. They do not value or want everyone to benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen….speak the truth!
LikeLike
YES. It is hard to explain the theory of caring for ALL to those who simply do not see this concept as valuable.
LikeLike
Some selfish billionaires are not vested in the common good. They have theirs, and many of them could care less about quality education for all the “little people.”
LikeLike
He also declared that businessmen should not be politicians.
LikeLike
This post should go with the Charles post.
LikeLike
Providing a quality education for all, is cost-effective. It is much less expensive to educate people, than it is to incarcerate them, or put them on the welfare rolls.
LikeLike
I disagree with Camins thesis. Since when is it bad to care about the education of your own children? When parents make individual decisions about their own children’s best interests, they (indirectly) benefit the community interest. This concept was first postulated by Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations” (1776).
You can read all about it at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
LikeLike
Charles,
You better worry about educating other people’s children because you are relying on them to pay for your social security and to vote for our leaders and to sit on juries.
LikeLike
Not to mention be our caretakers and healthcare providers, our police and other first responders, and on and on and on.
LikeLike
Of course I support publicly-funded education. See my comment at 1:54pm. It is cost-effective, to provide for universal education. We will have to live in a society populated by adults, that are today’s children. An educated citizenry, will produce a higher standard of living for all, and lower crime, more stable families, and a whole host of societal benefits.
Your comment about voting is spot-on. Texas is considering requiring all high-schoolers to take the federal citizenship exam. see
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/03/can-you-pass-civics-test-used-gain-citizenship-take-our-quiz-find-out/
I have, for many years, supported increased civics and government education in schools.
LikeLike
Charles: Of course, care about the education of your own children. However, the sum of all individual caring does not necessarily meet the needs of the entire community. For example, a parent may decide that their taxes should only go to educating some children. Just as an aside, indicating that the idea comes from Adam Smith (or anyone else) is not persuasive. Can you make an argument that everyone’s interest is best served by just acting on your own behalf?
LikeLike
Q For example, a parent may decide that their taxes should only go to educating some children. END Q
If a person came up with that idea, there is nothing that they could do about it. That is like saying that their taxes can only be used to incarcerate some felons.
The state governments have instituted “universal” education. That means everyone. Individuals do not get to decide which children get to be educated in the public schools!
LikeLike
Shall we let Smith speak to us from the grave in his paragraph that contains the only reference to the “invisible hand” in “Wealth of Nations”:
“But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in support of domestic industry, so to the direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to rend the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote the end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.” pg 572 in my Bantam Classic edition.
There are some who see the “invisible hand” quote as merely meaning that our actions sometimes have effects that we don’t know about as if some unseen force was guiding the effects of an action in a way not perceived by the doer of the action.
And a few more quotes to square with that paragraph:
“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.” pp. 110-11
He is not suggesting that the producers give up all to those poor and miserable but that the producers should be “tolerably well fed. . . ” Notice he didn’t say that they should be extravagantly or exceedingly but only “tolerably” which hints at a sort of egalitarian distribution.
And:
“[That subjects] ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities. p 1043 [and] ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” p 1065
Sounds like Smith is advocating a progressive tax scheme to me.
Or:
“When the regulation, therefore is in support of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.” p 195
It appears he is saying that government regulations that favor the wealthy-“the masters” are not always just and equitable but that when they favor the “workmen” they are just and equitable. Hmmm.
Your thoughts, Chas. Por favor.
LikeLike
Adam Smith is regarded as the father of modern economics. His words are eloquent, and speak for themselves.
LikeLike