From Socialist Comprehensives To Individualised AI Homeschool

We know three facts about the sexes which are exceptionally inconvenient to wishful ideologues wanting to engineer the human condition. First, the most pronounced difference can be detected hours after birth: boys respond to things (objects), and girls respond to people (faces). Second, female IQ clusters towards the median of the bell curve, whereas male IQ is more widely distributed across the continuum. Third, the higher average agreeableness of girls helps them fit better into settings where obedient compliance is rewarded, compared to boys whose testosterone drives them to aggression and instability.

Our forefathers knew this, even if they didn't have the science. For better or for worse, they thought it wiser boys and girls were educated separately.

92% of all UK students use ChatGPT for their assessments, and 89% of US students used it to cheat on homework. Only 7% of teachers used it to plan a lesson.

76% of teachers in England and 74% of the UK teaching workforce are female. Teachers' wages have collapsed and male teachers have completely abandoned teaching as the boys have abandoned the classroom.

Jubilant feminists can barely hold back their glee when faking "concern" over girls outnumbering and outperforming boys in schools, universities, and HR email jobs. This midwit take misses one glaring fact: boys have replaced people with things; they have rejected female schoolteachers for technology which allows them to teach themselves.

Boys are forced to take part in socialism and HR-like feminised classrooms until 18, which they hate. They are leaving en masse as early as possible. This is not new: boys as young as fourteen lied to join the front line in WWI.

Girls now overcrowd rotting, underfunded legacy institutions which are taught by people and reject technology. Boys crowd video game servers, street gangs, and YouTube channels which depend on it. This isn't a "victory" of any kind and has nothing to do with magical "equality," it is boys leaving girls behind.

The evidence is everywhere: boys have given up dating almost entirely and are paying $20 for AI to learn trade apprenticeships; girls are relying on antidepressants and online prostitution to deal with unmanageable student debt for useless psychology degrees and being family-less at 30.

Girls are only "outperforming" boys in the same way boys are "outperforming" them in Formula One and on North Sea oil rigs. The Internet – a thing – has arrived, but the old system is built on human faces: female teachers, or the exact kind of person boys don't respond to or even like. The human market has already natively decided what forced, artificial socialism wants to subdue.

The socialist mind cannot comprehend this in its war against Nature: male and female are different; people are individuals. It believes in a foolish religion of "universal equality."

To understand how we got here, it's worth understanding the history. Let's start with a clip.

Education Came From The Church

British education's roots lie firmly in ecclesiastical soil. The great public schools—Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster, Charterhouse, Shrewsbury, Rugby, St Paul's, and Merchant Taylors'—were founded and governed by religious institutions. These establishments operated on a simple principle: excellence bred excellence. They educated the nation's leaders through rigorous classical curricula, harsh discipline, and an unwavering commitment to intellectual achievement.

These schools functioned as private enterprises, funded by fees and endowments rather than state largesse. Parents invested their own resources in their children's futures, creating a direct link between payment and performance. The church provided moral framework and governance, ensuring education served higher purposes beyond mere utility. This system produced generations of statesmen, scholars, and innovators who built and administered the British Empire.

Local grammar schools, similarly church-founded and privately managed, extended this model throughout the kingdom. They offered classical education to promising boys regardless of family wealth, funded through ancient endowments and local philanthropy. Merit, not background, determined advancement. The system was inherently selective, unapologetically elitist, and extraordinarily successful at identifying and cultivating talent.

The church-based system which produced Nelson, Wellington, Churchill, and countless others was dismantled in favour of comprehensive schools which struggle to teach basic literacy. The grammar schools which offered working-class children pathways to advancement were closed to prevent middle-class children from retaining advantages. Universities that once led the world in scholarship became degree mills for the academically unprepared.

Public Education Emerges

The Elementary Education Act 1870, known as Forster's Act, marked the state's first serious intervention in education. Ostensibly designed to fill gaps where church schools were insufficient, it established School Boards with power to levy rates and build elementary schools. The legislation introduced the principle of compulsory education through the Elementary Education Act 1880, forcing children aged 5-13 into schooling.

This seemingly modest intervention contained revolutionary implications. For the first time, education became a state responsibility rather than a private or ecclesiastical matter. Local authorities gained power to tax residents for educational purposes, breaking the direct link between payment and service. The state began determining curricula, attendance requirements, and standards—powers previously reserved to private institutions and the church.

The Education Act 1902, championed by Arthur Balfour, completed the elementary revolution by abolishing School Boards and transferring their powers to Local Education Authorities. This legislation created the framework for secondary education under state control, establishing county and county borough councils as education providers. Private schools remained largely untouched, but the principle of state education became firmly established.

Eventually controlled by Labour councillors and staffed by progressive educationalists, they implemented comprehensive reforms with revolutionary zeal. Places like the Inner London Education Authority became laboratories for radical educational experiment, pioneering anti-racist education, peace studies, and other political indoctrination masquerading as curriculum innovation.

Butler's Wartime Tripartite System

The Education Act 1944, piloted by Conservative Rab Butler, represented the most dramatic transformation in British educational history. Passed amid wartime socialist fervour, this legislation dismantled the old dual system of elementary and secondary education, replacing it with a unified structure under complete state control.

Butler's Act established free secondary education for all children, funded entirely through taxation. The tripartite system divided pupils at age 11 into:

1. Grammar schools for the academically gifted
2. Technical schools for the practically minded, and
3. Secondary modern schools for the remainder.

Selection occurred through the notorious 11-plus examination, creating artificial barriers based on a single test rather than sustained performance.

The legislation abolished fees in state grammar schools, removing parental choice and financial responsibility. Education became a "free" service, though taxpayers bore the full cost whether they used state schools or not. Local Education Authorities gained unprecedented powers over curricula, staffing, and resources. The church's role was reduced to token representation on governing bodies.

Most insidiously, the Act introduced the concept of education as a "social service" rather than an investment in individual excellence. Its preamble spoke of education according to "age, ability, and aptitude"—bureaucratic categories rather than classical virtues. The state, not parents or communities, would determine educational goals and methods.

Wilson's Disastrous Equality Agenda

Harold Wilson's Labour government launched the comprehensive school revolution through Circular 10/65 in 1965, followed by the Education Act 1976. This represented the most explicitly ideological transformation in British educational history, driven by socialist theories about class destruction and equality of outcome.

The critics argument was simple: British culture is transmitted through the private school system, and tripartite education reproduced the British class system.

Not an entirely unfounded argument.

The National Union of Teachers consistently opposed selective education, streaming, and academic rigour, preferring mixed-ability teaching and child-centered learning. Union influence extended beyond pay and conditions to fundamental questions of educational purpose. They promoted progressive teaching methods, opposed testing and league tables, and resisted any measures which might differentiate between pupils or schools. Their vision of education prioritised social cohesion over academic achievement.

The circular "requested" Local Education Authorities submit plans for comprehensive education, effectively ending the tripartite system. Grammar schools, which had produced generations of scholarship boys and girls from working-class backgrounds, were deemed socially divisive. The ideology was explicit: education must serve social engineering rather than academic excellence.

Anthony Crosland, Labour's Education Secretary, famously declared his intention to "destroy every fucking grammar school in England." This revealed the true agenda—not improving education for the disadvantaged, but eliminating institutions where merit trumped background. Comprehensive schools would mix all abilities, supposedly raising standards for the less able without harming the gifted.

The reality proved disastrous. Standards plummeted as teachers struggled with impossible mixed-ability classes. Bright children from modest backgrounds lost their ladder to advancement. Middle-class families fled to private schools or moved house to access better comprehensives, creating new forms of selection based on wealth rather than ability.

Teachers' unions embraced the comprehensive revolution with evangelical fervour. The National Union of Teachers and National Association of Schoolmasters campaigned vigorously against selective education, viewing it as a vehicle for broader socialist transformation. Union influence over Labour policy became decisive, with education policy effectively written in union headquarters rather than Whitehall.

From birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental State to take major decisions – objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child. – Lady Helen Brook, 1980

Critical Pedagogy: Hidden Poison

The transformation of British education required more than institutional change—it required switching out Greek classical education promoting excellence in favour of equality doctrine. This came through critical pedagogy, a Marxist educational philosophy imported from continental Europe and Latin America which redefined education's purpose from knowledge transmission to social revolution.

It began in the early 1990s, when teachers decided it was unfashionable to like your own country in the classroom.

