We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It's difficult not to conform to cultural expectations, but I would have loved to raise my kids without school! During the one year that we homeschooled we skied once a week with a group of families who were "unschoolers". Their children learned at their own self-directed pace, and seemed very productive. They mostly reached college at age 20 or 21.
In all areas of mixed nationality, the school is a political prize of the highest importance. It cannot be deprived of its political character as long as it remains a public and compulsory institution. There is, in fact, only one solution: the state, the government, the laws must not in any way concern themselves with schooling or education. Public funds must not be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions.
But even if we eliminate the spiritual coercion exercised by compulsory education, we should still be far from having done everything that is necessary in order to remove all the sources of friction between the nationalities living in polyglot territories. The school is one means of oppressing nationalities— perhaps the most dangerous, in our opinion— but it certainly is not the only means. Every interference on the part of the government in economic life can become a means of persecuting the members of nationalities speaking a language different from that of the ruling group. For this reason, in the interest of preserving peace, the activity of the government must be limited to the sphere in which it is, in the strictest sense of the word, indispensable.
Mises, Ludwig von (1927). Liberalism (pp. 115-116).
In the US, compulsory and public schooling was imposed by Protestant Pietists to "save" Catholics and other sinners. In many districts, membership in a Protestant church was a requirement for teachers. Catholics in the US fought a hard battle to free Catholic kids from "public" schools so they could attend parochial schools. Of course, historically, the Catholic church was not a fan of the common people becoming educated.
Many Protestant schools today are established for similar reasons that Catholics have always put so much effort into establishing schools. They want to remove themselves from the secular culture of modern public education. Traditionally, Christian ethics and values have been a part of public education, always with a Protestant, or even anti-Catholic, point of view.
I think in my part of the country, at least, you might get away with including the bible and Christian values in the education system, but try to use the NAB or Roman tradition and you will lose. It might even come to violence if you pushed it too far.
You need to look at the history of the introduction of publicly funded K12 education in the US. As for "bible kolleges", I suggest you look into the founding and support of Harvard, Yale, etc.
Things have changed in since the early 20th century.
The interesting thing is the Progressives who have their roots in the Evangelical Pietists of the mid-19th century were the main drivers of compulsory and public education along with the inclusion of Protestant teachings in those schools. In the early 20th century, when the Progressives abandoned Christianity for the secular Marxist/socialist ideology, they then led the charge against prayer or any Christian religious teachings in those very same schools.
Given that many parents don't know the topics their children need to know to succeed professionally, I can understand why we want some form of schooling for children to ensure them of those skills.
Sadly our school systems don't provide those skills either, are intended more to ensure that children become pliant, conformist, moralist, voters who know what's good for them and that what's good for them is to do as they're told by the government.
I learned a lot in school, but the most valuable thing I learned was to learn, to question, to explore, and I didn't learn that in school (though some of my teachers there certainly encouraged it), I learned it from my parents and from roaming in the woods around my parental home.
In Oklahoma we are compelled to educate our children, but enrolling in public schools is not compulsory. No paperwork, no minders. We're free to educate our children as we see fit. To withdraw your children from school only requires a letter of notification so the school is aware, but you do not have to initially enroll them.
Our constitution is worded so that it would require an amendment, voted on by the people, to realistically change this.
I understand the need for compulsory enrollment these days I guess, what with the terrible parenting. But why do people send their kids to school at such a young age? Four years old is considered normal here. Actually, I know why. It's babysitting because the parents would rather have the benefits of a two income household than the duties of raising children.
In a country with a virtual literacy rate of 100%, why can't we consider reading, writing, and simple math prerequisites for entering public education? I think anything younger than 10 is too young to send your children into the hands of total strangers.
My mother grew up - early 1900's - in rural Manitoba. She and her sister and brothers all attended the nearby rural school - her mother's attitude was that the boys could always get a job but that the girls needed to get qualifications (Mum got a teaching certificate before getting her RN; aunt also got an RN). Next farm along was outside of the line drawn where children had to go to school, and the father there decided his daughters could learn all they needed on the farm; forget the schooling. Have wondered how the children of that neighbouring farm did over the years.