[DifE-Q]

This does not make sense. You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust? If you are not going to divest your authority and trust these teachers with it, which you must if you send your child to a public or private school, then you should home school your children.

Also, your job as a parent is only to protect your children from things they can not protect themselves against - and to eventually empower/teach/train them to be able to protect themselves. If you hover over them all the time they will, as the article said, end up 25 and still in your house. For instance, if the child got a 79 on an assignment...tough; it was within his power to get an A if he worked hard enough. If he is somehow being targeted by a malicious mean teacher and purposefully given a low grade...tough as well. In reality, it won't affect his chances at a happy and successfully life. Plus, life is not fair and he will meet people like that in real life that he will have to learn to deal with when you are dead and gone. It too is a learning lesson - and nothing you need to protect him against.

[tokenadult]

You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust?

In almost all countries of the world, school attendance is compulsory for certain age ranges in default of government-approved alternatives. Perhaps the author of the grandparent comment acquiesces to children attending school more than being actively "willing" to have the children in school. In any event, the statement is correct that it is a parent's responsibility to protect minor children, and that includes protecting children from haughty teachers who are unwilling to allow parents to have the power to shop, the power to CHOOSE teachers as readily as parents choose grocers, physicians, community sports coaches, and other adults who influence children's lives.

AFTER EDIT: This addition to this comment was posted only after the back-and-forth below (to the "great-grandchild" comment level) about the unchanged original version of this comment above. Let me be clear: a lot of the zero-sum head-butting between teachers and parents would go away if only the system were changed so that parents of minor learners have greatly expanded choice in where their children go to school at public expense. Currently, the public policy position of most schoolteacher labor unions in most countries is that school attendance should be compulsory, that schooling should mostly be provided by government agencies, and that learners should be assigned to schools rather than have a wide choice of schools. All of those public policy positions entrench union leaders in political power, but none treat schoolteachers as professionals. Services that are CHOSEN by clients are largely appreciated by clients. Indeed, in the United States even a food stamp recipient doesn't tell off a grocer, because even shoppers who obtain a public subsidy for what they buy are still accorded the basic dignity of being able to choose where they take their business. Not all teachers are a good fit for all learners, no matter how fine the teacher (and no matter how dedicated the learner). It's best for everyone, and promotes more respect for teachers as professionals, to put learners at liberty to shop around for the learning situations that fit them best. The international examples I've read about (particularly the Netherlands) strongly suggest that teachers, learners, and taxpayers all benefit from having more rather than less choice.

http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Compar...

[lutorm]

Your arrogance is stunning. Do you also feel justified in telling grocers, physicians, and sports coaches how to do their jobs?

Of course you are free to choose a school for your child. But don't tell me you know my job better than I do.