Veni Quid Veniat

     Recently some voices have taken to howling in disgust at the very idea that some parents might homeschool their children. Proponents of our spectacularly unsuccessful school system argue that parents aren't just unqualified, they don't even care enough to educate their children. They paint horrific pictures of children graduating from their homeschool barely being able to read, along with other frightening things, such as children being taught—horror of horrors—the Bible as part of their daily schooling.

     This fear and loathing of homeschooling is nothing new. I have heard a philosophy professor I know proclaim in class that, obviously, no one could object to mandatory public education. Homeschooling has faced fierce opposition since its reemergence in the U.S. in the '70s, '80s, and into the '90s. This, however, was not how things were intended to be. America's founders did discuss the idea of compulsory education, but they rejected it with little debate. The fact is, it is a relatively modern idea that hirelings could even come close to the level of education parents could provide, coming to the U.S. in the 1850s by way of Massachusetts.

     How has our distinctively modern education system turned out? Many have noted that U.S. students are falling behind the rest of the world rapidly, particularly in science and math. This education gap is beginning to affect geopolitical situation. Countries like China and Japan, that have not experienced the same decline in science education that America has, have started to challenge and even overtake the U.S. economically. Teachers scream that the problem lies in funding, that if they were only given more money they could make it work. Unfortunately, the solution does not lie in something as simple as throwing money at the problem. We spend about as much per year on education as the next seven biggest spending countries combined. Accounting for the number of students involved, currently the U.S. spends about $7,743 per student per year. The United Kingdom sits in second at $5,834, Australia takes third with $5,766, Canada spends $5,749, and Finland rounds out the top five with $5,653. In other words, we spend a lot more per student than anyone else (133% of what the runner-up spends per student) and we produce a lesser product. In fact, there is little correlation between expenditures per student and test scores and literacy rates. Countries like Sweden, which ranks fifth in money spent per student, ranks first in literacy rates, first in math test scores, and first in science test scores, jump over the bigger spenders. Even Russia has a higher literacy rate that the U.S.! More money simply will not fix the problem.

     The problem is deeply ingrained in the system itself. In the past homeschooling and similar methods were recognized as the best way to produce intelligent, well-educated people. The shift to government education was not based on quality of education, but ideology. In the U.S., public education was intended to meld immigrants into American culture. Above all else, including quality of education, it was to produce a uniform product—uniformly good, it was hoped, but uniform in any case. Nor has public education as a form of indoctrination been limited to the U.S.. Hitler and the Nazis in Germany made public schooling mandatory and cracked down on parents who attempted to educate their children at home. Hitler even went so far as to say “When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'” His laws requiring public schooling were explicitly ideological in nature, an overt recognition that the hand that rocks the cradle, as the saying goes, rules the world.

     All of this, however, does nothing to meet the new objections to homeschooling: that it cannot possibly provide the kind of education that the trained professionals in the public education system do. After all, homeschoolers spend on average, according to the most reliable estimates, only $500 per student per year (and I know from personal experience that it can be done for much, much less). How can underfunded and overworked parents provide a better education than well trained teachers with the massive well of deficit spending behind them? To put it bluntly, I have no idea—but they do. Homeschoolers score, on average, 30-40 percentage points higher on standardized tests than public and private schooled students. That number is nothing less than stunning. Parents, spending less than 10% what the government does, not only beat government and private schools, they beat them by an enormous margin. In a country plunging further and further into debt, this is the ultimate example of doing more with less. It is simply the best form of education, bar none.

     So why do some still oppose it? Perhaps they are uniformed or unintelligent—one can never go too far wrong crediting a population with a large degree of stupidity. Remember, though, that in the past very few have supported public education to provide a better educational product. Instead, the goal has been to eliminate an unfortunate minority, one that the majority, or at least those in power, wishes would go away. Only time will tell whether the goal of those advocating public education here in America is the same.

     Recent events have brought into the public eye—or rather, back into the public eye—aspects of politicians' lives which have, for much of American history, been intensely personal. In particular, Newt Gingrich, the thrice married former speaker of the house, has been questioned on his past infidelities. He, and his supporters, argue that a politician's personal life will not affect his public policy, even going so far as to label those who would bring up his actions "despicable." This, however, is far from the truth. When one begins to examine the issue in greater detail one is faced with the overwhelming truth that character does matter, and it matters a great deal.

     Certainly one could arrive at a very similar conclusion merely by applying common sense to the issue. Nowhere in life do we see an occasion where someone with no character is able to behave in a moral, principled manner on a consistent basis. When it comes to character, the “truth will out.” Still, it would be pleasant to know that our common sense has not strayed from reality. History shows that it most assuredly has not.

     Warren Harding was the first president known to have had an affair while in office. He had one child by his mistress, Nan Britton, and had several other affairs. The affairs were not common knowledge (the pre-Watergate press really didn't delve deeply into that sort of thing) but they demonstrated a lack of character that showed itself beyond Harding's personal life. His administration was plagued by scandal, and indeed he died just in time to avoid facing some of the consequences of his actions. Further, while in office he held poker parties at which he entertained his guests with bootleg liquor during the height of prohibition, often using whiskey only recently confiscated, and flagrantly ignoring the Constitution he had taken an oath to defend. Harding's shortcomings don't end there, but the incredible failings of those who followed him dwarf his.

     In 2006 the self described watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), headed by former Democratic congressional staffer Melanie Sloan, named presidential candidate Rick Santorum on its list of the twenty most corrupt congressmen. CREW is a notoriously partisan group, however, as a look into the other members of congress named in 2006 will tell. First, CREW named twenty members of congress to its list, with five “dishonorable mentions.” Of those twenty-five, twenty-one were Republicans, including numerous Republicans who were running for reelection in hotly contested races, as Rick Santorum was. Now it's just possible that in 2006 84% of the most corrupt members of congress were Republicans, but any thinking person can see it's extremely unlikely. To understand why, then, these particular members of congress were named it would behoove us to look in more detail into each individual case.
     Since Santorum was a senator in 2006, it is most efficient to look first at the senators (there were also only three senators named compared with seventeen representatives, thus it's a much smaller job).

Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT):