It's not that you're missing anything, it's that indoctrination thing. You've been programmed to believe that only the government can do anything in or for the public interest. Not only that, but despite massive evidence to the contrary, you've been indoctrinated to believe the government is the best entity to accomplish this. Certainly a market-driven system, yes that's good old capitalism, can do a better job of running the schools (or just about anything else, for that matter). First, we get the federal government out of education, mostly because it has no constitutional authority to be there in the first place, but also because it is grossly inefficient. Then we get local government to turn the schools over the private enterprise. The we go back to actually educating our children.
"Have you ever taken the time to drive around Stokes County and look out at who actually lives there?"
I don't need a driving tour of Stokes County. I've lived in Stokes County since you were 9 years old, my Stokes County ancestors go back to 1792. I also spent 10 years involved in politics and public service in the county. I have been places in Stokes County you didn't even know exist. I also don't need an anthropology lesson. I have personally interacted with a sizeable percentage of the citizens of Stokes County, probably not far from half of them.
"Where do you think they would have found the resources to send all those children to private schools? Where is the nearest private school? King, maybe? It isn't an option for everyone, therefore pubic schools must exist on some level."
Why do you insist, other than the indoctrination thing, that it is an either-or proposition? I can guarantee you that people would be much happier if you told them their tax burden would decrease by the amount they put into the government-run schools and and that they could use that money toward their childrens' education. Of course that's assuming that the teachers' union and their cronies in the Democrat Party and the press would refrain from spreading lies about the whole process. And why do you insist that non-government schools are expensive and out of reach? That's pure teachers' union propaganda. Take a ride down to Calvary Baptist School. I daresay the average per capita income there is well under that of Brown Mountain Church Rd. In fact I believe Mr. Baker regularly forgives tuition altogether. As for your assertion that any school must exist, the right to an education is a myth. That's like saying someone has a right to their welfare check.
"It's to bolster the self-esteem of children who don't get that type of attention at home."
I see. And what does that have to do with education? Since when was it the job of any school, public or otherwise, to look after the self esteem of anyone. That kind of social engineering crap is one of the main reasons government-run schools have lost their wheels and run into the ditch.
"I think you missed my statement about all the creative outlets that were provided to me at North Stokes. Not only did we have one of the best bands in the state, but we had an active chorus, an award-winning student newspaper, creative writing, physics, advanced biology, and a program strictly for academically-gifted students. I was encouraged to express my individuality."
How wonderful for you. No, I didn't miss it, I was wondering, once again, what that has to do with schools not run by the government.
"The learning experience should start way before kindergarten and doesn't just end after high-school graduation. I think you'll find that children whose parents take an interest in their studies, help with homework and get to know teachers will fare far better. BUT, a parent also has limitations."
This and everything before it to the last quote I extracted has nothing to do with whether or not the government should run schools. No part of what you have written precludes a private sector or market-driven school approach.
"They can't possibly teach every subject..."
Home schoolers seem to manage quite well. Their students regularly excel in college and in the silly end of grade tests given by the state.
"...and often can't see their child objectively."
And why, exactly is that a requirement?
"And that is where the teacher comes in."
You mean that's where the government-employed indoctrinator comes in. Given that I have dispensed with your predicate, the only task left for the state employee is indoctrination.
"And are you inferring that guidance and grief counselors aren't needed in schools?"
I'm not inferring (or implying!) anything. I said it straight out. And I didn't say anything about guidance counselors.
"Just because your children didn't need them doesn't mean that others don't. And in many cases, school may be the only place a child will be able to receive emotional counsel and support."
Nope. Need doesn't cut it. The government-run schools have no business replacing friends, family, or clergy in these endeavors. Furthermore, you have no right to take money from me to provide these services that I see as frivolous and out-of-scope. That's why a market-driven approach will work better. If parents are more interested in how their little darlings "feel" than what they learn, let them pay for that nonsense.
"That's one of the main problems in public schools right now. Lack of funding is causing these types of positions to be eliminated which in turn puts the responsibility on the teacher. How can a teacher instruct a classroom when at the same time, they are trying to console a troubled child?"
Grade A, pure, unadulterated, liberal horse manure. First, schools are spending money on this kind of stupidity to the detriment of classroom teachers. This kind of BS is indoctrination. It is teaching them victimology 101, the liberals' favorite field of study. Civilization survived for thousands of years without getting in touch with its feelings. This is exactly why we must get the government out of the business of running our schools.