South Bend Schools

[Football Guru 25]

How many of the football players and / or athletes head away from SBSC now that the transfer rule passed??  Seems like it's a no brainer of going from a corporation that is always having issues along with struggling programs year in and year out, to a school that has success, can make an immediate impact with other programs and know there is a solid foundation.   Area schools that are not far from them seem like they would attract MANY athletes... Also they have pickup locations already within the corporation territory.   I think you'll see them leave SBSC in rapid form honestly.   Parents that are involved will see that the change makes sense....  athletically and academically!!!!!

[crimsonace1]

The suburban schools still have to take them. Basically, this rule is that they cannot lose eligibility, not that they can just enroll wherever they want. If the suburban schools have a "no transfer" policy, then they won't go. 

Otherwise, savvy families were moving before 9th grade to get around the rule anyway. 

[23andCounting]

The gap between the haves and have-nots" will continue to widen. 

[00NWP]

Having gotten to see some of the SB schools as NW plays them in the post season now (including SB St. Joe), I don't see many, if any, kids going to the nearby high schools for football reasons.  Sitting in the visiting stands watching a playoff game in SB is quite sad.  For a team to have 30ish kids on the team, there may be 20-30 people in the stands max...and that includes the folks sitting in front of the cheerleaders who are not there to watch football...rather the cheerleaders. As well as the 4-5 police officers sitting there. If a kids wants to go to Penn or Mishawaka or some other neighboring school, they have to get there on their own.  They also have to get home in the evenings after practices. There is zero support from their families.  I don't see how a kid could "transfer" without some support from their families (for transportation reasons).  If kids wanted a better school for athletic reasons....with vouchers...if they wanted to leave their current public school...St. Joe and Marian are options...however that is not being taken advantage of either.  While I am not a supporter of the arguments on the GID in realation to socioeconomics...in this case...that is the exact reason why kids won't transfer from the SB schools.  NorthWood has benefited in sports due to kids coming into the Wanee school system...however...those kids have the support of family / friends to make it happen.  I see this transfer rule actually effecting other schools in the area more than the SB schools such as Jimtown / Goshen / Wawasee.  Those kids have family support and are...in my opinion...more likely to leave for an upward trending school rather than stay at their current schoo.

Just my opinion

[alvinmack56esu]

5 hours ago, 00NWP said:

Having gotten to see some of the SB schools as NW plays them in the post season now (including SB St. Joe), I don't see many, if any, kids going to the nearby high schools for football reasons.  Sitting in the visiting stands watching a playoff game in SB is quite sad.  For a team to have 30ish kids on the team, there may be 20-30 people in the stands max...and that includes the folks sitting in front of the cheerleaders who are not there to watch football...rather the cheerleaders. As well as the 4-5 police officers sitting there. If a kids wants to go to Penn or Mishawaka or some other neighboring school, they have to get there on their own.  They also have to get home in the evenings after practices. There is zero support from their families.  I don't see how a kid could "transfer" without some support from their families (for transportation reasons).  If kids wanted a better school for athletic reasons....with vouchers...if they wanted to leave their current public school...St. Joe and Marian are options...however that is not being taken advantage of either.  While I am not a supporter of the arguments on the GID in realation to socioeconomics...in this case...that is the exact reason why kids won't transfer from the SB schools.  NorthWood has benefited in sports due to kids coming into the Wanee school system...however...those kids have the support of family / friends to make it happen.  I see this transfer rule actually effecting other schools in the area more than the SB schools such as Jimtown / Goshen / Wawasee.  Those kids have family support and are...in my opinion...more likely to leave for an upward trending school rather than stay at their current schoo.

Just my opinion

Unless those outside corporation buses starting picking them up at their doorstep like SB Schools do, those kids aren't the ones going anywhere.  

[CoachMack219]

18 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

The suburban schools still have to take them. Basically, this rule is that they cannot lose eligibility, not that they can just enroll wherever they want. If the suburban schools have a "no transfer" policy, then they won't go.

If the kid can play, that "no transfers" policy is gonna disappear even faster than this policy appeared ESPECIALLY in school districts where athletics are valued on an equal, or greater, level as academics. 

[CoachMack219]

5 hours ago, 00NWP said:

Having gotten to see some of the SB schools as NW plays them in the post season now (including SB St. Joe), I don't see many, if any, kids going to the nearby high schools for football reasons.  Sitting in the visiting stands watching a playoff game in SB is quite sad.  For a team to have 30ish kids on the team, there may be 20-30 people in the stands max...and that includes the folks sitting in front of the cheerleaders who are not there to watch football...rather the cheerleaders. As well as the 4-5 police officers sitting there. If a kids wants to go to Penn or Mishawaka or some other neighboring school, they have to get there on their own.  They also have to get home in the evenings after practices. There is zero support from their families.  I don't see how a kid could "transfer" without some support from their families (for transportation reasons).  If kids wanted a better school for athletic reasons....with vouchers...if they wanted to leave their current public school...St. Joe and Marian are options...however that is not being taken advantage of either.  While I am not a supporter of the arguments on the GID in realation to socioeconomics...in this case...that is the exact reason why kids won't transfer from the SB schools.  NorthWood has benefited in sports due to kids coming into the Wanee school system...however...those kids have the support of family / friends to make it happen.  I see this transfer rule actually effecting other schools in the area more than the SB schools such as Jimtown / Goshen / Wawasee.  Those kids have family support and are...in my opinion...more likely to leave for an upward trending school rather than stay at their current schoo.

Just my opinion

Fair point for sure when looking at the whole of the situation of some South Bend area kids/ families. The only way families with a lack of support transfer to a different setting is with support from extended family, as you mentioned, OR through the coaching staff at the new (receiving) school which I am willing to bet happens more often across Indiana than we may like to admit. The receiving schools that are willing to play ball will benefit immensely from the IHSAA new transfer rule and those that remain "closed enrollment" (no matter who you are) will suffer. 

[Huge Football Fan]

7 hours ago, 00NWP said:

Having gotten to see some of the SB schools as NW plays them in the post season now (including SB St. Joe), I don't see many, if any, kids going to the nearby high schools for football reasons.  Sitting in the visiting stands watching a playoff game in SB is quite sad.  For a team to have 30ish kids on the team, there may be 20-30 people in the stands max...and that includes the folks sitting in front of the cheerleaders who are not there to watch football...rather the cheerleaders. As well as the 4-5 police officers sitting there. If a kids wants to go to Penn or Mishawaka or some other neighboring school, they have to get there on their own.  They also have to get home in the evenings after practices. There is zero support from their families.  I don't see how a kid could "transfer" without some support from their families (for transportation reasons).  If kids wanted a better school for athletic reasons....with vouchers...if they wanted to leave their current public school...St. Joe and Marian are options...however that is not being taken advantage of either.  While I am not a supporter of the arguments on the GID in realation to socioeconomics...in this case...that is the exact reason why kids won't transfer from the SB schools.  NorthWood has benefited in sports due to kids coming into the Wanee school system...however...those kids have the support of family / friends to make it happen.  I see this transfer rule actually effecting other schools in the area more than the SB schools such as Jimtown / Goshen / Wawasee.  Those kids have family support and are...in my opinion...more likely to leave for an upward trending school rather than stay at their current schoo.

Just my opinion

I see this being a huge benefit for St. Joe and Marian getting Penn kids who are back ups that want to transfer and play. Similar to SEC schools being a lot thinner now losing their back ups. With the voucher system being over 220k almost everyone qualifies.

[Football Guru 25]

4 hours ago, CoachMack219 said:

Fair point for sure when looking at the whole of the situation of some South Bend area kids/ families. The only way families with a lack of support transfer to a different setting is with support from extended family, as you mentioned, OR through the coaching staff at the new (receiving) school which I am willing to bet happens more often across Indiana than we may like to admit. The receiving schools that are willing to play ball will benefit immensely from the IHSAA new transfer rule and those that remain "closed enrollment" (no matter who you are) will suffer. 

I believe coaches would / will make things happen..... there are bus pickups in SB as well that could help!

[crimsonace1]

On 2/24/2025 at 12:57 PM, CoachMack219 said:

If the kid can play, that "no transfers" policy is gonna disappear even faster than this policy appeared ESPECIALLY in school districts where athletics are valued on an equal, or greater, level as academics. 

A large school district in Central Indiana recently announced it was going to accept out-of-district transfers for the first time ... when they've quietly already been accepting transfers of star athletes. 

[Muda69]

2 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

A large school district in Central Indiana recently announced it was going to accept out-of-district transfers for the first time ... when they've quietly already been accepting transfers of star athletes. 

Why the secrecy?  It's Hamilton Southeastern:  https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/education/2025/02/13/hamilton-southeastern-accepting-outside-district-students/78516936007/

[23andCounting]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Why the secrecy?  It's Hamilton Southeastern:  https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/education/2025/02/13/hamilton-southeastern-accepting-outside-district-students/78516936007/

Doesn't that school already have an enrollment of 3500 kids?

[Sparty]

12 minutes ago, 23andCounting said:

Doesn't that school already have an enrollment of 3500 kids?

But they aren’t ALL star athletes.  

[23andCounting]

14 minutes ago, Sparty said:

But they aren’t ALL star athletes.  

You'd think they'd find a few with those kind of numbers. Outside of Carmel, I'd say HSE is the last school in the state that should be going after out of district kids. I get it though, it's going to be a "free for all" for all schools. 

[Sparty]

3 hours ago, 23andCounting said:

You'd think they'd find a few with those kind of numbers. Outside of Carmel, I'd say HSE is the last school in the state that should be going after out of district kids. I get it though, it's going to be a "free for all" for all schools. 

Yep.  

[CoachMack219]

20 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

A large school district in Central Indiana recently announced it was going to accept out-of-district transfers for the first time ... when they've quietly already been accepting transfers of star athletes. 

They value academics AND athletics at HSE, good for them! They're in the most competitive conference in the State according to most people's feelings on this forum. Gotta do what ya gotta do to compete, and those that don't well... 🤷‍♂️ 

17 hours ago, 23andCounting said:

You'd think they'd find a few with those kind of numbers. Outside of Carmel, I'd say HSE is the last school in the state that should be going after out of district kids. I get it though, it's going to be a "free for all" for all schools. 

HSE is the 3rd largest school in their conference. Idk if they're the last that should be "going after kids" (my verbiage would be admitting out of district students) especially when their last football state championship appearance was 20 years ago and their last boys basketball appearance was prior to 1993, if ever. Sounds to me like they could use an athlete or two... I appreciate schools who value BOTH academics AND athletics (extra-curriculars), HSE gets no hate from me. 

[Sparty]

So school choice is a good thing now?

[PDB26]

On 2/24/2025 at 3:09 PM, Huge Football Fan said:

I see this being a huge benefit for St. Joe and Marian getting Penn kids who are back ups that want to transfer and play. Similar to SEC schools being a lot thinner now losing their back ups. With the voucher system being over 220k almost everyone qualifies.

My guess is any effect by voucher expansion and the new transfer rule will be negligible.

First, the median household income in Granger is just under 120k(2023). Certainly, some well-off families in the district will have access to vouchers for the first time, but  I doubt that was ever a hurdle they were unwilling to overcome previously.

Next, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Penn was ever in the business of preventing athletes from playing at a different school under the old rules. 

Finally, I wouldn’t be so certain that your average backup at Penn just walks into playing time at Marian or St. Joe. Seniors have always gotten the first rights at playing time when in an even competition with underclassmen. So, even those who eventually get beat out won’t know until they’re into their senior year. If a rising senior preemptively transfers for playing time there’s a good chance they’re not a shoo-in to beat someone out elsewhere. Maybe a rising junior decides to transfer because they’re behind a senior and don’t expect to beat them out, but that junior will have had significantly fewer reps against good competition in their careers—when compared to a junior or sophomore at either Marian or St. Joe—unless they were part of a rotation in varsity games.

Penn’s developmental teams are almost always playing against vastly smaller teams whose best underclassmen are getting time on varsity as sophomores and juniors while the typical Penn player doesn’t get regular quality reps until they’re a senior, and even that’s dubious considering the way the schedule plays out now.

So, there could be some movement from Penn to Marian and St. Joe, but I’d be shocked if the effect is even remotely analogous to what waiverless transfers have had on college football programs taking the best backups in the country from SEC teams. 

