Choice in Schools or Choice in Education?

Choice in schools is good and would improve
the existing system, but what we really need is choice in education, which is much, much
more than that. You may not realize this, but we’re currently
living through a revolution in education. We’re seeing a revolution, a complete transformation
in the way education is carried out and delivered, both here in the United States and also worldwide.
Most people, when they think of education, think of schools. What we are seeing now is
a move away from the traditional school as a way of delivering education. In many of the poorest parts of the world,
the great majority of children of school-going age attend private institutions, which are
much more flexible than the traditional school, which don’t conform to the traditional ideas
of what a school is. In Brazil, for example, almost 70 percent of children of school-going
age attend institutions of this kind. In the United States, the homeschooling movement
has turned into a major social movement in which all kinds of educational forms are developing:
parents, cooperatives, learning centers, independent learning providers of all kinds. Delivering
education in a much more flexible, home centered, but no longer totally home-based way. Where has all this come from? Well, there
are two main sources. One, obviously, is technology. The advent of the Internet has made all kinds
of educational innovation and provision much more possible than was the case before. The
other, though, and the main reason, is that what we have here is a social transformation.
All kinds of people, both parents and pupils, are voluntarily cooperating together to provide
an education that they control, one that reflects their goals and desires rather than those
of governments, large firms, or political movements of one kind or another. So where
is all this going? Well, what we’re seeing is something very
exciting: a radical transformation of the way education is delivered. We’re moving into
a new world in which people will be educated in quite a different way, and above all, a
world in which people will control and direct their own education in a way which they have
not done for over 200 years now. And this can only be an enormous change for
the better.

100 thoughts on “Choice in Schools or Choice in Education?”

  1. lol no. The only reason evolution is taken at all seriously and not discredited like marx and Frued is because those 2 were both tested and failed, whereas evolution is unfalsifiable in a single lifetime. The evidence for is embarassing, the evidence against is damning, the only reason why evolution has limped on is because it is an immense aquisition of power for the unniversities and academics to destroy or at least discredit religion and has allowed them to be the dominant voice in politics.

  2. 2) I'll say it again, evolution, (by which I refer to unniversal common ancestry) is nothing but an archaic 19th century curiousity that people have dressed up in a fancy tuxedo to make it seem less retarded. Given freedom of choice for school selection, at least half of the populace would endeavor for some sort of ID/creationist biology classes, and evolution would be dethroned in 2 generations.
    If you want to cling to such a silly theory, fine, do it, and be trampled by a counter paradigm.

  3. Sad tyou are so ignorant and yet your opinion as tho' it mattered.. Yet I support your right to expose your ignorance.

    In non-experimental sci we collect & analyze ex-post-facto as evidence. EVO is falsifiable on that basis, but instead it is a well supported. Yet we have more evidence of EVO in the DNA record. Despite your ignorance there are experimental results that support evolution.

    Science doesn't care either way abt your religious views That's the point of Sci.

  4. oo you used the word science, you must be an intellectual.
    Ya science has it's roots in religion so I'll leave you to mull that over,
    Alright so after all that BS about DNA or something, I want you to put forth your best evidence for unniversal common ancestry. It's not my problem by the way you've fallen for a secular religion. I've seen next to no evidence for evolution and I've been asking for evidence for awhile.

  5. So how did we all (from bacteria & fungi to humans) get common L-chiral DNA & codons & so many common enzymes ? SkyDaddy vs Common ancestry: which explanation makes sense & passes Occam's razor ?

    I sincerely hope you have the choice to mal-educate your children with your idiotic creationist ideations. My children will want a race of ditch-diggers and flunkies to rule..

  6. Ya so give me the best evidence you have for unniversal common ancestry, or screw off. I'm done dealing with cowards

  7. Science was PERSECUTED by religion for centuries; Your comment is as stupid as claiming black culture has it's "roots" in slavery. Dumb as a box-o-rocks.

    I'm a scientist, unrelated to bio; I can't provide BEST case. Yet ALL life forms on earth have L-chiral DNA, a common set of 4 nucleolus, and a common set of 63 codons. There are common enzymes in everything from yeast to primates.

    Thinking that these are independent is stupid !
    How did YOU get the same enzymes as a yeast cell ?

  8. 1/ Learn to read the reply to the *specific* message.

    2/ You are an intellectual coward. Your' "I'm done" is your admission of defeat. I won since you have no response (except to run away squealing like a little girl) to the most basic argument on the topic of evolution.

    EXPLAIN how you and every other life form share common and peculiar chemistry – or admit the truth to yourself. We evolved.

  9. Ya ya give me an expample already. Why do you losers do this? You say you have such a great objective data that supports evolution, and when I ask you wtf it is you go totally unhinged.

  10. So you think similar parts means they are related? that's seriously your arguement? So because all computers work via binary codes, all computers originated from a micro chip and slowly progressed to all forms of modern computers/desktops/smartphones/etc. That's the arguement you are making, similiarity means common ancestry. They were all designed, and because it was a good system the designer reused the same concept, I say the same happened in biology.

  11. I suppose Sir Isaac newton (wrote more on theoloy than science) supressed science? DAMN THOSE CHRISTIANS!

  12. Search "RSA Animate – Changing Education Paradigms". It's a great talk on reforming education to be more flexible.
    RSA's channel there in general has a lot of good talks about novel idea for different ways to do society.

  13. Yeah right:
    YOU: science has it's roots in religion – FAIL.
    YOU: common evo is wrong, but you show no evidence – FAIL.

  14. Your analogy w/ binary computation is wrong.

    ~8.7million known species on earth and all use L-chiral amino acids tho R- works as well. If independent, it's a coin toss that comes up heads 8.7million times in a row!

    There is no reason why the codons (3sequence of three bases) use the same rna stop code not produce the same L-amino acids.

    Then huge macromolecular enzymes, w/ thousands of amino acids have identical functional units, or are totally identical across some species.

  15. No – the analogy it this. You land on a new planet and find 8.7 million binary 'books' All books use the same materials. All use they same symbols (0,1) for zero, one. All use identical 'alphabets, all use common words. Entire paragraphs are common across books. In some cases entire chapters are identical across some books. (the books reproduce – so many examples of each).

    So you claim they are each of independent origin !
    Laughably silly.

  16. We might expect an independently developed computer to use binary. We would not expect it to implement the same 8 bit bytes, The same sequence of bytes to represent the same meaning, nor the same instruction set. Your analogy is BS. Yes – same instruction set across computers implies common origin.

  17. I generally agree with video except for "to provide an education that they control". Allowing people to control education of children who have no personal say on adult decisions only encourages shallow minded parents to indoctrinate young ones with whatever they wish to pump into developing minds. Anything from propaganda to theism to conservative views to negative opinions about stuff. Apple does not fall far from the tree so by allowing "control" we are cutting a branch on which we sit on.

  18. revelation. Parents already indoctrinate their children.
    What you are saying is that state indoctrination is better.
    It isn't.

  19. Given that for reasons unbeknownst to any rational human being, my original comment was flagged as spam not sure if this reply will appear. Never the less I see nothing but disadvantages of home schooling young children. Having gone through public school and watching my siblings go through public school I say that yes it needs an overhaul but even while resources are already available (ie khan academy) to assist in schooling, how many are REALLY using those FREE TO USE resources? Not that many!

  20. If by your comment you are implying that I need to blindly endorse home and public schooling, the answer is no to both. I have yet to see a single home schooling program which will be a viable substitute for public schooling. Public schooling at the very least with all its faults gives you choices and peer reviews. You can enroll your child in advanced placement and honor classes if necessary. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so if you do not agree then that's just how things are folks

  21. idk maybe we have gotten used to the disadvantages.
    Social pressure and bullying is a problem, hardly any kid goes though school without a period of bullying.
    In same cases children are raised more by each other then the actual teachers, which is a problem people are yet to fully understand. ( or maybe just are keeping quite about it)

  22. Peer pressure and bullying is exactly the norm in our society. The only reason why this is a problem in USA is because nobody is allowed to punish children anymore. What happened to spanking/whipping/paddling/pulling hair/grabbing by the ear/applying a well placed slap to back of the head? The second we decided that corporal punishment is abuse, it all went down hill from there because by taking away one thing, we forgot to re-balance behavioral seesaw for those who actually deserved spanking.

  23. When I was growing up, it was acceptable for ANYONE to scold children. That means random strangers, teachers, neighbors so children knew repercussions for their actions. Today bullying began getting addressed because of all the children offing themselves and posting good bye videos on youtube. Absent that, bullying in modern age would not have been addressed. Also home schooling produces reciprocal problem where kids do not know how to deal with peer pressure and bullying so offing themselves…

  24. I was homeschooled and it shocked so many of my college peers at how my social skills weren't all messed up and how well I was able to manage things. Not the cocooned individual some expect. Same thing was true for most homeschoolers I knew then.

  25. Thank you, those were my impressions exactly. I'm planning to one day educate my own children, especially if public school continues down its current path.

  26. Well if it is an adult then they know better. scolding =/ bullying.
    They can be taught to get around it, plus by the time they are adults bullying would have ceased.
    It would've been nice for an adult to tell me ways of getting around bullying.
    As long as home school children by the time they are adults can recognize peer pressure then it is find.
    Also are home schooled kids more likely to be peer pressured? I would have thought the opposite.

  27. Home schooling is for hillbillies who think "evolution is just a theory". Their science class is made up of incredible insights like "God did it" – "it's god's magic".
    Good lord what a crock of shit. Save up money and put your kids through private school…

  28. You are applying what is true of the part to what is true of the whole. This argument is in effect a logical fallacy. Furthermore, I know plenty of atheist and christian families who a extremely science and math oriented and rarely if ever discuss the bible unless it deals with studying comparative religion.

  29. You are absolutely right. Home schooled children are sheltered from pressure so develop very low tolerance. When they come across other kids (which inevitably they will), they have difficulties socializing. Granted home schooled children will swear on their grand mother's grave it is not so, it has been fairly evident so far that they are more withdrawn, more shy, their confidence level is lower but they often are brilliant kids. Most exceed schooling expectations. But let's be honest here…

  30. …What good is it to be a 16 year old sheltered child going on your 2nd year of college? Peers do not respect you, relationships will never work because child is under the age and then there is all the negative influence like sex, drugs, sleepless nights and everything they are not used to. They very quickly develop social anxiety disorders.
    As for bullying. When it comes to adults bullying takes on a while new level. Adults call it harassment, abuse, discrimination and a bunch of other words.

  31. I'm planning to educate my own children, and evolution is possibly the only NON-reason I would do so (why filter science?). You're being close-minded about this topic. If home-schooling is for "hillbillies," how do you explain those students' greater subject proficiency across the board?

  32. Did you read my comment at the top? Your impression is based on expectations, not results; it's inaccurate, though I once shared it. And this comes from the son of two lifelong public school teachers, who defended state schooling and its so-called "socialization" aspect constantly. I've still been given no evidence to believe it.

  33. Sure, but I don't think that homeschooling "started after" your time. Parents have exercised complete domain over their children's education since the dawn of man. Therefore I'd say that state control is the newcomer here — and increasingly unwelcome, in my opinion.

  34. I was born into family of school teachers. I spent years tutoring stay at home kids. My frame of reference is my own exposure to dozens and dozens of home schooled children I have been exposed to over past 20 some odd years. You do not have to be a religious hillbilly to homeschool your children. You can be an average family who has given up on public education. The underlying issue lies with how THOSE children deal with complexity of being home schooled. I have yet to observe positive "outcome"

  35. Of course they are gonna be better students, they have a constant supervisor and get 100 % attention from the teacher. I just think it sounds like shit. My school years were the best time of my life. There's no way I'd trade that for home schooling. I did go to private schools though.

  36. I get your point, but the modern H-S movement in developed nations began in the 1970s by Illich & Holt, when I was already at university. Didn't become very popular until the 1980s.
    US universal public schooling system was once the envy of the world, however it's recent use as a means of indoctrination and fecklessness at basic education goals has made it anathema.

  37. "public schooling…. gives you choices" Huh? You mean it usually gives you the choice of one-size-fits-all. Private schools vs. homeschooling vs. public schools, that's choice. I don't really like charters, as they're still funded with taxpayer $ & it takes away from private schools. Do I have a choice when my property taxes go towards a public school I don't utilize or support? Do you support tax-credit-for-tuition programs like those in AZ?

  38. I see the "sheltered" argument a lot against homeschooling. Exactly how many kids does one have to interact w/before they're deemed "socialable"? Also note that your "sheltered" argument isn't an argument against the quality of homeschooling per se. "drugs" yes, public school students don't use drugs. Seriously, that's your argument? "relationships" What % of public school students have ever been divorced? Got any data on this or are you just winging-it?

  39. Regarding your first point, I assume students home-schooled from birth don't detect anything weird about having class in their kitchens more than public school students (like myself) feel about being herded into blank, cubicle-like, cinder-block rooms and droned at for 7 hours. You can get a person used to anything.
    I'd prefer a private or classical school if the curriculum is solid, but government does everything it can to butt in on most of them too, so sometimes it feels like, "Why bother?"

  40. I think I see. If you switch students from one system to the other, sure, they will most likely have a hard time adjusting. That's why many people find it distressing that the state is taking "education" so far from the system that that word traditionally entails; public education ought to resemble classical education.

  41. Who can make your child learn
    chemistry and math?
    Teach you everything about the world you live in?
    Salman Khan, yeah Salman Khan can.

  42. I don't see how that relates to anything I said, but fine. I'm just saying I really enjoyed my time in school and some of the teachers I had really put their mark on me and I wouldn't be where I am today without them.
    Meh I didn't find school to be anywhere near how you describe it. It was a place where I learned and got to meet new people, some of whom are friends for life.
    What's a solid curriculum? Teaching creationism?

  43. In hindsight, my most influential educators were toys my dad brought home from the TI company store.

  44. A solid curriculum is well-rounded (seeks to create Renaissance men/women) and, in America and Europe, makes a point of celebrating the Western heritage, not demonizing it. E.g., they ought to bring back Latin; I'm not saying correlation equals causation, but it's worth noting that public education has been slipping distinctly since the early 1960s when the teaching of Latin was done away with to try to cut costs. Essentially a nail in the coffin of classical education. Time to resurrect.

  45. That's useless. The school I went to used to have mandatory Latin for 2 years which my brother took and has since never used. While I have tremendous respect for the Greco-Roman culture and the heritage that comes with it schooling should focus on English, math, science and critical thinking because that is what's useful. The few people who actually need Latin can study it as classical languages in college.
    We need engineers and scientists not priests.

  46. You realize people can be scientists and priests. Besides, doctors and scientists should take Latin courses if they are to get the names of body parts, elemental structures and other things.

  47. I agreed with your intent but your point is backwards: Education AFTER high school is for specializing; learning for only the most practical skills, as opposed to learning for its own sake, is not the point of high school.
    It's silly to specialize in Latin unless one is looking to teach it. That said, you're wrong that it shouldn't be taught. Latin is prevalent in every possible discipline. Ask lawyers, economists, biologists, technicians, et al. Irrelevant to science & engineering? I think not.

  48. Also, my sister took a keyboarding class and went straight back to the two-finger hunt-and-peck. That someone doesn't retain the fruit of their learning, as with your brother, does not make that learning useless.

  49. Not really. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and never have I thought "damn I wish I knew Latin". Sure many elements have Latin names and what not but learning Latin grammar and speech is still pointless. If anything Ancient Greek would be more useful. Just because we use Latin phrases doesn't mean we need the language. I still don't see how it's useful at all. Oh and my brother is an MD which is basically all Latin but it's still useless for him.

  50. Well both yes and no. As Feynman said, you can never believe in the same way after scientific training. Science involves questioning everything – a priest is supposed to have unwavering faith which is contradictory to science which works based on evidence. Fine if you don't take the bible literately then yes.
    As I said, my brother is an MD and never found Latin to be useful. I'm a chemical engineer and never wished I knew Latin. I don't see your obsession with a dead language.

  51. It's a heavily grammar based language as older languages tend to be. German functions in much the same way. It's very grammar driven. Regardless, I don't see any real need for it. It's a personal enrichment for sure but that's it. I'm not against Latin per se, I don't mind if a school offers it (as my high school did) but I really don't see why we should make it a critical part of the curriculum like English, math and science.

  52. Umm sorry if I sound out of place here but I looked into the renaissance age and noticed when the kings and church were basically stopped treating the merchant class as a peasant class scientific revolution and technological progress seemed to flourish I wanted a scientist's opinion to see if there is any truth to this.

  53. Yes, renaissance arose as non-royal/non-church accumulated wealth. (Venician mercantilism, banking, the Medicis). But the development of sci & banking involved reviving pre-dark-ages ideas, incorporating foreign ideas and local innovation – these were opposed, not stopped by the church.

    So Copernicus, wealthy merchant class, had his work suppressed, was place under nominal house arrest at his villa, but was not jailed and continued his writing.

    Other factor at work, but not for this thread.

  54. I've 2yrs of conversational Latin+trans, and I don't see your point. It's less regular than modern romance languages, but not nearly as irregular as English. The main value was in translation – to understand that Cicero, JCaesar, etc (v.different ppl) express the same sorts of ideas as we see today. They weren't hung up on formalism, religion or fundamentalism. They seem less alien than ppl from other modern cultures (Chinese, Muslims, Christian Fundamentalists …)

  55. You can always take it to a stretch like that. Do we really need history? Well, no. But do we want to remove it? No because it lets us know our place in the world. As for English. I'd almost say that we need more of it. Back when I was in college I tutored in physics at another university and I was amazed at the lack of proper understanding of English among the students. How are you supposed to solve a physics problem if you don't understand it?!

  56. That's assuming that the teaching of the English language (strictly grammar and vocabulary) is all that "English" classes entail. But you're forgetting the vast literature aspect; how does analyzing Shakespeare teach any practical skills? It doesn't – not directly, anyway – but it's still a desirable enrichment for the mind. It's the same for Latin.

  57. My point about subject-specializing in college versus subject-specializing in high school still stands.
    For the record, you ARE right on the subject of practicality … but I'm not prioritizing strict practicality of learning, nor does "education" by its original definition. You think after two millenia of teaching Latin, schools in the West suddenly realized, "Wait a second! This is worthless!"? I should think not. Rather, the PRIORITIES changed. For better or for worse is a matter of opinion.

  58. I'm all for your point, however, there is a limit for it. Like I said, I'm okay with it being taught I just don't see it as a critical part of the curriculum.
    Oh please, you know just as well as I do that the Latin language was spread by the Church and later adopted by the educated classes in Europe. It's purpose has been replaced by English and that is the reason why it is no longer a central part of the curriculum. It all goes back to practicality.

  59. Not really. Literature studies in English directly enhance the understanding of the language. Do you think it's more enjoyable to learn vocabulary and understanding through books or memorizing a dictionary? Writing essays and book reports do the same thing. It gives students a useful skill – organizing thoughts into coherent sentences and paragraphs.

  60. Secondary education tuition is raising so why not find alternatives? The very least it can give you skills to be prepared for traditional college courses before hand and looks good on your resume.

  61. Church Latin and Classical Latin aren't the same thing.
    Latin didn't survive due merely to religion; atheistic classical intellectuals would take exception to your hypothesis. It endured because people over centuries had the perspective to realize that, as our cultural and historical window to the Romans, it is the foundation of literally everything our Western civilization is. In this way it's language PLUS history (and much more) – both of which you distinctly defended in previous comments.

  62. "Enhance," "enjoyable"; these descriptions are incompatible with the priorities you've expressed regarding "real" education so far: absolute, practical utility. Latin has every benefit you've turned around to mention – by being the origin of about 50% of the English dictionary, it "directly enhances" (borrowing your expression) the learning of English, the benefit of which you've already explained. That's one reason why Latin is taught.

  63. No, it's quite clearly not the same thing. Reading English enhances the understanding of English. Reading Latin enhances the understanding of Latin – which is a dead language.
    There's no reason why education should be made boring. Reading books in English is enjoyable as well as educational.
    The only reason why Latin was a part of the curriculum was because it was useful as an international language and later because of tradition.

  64. As I quite clearly stated in my comment – Latin started out as the language of the Church. The Church was largely responsible for education and priests were the medieval scientists and through that Latin became the universal language for politics, science etc. in Europe. I said "later adopted by…".
    You could make the same argument for Ancient Greek. Yet again, dead language. Learn it if you feel like it but don't kid yourself to think that it's useful in any way today.

  65. Latin did not start as the language of the Church. There were these people called "the Latini" who spoke (drum roll please) LATIN, which originates sometime in 3rd century BC. That's BEFORE Christ, which would also make it BEFORE Christians and BEFORE the Church.

  66. I should have clarified. What I meant was that that's how Latin lingered around in Europe long after the fall of the Roman Empire.

  67. You're still refusing to think in subcategories – most of the English language is relatively direct derivatives from Latin. I guess I'm just reminded of the iconic/ironic Monty Python line, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" It's as if you were to give total credit to your father for your existence, and ignore your grandfather simply because he's more distant. Again, it's one thing to go for the 100% pragmatic approach, but don't call it education; it's training. There's a difference. Sir.

  68. What the heck are you talking about? English is in its base a Germanic language far more closely related to German and the Scandinavian languages than Latin. Granted, we have a lot of Latin vocabulary in the language but there is just as much Germanic and French influence.
    I already clearly stated that I have immense respect for the Greco-Roman heritage in Western culture. The fact remains that Latin is a dead language that has no use for the vast majority of people.

  69. Considering none of your criticisms focused on the education debate & solely ad hom, I have no choice but to accept your concession. TY! Sorry, I don't feed trolls. Tata!

  70. and haha, watching one of your vids on ad hom fallacies, perhaps you should take your own advice. Good day!

  71. If I said the public school system has been an abject failure (which I think is why you're a bit angry & seized upon other items instead–we'll see how you do), would you agree or disagree? I took screencaps of our discussion & will take screenshots of your responses, just in case they come in handy later. I also found it funny you typed a one-sentence response, then had to come back & post another. Must not be too sure of yourself. Good luck.

  72. I accept your concession & don't forget, I have screencaps of our entire conversation, they may become useful sometime in the future.

  73. Anyone interested in why ZAK is so worked-up, I urge you to utilize the BETA thread of ALL COMMENTS. You'll see he did everything he could (and engaged in some rather odd theatrics, now he's attempting to segue into comms. on transvestites) to avoid a debate on whether the public school system is effective or not.

  74. "I can post however I like."

    When did I disagree with this? All I said is that you're a loser. And you are.

  75. DAVID: This ZAK kid picked on a misspelling I committed, but never actually got down to debating the issues (I could tell from his anger, he's a statist, that's why he never actually debated the subject) w/me. He's probably a waste of time. Judging from his commentary, he's either drunk or retarded. Another keyboard commando, not a shortage of those on YT.

  76. Hi, Prof. Stephen Davies.

    A school should be at the centre of a community, and the responsibility of all in that community. There's nothing to say that parents cannot have a much bigger role in public schools than than they do now.

    Of all the positive things happening in education today that you point out, none is thanks to choice in schools, or only attainable in private education. These things are happening.

    Choice in schools means that a school can never be at the centre of a community.

  77. Evidently public school has done wonders for you.

    "A school should be…" If the community believes … is true then it can happen in a market without the "help" of goons with guns.

    "Choice in schools means that a school can never be at the centre of a community."

    Why is that? How do you define "centre (sic) of the community"? How does a school fitting your definition improve a child's ability to learn?

  78. I don't know quite what your first sentence means. Centre is the original, British spelling of the word you Americans spell center. Public school has failed you, I must admit.

    Choice in schools means that there are by definition more than one school within a community – now tell me how the school can be at the centre when there is more than one school.

    A school should be something that everyone takes pride in and helps to maintain, like a church or a town square. Comprendez?

  79. I have no idea what you are talking about in your second sentence – are you quoting me? I don't see what it has to do with anything I wrote. What do you mean goons with guns?

  80. So you believe the only way churches work is by means of goons with guns (the state) controlling them?

    So if there are more schools that is a problem?

    You think the only way people will care about their children education is by coercion with goons with guns (the state).

  81. I thought in America it was the people who were the goons with guns.

    Not the state – the community. But I'd rather have either than private enterprise running the show.

    Yes, it's a problem if you have more schools, as I outlined why in my original post. We have parents competing for places in schools in England, it stinks. Rich parents actually buy houses just to get into the better schools, the poorer families get what they get.

    Have one school, and get involved in making it great.

  82. How does the state exist, by threat of force. Only the state is allowed to aggressively steal and murder to exist. Everything thing that the government can do stems out of the function of theft and murder. So I refer to the state as, goons with guns.

  83. just a sidenote: education in Brazil is a complete disaster both in the public and private schools. it's worse than the american system. And what's even worse is home schooling is illegal here… your parents will be attacked by the state.

  84. I dont understand why we get the privilege to have greatness developed from free minds, competition, choice and so on when it comes to clothing, sodas, etc but when it comes to crucial needs like education and health care when get government blocked. I'd much rather it reversed. I'll give up Coke and let the government force some inflated monopolized crappy soda unto me and liberate education and health care to all.

  85. I think people who are self taught should be able to be evaluated and receive recognized qualifications based on their abilities and understanding. 

  86. Teaching things that are untrue, teaching the controversy (the conspiracy), is then, in a system in which the parent, that is, the customer, chooses which school to send their child to, tantamount to an act of fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *