Religious education, Public Education

[Biz]

To be honest I think the success of secondary education is a direct result of the involvement of the parents. If the parents/parent help the child in school and encourage him/her the child will do well. If they don't the child will not achieve as much. Private school may at times have greater success rate simply because it is likely the child is receiving more help from home. In higher education I went to a public school for undergrad and am attending a private religious school for grad school. It is hard to compare both schools but I would say both of them are honorable and I have enjoyed my experience at both.

Biz

[asbestosman]

Well, I will tell my kids that neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of species is proven false. I would use Behe's Edge of Evolution to prove the point. I think I'd have every right to home school them, and even have more authority to do so than just being a parent, being a credentialed teacher.

Regardless, that's your right.

Would you want to stop me from home schooling kids, just because I am 100% certain that neo-Darwinism is proven to not be the primary explanation for the origin of species?

Not at all. It's your right to home-school them.

How is that different than sending them to the school of my choice, where they are taught the same?

It isn't--unless you insist that the government pay for it. Is the amount of money it saves on public education by the removal of your kids enough to pay for that voucher? If so, then I think there's a better case for it. If not, there are plenty of things I pay taxes for which I have not used and hope never to use.

[Mordecai]

It isn't--unless you insist that the government pay for it. Is the amount of money it saves on public education by the removal of your kids enough to pay for that voucher?

It's my money. I paid for the school by paying taxes. Neo-Darwinism is only a (disproved) theory. If someone could provide good evidence for it as the primary explanation for the origin of species, explaining away Behe's Edge, then I'd be forced to accept it. But that's not the case.

Taking money from "public education," i.e. statist education, is really just taking my money away and putting it into schools that are beholden to the teachers union, WASTING my money by putting kids in classes where the teachers don't give a crap or to pay teachers that are stuck in the "rubber rooms," for years, getting paid to do nothing. Many of these kids who drop out of school only started doing badly, when they reach 7th grade and beyond, where the teachers start to suck and can't be fired. That is the injustice here. Sending my kids to a great school, where they happen to teach that neo-Darwinism is a weak scientific theory, is not a waste. Neo-Darwinian dogma doesn't underpin any relevant scientific endeavors; kids lose nothing by not adopting it.

All the evidence shows Darwinism is regressive, not progressive, which is all but admitted even by Richard Dawkins. You lose complexity from Darwinism. You don't gain it. So even the sciences that rely on Darwinism, e.g. virology, are based on the latest understanding, which is that Darwinism is causing losses of information, keeping the same complexity and/or keeping information the same. It's not increasing it, which represents the central dogma of contemporary biology. I don't want any dogmas taught to my kids in school, particularly dogmas that are used to antagonize my conservative values. The gov't has no right to take sides in the culture war in that way.

[Walden]

It's my money. I paid for the school by paying taxes. Neo-Darwinism is only a (disproved) theory. If someone could provide good evidence for it as the primary explanation for the origin of species, explaining away Behe's Edge, then I'd be forced to accept it. But that's not the case.

Taking money from "public education," i.e. statist education, is really just taking my money away and putting it into schools that are beholden to the teachers union, WASTING my money by putting kids in classes where the teachers don't give a crap or to pay teachers that are stuck in the "rubber rooms," for years, getting paid to do nothing. Many of these kids who drop out of school only started doing badly, when they reach 7th grade and beyond, where the teachers start to suck and can't be fired. That is the injustice here. Sending my kids to a great school, where they happen to teach that neo-Darwinism is a weak scientific theory, is not a waste. Neo-Darwinian dogma doesn't underpin any relevant scientific endeavors; kids lose nothing by not adopting it.

All the evidence shows Darwinism is regressive, not progressive, which is all but admitted even by Richard Dawkins. You lose information from Darwinism. You don't gain it. So even the sciences that rely on Darwinism, e.g. virology, are based on the latest understanding, which is that Darwinism is causing losses of information or keeping information. It's not increasing it, as is the central dogma of contemporary biology. I don't want any dogmas taught to my kids in school, particularly dogmas that are used to antagonize my conservative values. The gov't has no right to take sides in the culture war in that way.

The government is not "taking sides in a cultural war", they are teaching the latest and most advanced theories of science as commonly accepted by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world's scientific community. Regarding the "neo-Darwinism" that you rail against, which alternate scientific explanation do you advance for the nature of species? If "neo-Darwinism is a weak scientific theory," which scientific model do you propose as being more credible and more proven through scientific analysis?

I have seen the struggles of junior high, public school students at close range. You infer that " Many of these kids who drop out of school only started doing badly, when they reach 7th grade and beyond, where the teachers start to suck and can't be fired." From what I have observed over the years, the vast majority of students who struggle academically at that age do so not becasue of poor or disinterested teachers, but rather, because of disengaged parents, who, if they are not divorced or on the verge of divorce or should have already been divorced, are generally absorbed with their careers, or their hobbies or anything else than their primary role in providing a supportive, loving, structured, harmonious and happy home. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't negate the rule.

[Mordecai]

The government is not "taking sides in a cultural war", they are teaching the latest and most advanced theories of science as commonly accepted by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world's scientific community.

They are not teaching the latest and most advanced. They are teaching outdated garbage. I've followed the debate closely, and "Darwinism is the primary explanation for the origin of species," is no longer a scientific assertion. It's dogma.

Regarding the "neo-Darwinism" that you rail against, which alternate scientific explanation do you advance for the nature of species?

Whether I have one or not, neo-Darwinism is still proven to be false as the primary explanation for the origin of species. Maybe there are infinite universes with tiny differences between each one, so it was inevitable (as many more scientists are adopting as a new dogma) but Darwinism isn't a viable primary explanation for the diversity of life. The most scientific thing you can say is, "We don't know." I prefer intelligent design, but I don't find it necessary to have that taught in school. It's such a common sense inference, that it would take little time to teach it at all. Who needs school for that? Of course, teaching the debate, when the kids are older, would really promote critical thinking and a greater understanding of science and philosophy.

From what I have observed over the years, the vast majority of students who struggle academically at that age do so not becasue of poor or disinterested teachers, but rather, because of disengaged parents...

That's not what the evidence shows. Your observations, I think, are flawed. Granted, plenty of kids are harmed by family problems, but with the right system, even those kids can succeed. It's only the poorly run statist system that convinces people that there is no hope for those kids. There is.

[frankenstein]

Again, you make freedom sound like a grave injustice.

taking others peoples money, not giving other people a choice if they want to pay for your indulgence, yep you make socialism sound like such a wonderful thing.

[Mordecai]

taking others peoples money, not giving other people a choice if they want to pay for your indulgence, yep you make socialism sound like such a wonderful thing.

Did I mention that I'm a tax payer? I'm not taking other people's money, no matter how many times you claim that I am. Furthermore, for you, choosing your own kids' education is an indulgence. Only a statist would consider it as such. Sad that you're a control freak, trying to take away such a choice. The judge who ruled in Skinner v Oklahoma suggested that "...marriage is as fundamental a right as the right to choose a child's school..." Apparently, a judge who helped overturn miscegenation laws also thought choosing your kids' school was a fundamental right.

So why should you be trusted as a proponent of fairness or an advocate of human rights? You've pretty much placed yourself outside of that relatively small circle of genuine advocates of what America stands for.

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state...

[frankenstein]

Did I mention that I'm a tax payer? I'm not taking other people's money, no matter how many times you claim that I am.

everyone, regardless of children has to pay tax that funds education, so unless you can trace the tax dollars you no know more that a tax dollar is yours of the childless SSM couple living down the street. Unless you first refund the childless before you start using money to indulge yourself, then you have no legit claim that the money is yours?

[Mordecai]

everyone, regardless of children has to pay tax that funds education, so unless you can trace the tax dollars you no know more that a tax dollar is yours of the childless SSM couple living down the street. Unless you first refund the childless before you start using money to indulge yourself, then you have no legit claim that the money is yours?

Regardless of where the money goes and where it comes from, I pay plenty of taxes. That's the bottom line. The gov't certainly should be spending money protecting basic rights like the right to choose a school for one's kid. That's not an indulgence, unless you're a statist. I find it interesting that you call me a socialist, when you're for socialized education.

As far as single people, would you be happy if the state taxed people with children more than single people? If that's what you absolutely insist upon having, fair enough. What we can do is give the equivalent of a private school voucher to single people to further their own education or to put into a fund for their future children perhaps? That way, it evens out.

...pay for your choices...

You're demanding a double payment on people with children who also want to choose their school, huh? Isn't that kind of two-faced? One minute, you complain about single people paying for something they're not getting and now you insist that people with children pay the govt' for something the gov't doesn't provide for them. Yeah, that's fair.

[asbestosman]

It's my money. I paid for the school by paying taxes.

That's a whole 'nother can of political worms. I'll sidestep that question by asking another one: Do you believe that the only families who should be eligible for such vouchers are those who paid sufficient taxes? Also, what would count as sufficient taxes given that the tax money from, say, property ends up spent on more than just public schools.

The gov't has no right to take sides in the culture war in that way.

I have a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment, but I'm hesitant for public schools to teach both sides (or all sides if yet another explanation wants equal time). While I'm sympathetic to a degree, I don't see a compromise that everyone can or should agree on. The best I can agree to is the right to home / private schooling.

[krose]

Voucher schemes are nonsense.

It's like a city taking a portion of the taxes that pay for police and giving it back to people who want to hire their own security guards.

[Mordecai]

That's a whole 'nother can of political worms. I'll sidestep that question by asking another one: Do you believe that the only families who should be eligible for such vouchers are those who paid sufficient taxes? Also, what would count as sufficient taxes given that the tax money from, say, property ends up spent on more than just public schools.

Yeah, it is a can of worms. Either way, current public schools that lack choice are essentially free to the majority of citizens. But I pay taxes, so people who accuse me of stealing are full of it. Rich people are the source of 80% of revenues for the gov't anyway. We're all free loading, unless we're rich. Then again, it's working people that make people rich. We're all "free loaders."

I have a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment, but I'm hesitant for public schools to teach both sides (or all sides if yet another explanation wants equal time). While I'm sympathetic to a degree, I don't see a compromise that everyone can or should agree on. The best I can agree to is the right to home / private schooling.

The only compromise that makes sense, unless you want to get gov't out of education all together, is the voucher system and/or charter schools. There is no reason a school can't be ID friendly. If people aren't happy with that, I say they should get over it. It's not their kids and as long as the kids are getting a good education, preparing them for life and work, those are dollars well spent. On the other hand, perhaps private schools should require a small co-pay, just as a token to those who insist that everyone be homogenized with secularist dogmas. Of course, to be fair, I don't want my money going to homogenize children with secularist dogmas, so they should have a co-pay also. Then we're even.

[Mordecai]

Voucher schemes are nonsense... It's like a city taking a portion of the taxes that pay for police and giving it back to people who want to hire their own security guards.

WHAT? What kind of analogy is that? I don't even know where to start with how ill-conceived that is.

The voucher system is a simple concept. It's the same as the current system in that the gov't pays for children's schooling. It's different in that the voucher enables parents to use that voucher to choose their school, which is a basic parental right. A child is not just a creature of the state, so the state should not be essentially punishing people for not sending their kids to be homogenized by socialized education.

Germany, for example, has adopted the voucher system, which has forced socialized schools to fight to compete and improve. I don't know if you've noticed but Europe is killing us in education. We're way behind.

[Calm]

You don't think the greater suicide rate might be indicative of greater persecution?

Then there's this:

http://www.olweus.or...rientation.page

It certainly is possible, but since there is at least one other variable common (that of perceived sexual orientation) then it is also possible that there may be another primary cause.

Personal belief is that bullying would exacerbate depression and anxiety and therefore likely strengthen suicidal thoughts, but whether or not it causes suicidal thoughts in the first place cannot at this time be determined.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually living in Utah you are the recipient of MY tax dollars.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/18/red-state-moochers-federal-taxes-favor-those-who-complain-the-most-about-federal-taxes/

[Mordecai]

Actually living in Utah you are the recipient of MY tax dollars. http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/18/red-state-moochers-federal-taxes-favor-those-who-complain-the-most-about-federal-taxes/

Red states have smaller populations, so they obviously will pay less taxes. Of course, their government still costs a great deal to run. This also has to do with the House vs. Senate. There will be an inordinate amount spent on smaller states (which happen to also lean red), due to the Senate.

All the "blue" states are filled with a very large number of conservatives that are also paying taxes. Plus, for Oklahoma, the Feds are giving billions for Amerindian reservations. That's a liberal agenda. Not really the fault of most Oklahomans. Same with Utah.

We might also consider the statistics that show conservatives give a great deal more to charity, which is tax deductible. Not only that, all that money given to the poor helps the state. Furthermore, military families get a huge amount of money from the Feds. But serving in the military is a service to the nation, so the conservatives aren't freeloading. They're fighting and dying, in fact, for the right to receive those tax dollars.