[23andCounting]

1 hour ago, CoachMack219 said:

They value academics AND athletics at HSE, good for them! They're in the most competitive conference in the State according to most people's feelings on this forum. Gotta do what ya gotta do to compete, and those that don't well... 🤷‍♂️ 

HSE is the 3rd largest school in their conference. Idk if they're the last that should be "going after kids" (my verbiage would be admitting out of district students) especially when their last football state championship appearance was 20 years ago and their last boys basketball appearance was prior to 1993, if ever. Sounds to me like they could use an athlete or two... I appreciate schools who value BOTH academics AND athletics (extra-curriculars), HSE gets no hate from me. 

There's already a massive separation between Suburban Central Indiana the rest of 6a based on enrollment alone. I was hoping the new transfer rule would level the playing field a little more, but if the largest schools in the state are recruiting on top of the advantage they already have, then the gap between the top and bottom will remain. To each their own though. Do what you gotta do to get that state title. Just show a solid commitment to the kids who've been there from the beginning. If I'm a coach, I'm probably doing my recruiting at the middle school level. I'd never poach another coach's players. Middle school? They're all fair game. 

[CoachMack219]

On 2/28/2025 at 10:34 AM, Sparty said:

So school choice is a good thing now?

To me school choice (by the definition of: a parent has the right to choose where their child attends school) is and always will be a good thing. It's when bills are presented and passed for the 10% instead of the 90% that things get dicey on this topic, from my seat at least. 

[CoachMack219]

On 2/28/2025 at 11:39 AM, 23andCounting said:

There's already a massive separation between Suburban Central Indiana the rest of 6a based on enrollment alone. I was hoping the new transfer rule would level the playing field a little more, but if the largest schools in the state are recruiting on top of the advantage they already have, then the gap between the top and bottom will remain. To each their own though. Do what you gotta do to get that state title. Just show a solid commitment to the kids who've been there from the beginning. If I'm a coach, I'm probably doing my recruiting at the middle school level. I'd never poach another coach's players. Middle school? They're all fair game. 

The 6A central Indiana separation is apparent. The thing is though, only 5 schools have ever won a 6A state title (Brownsburg, Ben Davis, Center Grove, Warren Central, and Carmel) and only 9 schools have ever played in the 6A title game (Westfield, CP, FW Carroll, and Penn have all been runner ups in addition to the above listed Champs). I think the transfer rule (by allowing schools like HSE and other HCC schools to change their enrollment policies) COULD achieve what you're asking for here by leveling the playing field. NO, this will NOT help Jeffersonville, Lake Central, Portage, or Perry Meridian but odds are those schools are making choices that are leading them further away from 6A football relevancy.  As far as coaching and "recruiting" is concerned I agree with you that the best way to go about it is finding the 8th grade talent and convincing those families to be a part of your community/ school. The ones near or in NWI (Chicago Catholic League powers, Andrean, Valpo, Crown Point, Merrillville) who do that well tend to win much more than those that don't who continue to fall further behind. 

[Yuccaguy]

4 minutes ago, CoachMack219 said:

The 6A central Indiana separation is apparent. The thing is though, only 5 schools have ever won a 6A state title (Brownsburg, Ben Davis, Center Grove, Warren Central, and Carmel) and only 9 schools have ever played in the 6A title game (Westfield, CP, FW Carroll, and Penn have all been runner ups in addition to the above listed Champs). I think the transfer rule (by allowing schools like HSE and other HCC schools to change their enrollment policies) COULD achieve what you're asking for here by leveling the playing field. NO, this will NOT help Jeffersonville, Lake Central, Portage, or Perry Meridian but odds are those schools are making choices that are leading them further away from 6A football relevancy.  As far as coaching and "recruiting" is concerned I agree with you that the best way to go about it is finding the 8th grade talent and convincing those families to be a part of your community/ school. The ones near or in NWI (Chicago Catholic League powers, Andrean, Valpo, Crown Point, Merrillville) who do that well tend to win much more than those that don't who continue to fall further behind. 

As I've said a lot before: The dividing line of US24....(obviously more South of that in all actually) has become a trend at the 6A level for 'success' at the Finals.

Being a "Northerner" of course I am anxiously waiting for a program to break through and change the current narrative that exists in 6A at the State Finals. 

I also will NOT cow-tow to the belief that 'school choice' (public tax money) is the answer to FB success in ANY way/shape/fashion/form. 

It is a federal/state sanctioned "welfare program" extended to P/P institutions IMO.  My parents paid their own freight to send ME to parochial schools.  Why would I ask I my neighbor to contribute to my wanting a Porsche by taking my/other's public monies from the system to make that happen?  My wanting to have a "Porsche" is MY issue, not my neighbors. 

Our collective goal should be to provide the best possible PUBLIC education and funding to our local systems and teachers! 

Sadly, I see major issues coming in the ensuing years with the abilities of programs to 'recruit and raid' players on ALL levels of HS sports.  The template has been shown with collegiate athletics, and even THEY cannot control the issues that are at play now.  

[23andCounting]

1 hour ago, Yuccaguy said:

It is a federal/state sanctioned "welfare program" extended to P/P institutions IMO.  My parents paid their own freight to send ME to parochial schools.  Why would I ask I my neighbor to contribute to my wanting a Porsche by taking my/other's public monies from the system to make that happen?  My wanting to have a "Porsche" is MY issue, not my neighbors. 

I'm "all in" on school choice. In the past, only the rich and the poor were privy to private school education while the middle class was left behind. Blue collar folks who work their butts off, aren't rich, but make too much to qualify for the voucher program, have the right to take exception with the voucher program. School choice now levels the playing field and gives blue collar parents access to the same educational programs that have been given to the poor. 

I do agree whole heartedly with "Our collective goal should be to provide the best possible PUBLIC education and funding to our local systems and teachers!"

[Sparty]

1 hour ago, CoachMack219 said:

To me school choice (by the definition of: a parent has the right to choose where their child attends school) is and always will be a good thing. It's when bills are presented and passed for the 10% instead of the 90% that things get dicey on this topic, from my seat at least. 

Thank you for your response 

[Muda69]

Government needs to just get out of the education business, first at the federal level then at the state/local level.

The website the following commentary comes from has a definite Christian bent but the points are all still valid:

https://teachdiligently.com/articles/getting-government-out-of-the-education-business

Quote

It is popular to criticize public education today—but only if one suggests reform of the current system. It is unacceptable to suggest that there is something wrong with the system itself. Unfortunately, attempts at reform fail to address the central problem of public schooling—that government should not be involved in education in the first place.

Here are four reasons why government involvement in education (a.k.a public schools) is destructive and why government should get out of the education business entirely.

(1) Public schools are coercive.

Public education was only able to become the force it is today because the government instituted compulsory attendance and compulsory taxation laws. In other words, public schools take your children, and then they take your money to pay for their schooling. Thankfully, parents in every U.S. state have the legal right to opt out of public schools. But parents who opt out will still have to pay for public schools through local, state, and federal taxes. This is true also for people whose children are out of high school or who have no children at all. Whether you want the service or not, you still have to pay for it. This is tantamount to theft.

It is no surprise then that the majority of Americans choose to send their children to a local public school. The penalty for opting out is double-tuition, as parents have to pay for private schooling on top of taxes for public schools. This is a penalty many parents are unwilling to pay. But for many poor families, this is a penalty they are unable to pay. And sadly, poor families often live in the worst school districts. Many of them would love alternatives to the local public school, but the alternatives are not financially feasible.

(2) Public schools undermine the family.

Parents have authority over their children and therefore have the right to choose the best educational option for them. Schools in this sense are an extension of parental authority. However, America’s coercive public school system interferes with this authority. Instead of leaving educational decisions to parents (who know their children best), such decisions are left to government bureaucrats. This has led to decreased parental responsibility and increased dependency on government.

Ironically, public schools were supposed to offer a solution to the very problem of parental irresponsibility. One of the arguments advanced in favor of America’s public school system when it first began in the mid-1800s was that some parents were too negligent to make educational decisions for their children. This charge was particularly aimed at the poor, who (so it was thought) could not or would not provide proper education for their children. Oddly enough, this line of reasoning was used to justify the government providing education not only for the poor, but for all citizens. In this way, the government became a sort of paternal figure for all of society.

The state has thus usurped the educational role that rightfully belongs to parents. Instead of parents training their children in the home and in voluntary private schools, the majority of parents today leave all education to the “professionals” at the public schools. But the state is no substitute for an actual father and mother. The state system has thus weakened the family unit by interfering with parental responsibilities. This has created more problems that the state has in turn sought to solve by further state intervention. The logic of government education has been extended so that progressives now consistently advocate for a complete nanny state—government daycare, government lunches, government healthcare, and government education from pre-school through college.

