The Village Failed -- Time for the Family.

January 27, 2013 marks the first day of "School Choice Week".  The school choice movement should serve as a lesson that the indoctrination programs the left attempted to instill into our school systems is failing.

First, let's look at a brief history lesson on the formation of the public school system in the US. It was formed with the backing of socialist-minded industrialists and union bosses who wanted a labor force that could read basic directions, do basic, simple calculations, and perform basic shop-class tasks. These made for better skilled workers and unskilled workers.

Those who went beyond the curricula usually took college prep classes in high school and went on to college. College was paid for by parents who saved and by students who worked and saved. Many still had to borrow from private lenders or do well enough to earn scholarships. They didn't have "free college money" coming from the government. They were not duped into believing they were entitled to a college education. They were raised knowing they had to earn it, if they wanted it, though effort, saving, working, studying, passing tests, and sacrificing "party time".

Then came "the village".

On August 27, 1996 Hillary Clinton stood before the Democratic National Convention and gave a keynote speech. Within that address, she quipped one of her most famous quotes, "It takes a village to raise a child".

She claims that the saying comes from an old African proverb. While that may be true, she perverted the meaning, bending it to a socialist banner. The modern message she meant to instill was that it takes a modern tribal collective, not a family, to raise a child. She meant that it is the government's job to raise your kids. She also meant that it is the responsibility of those who earn, succeed, and prosper to pay for the raising of children. It was a speech meant to justify increased revenue collection and federal spending on education.

The experiment, however is a proven failure. Most historic tribal collectives are made up of relatives. In essence, they are each an extended family. Her rhetoric ignored this simple fact. The main fulcrum of success is the nuclear family, not the government. The government's attempt to replace the nuclear family has failed.

Since her speech, federal spending on education has increased exponentially. However, public school achievements have fallen. As students have failed to meet the standards, those standards were re-evaluated and reduced. As the standards were reduced, the performance of the students have fallen to meet them. The vicious cycle has continued.

This has been intentional. The worse kids perform in public school, the better argument for increased revenue to support them becomes. People fall into the easy trap of "it's for the kids".

This same segment of society that lauds "the village" as the pinnacle for raising children also rewards being a single-parent household over dual parentage of children. A single mother gets educational grants, food subsidies, housing subsidies, and tax breaks that two-parent households do not get.

This same segment of society also financially supports abortion clinics so people do not have to take responsibility for their own actions. There have been several bills submitted by pro-life conservatives to prohibit federal funding of abortions, but none have yet passed. In 2011, however, a resolution was passed to stop the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Since that resolution passed, socialist representatives have fought to resume that spending. Currently, they remain at an impasse regarding the federal funding of abortions with conservatives pushing to remove the section of the PPACA that provides for it.  In the past 4 years, there have been 224 bills regarding the federal funding of abortions. If they choose to abort their children, "the village" pays for that, in part (from tax revenue), per the PPACA in its current form. If they choose to raise the child themselves, without the other parent, "the village" rewards them for their courage.

These foster the false ideal that the government is your parent. The government should give you your moral code, instilling what it values. "Family Values" no longer matter. It gives that false sense of security, making children falsely believe that "the village" will chase away the monsters under the bed. In fact, it is "the village"
that put them there in the first place.

There are studies being conducted on incarcerated criminals. The majority of them come from single-parent homes. The majority of those single parents were mothers. They lacked a positive male role model, a father.

The TV show "How I Met Your Mother" includes the character Barney Stinson. Barney is a notorious womanizer. Among his favorite demographic are women with "daddy issues". As funny as the show can be, this element of today's society is too true. Girls who grow up without a positive male role model end up seeking some person or group that will give them a foundation of security and personal courage. No school can give a girl the self-reliance and secure feeling that a father can.

It's proven that kids need that "kiss to make the boo-boo feel better" that mothers provide. But they also need that "shake it off and get back on the bike" perseverance that fathers bring.

What has the village provided our kids while attempting to replace the family?

It has given us indoctrination into socialist ideology. Ayn Rand warned of this in her collection of essays entitled "Return to the Primative". Now we have convicted domestic terrorists giving keynote speeches to teachers' unions. Are the types of teachers who idolize people such as Bill Ayers the type of person you want teaching your kids? Probably not.

We have so-called educators like Robert Pimental and Terrence Lee Smith molesting and sexually assaulting our kids. While Pimental may not get away with his crimes, we have female teachers raping 12-14 year old male students, then marrying them (with parental permission, to top it off) when they reach 17 in order to spare the rapists from prosecution. Are these the types of people we want raising our kids? Probably not.

But these are the types of people who make up "the village" that Hillary Clinton and the socialists will have you believe are better at raising your kids than a two-parent nuclear family.

The head of a council of school principals thinks that parents are too stupid to raise their kids. This is honestly what socialist demagogues in the education system believe. What is worse, is that it is what they want your kids to believe.

However, not all teachers think this way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet half of the teachers in public schools do not. Bolstering that bet is the fact that teachers' union membership in right to work states is falling, not rising. If the unions and their socialist ideals were so awesome, you'd think that more teachers would flock to the unions in right to work states.

Other lights at the end of this dismal view of public sector education are the noted successes of charter schools. In local areas that have charter schools, the overall performance rankings of students is markedly higher than their public school counterparts. One of the main reasons is that the charter schools teach instead of indoctrinate. Instead of spending hours upon hours making each student believe he or she is a special snowflake who needs a trophy just for showing up and not eating paste, they reward making the grade. They reward being competitive and achievement. There are no trophies for participation. They keep score.

Homeschooling is on the rise as well. The performance of home-schooled children is so well known that public sector educators fear this trend. They attempt to demonize homeschooling. They attempt to ostracize kids who are home-schooled to the point of not allowing them to participate in any of the extracurricular activities that their tax-paying parents have already paid for.

There are so many options available. The socialists want to remove these options by opposing "school choice". They claim that school choice legislation will take money out of your kid's school and deprive him of his "rights". That isn't true. School choice legislation gives you, that parents, the right to choose what you feel is best for your child. If your local school isn't providing the education you desire, you get a form of rebate or tax credit so you can send your child where he will get that education you desire. While these credits or rebates may not be enough to cover an expensive private school tuition in its entirety, it does give your child an edge to compete for admission. From there, you have some funding to put towards that tuition.

School choice also enables charter schools in your area to openly compete for your child's attendance. They get grants of tax dollars for results, not for promises of results in the future.

Should you choose to home-school, school choice legislation gives you tax breaks, rebates, credits, and access to educational materials to better provide that education to your kids yourself. They also usually include some form of mandate for the local school to allow your children access to facilities and extracurricular activities.

It's clear that "the village" is failing to raise your kids. It's time to let them know that we do know better. It's time for parents to take back the responsibility and raise their own kids. It's time for teachers to do what we pay them to do -- educate and support our values, not replace them. It's time to let them know we are watching. It's time to let them know that we can and will fire them. Those are our kids. It is our choice, not "the village's".