The elderly also lean more conservative, so that causes higher conservative healthcare costs. So that would also explain it. If you want to make a case there is an inordinate amount of money spent on the elderly, I think you'll have a valid case. But making this into a liberal state vs. conservative state is really distorting what's occurring.

Lastly, how much money are lawyers and judges getting paid by the gov't? They're mostly liberal, by the way. They get paid disgusting amounts of money.

[frankenstein]

Regardless of where the money goes and where it comes from, I pay plenty of taxes. That's the bottom line.

its nto about paying taxes, its about paying the taxes that are used for education, here is the situation in Utah

consider this from dailyutahchronicle

"More than 85 percent of school funding in Utah comes directly from income tax, which sits at a flat rate of 5 percent. Considering that Utah's average household income is just under $60,000, according to statehealthfacts.org, we are working with only about $3,000 per household; add in tax breaks couples receive for filing together, and that number is closer to $1,700. The larger issue in this tax deduction picture comes with each child that a family claims as a dependent. On average, a family may end up deducting around $3,400 from taxable income, and, in some cases, receive an additional $1,000 tax credit.

A married couple who earns average wage with four or more children ends up paying almost no income taxes, leaving single people to pay the bills.

Why should the government punish me for not having kids and force me to pay for children families can't afford to have?"

A person may pay taxes, but what percent of the taxes a person pays that fund education is different and more important question. From the article it would appear that the average income family of 4 has perhaps only a 15% claim on tax money as "theirs" to indulge their personal choice.

And Mordecai and all other "school choice" you have a choice, you always have a choice, you just want someone else to pay for the choice you make. Take responsibility for your own choices and pay your own way, or at least guarantee that you are paying your fair share and that you do not require the childless to pay for your choices.

It entirely dishonest to claim "school choice" when even without someone else flipping the bill, you still have a choice where to send your children to school.

[Mordecai]

...leaving single people to pay the bills...

As I pointed out, rich people pay most of the taxes, while everyone else "free loads." That is, if you don't count all the work people put into making this country function, they're all free loaders. I personally look at other types of contributions, seeing as money isn't everything, as you seem to think. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

...indulge their personal choice.

LOL Again, you're so good at making liberty sound so bad.

And Mordecai and all other "school choice" you have a choice, you always have a choice, you just want someone else to pay for the choice you make.

Bull. Choices are free. Schools are expensive. We're already paying for schools; the only difference is that the schools are bad and tend to promote secular dogmas like neo-Darwinism and pro-abortion stances.

...guarantee that you are paying your fair share and that you do not require the childless to pay for your choices.

LOL The childless don't pay any taxes, unless they make more than 50% of the people in the nation. Plus, parents are paying for their kids' rooms and board, something the state would have to do, if they didn't. That's like a tax in itself. Singles can spend all their money on entertainment, video-games, hookers, drugs and whatever else liberals like to spend money on. Furthermore, reproduction and child rearing is a huge amount of work and contributes to the good of society. That's not free loading. Not in the slightest.

Furthermore, they're not paying for my choices. You can't buy or sell choices. Having choices is an inalienable right. Schools are what they're paying for, but they're already paying for them. In fact, they're also paying teachers to sit around in the "rubber room" doing nothing, some of them accused of molesting children. Is that a fair use of tax money? You don't complain about those guys, and they are the free-loaders your left wing friends created. They're REAL free loaders, unlike your imagined free loaders, good people who work incredibly hard to raise children and support them.

...you still have a choice where to send your children to school...

No, not really, unless I want to pay more than most people for something I'm already paying for. Is that fair to you? Not that fairness seems to be high on your priority list. After all, you're so adamantly against choice, it appears.

[frankenstein]

Me:And Mordecai and all other "school choice" you have a choice, you always have a choice, you just want someone else to pay for the choice you make.

Mordecia: Bull.

You have the choice where to send your children to school.

LOL The childless don't pay any taxes, unless they make more than 50% of the people in the nation.

Not true.

But how about you address the issue of Utah and how Utah funds education. From the article I linked A family of four of average income isn't paying the tax that funds the school system, thus that family has not claim to say "my money" because they did not pay the tax which funds the school.

liberals ... your left wing friends created.

how does your use of childish use of political rhetoric contribute to dialogue and discussion?

Is that fair to you? Not that fairness seems to be high on your priority list. After all, you're so adamantly against choice, it appears.

why is it fair for other people to flip the bill for your personal choice? If you are going to claim fairness, then at least attempt to be honest about it. You have the choice where to send your children to school, the cash price of the school is irrelevant, you still have the personal choice to do what you need to do to fulfill the obligations of your personal choice. Except you do not want do what is necessary to meet your obligation, you want other people to pay the bill for you.

[Mordecai]

Me:And Mordecai and all other "school choice" you have a choice, you always have a choice, you just want someone else to pay for the choice you make.

Choosing where to send your kids to school is as much a right as reproduction, according to the Supreme Court. Should we charge people extra, if they have children with someone the secularists disapprove of? The fact is, the gov't isn't paying for the choice. They're paying for the schools, and in fact, they will often pay less for private schools. The gov't SAVES money.

You have the choice where to send your children to school.

But if I have to pay for something that is a right and can't afford it, then what happens? Do you know that most of the people that would benefit from the voucher system are poor people? They have the worst schools. African Americans support the voucher system more than any other group in the country, because so many of them would like to get out of the ghetto. Personally, I could just move to Pleasanton and have my kids go to those schools, which are excellent (I know. I've taught there). But not everyone has that option.

But how about you address the issue of Utah and how Utah funds education. From the article I linked A family of four of average income isn't paying the tax that funds the school system, thus that family has not claim to say "my money" because they did not pay the tax which funds the school.

They pay "taxes" in the form of all the labor they put into raising, feeding and taking care of their children. All of that is in the interest of the state, so they are hardly free loading. They certainly aren't getting paid by any employer to do all of that work, but it is of greater value to the state than what the typical lawyer does. But lawyers easily make enough to pay for private schools. That seems fair to me that if everyone who has their kids go to your socialized, secularist, poorly functioning, extremely expensive and overpriced schools doesn't have to pay, neither should a family that doesn't want to send their kids to your overpriced, crap schools. Again, how is it fair that our tax dollars are paying teachers for doing nothing? Again, thanks to the free-loaders your liberal friends created, teachers are sitting around doing nothing and getting paid for that. I think we're getting a better deal investing in schools that actually teach kids instead.

...why is it fair for other people to flip the bill for your personal choice?...

Again, you can't buy a choice. Only a statist who puts money above principle would say such a thing. I find the concept repugnant.

...the cash price of the school is irrelevant...

It's not irrelevant for people who can't afford it. People who can't afford it would include people with four kids. Schooling is expensive, but it also represents a benefit to the state.

Except you do not want do what is necessary to meet your obligation, you want other people to pay the bill for you.

My obligation to do what? Do my fair share to support the gov't? Anyone that raises kids is doing that, provided they are raising their kids responsibly. (I actually don't have children, but I intend to at some point, by the way). Money, in fact, only represents goods and services. Raising children well doesn't just represent both, it is both. Parents who are raising children are providing goods and services to the state, while many corrupt lawyers (D) are making money scamming the state and businesses and then using that to pay taxes. That's hardly fair.

[tana]

So, Tovarich Tarski, I take it that you and your tovarishchi regard children as the property of the state, and don't think parents can be trusted to raise their children without state supervision; is that it?

Actually, personally, I tend to think that this is what is keeping society in the slow lane. Allowing anyone who can reproduce to 'raise' their children. It's children raising children.

Would you at fifty, allow your twenty something self to raise your kids the same way you did?

I think that if I were running things (as a g-d) I would physically keep people infertile until they were about fifty, or else set up another commandment to require all children to be raised by the wise.

[frankenstein]

Choosing where to send your kids to school is as much a right as reproduction, according to the Supreme Court. Should we charge people extra, if they have children with someone the secularists disapprove of?

CFR that "Choosing where to send your kids to school is as much a right as reproduction, according to the Supreme Court."

A US Citizen is entitled to a free and public education not a private education. Though vouchers that pay for private religious education are Constitutional, the Constitutionality of vouchers is a separate issue than your personal lamentations of entitlement to a private education.

But if I have to pay for something that is a right and can't afford it, then what happens?

I want a house, I have been working since I was 13 years old (not withstanding child labor laws), I can't afford a house, will you buy me one.

They pay "taxes" in the form of all the labor they put into raising, feeding and taking care of their children. All of that is in the interest of the state, so they are hardly free loading.

Seriously that is your argument? I would love to see the School funding code of the state you live in where it says "The funding of schools shall be from the labor, feeding and care of children by only responsible parents."

Yet, in Utah Schools are funding by income tax, in Texas schools are funded by property tax - is it fair that I have to pay for schools when I do not live the state charging me for the use of schools?

