School choice and Democracy

I recently read a downright atrocious opinion piece from the Washington Post. An argument was made that school choice should be evaluated based primarily on implications on democracy. I have already heard teachers argue that a government-controlled one-size-fits-none approach is vital to democracy, which is why I already intended to add an item to my list of misconceptions. This argument was different, and I felt that I needed to vent about the stupidity.

Most teachers have been arguing about how these children will become part of democracy. This article focused instead on the idea that participation in democracy should involve all voters in decisions made regarding all children. There were numerous flaws that any reasonable individual should have no problems spotting. Feel free to read the article. It could very well push you more towards choice.

Among these problems is that the writer seems to struggle with the difference between democracy and collectivism. It is certainly possible for democracy to exist in an individualist society. Similarly, collectivists can certainly shun democracy. Personally, I prefer the individualist perspective. We are all unique, and we are in the best position to know what is in our own best interests. The argument made in the article is that democracy means we should maintain a collectivist mindset where all children are steered to the same views as a simple majority.

The writer pushed the idea that most voters do not have children and would therefore have no say in what children learn if choice gave the power to parents. This is seriously misguided since voters actually have very little influence over what happens in schools. There is far more influence coming from the teachers' unions. The number of people in these unions are substantially less than the number of parents.

There is another group that has influence over how these schools function, school boards. These groups are at least elected, but their numbers are fairly small. They also frequently run unopposed and are influenced by union involvement in the election process.

The writer provided no subtlety. This piece revolved around what children should think rather than how they should think. It was written as an argument over who controls what they think, a collectivist society or parents. This not only downplays the role of the unions in the government-run model, but also the individual teachers.

This argument has typically been portrayed as a binary argument between parents and teachers. Like a lot of either/or binary arguments between A and B, we should actually pursue C. Children should not be trained to turn to anyone to dictate their beliefs, thoughts, and opinions.

The article tries to pin down this issue as what should we want for our own children versus what should society want for children in general. We should want children to become the best people they can be. That means that we shouldn't force them through environments that maintain a singular end goal. Each child is different with unique strengths and desires.

I also believe in mental diversity. This argument against choice legitimately pushes the idea that viewpoints should converge based on majority viewpoints. This is not how we can see things beyond what currently exists. This is not how we progress as a society.

This article doesn't say much about the implications of these policies on future participants on a democratic government. I also have plans to create a post on this topic, so I'm not yet going to go into too many details on this side of the issue. What I will say is that I do not believe the ideal democracy involves forcing citizens from a young age through an environment in which government workers act as a common influence over those who will eventually make decisions about how the government operates.