Natural Law Versus Positive Law: Education in The Balance
Board Chair and moderator Gordon Haist welcomed the audience and introduced the program speaker, Peter McAllister. Gordon added that Paul Weismantel is taking over Gerry Schroeter’s job of communicating with ethics members. Isam Sakati called for applause in commendation for Gerry’s untiring devotion to the Society and his unifying force in making it a success. The enthusiastic applause confirmed the commendation.
The presentation topic was "Natural Law Versus Positive Law: Education in The Balance." Peter first defined Natural Law as the basis of individual rights and provided these examples:
Natural Law: Refers to laws of morality ascertainable through human reason
Aquinas reconciled natural law with natural theology: “the light of reason is placed by nature in every man to guide him in his acts”
John Locke: the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. “We are endowed with the right to life, liberty and property.”
Foundation of individual rights
Epictetus: “You are a fragment torn from God.”
Kant: Human rights are the basis for self-determination grounded within the authority of human reason
Peter then defined Positive Law: A law that has been enacted by a socially recognized legal authority, using these examples:
Jeremy Bentham: For a law to be just it must provide “the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people”
John Austin: Human legal systems can and should be studied in an empirical, value-free way
He then outlined a brief history of education in the U.S.:
Education in Colonial America was largely left to parents. Other options included church schools, schools run by traveling schoolmasters or charities, and work apprenticeships.
While some Northeastern communities had already established publicly funded or free schools by the late 1780s, the concept of free public education did not begin to take hold on a wider scale until the 1830s.
Horace Mann: Education should be universal, non-sectarian and free.
Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school laws in 1852. New York followed the next year, and by 1918, all American children were required to attend at least elementary school.
Public education expanded rapidly in the U.S. during the 1930s.
John Dewey estimated that, at the beginning of twentieth century only 1% of the population attended college and only 5% entered college.
According to the U.S. Census, as of February 2022:
10.5% had an associate degree as their highest level of school completed
23.5% had a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree
14.4% had completed an advanced degree such as a master’s degree, professional degree or doctoral degree
Currently, 50.8 million students (90% of the total student population) attend public schools
Peter then posed the major question concerning the natural law / positive law controversy in education: Does Public Education Provide “the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number?”
It can provide:
Economic Growth
Individual Advancement
Reduction in Income Inequality (Neil Funnell disputed this and believes the opposite is true).
Replacing a poor teacher with an average teacher in grades 4 through 8:
Raises college attendance rates significantly
Reduces teenage pregnancy rates significantly
Raises lifetime earnings by $250,000 per classroom!
Reduced Criminality
Some correlation with reduced crime rates, but causation is unclear
Increased awareness of punishment
Incapacitation of potential offenders
Exposure of Students to Wider Diversity of Student Backgrounds
A More Literate, Better-informed Electorate
Access to Specialized Educational Resources for Handicapped and Learning-disabled Students
Pedagogy then became the ground for answering this question:
Skills-centric pedagogy achieved dominance within American public schools in the 1960s. Between 1960 and 1980 American academic scores fell rapidly.
The Curriculum
Rodger Heard Kilpatrick: Method of teaching:
Skills-centrism: intellectual skills can be developed independently of content domain
The “New” Math
History Departments replaced by Social Studies Departments
History taught topically instead of chronologically, or not taught at all
Grammar Instruction Deemphasized
Phonics replaced or supplemented by “Whole Word” Method in Reading Instruction
The conclusion: Evidence shows that skills-centric curricula should be rejected. More than three decades after the publication of A Nation at Risk:
Only 25% of American 12th grade students are proficient in mathematics,
Only 22% of American 12th grade students are proficient in science, and
Only 12% of American 12th grade students are proficient in U.S. history
Criticism of skill centric curriculum: 1983: "A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Education Reform"
E. D. Hirsch: reasoning and problem solving skills cannot be developed independently of content domain
Teacher centered replaced by student centered.
- Measuring the decline in the quality of our schools
A second question, however, needs to be asked. Peter raised it as follows:
Is Public Education Consistent with Individual rights?
The Con Position:
Nathaniel Branden: A system of public education violates individual rights
“Should the state be allowed to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without their parents’ consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve?
Most parents are effectively compelled to send their children to state schools since they are taxed to support these schools and cannot afford to pay the additional fees required to send their children to private schools.
Should citizens have their wealth expropriated to support an educational system which they may or may not sanction, and to pay for the education of children who are not their own?
The standards of education (e.g., Common Core), controlling all schools, are proscribed by the state.”
An example of the current issue:
U.S Supreme Court upheld state law in Maine that grants taxpayer funds to families to attend private schools in locations where the state has not established a public school.
ACLU: “This decision explicitly requires taxpayers to support a specifically religious activity – religious instruction.”
Chief Justice John Roberts: This decision establishes a neutral benefits program, and “that public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of the private benefits recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (dissenting): This decision “leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation”
Audience comments:
John Miller says Catholic Church supports Natural Law more than other churches. Positive law influences society. Can’t do Natural Law.
Peter said positive law should reflect natural law.
Hank spoke of Hirsch method, which he advocates.
Should the need to educate children be the responsibility of the state or parents? Should be both done in a combination of ways. The child is more important than philosophy.
Paul added that if we don’t fix public education democracy is doomed.
Hank informed us that here schools are primarily funded by sales tax, not property tax.
Colin added kids learn in different ways.
An audience member believes it is better to have education done privately. Another person felt most are unqualified to home school. More discussion ensued over school privatization vs. government vouchers. Public schools have high administration costs and bureaucracy. Private schools have accountability. What we have now is not working (public schools).
John Miller added that Natural Law is not taught in schools but is taught by others who are educated. Natural Law says that all are created equal but this is not so. The Supreme Court believes in Natural Law and should not do so. Funding private schools leads to kids failing.
Another voice: Natural Law is God given rights that can’t be taken way. We can’t deny Natural Law.