Stephen Stone
November 27, 2002
Who is responsible for educating society?
By Stephen Stone

"Education is primarily a local responsibility." We heard that comment many times throughout the 2002 election season.

Years ago, I encountered those very words "Education is primarily a local responsibility" in a quote by William T. Coleman, then co-chairman of a commission established to evaluate U.S. science education.

When I first read the words, I was struck with an irony. To most of us, "local" control of education means state or community--as opposed to national--control, and that is indeed what Mr. Coleman meant. Yet the idea that education is a local responsibility implies a further, too-often neglected level: parents. After all, it is parents who exert the greatest influence in the lives of their children, not local school districts or anyone else.

I once heard theologian Michael Novak assert that the home is the "best agency of health, education, and welfare." He was right, of course, but only to the extent that parents are willing to use their influence to full advantage.

Unfortunately, the rigors of raising children and the accessibility of tax-supported public schools have led too many parents to shrink from their responsibility to provide their children the basis of a good education. Parents have come to expect the schools to do what the parents--by virtue of their natural influence, as well as their God-given obligations--ought to do.

It is widely understood that a good teacher can only build on the teaching a child receives at home. He cannot substantially reverse or alter it (nor should he try, under normal circumstances). Without question, the greatest obstacle a teacher faces is the home environment from which his students come.

This does not mean, however, that the ideal is for parents to assume more of a role in helping the teacher succeed, as educators typically expect. The home should not reinforce the school; it should be the other way around. Parents need to assume more of a hands-on role in educating their children, and view teachers as professionals who serve to help the parents succeed.

Such an emphasis may require redefining the modern teaching profession. But the current arrangement, in which parents perceive themselves as subordinate to the schools, is not good for our children's education. It encourages parents to relinquish direct control over the education of their children, to the point that parents become incidental to--or even estranged from--the educational process.

Because too many parents are too willing to give up their educational responsibility, the results are predictable. At the height of public interest in education reform during the mid-1980's, Ernest Boyer, head of the Carnegie Institute, lambasted American parents for surrendering the responsibility for their children's education just about the same time that the Nation at Risk report pronounced our schools "mediocre." The cause and effect in the matter were self-evident.

Some educators and school officials resist the idea that parents should have more direct control over the essential aspects of a child's education. But the alternative--in which parents play a role that is too easily secondary to that of the professional teacher--has shown itself to be detrimental to our nation's social, economic, political, and moral stability.

Rather than discourage parents, our schools should encourage and allow conscientious parents to bear a larger burden for the actual instruction of their children--whether these children attend a public, private, or--as is becoming more commonplace--home school. Such parental involvement would not only lower the total cost of education, but strengthen the home and society.

It would also foster the individual growth of children--who want and need more than anything else their parents' time.

© Stephen Stone

 
Click to enlarge

Stephen Stone

Stephen Stone is the President and Editor of RenewAmerica — a conservative media site dedicated to restoring respect for America's founding principles.

This purpose includes not only respect for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as written, but for the Creator and His laws.

From the time he was a teenager, Stephen has considered himself a born-again Christian. Since then, he has devoted his life to pursuing life's questions and challenges through seeking to know the mind and will of God, and through seeking the ongoing sanctification of His Spirit.

As a result, Steve has become somewhat of a religious philosopher — one committed to defining the truth of any subject (as well as applying it) by the clear standards of God's Word.

His religious testimony can be found in "What does it mean to be converted to Jesus Christ," a position statement he wrote for RenewAmerica.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Stephen Stone: Click here

Latest articles

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Cliff Kincaid
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton: Tear down that library

Matt C. Abbott
Tweets sink head of US bishops' news agency

Victor Sharpe
Hoisted by their own petard

Lloyd Marcus
Voting Cruz: Has God abandoned America?

Chuck Baldwin
A politically incorrect analysis of neoconism

Jim Kouri
CIA chief more concerned with Obamaism than protecting Americans: Critics

Michael Gaynor
Judge Masin cannot make Ted Cruz a natural born US citizen

Ellis Washington
Open letter to CUNY dean Sarah Bartlett

A.J. Castellitto
God, Cruz and Country

Cliff Kincaid
Cruz thwarts hostile takeover of the GOP

Gina Miller
Truth about MS Religious Freedom Protection Act

Susan D. Harris
It's the little things: Remembering Western Civilization
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites