Beavah

every single scientific conference I have ever been to has been open to anyone willing to pay the registration fee. Yah, but da registration fees for non-members are often enough to buy a cheap used car, eh? There are certainly all kinds of conferences that are open only to members in my field. And da other ones require the title to your car, as described. I don't want to pick on da psychologists more than they deserve, eh? But vol's right - an open-to-da-media talk at a conference is almost always a choice by the organization to present its policy positions or most significant work. And if that's not how they use 'em, they really are pretty unprofessional and clueless about PR & Communications. Beavah

Yah, it always impresses me how discriminatory those who claim to oppose discrimination can be, eh? Like Eagledad, I have many gay and lesbian friends and associates, and some very close family. One "best" friend who is still in da closet but with a long-term partner. Also have a few friends who are celibate clergy. Da notion that those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle must be living on some desert island is just an attack on da character of a person because of their viewpoint. Same as Gern's red herrings about religion supporting misogyny. If we're honest, there is no definitive "data" on these issues, other than that most societies and cultures in da world have made homosexuality a taboo for millenia. Making a change is quite da social experiment. Trevorum's notion that natural selection for male homosexuality proceeds like that for sickle cell disease I reckon is quite a stretch. What would it take me to change? Unlike some commenters, I always listen to and try to adjust my view to new data and to good arguments. At da same time, like DanKroh, I have a lifetime of experience, eh? I've seen the effect of different choices and lifestyles on many friends and family members. I personally believe sex is a wonderful and powerful thing, and therefore something that can lead to great personal growth or loss. Treated casually, like a recreational drug, it causes grief in people's lives. Treated as one component of a deep, rich shared family life it can be a wonderful expression of that love. I know many "committed" gay couples, and their experience of shared life is much shallower than da happily married couples I know. Usually they spent much less time together before "commitment"... it was a commitment more to sex than to a life and family together. They spend less time together as a couple. They experience less personal growth through da relationship. It's a dorm room friendship plus sex. In some ways they find it easier than hetero married life, eh? Yeh don't have to worry about figuring out how women (or men...) think. So it's less challenging, less enriching, more narcissistic. Unlike Eagledad, my views were formed before really considering da religious side of things, just because I hadn't yet personally found Christ at the time I was developing my opinion. While my faith supports my view now, my view preceded and is largely independent of my faith. So like DanKroh, I'm afraid that to change my mind about da homosexual lifestyle, yeh would have to overcome a lifetime of personal experience. But I'll listen. I'm always willing to learn. On the other hand, if yeh want to change my view about how folks who happen to be gay should be treated with respect and dignity, I suspect that's impossible. People are people, and all people should be treated with respect and dignity. That's a personal and faith-based view, both. It's not negotiable. Public policy, or organizational policy in da BSA, falls in that murky middle ground, eh? To my mind, there are distinctions to be made. Not everything that is "wrong" or unhealthy should be prohibited by law or organizational policy. At da same time, respect for persons doesn't mandate endorsement of their choices. There's a balance. I'm not fully libertarian; I think there is a place for prohibitions on some activities (ex. recreational drug use) even though they really don't harm me or affect others directly. But I'm also not in favor of Sharia either, eh? Not everything that is wrong or sinful should be put into civil law. Between the two extremes, I'm far closer to da libertarian viewpoint. I think it's lazy and misguided to believe that real evangelism and changing people's hearts can be done through legislation. So it would be far easier to change my mind in terms of what is appropriate in a legal/public/organizational policy context. Dat's a balance of what makes for da best policy choice given the appropriate role of government. It's why I think the gay lobby is stupid for attacking da religious, eh? That gets yeh nowhere, and is at best only tit-for-tat, you-don't-like-us, we-don't-like-you childishness. If they want to really make changes in da law, they need to appeal to the conservative side on the limited role of government. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Those with a history of being good, will listen to your advice if you truely appreciate their program as is, but over time come up with one or two minor changes, then a few more a little bit down the road. Yah, just wanted to echo this very important comment of moose's, eh? Often times when new parents want to "change" things, my advice is that they aren't allowed to make suggestions to improve the "bad" until they can identify, name, and praise all of the things that are "good" about a troop. Yeh build on strengths, not on weaknesses. Yeh garner support from others by first recognizing the contributions and dedication of others, and the good that they are doing now. Start there. Ask your son to name all the good things about his troop. You make your own list. Teach your son to always start by identifying the things that are best about people and institutions, not the worst. Beavah

Quite a few of you have made it clear, that the CO can do what they want. Is there no quality control in BSA any more? It used to be, that if an entire troop of scouts who were quite apparently not worthy of their rank across the board kept advancing, the council would step in. Yah, this is a good sign that your scouting experience is far from current, eh? Though I'm really not sure that what you describe was ever da case, and I reckon I've been an adult in scouting longer than you've been alive. . Certainly, there is no provision or desire for councils to be examining da rank quality in units. Quite da opposite, the BSA most frequently supports appeals against units that have your notion of quality. Yeh can find a few hundred threads on this topic here at scouter.com. Yeh say your son likes it, has friends, but is parroting your line about quality because of course he wants his dad's approval. I think yeh either need to back off ands let your son be a scout in this program or decide it's not doing it for you as a parent and look for something else... And then back off and give your boy some space. I fear, however, that yeh won't be able to find a troop that can live up to the glowing memory yeh have from your youth; in fact, I'd lay dollars to donuts that if yeh could go back in time your old troop and its leadership wouldn't live up to your glowing memory. Anyway, follow ScoutNut's advice, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

OGE, why would you shoot a caliper? Do yeh have something against precision measurement? .22s in Boy Scouting program have to be single shot (bolt action too, IIRC). I don't remember that there's an exception for giving 'em one shell at a time, but that seems reasonable. Boy Scouting program is limited to .22 caliber, but has no gauge limit for shotgun. Bilgerat was looking for documentary proof that boy scouts of any age can shoot .22s and shotguns, eh? He's not going to find that because da way we work is we only place restrictions, not permissions. If there's no restriction of firearms to an age group, then yeh don't need to find documentation that it's permitted. B

Yah, sorry for being too opaque, moose. I was trying to answer Calico. I don't think revoking a rank is a good choice. I don't care for it, I don't think it's da right way to use the program in ordinary circumstances, because advancement is meant to be a positive reinforcement thing. I wouldn't recommend it to a SM. But yeh see all kinds of times when adults don't use da program the same way I would, eh? . That doesn't make 'em bad people. Yeh can use da BSA materials in lots of different ways. Some troops put a much bigger emphasis on Rank and Advancement than I would, eh? Rank carries privileges in da troop, so revoking a rank might feel like the right way to teach a lesson of character, just like losing privileges for behavior. If the SM and da youth and the parents are on the same page, it can be exactly the sort of lesson about responsibility we want kids to learn. Not the way Calico would run a troop, or me, but it can be just fine. Calico asked how it would play out, so I gave an answer. To restore his rank, the lad should do a SM conference and a BOR. Those things should be going on anyways, eh? But da added bit about rank will perhaps lend it a sense of seriousness for a boy who cares about rank, and would otherwise blow off another adult lecture. Beavah

Nah, Horizon, I reckon Trustworthy and Mentally Awake are more important than whether I agree with a sentiment. Did yeh look at her examples? Last time I checked, Iron Man and Batman are the comics of yesteryear, eh? Da actual research surveyed kids about what they read/viewed. Try as I might to understand DanKroh and his psychologists, I don't know how that "research" on what kids read justifies conclusions based on comparison with what former kids who are now adults read. Wouldn't that require surveying adults on what they read as kids, or a prior study? I'm an old enough fellow to have watched over and over how some adults in every generation believe that da things the new generation is "into" are somehow terrible, awful, immoral or whatever compared to what they were into as kids. It's always nonsense. It certainly ain't "research". Beavah

It works however da scout, his scoutmaster, and his parents want it to work, eh? It shows a fellow who doesn't understand that da BSA advancement program is designed for positive reinforcement, not negative, and is using it improperly. Also shows a fellow who cares enough about da behavior of the kids to impose some consequences when it is poor. Revoking status or privileges is one of those things adults do to teach children on occasion. He could instead just suspend da scout from activities and create the same delay in advancement, eh? Instead he wants to keep working with the boy and give the lad a chance to make good with some hard work. It's poor advancement practice, eh? I don't care for it. But it shows a responsible and caring fellow who is trying, albeit ham-handedly. Better than the poster, IMHO, who wants to excuse the boy's behavior because he didn't speak out as an adult and for some reason thinks he could have "saved" da situation. If some SM came to me and said he'd "revoked" a rank for behavior and didn't know how to handle it from there, I'd suggest that the lad needs to repeat a SM conference and a Board of Review to restore his rank and his honor. So in that way, it just becomes a sign of stuff that should be happening anyways. Beavah

Yah, da document yeh want is the Age Appropriate Activity Guidelines. .22 rifles and any shotguns are recommended as age appropriate for Boy Scouts. But generally, if it isn't forbidden, it's permitted, eh? Subject to your own knowledge and level of comfort as da responsible and trained adult leader. B

Not really. I reckon I'm good with it. Eh? Yah, shame, because you clearly got it wrong. But then, I reckon there is great psychological research that shows folks tend to significantly overestimate their own competence. Haven't read it, but I'm sure that your interpretation of what the popular press interpreted from the study MUST be a true reflection of what the study shows (which you've read, right?). Laughter can be quite healthy. However, your rush to make a sweeping mockery of professional psychologists is rather telling. Since conference presentations aren't available outside da conference, of course I haven't read the work yet, which you knew. But professional communities at their flagship conference typically highlight research that they believe is timely and seminal to share with da popular press. The fact that da APA viewed this research as being so important as to merit highlighting for da general public does call for considerable mockery. Either they are totally inept at communications in da modern world, or they really don't have much really valuable research goin' on. Beavah

Yah, DanKroh, I reckon yeh do need to review what da real meaning of "Straw Man" is, eh? But yeh do do an interesting job of demonstrating how da personal biases of folks in your field affect the nature of da research which is engaged in and likely publishable. I do remember an epidemiology report on da early spread of AIDS which detailed the level of multi-party promiscuity of da gay male community which allowed a virus of that type to spread as rapidly as it did. Can't speak to da science. On a related note, did anybody see da popular press account from the American Psychological Association meeting this week about how terrible superheroes were for boys, and how da absence of fathers is good for them? If that's what passes for publishable, high-impact research, I reckon you'll forgive da rest of us for laughing. Beavah

Yah, JimFritzMI, welcome to da forums, eh? There's just way too much goin' on in your posts to make it easy to sort out, but let me do my best to talk you into taking a big step back. First off, da CO is in charge of the troop, eh? They own it. They operate it. They select da leaders. If they like it to run as primarily a youth outreach with a lower-grade outdoors program than what you want, that's their prerogative. You will not be able to change it, and everybody in da BSA will back the established leaders because that's their job, eh? To provide services to allow the CO to do what it feels is best. Second, you're a first year dad, eh? As such, yeh don't have much credibility or social capital to be able to affect changes of da magnitude you're talking about. If yeh take a new job, you're not going to be able to change the company in da first year, and if yeh try, you're just going to be labeled a trouble-maker and dismissed out of hand. Same here. If yeh read other threads in these forums, you'll find it's a well-known phenomenon for new troop parents to helicopter about trying to remake an established program in their own image and vision - in this case, da memory of what scouting was like when it was meaningful to you as a boy. It never works, in fact, it usually destroys da good things about the troop because of all the adult conflict and misbehavior it generates. So I'd be pulling yeh aside in real life and saying "what in da world are you thinking?". Why would you step into a disciplinary matter with da SM? How do yeh think it is at all respectful, loyal, courteous, kind to show up at a committee meeting and tell a bunch of hardworking fellow volunteers that they're doing everything wrong and you have been sent to "save" them?! You with your 10 months experience. If your wife made your son miss a ball game because he didn't do his chores and you disagreed, what would you do? I hope you'd support your wife. Same here. Da SM gets to make the call. No, he cant take away a rank in the eyes of the BSA, but he can in da eyes of the kids and the parents. It might even be an OK call, if that gets da message across to the lad. But it's a done deal, regardless. If yeh want to address it properly, yeh buy the SM a cup of coffee and talk personally and respectfully about your concern, admitting your own failure in supervision. You know. Yeh act like a real adult. Yeh don't undermine and embarrass da SM in public. So I'd say, given your long laundry list of grievances and your level of agitation that you need not to be involved for a bit until you get your head together. Yeh wont do your son or da troop any good in the way you are approaching things "hot" at the moment. If yeh cant take a step back without messing it up for your son, then I think yeh need to find a new troop. Beavah

Yah, Rememberschiff, sad case, eh? But it's a good one to illustrate for folks da nature and limits of BSA insurance. This is a case of a lad injured on a trip by an act of God, eh? On an established hiking trail, a section of ledge gives way underneath two boys. There is no cognizable negligence. So there is no basis on which da family can sue the leaders, the CO, or da BSA alleging it was their fault and they should be liable. As a result, da BSA general liability policy doesn't apply. What yeh have then is an injury, same as if the lads had fallen out of a tree at his home. The family's health care policy is the one that covers. This family apparently did not have health coverage - perhaps a foolish choice, perhaps a consequence of their employment situation, but an example of how da lack of universal coverage hurts real people. If da council or troop chose to purchase it, the BSA accident insurance policy would apply on a secondary basis. It's unclear whether it was purchased for this unit. But yeh have to remember, that policy only costs $1-2 per year, eh? It can cover a deductible, or a basic ER visit for an uninsured kid. But da limits of coverage are so low that they'll never come close to covering the cost of 3 surgeries with a 10 day hospital stay. At most, it will cover a part of da first surgery. So what you're down to is what this family is down to, eh? The charity of friends. Which is sort of like insurance-after-the-fact. If yeh care about kids like this, it's a bad, inefficient, scary way to go. If yeh want the Boy Scouts to provide real health care coverage, we'd have to be charging $200+ per year at regregistration, not $1. What yeh really want is to require families with kids at least to have health care coverage, so they aren't reliant on luck or charity, and so that da rest of us don't have to pay extra for our BSA coverage or our charity or our own health care coverage to handle da ER visits of uninsured kids like this one. Of course, that means something like Romney-Obamacare. Beavah

Yah, Radioactive, welcome to da forums, eh? Glad you're enjoying Venturing. Venturing is just like any group activity, eh? It's not da time for personal dating. If yeh go on a work outing with a bunch of folks from work, you act like you're on a work outing, not like you're on a date. Even if yeh work with your fiance! If yeh want to go on a date, yeh don't do it on a work outing. If you're mature enough to understand that, I don't see why there should be a problem. When in Venturing, you are crew mates, and that should be how yeh conduct yourselves. When you are on your own time on a date with just da two of you, yeh can act like you're on a date . Yeh don't have to lie or hide anything. There's nothing wrong with you dating at all. Yeh just want to act appropriately in whatever environment you're in. Beavah

Yah, what is that now, like a half dozen deep wounds? I don't reckon da patient would still be breathing. Sorry, industries that aren't competitive should fail, not be turned into state-run enterprises at taxpayer expense, (or buy a congressman and be protected by some tom-fool tariff or other monopoly or whatnot). Yeh don't have a right to my business or to take money from my taxes. Yeh have an opportunity to produce a superior product more efficiently and thereby earn a living. And if yeh can't do a better job locally without da same high shipping cost as importers, then I reckon yeh shouldn't be in the business. All those "deep wounds" in fact increased our standard of living. We could feed more people, more cheaply. Clothe more people, more cheaply. We can buy cars that run for 200K+ miles, not da 62K before the transmission fail on my last Ford. Sorry, but competition and consequences are good for the country, not bad for it. Propping up inefficient businesses, either by bailouts or by "buy American" campaigns are what's bad for da country. Yeh don't have a right to make your neighbors poorer so you can keep doing a lousy job. Yah, sure, sometimes there's a place for charity. If yeh buy an American car da same way you buy overpriced popcorn each fall, as a donation, that's your choice. I don't do charity for for-profit companies myself. Better to give to your local colleges and other schools and such to help people improve themselves. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

But then again, saying somebody else is committing a sin and that they are immoral Yah, that sentence seemed to be da one that best captured how I think things were getting confused. I think there's nothing wrong with judging actions, eh? We do that all the time. We need to. It's how we make choices, how we learn. There's nothing wrong in a Scouting context to saying "that is unsafe". We hopefully tell kids that on more than a few occasions. That is a judgment, eh? It is a judgment of the action. Now, we might disagree and then discuss whether we're correct about the judgment for a case, but we all I hope recognize that making such a judgment is an OK thing. Every time we teach a scout to do or not do something, we are making such judgments, and hoping they learn how to make such judgments on their own. What action is, or is not, in keeping with the Scout Law is a judgment! But then yeh see what happens in some threads when someone gets a bit hot and starts claiming that an adult or a troop is unsafe, eh? That's a different thing. Now we're not judging actions, we're judging people. Yah, dats not OK, eh? Not without knowing the people a lot better than we do. So it's OK to talk about actions being sinful in general. Murdering someone is sinful, in general. But when it comes to saying a person is evil because he has committed murder, that's a bit too far, eh? We can't see what's in his heart, we can't know all da circumstances. And even though what he did might have been wrong and merit sanction, as a person he still deserves human compassion. It's an act of kindness to visit the imprisoned, eh? So it's OK to talk about homosexual activity as being sinful, OK to say we don't want it taught or modeled for kids. It's a choice, same as any sexual activity (outside of being raped) is a choice. Just ain't kosher to judge a gay or lesbian person as being evil, or condemned to hell or any of that. I reckon lots of monogamous heterosexuals who we see as model citizens will end up in da furnace long before the gay couple down da street. God sees hearts, eh? And it's an act of human kindness to treat people with compassion. I'm happy to have a beer with the gay couple down the street, and Bill borrows my tools on occasion. Beavah

Yah, I may just be different, eh? But I tend to view da "have to buy American" thing as just another aspect of the entitlement mentality. For some reason, a fellow feels he is owed my business just because of where he lives, no matter how lousy his product or service is. Now, mind you, given an even quality and price, I'll tend to buy from someone more local who I have a relationship with. I'm happy to pay a slight premium to buy some things from a local store where the owners are helpful and well informed. But if they're not, I don't owe 'em my business, eh? I'm happy to buy online and support my local UPS workers. Now me, I'd have let GM and Chrysler go down hard. Some of da financial bailout was necessary to prevent a full out depression, but the manufacturing bailout was just supporting a bunch of folks who were lousy businessmen and builders. And I don't feel bad about buying a Japanese car built in Indiana, a Taiwanese computer imported by a Texas company, produce from Costa Rica for dinner, or a shirt from Cambodia imported by Walmart. If someone elsewhere works hard to make a great product, and someone in da U.S. works their butt off getting it from Cambodia to me, good for them. I'd much rather buy coffee from Columbia than send 'em foreign aid for free. For one thing, da coffee profit might reach real people, maybe a bit more than the foreign aid, which will go to their government. So if da BSA can't find a good deal on shirts in the US then I've got no problem with 'em buying offshore. Heck, I doubt a thing I'm wearing, driving, or using on a daily basis is 100% manufactured in ds states. Now, I do wish that instead of China they'd find a struggling democracy somewhere. But with da Chinese almost singlehandedly keeping da US borrow-and-spend economy afloat at the moment, I don't think it's fair to criticize. A bit like having a reluctant friend loan you half the value of your house so that you don't go bankrupt, and then refusing to eat in his restaurant when it's offering a great deal. Beavah

Yah, lots of Troopmaster lovers.. And lots who avoid da thing. Probably room for a web based competitor with smartphone and iPad app integration. Big issue is UI, and ability to turn off levels of detail yeh don't want. Some extensibility for tracking local awards would be nice, too. I'll be honest, though, I don't care for da things that much. Seems like they cause units to focus too much on advancement, just by making advancement data even more visible and time/attention consuming. How 'bout a package that addressed other methods as well? Things like: Adult training and involvement (interface with BSA training records but include outside training like ARC and LNT). Patrol method - independent campout logs, patrol competitions, patrol points Outdoors - TM does some of this for advancement logging, but it could be richer. Etc. If yeh had enough participants, some comparisons and interactions might be fun, eh? Troops trying to have the most independent patrol activities in their state? Most outdoor activities? B

Yah, sure. I don't encourage anybody going out and taking Boy Scouts hunting as an activity, eh? I just think we have a duty not to lie to them about the reasons. Claiming "insurance" when that's not a good reason is a failure of courage and character on our part. It's a lazy answer, when what is called for is an explanation and some evidence of why an activity doesn't make sense for some kids or for da program. People deserve da truth from us. Yeh should be able to request a copy of da first tier master contract from your council business manager or FD, if you are a council member (COR).