Paulo Freire's disastrous "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," published in English in 1970, became the sacred text of progressive educators. Freire argued traditional education was inherently "oppressive," designed to maintain capitalist "power structures" through "banking" methods where teachers deposited knowledge into passive student accounts. He advocated "problem-posing" education where students and teachers became co-investigators of reality, transforming both themselves and society.

If this sounds batshit insane, it's because it is. Freire wrecked Brazil's education system and was thrown out of different South American countries for it. We, on the other hand, thought it was genius and replaced it for traditional classical education. It's still in practice, now, today.

Like their radical American cousins, British educationalists embraced Freire's idiocy with revolutionary enthusiasm. The Institute of Education at University College London became the primary conduit for critical pedagogy, training generations of teachers and administrators in Marxist educational theory. Professors like grammar privately-educated communist Brian Simon and sociologist Basil Bernstein provided academic respectability for ideas which were fundamentally communist rather than pedagogical.

Freire's poison found fertile ground in Britain's comprehensive school revolution. If education was indeed oppressive, then grammar schools represented the epitome of class oppression, selecting some children for advancement while condemning others to inferior instruction. Comprehensive schools became laboratories for critical pedagogy, where teachers were encouraged to view themselves as agents of social transformation rather than instructors of academic subjects.

The influence extended through teacher training colleges, where critical pedagogy became orthodox doctrine. Student teachers learned to critique "dominant narratives," question "hegemonic structures," and view traditional academic subjects as tools of oppression. Mathematics was portrayed as culturally biased, literature as elitist propaganda, and history as the story of ruling class domination.

This intellectual framework justified every educational innovation that followed. Mixed-ability teaching was not pedagogical folly but anti-oppression practice. Abandoning phonics for "whole language" methods and "alternative ways of knowing" was not educational malpractice but "liberation" from mechanistic drilling. Eliminating competitive examinations was not lowering standards, but creating "inclusive" environments.

Traditional curricula were condemned as culturally exclusive, designed to privilege white middle-class knowledge while "marginalising" working-class and minority perspectives. Schools began teaching "black history," "women's studies," and "peace education" as correctives to allegedly "biased" traditional subjects.

Instead of studying great works for their artistic merit and cultural significance, students analysed texts for evidence of racism, sexism, and class oppression. Shakespeare was "deconstructed" to reveal "patriarchal" attitudes, Dickens was critiqued for "imperial" assumptions, and contemporary works were selected based on author demographics rather than literary quality.

Critical pedagogists argued Western mathematical concepts were "culturally specific" rather than universal truths. Science was portrayed as socially constructed, with its emphasis on objectivity and empirical evidence reflecting masculine, European worldviews rather than genuine knowledge.

The ultimate goal was "consciousness-raising"—making students hyperaware of "oppressive structures" while empowering them to challenge authority. This required abandoning traditional teacher-student "hierarchies" in favour of democratic classrooms where pupils "participated" in curriculum decisions and assessment methods. Teachers became facilitators rather than authorities, guides rather than instructors.

Critical pedagogy's influence persisted long after comprehensive school consolidation. It provided intellectual justification for every progressive innovation, from citizenship education to emotional literacy programmes. Any criticism of falling standards could be dismissed as reactionary nostalgia for oppressive systems. Academic failure was reconceptualised as the inevitable result of capitalist structures rather than inadequate instruction.

Major's State Sets The Curriculum

John Major's Conservative government attempted to reassert standards through the Education Reform Act 1988, introducing the National Curriculum and replacing O-levels with GCSEs. The legislation established centralised control over what children learned, removing autonomy from teachers and schools.

The National Curriculum represented bureaucratic standardisation masquerading as educational reform. Instead of restoring classical education or encouraging excellence, it created a rigid framework of subjects, key stages, and assessment targets. Teachers became deliverers of pre-packaged content rather than educators inspiring young minds.

The switch from O-levels to GCSEs supposedly broadened educational opportunity by replacing a system designed to identify the top 20% with examinations accessible to all abilities. In practice, this meant dumbing down standards to accommodate comprehensive ideology. Grade inflation became systematic as politicians claimed educational improvement through statistical manipulation.

