John–First I’m glad you agree with me that education, i.e., school attendance is not a right but an obligation. Let’s stop using the euphamism of rights here.
Then you say:
“As long as compulsory education laws are not specific as to the means, allowing parents to decide how best to educate their children (including in private settings or at home) I think they are an appropriate expectation for all parents, much like requiring them to feed, clothe, and shelter their children. Totally unnecessary for the vast majority of parents, but necessary and proper with regard to a few.”
If this includes the right of parents to choose to educate their kids in a non-government approved setting–i.e. the parent decides what is and isn’t a school, then we agree. On the other hand I have yet to see any so-called school choice advocate include in their list of ?all educational options?–non-government approved educational settings.
I think the problem is that as long as there is compulsory attendance the state will have to define what is and isn’t a school. If I had the opportunity to make only one change in the education system I would abolish compulsory attendance laws. This is because I think the state gets the bulk of its power in the education area from this one law. I would expect that you would not make such a change because you think the state gets the bulk of its power in the education area from this one law. This is the fundamental disagreement beyond which we will never get.