That seems fair to me that if everyone who has their kids go to your socialized, secularist, poorly functioning, extremely expensive and overpriced schools doesn't have to pay, neither should a family that doesn't want to send their kids to your overpriced, crap schools.

all this angst against socialism yet you have spent many post arguing in favor of a socialist system to send your children to a non-public school.

Also, would you mind cutting out the juvenile lingo i.e. "bull" and "crap"

liberal friends

again what does your childish pejorative use political rhetoric contribute to dialogue and discussion?

Again, how is it fair ..

Life isn't fair and never was meant to be fair.

You have yet to explain to how it is fair that someone else should pay the bill for your choices. Schools are funded by cold hard cash, not metaphors and emotionalism.

It's [the price of a private education in whether a person has a choice] not irrelevant for people who can't afford it. People who can't afford it would include people with four kids.

You always have choice.

[Tarski]

I want kids to learn science. I really do. I just don't think it's worth trampling on the rights of parents in order to accomplish it, especially when I think such knowledge is of questionable applicability for an individual to navigate through life. Should we make such knowledge available? Absolutely. The question is to what degree or indeed whether they should be pushed.

Suppose there is to be a lecture and a test on the topic of racism that implicitly condemns the idea that Jews and Blacks are evil or inferior races. That is, the lesson plan will take it for granted that Blacks and Jews are equal citizens and fully human etc.

Now suppose some parents who happen to be militantly racist demand that their child need not hear the lecture, need not take the test nor in anyway learn the material.

No suppose this racist attitude becomes quite popular and represents a real problem or proportions exceeding what it already is in some quarters.

Suppose the occult looking symbols of algebra and geometry are deemed to be demonic by some parents? (This is far from impossible, trust me.)

The problem is this; the rights of parents and the best interests of the children are both real values and they are sometimes in conflict.

By the way, the only point of my post was that public education is sometimes effective and has as many virtues as it does problems. 99% of the content is basic reading writting and arithmentic and couldn't possibly be a liberal conspiracy.

It has the effect of moderating the weird ideas that some parent teach their kids (racism, anti-government extremism, social backwardness etc.)

I am glad I went to the public school I attended for many reasons, including cultural and social reasons.

To say this much is not the same thing as saying that parents should have no rights or that children are property of the state*. The fact that people bring this accusation into the discussion just shows how unwilling to they are to be reasonable.

*Children aren't the property of parents either--by the way.

[TAO]

Tarski, for the algebra symbols, you'd substitute in an alternative, like words. Make them do word problems =).

[asbestosman]

Suppose there is to be a lecture and a test on the topic of racism that implicitly condemns the idea that Jews and Blacks are evil or inferior races. That is, the lesson plan will take it for granted that Blacks and Jews are equal citizens and fully human etc.

Now suppose some parents who happen to be militantly racist demand that their child need not hear the lecture, need not take the test nor in anyway learn the material.

No suppose this racist attitude becomes quite popular and represents a real problem or proportions exceeding what it already is in some quarters.

Hmm, a sacred cow (racism is evil). Do I dare challenge it? No. You win that battle. I confess that I'd rather trample on parental rights. It's the lesser of two evils.

The problem is this; the rights of parents and the best interests of the children are both real values and they are sometimes in conflict.

I agree completely.

By the way, the only point of my post was that public education is sometimes effective and has as many virtues as it does problems. 99% of the content is basic reading writting and arithmentic and couldn't possibly be a liberal conspiracy.

Agreed.

I am glad I went to the public school I attended for many reasons, including cultural and social reasons.

Me too.

Children aren't the property of parents either--by the way.

Indeed, they can be taken away if you abuse or neglect them.

We probably agree almost entirely on this issue minus a few quibbles about how the relative importance of parental rights are or the importance of teaching particular subjects. I think by and large public education is commendable. I'm just saying that I do see some problematic areas. I hope we continue to modify public education according to the changing global environment and according to what we learn about alternatives which may more effectively let us follow our ideals. Unfortunately some values conflict as you say. I regret that conflict and see no easy solution. However, I think it is worthwhile for me to acknowledge that some ideals aren't so easily satisfied. Sometimes we might offer partial solutions even if they are not ideal. Perhaps some those compromises are actually a bad idea (letting parents teach children racist ideas). But I see a slippery slope too. If we decide to make it hard for parents to teach racist ideas, do we make it hard for me to teach my kids Mormonism because it condemns homosexuality? Therein lies the problem I see with such actions.