Student Product Controversy

Being aware that a recent cartoon of mine has caused a bit of a stir (as seen in the March 18 issue of The Landmark), I thought I might attempt to explain my stance on the subject of education.

Certainly I am not against education or the student who genuinely learns - I myself attended public school and am thankful to many teachers who helped nurture my growth as an individual. But education is about people, and sometimes the secularized, degenerating atmosphere of public school is not the most ideal environment for a young person to flourish. While the governmental institution of education attempts to raise up productive citizens, it also often stifles important values crucial to the progress of our western civilization.

But this isn't what the cartoon discusses. It instead brings forth the notion that young people are more concerned with what happens on a television show than with consequences for actions in their own lives. It also talks about parents who create a soft nest of materialism in their child's lives - and thus encourage a fear, frustration, or cynicism of the harsh realities of the outside world. We then have panels of "educational experts" who attempt to determine what's best for the student, and in effect, do indeed poke and prod the student into learning what is politically popular. Depending on what programs are offered, which text-books are used, which students are favored and which fall through the cracks - this all adds to a subtle shaping which should be the duty of the parent.

My question is this: Should government be responsible for the educating of people? Or should government encourage a society that is able to flourish through the education of itself? If leaders in the community, parents, and business owners took a much needed and valued role in the personal nurturing and individual education of it's citizens, we'd likely have a lot more people who feel less like products, and more like valued contributors.