[E. Pluribus Unum]

No, but He might if you worked to prevent school children from hearing the other side of the story.

You are attempting to solve the wrong problem, just as I said in the post previous to the one you had your knee-jerk reaction to.

Where in the Constitution does it say that my children are to be educated at the expense of the public?

If I want my children to have an education, I should pay for it, and if you want yours to have an education, you should pay for it, and when we are paying for it we get to say what gets taught.

There is no difference between abolishing public education and having inner city schools graduate a majority of eighteen year old kids who cannot read or write.

And it's a lot cheaper for the taxpayer.

[Aquinasfan]

If I want my children to have an education, I should pay for it, and if you want yours to have an education, you should pay for it, and when we are paying for it we get to say what gets taught.

What about children whose parents can't afford to pay for their child's education? This is why I advocate a voucher program as an improvement over the existing schooling system.