Local Management of Schools, introduced in the same Act, gave schools control over their budgets while maintaining centralised curricula. This created an illusion of autonomy while ensuring conformity to state priorities. Schools competed for pupils and funding, but within parameters set by Whitehall bureaucrats.

In the wake of the AIDS epidemic, the 1993 Education Act required all state schools provide sex education, in a way which would ‘encourage young people to have regard to moral considerations and the value of family life’. Even primary schools had to teach the basic biology of sex, rather than parents. It was augmented by the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

Little did Major know – perhaps – of the communist roots of this idea. "Sexual education" was the idea of Hungarian communist György Lukács, who, as the short-lived People's Commissar for Education and Culture, advocated it as a form of "cultural terror." As Alex Gordon describes it:

People’s Commissar Lukács pursued a policy later called “cultural terror”. He intended to shake the system of bourgeois cultural values and education in the country to its foundations. To this end, he decided to “terrorise” the enemy by directing his efforts towards remaking society through the necessary education of children. He introduced a course of radical sex education into the curriculum of Hungarian schoolchildren. Hungarian children were taught free love, the physiology of relations between the sexes and the archaic nature of traditional family relations in a bourgeois state. Children learned about the seeming backwardness of the concept of monogamy and the reactionary nature of religion, which deprives man of natural pleasures. They were persuaded to rebel against parental and ecclesiastical authority and to ignore traditional morality. Lukács wanted to remake bourgeois society by educating a new generation of children. He considered any endeavour to develop national culture, Hungarian or Jewish, as reactionary.

Ironically, Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 set out clearly something blatantly violated every day since it was passed: the banning of political indoctrination of children:

Political indoctrination.

(1) The [local authority], governing body and head teacher shall forbid—

(a) the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b) the promotion of partisan political views—

(i) in the teaching of any subject in the school (in the case of a school in England), or

(ii) in the teaching of any aspect of a curriculum provided in the school under the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021 (in the case of a school in Wales)

Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.

(1) The [local authority], governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school,

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

(2) In this section “maintained school” includes [a community or foundation special school] established in a hospital.

Ask yourself, why would it be necessary for a conservative government to put this into a law unless they knew schools were being used to inculcate children with a particular worldview? Does condoning sodomy and trans sex change surgery count as "political"?

Why is this clause not in direct conflict with mandatory compliance with "relationships" education about sodomy? From a department which attempted to injunct the Times from reporting on the industrial scale rape of children?

Blair Ends Grammar Schools

Tony Blair's New Labour government completed the grammar school destruction through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which effectively banned new selective schools and made existing ones vulnerable to local ballots. This represented the triumph of comprehensive ideology over educational excellence.

Blair, himself a product of Fettes College, Edinburgh's premier private school, epitomised New Labour hypocrisy. While ensuring his own children received selective education, he denied similar opportunities to others. The few remaining grammar schools were treated as anachronisms to be eliminated rather than models to be emulated.

The legislation introduced a ballot system allowing parents to petition for grammar school closure, but no mechanism for creating new schools. This represented state-sponsored vandalism of successful institutions. The message was clear: excellence was politically unacceptable, even when it worked.

Infinity New Fake Universities

The Robbins Report 1963 recommended massive university expansion, leading to the creation of new universities and the elevation of polytechnics to university status under John Major's Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

Blair's government set a target of 50% participation in higher education, transforming universities from elite institutions into mass processing centres. The introduction of tuition fees through the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, followed by their increase under the Higher Education Act 2004, created a peculiar hybrid of socialist expansion funded by quasi-market mechanisms.

The expansion coincided with a massive increase in useless sociology degrees ending in "Studies" and similar "soft" subjects designed for the less academically gifted. Universities became degree factories, churning out graduates with worthless qualifications while neglecting genuine scholarship. The currency of higher education was debased through inflation of numbers and deflation of standards.

This expansion served cynical political purposes. Young people remained in education until 21 or 22, removing them from unemployment statistics during their peak years. The student loan system created a generation of indebted graduates dependent on state employment or public sector jobs. Universities became Labour-voting factories, with lecturers and graduates supporting the party of educational expansion.

You Will Be Groomed, Bigot

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 represents the logical conclusion of educational socialism—direct ideological ownership of children against parental wishes for their "own good." Relationships, Sex and Health Education became mandatory at gunpoint in all English schools from September 2020, completing the state's usurpation of parental authority over moral education.

