Kiwi Polemicist

November 25, 2008

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 3)

In his weekly column Garth George says:

Truancy remains a constant bugbear for low-decile schools, although it has improved markedly since the Clark Government ordered a hard-line crackdown.

When the daily attendance rolls come in at my local primary, an administrator telephones every absentee’s household – about 20 a day – to find out where the child is.

If she cannot make telephone contact, then as many as three letters are sent to the child’s home address. If there is still no response the matter is put in the hands of the local truancy officer and if she cannot get to the parents, then the local community constable is asked to give it a go.

The next step is to report the parents to Child Youth and Family, which arranges a family group conference at which the parents’ capacity to care for and protect the child can be brought into question.

I’m told that since the crackdown began, the truancy rate has dropped markedly, but the school’s aim of a 92 per cent daily attendance is still to be achieved.

Have you ever wondered why we have “free” and compulsory education, and why the state goes to such lengths to enforce it? Although compulsory state education did predate the Communist Manifesto, our present system bears a great resemblance to the Manifesto so I will look at the reasons that can be found there.

Marx listed ten steps for the transition from Socialism to Communism, and step ten is:

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

All those things have come to pass in New Zealand today. Why was Marx so keen on public/state schools? The answer to that is also found in the Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. [emphasis added]

I could easily write a few thousand words (or more) about this passage, but for your sake I’ll just concentrate on the part in red.

Marx clearly intended the state to take control of education so that the “ruling class” could no longer influence their children. The ruling class – capitalists – were naturally opposed to the theft of Communism and Marx wished to fill the heads of their children with Communist ideas. Click here to see how the laws of Texas require the teaching of state values today.

As I said in my earlier post:

The natural order of things is that parents are the strongest influence in a child’s life, which makes it very difficult for the State to control that child, and if a child grows up believing in the heresy of individualism he will sabotage the “communal domestic economy” and resist State control of individuals. By breaking down the family structure and thus weakening the influence of parents upon their children the State is better able to influence the beliefs of that child, which serves the Marxist agenda of power and control.

If you want to bring up little Marxists send your children to a State school and become a babysitter working for the State. If you don’t want Marxists in your home, your best option is to home school them with one of the few curricula not written by Marxists.

Children are the dominion of parents: parents can maintain control of that dominion, or they can hand control of that dominion over to the State. Running a dominion is hard work, but it sure beats the alternative.


What do you think about children being taught state values at school?


An excellent article covering the motives behind compulsory education can be found here.



  1. Wow, you do not mince word. But you have a problem. You state that ‘The natural order of things is that parents are the strongest influence in a child’s life’ but then go on to complain about the influence schools have on children – making them all into communists. You can’t have it both ways. Either the schools OR the parents are the biggest influence ( I go with parents every time).

    You also assume that all parents know what is best for their child. In my experience (teacher and researcher) although all parents want the best for their children not all parents know how to give their children the best, the best education, the best care, the best food etc.

    So lighten up. There is lots wrong with the educational systems around the world. Turning out little communists is not one of them.

    Comment by Dr Patricia Porter — November 22, 2009 @ 10:43 am

    • Patricia, you are correct when you say that I don’t mince words. Obfuscation is for politicians and bureaucrats.

      There is no internal contradiction in my post. The natural order of things is that parents are the strongest influence in a child’s life, i.e. that is how things should be. I am saying that the state attempts to usurp this, and my observation is that children raised in state schools almost always follow the state religion. It took me more than 20 years to escape from that religion: there are numerous parallels between what are commonly considered to be cults and statism.

      If you don’t believe that children are taught the state religion and values consider these extracts from the Texas Education Code/Law (emphases added):

      The mission of the public education system of this state is to
      ensure that all Texas children have access to a quality education
      that enables them to achieve their potential and fully participate
      now and in the future in the social, economic, and educational
      opportunities of our state and nation. That mission is grounded on
      the conviction that a general diffusion of knowledge is essential
      for the welfare of this state and for the preservation of the
      liberties and rights of citizens.

      Educators will prepare students to be thoughtful, active citizens who have an appreciation for the basic values of our state and national heritage

      A child is exempt from the requirements of compulsory school attendance if the child…attends a private or parochial school that includes in its course a study of good citizenship.

      All children must be taught ‘good citizenship’, even if they don’t attend state schools. If that’s not a totalitarian agenda of ideological indoctrination then I’m a little green Martian.

      You also assume that all parents know what is best for their child.

      I do not see any evidence of such an assumption in my post. I am simply saying that the state has a nefarious agenda behind it’s educational programmes and should not be entrusted with the ideological indoctrination of children. A state that enforces at gunpoint the teaching of state values to children is doing what states such as North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, et al, do.

      I firmly believe that children should be educated, but I also believe that making schooling (of any type) compulsory is an illegitimate and immoral action by the state. Whose children are they: the state’s or the parents’? What gives the state the right to tell parents how to raise their children?

      Social contract theory is used to justify state-education-by-force:

      Comment by Kiwi Polemicist — November 28, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: