Public schools provide better education than homeschooling.

It seems that my opponent is hung up on trusting the competence and experience of teachers, administrators, and other "accredited" authority figures in the public school system. If the public schools were so good, and the classroom 'discussions' with teachers, etc. are so valuable, why is it that close to 50% of students in many schools have illiteracy rates between 40% to 70% in many school districts, why the drop-out rates are shocking, why millions of students who graduate need remedial reading and math courses in college freshman year, if they get into college. We all know the horror statistics of the continual failure of our public schools, yet my opponent keeps advocating giving more education poison to students to cure the education poison caused by the government-controlled schools in the first place. Consistently, studies have shown that the children of "inexperienced" homeschooling parents' do far better in math and reading standardized tests than public-school students taught by "accredited" teachers in public schools. If public school education by "accredited" "authorities," is so much better than education by homeschooling parents, why do American public-school students now consistently score in the bottom 20% on standardized math and reading tests compared to foreign students of all European countries, Japan, Korea, and many other third-world countries? I recommend that my opponent watch the video by John Stossel on the 20/20 segment on YouTube, "Stupid in America", for further proof of the unending failure by our public schools, run by so-called "accredited" teachers and other "accredited" school authorities who my opponent has such naive reverence for. Moreover, public schools can damage children in so many other ways (see my book "Public Schools, Public Menace" for a full description of these ways), that even if parents taught their children NOTHING at home other than how to read well and do basic math, then let their child loose in the local library or in front of their computer to study whatever interests them to their hearts content, their children would be safer at home than in these violence, drug-infested, inferior-education institutions run by government employees, who my opponent seems to so admire because they are "accredited" by teacher colleges that are the laughing stock of the academic community. Again, the notion that because public-school teachers are "accredited" means that they somehow give students a decent education is a joke if you consider where and how these "teachers" were trained in their so-called teacher colleges. Also, even the best teacher in a public school has to teach 20 to 30 bored children in her class, and cannot possibly give any individual attention to each student. Homeschooling parents, however, can give their total attention to their child's education, and their child can learn at their own pace with a vast amount of education curriculum material parents can find on the Internet, in education software, in stacks of education book aisles in book stores like Barnes and Noble, etc. If a parent Googles "education curriculum material" on the internet, she will get literally MILLIONS of hits for books on every subject covered in public schools, software programs, low-cost Internet schools, and other resources she can turn to, to help her educate her child at home. My opponent seems to prefer that students be taught by public-school drones who either couldn't care less about each individual student's problems, strengths, weaknesses, etc., or has no time for such individual attention. Moreover, most homeschooling parents spend about three to four hours a day homeschooling their children, and find that they can rearrange their work schedule to homeschool in the evening, on weekends, etc. There is a saying, "where there is a will, there is a way." Millions of homeschooling parents with jobs who love their children and want the best education for them, manage to find many ways to rearrange their work schedules to homeschool their children. It's called "initiative", a word usually missing in public school education. There is an even more fundamental reason why children should be homeschooled, and that is parents' right to direct the education of their children in any way they see fit. It's called liberty, which is a concept my opponent seems not be be familiar with. Public schools are products of a collectivist government, and are favored by people such as my opponent who simply do not understand the notion of individual liberty. My opponent believes that government bureaucrats have the right to dictate children's education and force this factory assembly-line education on parents, regardless of parent's wishes, or whether parents think these government schools are incompetent or worse. My "socialist"-minded, collectivist-minded opponent puts his trust in government officials, and believes these government officials literally "own" childrens' minds and lives for twelve years, with the right to, in effect, lock up children in their education prisons, irrespective of parents wishes or desires. Public schools are simply education tyranny, on a massive scale, and are adored by people who either work for the government or believe government has the right to violate parent's rights at will. Moreover, even if some parents don't give their children a "better" education than the rare public school that gives a child a decent education, that is irrelevant. There is no inherent "right" to an education for any child. Education does not grow free on apple trees. Schools, teachers salaries, books, supplies must be paid by someone, and that someone is taxpayers who pay unconscionable real-estate school taxes. Yet millions of single-people, older people, parents with older children no longer in school, and parents with children in private schools must pay these school taxes to pay for the education of other peoples' children. That is, public schools therefore require organized theft of taxes of millions of Americans who have no children in these public schools, to give unearned money to support the education of other parent's children in these government schools. This is organized and legalized theft by local governments on a massive scale, done through the imposition of heavy real-estate school taxes. There is no more "right" to an education for a child, than there is a "right" to a child having sneakers, a house in the suburbs, or anything else. The notion of a "right" to an education that requires massive taxation from millions of Americans who do not have children in public schools, is as absurd as saying that because some parents do not feed their children properly, then there should be a Public Food system, whereby all grocery stores and supermarkets should now be owned and operated by government, just as local governments now own and operate the business of education with government (public schools). Since there is no inherent "right" to an education, the alleged problem that my opponent brings up that some parents, because they work or might not be good teachers, would therefore not give their child a good or even minimal education, even compared to most incompetent public schools, is just as irrelevant as arguing that many parents would not buy their children the best quality sneakers or give them the best quality food. The answer to that argument is that, sorry my friend, but in a free country there are no guarantees in life, neither for parents or their children. If my socialist-minded, authority-loving opponent craves to insure that ALL children get a minimum "decent" education, let him raise money from VOLUNTARY contributions for education for children who he thinks might not get the best education, rather than proposing that government continues to put a legislative and tax gun to parents's heads by forcing parents to send their children to incompetent pub