points out that even our language in describing education today has come to view children as owned by society, not by parents.
Who decided to end social promotion of students? Why, according to the article, Chicago did. And which students does this change affect? Well, according to the article, "Chicago" ended the social promotion of its students. Thus, the entire city apparently made a decision, concerning all of the children it apparently possesses.
Many people would probably wonder at my commentary so far. Don't news writers talk like this all the time? After all, the "United States" invaded Iraq, and "Israel" and "Palestine" have peace talks. So why can't "Chicago" make a decision about "its" students?
But that's my point: This type of language is so pervasive that we don't even think about it. Nonetheless, it's still perverse, and perpetuates collectivist attitudes that have wrought so much misery in the last century.
Regardless of whether parents would buy enough education for their children (and who is to define "enough"?), either parents are to own their children's educational rights or the government. So choose, and demand to have the choice.