Yah, Mr. Boyce, I reckon we do have to be honest in admitting there's an awful lot of deviant and bizarre heterosexual behavior out there. Certainly a lot more by volume than da homoerotic stuff, just because the customer base is so much larger. Whether there's more by percentage is da kind of question I reckon there's no way to find an answer to. B

There agenda plan is several years long and is actually quite scary when you see how far they are set to go. Yah, to be fair, what Eagledad is describing is the same for any special interest lobby. Doesn't matter if it's pro-gay, pro-life, pro-spotted owl, pro-drilling, or whatever. If they have enough money, they hire professionals to put together a full press media campaign, including disinformation, fake ("sample") letters to the editor for newspapers, strategy layouts, script pitches to TV shows and movie houses, chain emails to send out to whip up supporter frenzy, spin-talk suggestions, how to get maximum Twitter penetration how to try to discredit "enemies" who disagree. You name it. Usually da worst are the industries, including da public sector unions, and of course the political parties themselves. But da "ethics" lobbies are pretty bad. Most Americans would pick up any of these plans and be disgusted. For that reason they are usually labeled confidential and are closely guarded. I'm really surprised Eagledad got to see one. But they're certainly not unique to da gay lobby. That's why from climate change to other issues, yeh have to be alert to this stuff and its sources, and seek out sources on da other side, or yeh will allow yourself to be manipulated. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I can assure you that this was a scenario repeated several times over and discussed on a regular basis by the Jamboree committee. Yah, SR540, did yeh have a relatively new Jambo committee this year? Everything you describe sounds pretty normal to me. It's a bit different than da "scout pays his own way" notion, more what to do with families with late payments. Yeh always have families with late payments, and they never tell yeh why. If that gets people's shorts in a knot, best they not work da financial side of scouting activities. Not every family gets a steady paycheck. I know quite a few who are contract or consulting labor, and they get paid in lumps. So they pay their bills in lumps. In this economy, you'd be amazed at da number of businesses who delay payment to contractors just because of their own cash flow problems. In other cases, mom is waiting on child support, and we all know how that often goes. In other cases, da family is just struggling. Needing a new radiator just took da cash for this month's Jambo payment. In still others, da bills seem to just sit around for months even though they can afford to pay. And on and on. It's just normal, eh? Only a minority of folks, albeit a fair sized minority, pay stuff on time. God bless 'em. For da rest, nobody wants to share their family financial struggles with strangers on a committee (or worse, people they know!). Da Jambo Committee's job is to plan for this cash flow stuff, and to follow up to figure out where help (or taking a hard line) may be in order. It's just a normal thing to plan for and deal with. I expect in most areas with da recession this go 'round it was a lot worse than usual. B

Or, if da problem really is with one troop who does the "Screaming Eagles" thing, why not have your DC approach da SM for a gentle "hey, come on now" talk? Or if yeh need da stick, don't invite them. Yeh shouldn't try to manage individual behaviors with "policy". Individual behavior you jus confront. Change da scoring only if a bunch of people are messing up the system. Just remember that you're always goin' to get folks who try to figure da best way to handle any system yeh make up. Or, you can follow OGE and take the long view. Meet a couple of your patrols every other night for a month or two and practice like mad. Imagine the feeling they'll get when they beat da Screaming Eagles with hard work instead of whining! Imagine da lesson for your district when your kids brag about how they won with real patrols instead of ringers. Competition is meant to push us to do better, eh? Rent one of those movies like The Mighty Ducks to get 'em going. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, FScouter, I agree, but that's what poor district fellows are saddled with everywhere. Plus even with real patrol method yeh have some troops with age based patrols including high school, all Eagle Venture Patrols, new scout patrols, and small troops or traditional troops with mixed age patrols. I'm with TwoCubDad. There are way too many permutations to try to turn this into some spreadsheet calculation. Much as I respect da many engineers we have in scouting, I've never seen it work well. Best is to have some loose guidelines for da activity stations, and let them design their own expectations (or different challenges) based on da patrol that shows up, and whether one person does all da work or whether there's good delegation and teamwork. Beavah

But, I'm not so sure private or home schooling wouldn't do the same. Yah, much like colleges, private schools are heavily subsidized by da donations of their alumni and parents of their alumni. Strikes me that's a lot of incentive to produce well-educated students who are grateful for da quality of education they and their children received. In da public schools, da government is forced to try to create artificial accountability by laws like No Child Left Behind and lots of testing. We've all seen how well that works. We've got da best free market college and university system in da world, with government, private, and religious options and a system of private and government grants to support less well off students. People around da world spend their life savings to send their kids to U.S. universities. When it comes to K-12 education, they mostly shake their heads and laugh at us. B