The closure of St. Rose of Lima in Buffalo, New York, ignited a fury in libertarian activist, attorney, and LewRockwell.com contributor James Ostrowski. Ostrowski was furious that his children, who were happily enrolled in the private school, now had to start all over.

“It made me angry that a good school was forced to close because the working class parents who constituted most of its customers could no longer afford to pay twice, first for the government schools they didn’t use and once again for the private school tuition for St. Rose.”

So, what did Ostrowski do in response? He wrote the book, “Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids: What You Need to Know.” But according to Ostrowski, this isn’t just any ordinary book. His goal is to incite a movement among the various groups who are inspired by the message of liberty. Specifically, Ostrowski is targeting those who rose up to support Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential run and the multitude of people who have come together as part of the more recent so-called Tea Parties. “This book provides the tea party movement with a strategic roadmap to restore the Jeffersonian vision of individual liberty that is the very essence of America…. Direct citizen action is at the heart of the book.” (In the interests of full disclosure, I am friends with the writer of this book, reviewed the manuscript for him before publication, and regularly blog for his political site. I did my best, though, to write this review as an unbiased reader.)

Ostrowski focuses his sights on the government monopoly on education. Government schools weren’t always the mess they are today, but he claims they are too far gone to be saved. “I will admit there was a time when government schools worked better….  Those days are gone.  Federal and state bureaucrats and teachers unions, not parents and local school boards, call the shots now.  It is time to pull the plug on this failed 150-year-old experiment and move on.”

History
Ostrowski briefly delves into the history of government schooling before he begins diagnosing the problems facing so many today. “Before compulsory, tax-supported government schools became the norm around 1890, American society had survived and thrived without them for over 200 years while creating one of the most successful and literate societies in human history.” Ostrowski explains in painstakingly researched detail how political elites, particularly militant atheists and socialists, enthusiastically endorsed government schooling as part of an “utopian, egalitarian scheme” and not to actually educate the public. If anything, government involvement in schooling was detrimental to American education. He also explains the little-known fact that American religious conservatives contributed to the aggrandizement of state power in education as part of a misguided effort to stifle the spread of Catholic schools. This mistake would come back to haunt social conservatives in spades as the federal government would eventually strictly ban all forms of religious expression from government schools.

Furthermore, Ostrowski argues that government employees are poorly suited to even teach the subject of history. “What does a 99 in a government school American history course mean? That the student has mastered Propaganda 101?” According to Ostrowski, school teachers would never discuss how the Department of Education is unconstitutional because of its role in funding their salaries. On that same point, government employees will generally teach students that more government intervention throughout history has been a positive thing and that only more government involvement will solve almost any problems. Because government schools “control the past, they control the future.” As a matter of fact, Ostrowski argues that this is the reason why so many Americans are historically ignorant. “Being unaware, and thinking that the current regime is the best of all possible worlds, they are utterly unequipped to deal with the new harsh reality that the regime is falling and that the nation is in the process of collapse.”

Fundamental Problems
So what does Ostrowski regard as being the single biggest problem with government schools? “Government schools are coercive institutions; private schools are voluntary…. The rules and regulations governing government schools are rigid, inflexible and by definition, coercive…. The main point is that relations among people in government schools are coercive and involuntary….  It is a top-down, coercive, bureaucratic model of decision-making.” And it is entirely because of the coercive nature of government schooling that government schools are so poor says Ostrowski.

Since government schools have the ability to compel children to attend, they lack the incentive to provide efficient services for their customers. Ostrowski repeatedly argues that government schools are based entirely on government force and ultimately indoctrinate children to be good servants of the politically correct, progressive, secular, wealth-redistributing, warmongering state. “The mere fact that some official has legal authority and the capacity to enforce authority is not sufficient to create moral authority.”

But if that alone doesn’t convince you to reject government schools, Ostrowski highlights many other faults of modern-day government schooling. Ostrowski spends the majority of the book detailing the numerous problems facing government schools such as crime, (“There are daily reports of violent crimes in the government schools, by students and teachers as well, and no doubt many more petty offenses go unreported because bureaucrats like to fudge statistics.”), sex (“many government schools are turning into fornicatoriums featuring more and more sex, and less and less education”), drugs (“schools are the key distribution point for illegal drugs in many communities”), plus the spread of illnesses and widespread use of psychotropic drugs to medicate children into subjugation. His criticisms are not only limited to those areas, as he continues to build a strong case that government schools are far beyond the point of repair.

Direct Citizen Action

Ostrowski’s years of activism have led him to conclude that trying to change the political system from within is a waste of time. In its place, he argues that parents need to resort to direct citizen action. “The essence of direct citizen action is this. Instead of trying to elect new officials, you figure out what you can do right now to accomplish those changes.” Ostrowski’s advice is simple: get them out now! He recommends pulling your kids out of public schools and either enrolling them in private schools or homeschooling them.

In one of the weakest parts of the book, Ostrowski gives some advice that doesn’t seem realistic for many people. In response to the claim that it is too much to pay for private schools in addition to taxes for government schools, he recommends moving to urban areas that have low taxes so you can afford the private school tuition. This advice glaringly overlooks the fact that not everyone appreciates urban living. Certainly there are rural residents who despise living in a city just as there are city dwellers who would prefer to never set foot into suburbia. There is much more to why people live where they do than just the local taxes and schools. Also, the math doesn’t work out if you have multiple children. The tax savings alone will not cover the cost of a private education for a large family. Optimistically looking toward the future, Ostrowski envisions a mass movement toward private schooling that would result in a drastic reduction in costs, but parents with children must make decisions based on what exists today. His soundest advice is recommending home-schooling, which is achievable by mostly everyone and is much more cost-effective. It also doesn’t include the onerous task of relocating your entire family. Homeschooling he argues, is “the best political strategy yet.”

Secondary Benefits
Beyond just weakening the government’s stranglehold on the minds of the nation’s youth, Ostrowski hopes to restore the Republic of old which our Founders struggled so hard to achieve. “America is not what it was supposed to be: a peaceful, libertarian republic with limited, mostly local government…. Instead, we have a huge, intrusive, expensive and distant government that intervenes into every aspect of our lives, taxes us ragged, and has us embroiled in pointless wars and conflicts with strangers in distant lands.  The federal government is a monstrosity, always growing in power, size and scope, regardless of how poorly it performs and regardless of how many promises it has failed to fulfill.  The government wastes trillions while our own neighborhoods crumble and bank accounts dwindle.” Overall, the book is an impressive effort which aims to strike a devastating blow at the indoctrination centers Ostrowski refers to as government schools. In order to accomplish this, parents must first free their children from the government education system. As we have seen by the homeschooling revolution which has surged in recent years, it appears that many Americans are already taking this path. Hopefully this trend will continue to the point that Ostrowski’s vision becomes a reality.

Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids: What You Need to Know, by James Ostrowski, Buffalo, New York: Cazenovia Books, 2009, 108 pages, paperback.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

David Andrew Gay said:

	... I am a fan of Jim Ostrowski... He knows his stuff. I hope Ron Paul supporters get buying his book quick!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 30, 2009
Votes: +4

Anonymous said:

Government Schools I had a Catholic school primary education and was well-prepared for what came later (public high and college). I must tell you, however, that it took many painful years to overcome the religious indoctrination associated with that early education when children are at their most vulnerable. The sin, the guilt, the slanted religious history toward one religion or another. I suppose the ideal would be a private, non-religious affiliated school system K - through college. Unaffordable for most, though. There's the problem. Home school seems next best.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +2

robert said:

	wake up Charlotte Iserbyt John taylor Gatto READ THEIR BOOKS Infowars.com henrymmakow.com goodnewsaboutgod.com against the NEW WORLD ORDER realanswers.net JESUS IS GOD churches are lIARS the public education system is all about DUMBING THE CHILDREN DOWN making them bored and breaking up the FAMILY
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +1

Really?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Freedom said:

o Really? @Derek Define equal? Where does equal start and begin? What are we supposed to do as society to insure everything is "equal"? Your throwing around communist party talking points as if the people that read this kind of blog are as stupid as the poorly educated proles you would generally vomit this stuff up to. Equal opportunity does NOT mean egalitarian society. Your philosophies are all twisted up and you need to sort out the logic and history from your emotional responses. The fact that you said his "attachment to money" is telling in and of itself. The fact that you don't equate ones labor (blood, sweat and tears) with the money they earn outs you as a typical Utopian thinker. Just because government can, in this place and time, fire up the printing presses does not mean that money has no value to anyone else beyond being a piece of paper. Get a real job and then start talking about how much you are willing to give up for government mandates you do not get to vote on or even believe are worthwhile. I believe in fair opportunities for all, but government enforcement of what some bureaucrat considers "equality" at the point of a gun, I can live without. Your last paragraph shows that you are convinced that government is the answer to all our ills and questions. Well, central governments have ruled nations throughout recorded history, a good 6000 years or so. How much longer do you want to give them to get it right? 10,000? 50,000? How about 1,000,000? Do you think anyone in government is going to come up with the secret freedom and equality formula for all mankind somehow that has not been discovered before? The serious discussion about freedom and liberty has moved past crass emotional responses based on discredited memes. We have moved on to reality and logic rooted in history and empirical science. Leave your communist/egalitarian blubbering at home please. Thanks

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +5

JonTSavage said:

	Let it sink The public school system is a fat pig that can't even walk. It is overstuffed with tax dollars, and is about to fall over. Its time to give it a good shove, and let it die on it's back in anguish, agony, and pain. Get rid of the yankee-property tax, and get rid of the government schools that it funds.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009 | url
Votes: +9

Don said:

	Costs It costs less than $50.00 per month to homeschool ALL of your children, even if you are working 2 jobs. Some quality time with google will easily prove this but alas many people are just too lazy to be bothered. They are the folks that use the state indoctrination system (public schools) as a daycare. They don't really care about their children's education.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +8

Dan said:

... "Americancivicliteracy" has a fairly easy 33-question quiz on civic literacy. College educators scored an average of 55%, the college educated, 49%. The purpose of civics is indoctrination, not learning, and therefore mere knowledge is irrelevant. As Spengler noted, there could be no greater caricature of freedom than the notion in the mind of the average citizen that he is informed and thinks for himself, when in reality he thinks to order and imagines Truth to be what he has heard repeated over the past week. I am grateful that my daughter struggles day in and day out to teach high schoolers to think clearly. She goes about her task like a hero, fighting ignorant parents and administrators and doing her best to minimize the disastrous effects of the latest anti-learning methodology from Harvard her school subscribes to. Her task is of course impossible for those students who cannot express themselves clearly in writing in the first place. Many are incapable of conceptual thought. This outcome has been the intent of educationists, and not the unintended consequences of well-intentioned programs.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +3

Eric said:

@Derek I sympathize with your wish to have a harmonious society. As a society, how can we best decide what is the proper cost of education when it is in the hands of a centrally controlled monopoly? Governments by their nature prevent innovation and allow for large amounts of money to be extracted that go towards bureaucracy instead of teaching. Should we continue to shovel piles of money its way just to assuage the civic-minded? With regards to your last paragraph, you assume that the many benefits attendant to government oversight and force would not have happened without central control. If the government is responding to the public's wants, then, didn't the public desire those things that the government made mandatory and, if so, wouldn't they have sought them out regardless of govenrment coercion? You mention the Erie canal. Can you name another? There were countless miles of canals built that were never of any use to anyone. The railroad tracks at Promontory Point where East met West ran parallel for hundreds of miles before being halted and ultimately torn up to be rebuilt. Most railroads need to be subsidized to this day. Governments are capable of tremendous wastes. How many roads would have been needed if not mandated centrally and if their true cost was realized at the present time? Could it be possible we would have had fewer roads and more mass transit? Would society have organized in a away that conserved resources far better than our present centrally controlled state? The point is that what we see can sometimes prevent us from pondering what is not seen. All of the wealth consumed by government does show for something but, in my opinion, it is far less than we would have had without its intervention.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +5

Derek said:

@Eric Thank you for your coherent and well thought out response. Reading your remarks, I realize we probably agree about a lot of issues. Through responding to public desire, government often does make many mistakes. I think the flipside of the point you're making, however, is that those mistakes may very well have happened without government intervention, just as the positive things may have been brought about in other ways, as well. I, too, favor decentralization. I believe, however, that the answer is not to scrap government, which, at its best, can act as a tool for the people, not merely a coercive entity. Instead, I think more political powers should rest with the people as opposed to bureaucrats and entrenched interests. I wouldn't say we've achieved that ideal, but I'm more concerned about all the problems we face in the absence of collective action than some wasted money, although that's certainly an issue that deserves public attention. The crux of the matter, for me, is that many societal issues require collective action. Economic self-interest is an insufficient form of coordination between citizens. Deliberation and political responses are often necessary. The government may be a blunt and sometimes inefficient tool (although I hope you wouldn't argue that health insurance companies are efficient in distributing health care, or that unregulated financial institutions have worked to benefit us all), but it's the best we've got for now. I'd be very sympathetic to calls for reform- to make the government more responsive, more efficient, more accountable. But I'm not sympathetic to the idea of jettisoning cooperation entirely. If you want to know what happens when private interests are left to themselves, look at America's decaying infrastructure, concentrated wealth, and increasing poverty rate.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: -1

Eric said:

@ Derek II "... the flipside of the point you're making, however, is that those mistakes may very well have happened without government intervention, just as the positive things may have been brought about in other ways, as well." Mistakes happen no matter who is involved, but it is the nature of the response afterward that is the key difference. If there are mistakes made by government, it is almost a certainty that the solution is for money to be spent in order to rectify it. In a private setting, the mistake is a signal to change and look for innovation or lose money and ultimately go out of business. The price signal is far more efficient. "the answer is not to scrap government, which, at its best, can act as a tool for the people, not merely a coercive entity. Instead, I think more political powers should rest with the people as opposed to bureaucrats and entrenched interests." Government is nothing BUT force: legalized force. It can be no other thing. We can describe it with positive accolades as much as we desire but, by its very nature it is coercive. That is not to say that we have not given the government this power but, ultimately, the question becomes whether it should be used to establish positive rights. To do so gives the government far greater power than initially intended and quite possibly too much for the citizens to control,which is why we can agree on a decentralized form working better.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +2

Eric said:

@ Derek III "although I hope you wouldn't argue that health insurance companies are efficient in distributing health care, or that unregulated financial institutions have worked to benefit us all" Insurance agencies should play far less of a role in health care. Insurance is something purchased to extenuate unforeseen circumstances and shouldn't be mandating how doctors treat patients nor enriching doctors for more coverage than is needed. The debate about health care is how best to ration the scarce resources of the medical community. Much of the shortages causing higher prices are due, in my opinion, to the protectionist policies enacted by governments on behalf of those entrenched special interests you mentioned. It is ironic that you describe the financial institutions as unregulated since they are the most regulated sector of the economy. As someone with a penchant for political/financial history, I can only state my opinion that these financial institutions have been playing regular havoc with society for thousands of years and, the more they have been controlled, the more it has benefited them through moral hazard. Other than fraudulent cases, I would remove the regulation of these entities. I'd much rather see people watch these institutions like hawks than hand their hard-earned money over to them like sheep. This area is counter-intuitive, imo.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +2

Eric said:

@ Derek IV "If you want to know what happens when private interests are left to themselves, look at America's decaying infrastructure, concentrated wealth, and increasing poverty rate." All three of these issues are areas where the government plays a very large role. Infrastructure has been co-opted by government. We expect it to build our infrastructure rather than private entities who couldn't compete even if they wanted to. Even private sports teams get citizen-provided stadiums. Wealth is concentrated due to corporatism. It is becoming increasingly difficult to apply the entrepreneurial spirit in this nation due to the litany of regulations which serve as a barrier to entry by competition. Wall street gets bailed out on a regular basis as well. Much more concentrated wealth is due to the government involvement than not. This could explain why two of the top ten richest communities in the country can be found inside the beltway of Washington D.C. An increasing poverty rate can be seen as a signal of higher taxes on individuals and businesses along with inflation - causing price rises in goods and services. The inability to find jobs due to the unfriendly attitude towards business is another factor. It would be best if government were less central in this regard as well, I think. Less central control could free up businesses from unnecessary rules and regulations.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +3

terrymac said:

the pursuit of equality Regarding the pursuit of equality: research by NHERI indicates that homeschoolers, regardless of socioeconomic background, perform about 30 percentile points ahead of their peers. This is in sharp contrast with the results for government-controlled schools, where socioeconomic background can make a huge difference. Regarding the bias of religious schools: in a free market, consumers would have more choices, lower prices, and better quality. Private vs. government provision addresses only one of the problems with today's government schools. Another major problem is that attendance is compulsory; the students and parents can't opt out - even if the student is well ahead of her peers. This compulsion means that even private schools today don't have to work as hard to keep their customers - they just have to be marginally better than the alternatives. If "don't pay for school and don't waste time in school", the private schools will have to become much more attractive. Children really do not need 12 years times 180 days times 6 hours of education; compulsory attendance is just a method of goldbricking which drives up the cost of education and reduces the quality. Parents should try home schooling. You'd be amazed at how fast children can choose to learn - if you toss most of what you think you know about how children must be forced to "learn."

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +4

FarSide said:

	Eric Well said!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +0

Justen said:

	Spreading the Word John Taylor Gatto presents an extremely well researched insider's look at this subject in his book, "The Underground History of American Education". Anyone interested in the above should definitely check it out for further reading. You can read the whole thing online in HTML format below: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Justen said:

@Derek Cooperation is what people do naturally, when free of coercion. Use of force by a majority or some politically connected elite or the royalty or a dictator does not constitute cooperation, it constitutes force. You cannot create cooperation at the point of a gun; that is a non-sequitur. Coercion interferes with cooperation in ways that the rulers of the moment find distasteful, and it engineers cooperative behavior in ways that benefit itself and its associates. While it often purports to protect people from force and fraud, the volume of force and fraud used by any criminal organization, government or otherwise, always vastly exceeds that which it mitigates. Compare for instance the value of property lost to theft or the number of people dead as a result of normal criminal activity vs. the value of property confiscated by government and the amount of people killed as a result of government action and the big picture will come into focus quickly. If you think you can bring the vast killing machine of government to bear for your own benefit you may be right - many have done it in the past, but if you think that it can be made to benefit society as a whole you are extremely foolish in light of the evidence.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

David K. Meller said:

... It is certainly worth noting that the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Letters, and anti-Federalist letters by various critics of the new Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents were written not for scribes, scholars, and high Priests, but for ordinary (completely unschooled) Americans of the time, submitting crucial questions for public debates among the masses of people! The fact is that the more formal "education" an American seems to have, the more incomprehensible our country's founding principles are to him, certainly should give long overdue pause regarding the value of such "publik skoolz" for the up and coming generation! The contrast with the number of well schooled, even college "educated" people today, who can even read (much less understand) these materials is truly dismaying! It appears that government "education" has worked about as well as everything else the government does. Mores the pity!! PEACE AND FREEDOM!! David K. Meller

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +2

Maggie said:

... This man is dead on right. I just removed my granddaughter from public school last week. Clearly when a government school can have your child read the book diary of Anne Frank an turn it into a psychology lesson about people having to get along when living together, never touching on the point of why they had to hide in the secret annex. Its time to get them the hell out of there. Public schools all over this country are nothing more thean indoctrination centers into socialism, or something worse.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 01, 2009
Votes: +2

Derek said:

@Eric, Justen It seems to me that you are basically advancing an argument that in the absence of "government coercion," people will spontaneously become more cooperative and businesses more moral. That sounds pretty utopian to me, borrowing from Freedom's (scattered) critique of my own points. There's a lot of claims you make that I find laughable- poverty rates are due to high taxes, despite the fact that we have a progressive tax system and taxes are at their lowest levels in years- that sounds a lot lock trickle-down economics, which didn't exactly work to well under Reagan. In any case, I don't have the time to debate each point. Instead, I'll try to discuss where I fundamentally diverge from your misbegotten logic. It seems we all agree that cooperation is necessary. There are many societal problems requiring coordinated action: climate change (though perhaps you deny it), unaffordable health care (if, as you say, insurance companies should play a smaller role, that change still needs to be brought about somehow-it hasn't happened so far), the boom and bust cycle of the free market (I'm sure you find some government action to blame for that, but look at the laissez-faire economy the US had in the 1800s- recessions were deeper and more frequent). In any case, there are times when self-interest is insufficient for societal well-being. At those times, political association is necessary. That's the purpose for which our government was set up by the founding fathers, who were themselves very skeptical of centralized power. They nevertheless recognized- under the articles of confederation especially- that it's absence was also a threat.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 02, 2009
Votes: -1

Derek said:

@Eric, Justen That's why it seems to me that the more rational approach is to reform government, making it less capable of insular decision-making, rather than jettisoning the institution entirely, hoping something better will instantly come to replace its positive effects. That approach seems to me to be analogous to a central component of early US Iraq War strategy, in which the entire Iraqi military was disbanded and the shattered economy left to itself in the hopes that a thriving market would instantly arise to promote prosperity and quell dissent. We all know how well that worked out. If we are to rely on price incentives exclusively, we first of all create a society in which mass communication is limited to market exchange. That seems pretty sad and alienating to me. Regardless, there are many externalities that need to be factored into prices for that system to work. A carbon tax is an example of such a Pigouvian tax. At this point, we're talking about policy tools, not societal structure. Some body (hopefully the people) still needs to implement that system. As a final note, you cite history as proof that effective government is unlikely. It's true that our government is far from perfect, but would you not rather live under its "coercion" (in my view, just avoiding the free rider problem by making sure that everyone contributes to solving a problem, rather than benefiting from others' expenditures while greedily grasping their own material accumulation) than the tyranny of despots past? You speak of the taxman as a coercive agent- what about the Pharaohs slave drivers? Are there not examples of modern states that are less of a burden and, dare i say it, more beneficial to welfare than early political associations? Government is imperfect but, in the long run, improving, and I urge you to expend your energy accelerating that trend, rather than adopting the reactionary viewpoint that the world will be best if we're all just left alone to individually accumulate wealth.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 02, 2009
Votes: +0

Sasahara said:

Guess where those people ended up? Keep in mind that the quality of public school education varies from county to county, since it isn't a centralized program. The District of Columbia's public school system is one of the worst in the country, and squanders large amounts of money. Montgomery County, which is just north of DC, is the 3rd best county for education and has the highest amount of nationally ranked high schools. I graduated from Walt Whitman High School, one of those nationally ranked high school, which gave me a quality education. I performed well there taking as many advanced classes as I could. When I graduated I moved into an internationally ranked university, New York University. Kids from public school reign supreme. Don't give me s**t about public school education. If you want a good one, then MOVE. The private schools where I came from cost more than the state university, University of Maryland at College Park. I don't think parents can justify that, unless they have deep pockets. And private school kids are just as likely to do the same things as public school kids. Alcohol, drugs, and sex are generally the same at most high schools. The thing is private school kids can afford the expensive, high quality stuff. Next time check the graduation rate and national rank before moving somewhere new. Invest the money you won't spend on private school and pour it into their college education, assuming they make it to any college.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 03, 2009
Votes: +1