(3) Public schools monopolize the market.

The coercive nature of public education has also created a near monopoly in education. Sure, private schools still exist. But they are at a significant competitive disadvantage. It is ironic that there have been many outcries throughout American history against supposed “monopolies,” yet there have been few voices objecting to the actual monopoly found in the public school system. But as is true of all monopolies, the lack of competition decreases both the efficiency and quality of the schools.

Schools are a business, and education is a service. But when a business does not have to compete for its very life, it loses incentive to cut costs and provide its service for the lowest price. And when the service is involuntary, it diminishes the consumer’s self-interest and the producer’s responsibility to please the customer. So while public schools have prices, there is no consumer-feedback mechanism. Taxpayers have little say in how much they pay for the schools, and they cannot leave and take their money elsewhere (not without moving).

It should therefore be no surprise that public school budgets become bloated. Just look at America’s expenditure in the last 50 years. When adjusted for inflation, per pupil spending in American public schools has more than doubled since 1970. Teachers unions and the leftist media continue to dupe the public by constantly declaring that the solution to every problem is more money. This would never happen in the free market. But when there are no direct tuition hikes, few will object to new sports facilities, an excessive number of administrative positions, and hefty salaries.

Not surprisingly, most of the opposition to any form of privatization comes from teachers unions and their political allies. Teachers unions do not like privatization because it creates competition, which in turn means teachers have to work harder for lower pay and the best teachers get paid the most. Unions prefer a pay scale based on experience rather than performance, guaranteeing increased pay with no incentive to work hard. Teachers unions also desire to limit competition by restricting the pool of available teachers. This is the real reason why public schools require teacher certification, which can only be obtained with a degree from a university’s “college of education” (there are some exceptions). This has created a guild that keeps even some of the most qualified individuals from teaching in the public schools, including those with a Master’s or PhD. Not only does this restrict competition, but it also keeps out bright teachers who have not been indoctrinated by the progressive colleges of education.

(4) Public schools promote the growth of the state.

The coercive and monopolistic nature of public education makes it the perfect tool for statist propaganda. The children currently in schools will one day be leaders and voters in society. Thus it can be said that "he who controls the schools controls the future." And in the case of government schools, they have indoctrinated generations of Americans into a statist worldview. Contrary to popular belief, education is not a neutral endeavor. There are different perspectives on subjects like history and economics. And it just so happens that American public schools tend to slant the curriculum in favor of the state. Why are Keynesian economics, egalitarian social ideals, and American militarism so popular today? Because those are the doctrines that public schools and universities have taught to the majority of Americans.

Furthermore, public schools are intolerant. Individualism poses a threat to the state, so public schools seek to crush freedom and individualism in favor of conformity. Is it any wonder that government schools at every level are some of the least diverse places of opinion? In seeking to educate students from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs, government schools have sought to teach a non-philosophical and non-religious worldview. But in doing so, the schools have actually forced a leftist and secular worldview on students. The best example of this is found in the public schools’ embrace of Darwinian evolution. Darwinism has been adopted as official state doctrine and other views legally barred, in spite of the fact that many American families object to this controversial view. In other words, the state is forcing its perspective on the populace. But this is not an accident. Religious persons adhere to an authority higher than the state, and this poses a threat. Government schools therefore seek to squash religious opinion and force on students a worldview that is more conducive towards statism.

Privatizing Education

It is a sad irony that many so-called proponents of the free market would never even suggest privatizing America’s public school system. They despise the calls for socialistic reform (such as tuition-free college), yet they overlook the fact that the state owns the means of production in education—the very definition of socialism. The government uses coercion to create a monopolized system that further aids the growth of the state. And in pursuit of this goal, the school system undermines competing authorities, including parents and the church.

It should come as no surprise that such a socialist school system has been nothing short of a disaster. Even proponents of the system recognize some of its problems, many of which are magnified in the poorer schools—low test scores, illiteracy, dropouts, violence, teen pregnancy, bankrupt districts, etc. Understandably, there are calls for reform. But attempts at reform only deal with the symptoms of the underlying problem of government control. If Americans want a genuine solution, we must address the root problem by getting government out of the education business.