Re: that's NOT totalitarianism

"this country ain't in the state it's in because of teachers"

Actually, it is. Compulsory public indoctrination is a large part of the problem.

I was actually referring to the country's economic state (though I suppose you'd probably disagree about that, too, and probably blame teachers' unions and their audacity to suggest they should receive decent pay for their important work).

But you're fooling yourself if you think children wouldn't be (and aren't) "indoctrinated" by other means if not for public schooling. Again, as I mentioned in another post, government is just "we the people," and it does nothing more than reflect the thinking of society in general.

Er, you do realize that private schools generally spend half as much per student as public schools, right?

I don't know about that, but I do know that private schools in this country are attended by children whose parents can afford to send them there. And that by considering a portion of the population that comes from more financially stable families, you're self-selecting a group that is more likely to perform well in school (and probably require less money to educate, as well).

Am I expected to believe that a private education system would succeed in educating the poor in this country, when our private health insurance system can't even guarantee the poor health care without threat of bankruptcy? Or are you fine with children from families who can't afford private schooling simply being illiterate?