Originally Posted by Val
you attacked the Reuters article and wrote a message that tried to make things look blurry.
1) What, specifically do you see an "attack"? Please note that my post states "This is not to discredit the article..."
2) I presented 4 facts on the article. Do you disagree with any of the facts which I presented on the article?
3) I presented 1 Observation on the article. Do you disagree with the observation on the article?
4) I presented one compare/contrast regarding phraseology in the article/report and your post.
5) To clarify, in what way did my post "make things look blurry" to you?

Originally Posted by Val
I'm not defending the status quo by any means. But the "choice" movement is a fiction whose goal is to gut public education in favor of privatization.
Some may say it is a rather big allegation to claim that the goal of educational "choice" is to gut public education.

As an alternative, some may say the goal of educational "choice" is to provide an option or opportunity which may be right for some students; Unfortunately among both government and private sector there may be found individuals whose focus is not benefiting the students (and by extension, their families) but may be on such things as benefiting/growing data collection, research, etc.

Originally Posted by Val
If allowed to continue as people like DeVos seem to want, it will turn education into a profit center...
Under a previous administration, Common Core was ushered in, with book companies, test companies, and technology providers standing to profit greatly... Pearson and Gates come to mind.

Originally Posted by Val
Meaningful reform that benefits the US as a whole won't happen when the people driving changes are acting for the wrong reasons (i.e. self interest).
I would seek reforms which "benefit each student" rather than "benefits the US as a whole" as I see the latter as being somewhat nebulous.

It is possible that "outsiders" may make positive reforms which empower parents and students. The current educational system was built under prior administrations. It remains to be seen what influence DeVos may have on the US Dept of Education, and what influence the US Dept of Education may have on DeVos.

Originally Posted by Val
The "choice" proponents lie and obfuscate in order to advance their goals. The twisting of facts on this thread is an example.
Which "choice" proponents? What goals... are they concrete, written, measurable goals? Which facts have been twisted on this thread?

I see us agreeing:
- There is good and bad in everything.
- More students/parents would like to benefit from educational "choice"; Demand exceeds supply; There are waiting lists and lotteries.
- Some people/companies/government benefit from educational "choice".
- Educational "choice" is not a panacea.
- More information/data/statistics may be needed.
- More oversight/accountability may be needed.

I'm uncertain whether we agree:
- Some students benefit from educational "choice".
(This reminds me of the Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley) To clarify, is it your position that the students most likely to benefit are those students who you believe do not need further educational benefit?

We may disagree:
- Whether further educational oversight/accountability should be accomplished bottom-up or top-down.. through State legislation... Federal legislation... grassroots parent efforts... etc... or a combination of approaches depending upon local circumstances.
- Whether an "outsider" may provide more options for parents/students. (To clarify, my view is: time will tell... I cannot predict this.)