R: The Classroom Belongs to the State

G.K. Chesterton said that “education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.” If this is true, then there are few questions more important than who gets to teach the youth. The Proverb reads, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” The education of children, as a biblical imperative, falls under the domain of parenthood. But prudence and tradition have shown that a state strengthens itself by teaching its young members, and a republic of unenlightened citizens would not survive long. Likewise, churches and religious institutions have a duty to instill virtue and instruct their members in the faith. Perhaps, in an ideal state, these three modes of education would perfectly complement each other. But this is not the case, and a child may often receive a lesson in school that directly contradicts what he was taught at home or in church. When this conflict occurs, what is to be done? Can parents require that the school teach according to their wishes? Should they be able to remove their child from the public school system? If the family, the state, and the church all stake a legitimate claim to the education of children, how are we to balance the authority of each? Is it actually true, as residents of Virginia have said in recent months, that parents should have a say in the portion of their children’s education that takes place in public schools? Does the classroom belong to the parents, or to the state?

Those in the affirmative will take a more expansive view of the state’s power to educate, and accordingly, its power to determine what may or may not take place in the classroom. The establishment of justice is one of the express purposes of the United States as laid out in its constitution, and should be the goal of any good government. If Plato is correct that better educated citizens correlate to a more just state, then public education falls under the authority of the state to promote justice. There are other plausible reasons for the state’s power to mandate education (promoting national defense, securing economic prosperity, preparing the next generation to administrate effectively), but the upshot is that if a state has compelling interest to require something of its citizens, it must provide the means by which they may fulfill the requirement. That is the whole premise of public education: the ends being necessary to the state, the means must be provided by the state. Naturally, if the state is providing a public service, it may choose its own method of implementation. Perhaps it would be unjust if the state required all children to attend public school, or if the school day were extended to 10 or 12 hours. But private schooling and homeschooling exist as alternatives, and the 7 hour average school day allows plenty of time for parents to instruct their children without undue government interference. 

Those in the negative might deny that the state has authority to compel education of any kind—yes, it behooves the state for its citizens to be educated, but it requires a logical leap to therefore believe that the state a) has the authority to mandate education and b) can determine precisely what is taught, down to the last jot and tittle of every lesson plan. Theoretically, a representative democracy is strengthened by high levels of voter turnout, and yet voting is not mandatory. By stretching this analogy, one could argue that to compel public education while choosing the substance of the same would be tantamount to requiring, not only that each citizen vote, but that he select the “correct” name on the ballot.

Alternatively, one in the negative might argue that state control of the school system undermines the very definition of education. State-mandated education standards handcuff teachers to prescribed curricula, robbing them of the opportunity to propound truth in creative and beautiful ways. The art of teaching is lost in this manner, and those who are called to teach will quickly find themselves unfulfilled and disillusioned.

Should public education be controlled by the state? If not, should the alternative involve input from parents or religious institutions? Should teachers be free to promulgate their own beliefs in the classroom? Does it matter that we live in a representative democracy, where our political leaders are nominally accountable to us for their choices regarding education? (In a sovereign monarchy, should the classroom belong to the state?)