This legislation goes far beyond traditional sex education, mandating instruction in gender identity, sexual orientation, and progressive notions. Primary school children receive "relationships education" designed to normalise concepts their grandparents would have considered adult matters. Secondary pupils face comprehensive sexual contact masquerading as health education.

For their "own good."

The timing was deliberate. As parents became more aware of school curricula during COVID lockdowns, the Conservatives accelerated ideological enforcement. RSHE ensures no child escapes progressive orthodoxy, regardless of family values or religious beliefs. Parental rights to withdraw children exist only on paper—schools pressure families into compliance through bureaucratic obstruction and social shaming.

It represents the complete triumph of state over family. Education no longer serves parents' wishes for their children but enforces political conformity to progressive ideology. The state has declared itself the ultimate authority over childhood moral development, relegating parents to biological functionaries with no educational voice.

The Final Attack On The Toffs

Labour's decision to impose VAT on private school fees represents class warfare disguised as communist "social justice." By making independent education prohibitively expensive for middle-class families, the policy forces children into socialist schools where they face mandatory ideological programming and declining academic standards.

Private school closures began within months, with smaller institutions unable to absorb the 20% cost increase. Middle-class families faced impossible choices: accept ideological indoctrination in state schools or bankrupt themselves maintaining educational independence.

Rather than improving state education, socialism destroys alternatives. The goal is not raising standards for all but ensuring no escape from state control. If private schools cannot be eliminated through regulation, they will be priced out of existence through taxation.

The middle class, traditional bulwark against socialist extremism, finds itself trapped between unaffordable private education and unacceptable state indoctrination. This represents the final phase of educational socialism—eliminating choice through economic coercion.

AI Personalised Education: Goodbye, Socialism

Artificial intelligence offers everything socialist education lacks, which is why it must be resisted at all costs, comrades —personalisation, excellence, and freedom from ideological control. AI tutors adapt to individual learning styles, provide instant feedback, and never tire of student questions. They represent the return of one-to-one tuition that once characterized elite education.

The transformation has already begun: students discover AI can explain complex concepts better than teachers, provide unlimited practice problems, and offer learning paths tailored to individual interests and abilities. The technology costs £20 monthly—less than textbooks—while providing educational resources superior to entire school systems.

Video games demonstrate AI's educational potential through sophisticated progression systems. Players advance through levels, earn rewards for achievement, and receive immediate feedback on performance. These dopamine-driven learning systems prove far more engaging than classroom lectures or worksheets.

The potential extends beyond academic subjects. AI can teach practical skills, creative arts, and technical trades through interactive simulation and personalized instruction. Students learn at their own pace, master subjects thoroughly before advancing, and pursue specialized interests impossible in standardized curricula.

The United States offers a glimpse of Britain's educational future through its thriving homeschool movement. American families, frustrated with declining public schools and ideological nonsense, have created alternative educational ecosystems which combine family instruction with local community resources. Why build a school when the neighbourhood already is one?

Homeschool pods represent the next evolution—small groups of families sharing educational responsibilities while maintaining parental control. Children receive personalised instruction from people they know suited to their learning styles while participating in group activities for socialisation and collaborative learning.

Parents control curricula, teaching methods, and educational philosophy while sharing costs and expertise. Children learn in small, focused groups rather than overcrowded classrooms, receiving attention impossible in state schools.

Online courses, virtual laboratories, and AI tutors provide resources once available only to elite institutions. Parents access world-class instruction for their children while maintaining local control over values and priorities.

Community Centres For Arts & Sports

The future educational model separates learning from socialisation, using technology for the former while preserving human interaction for the latter. Schools transform from teaching institutions into community centres focused on sports, arts, and social development—activities where human interaction remains essential.

Children learn core academic subjects through AI tutors and online resources, progressing at their own pace and exploring specialised interests impossible in standardised curricula. Each child learns what they are good at. They gather at community centres for physical activities, dance, plays, footballs, breaktime, and social interaction technology cannot replace.

This model maximises both educational effectiveness and social development. Each child receives personalised academic instruction while participating in group activities which build teamwork, communication, and leadership skills. The artificial division between academic and social learning disappears.

Parents become educational coordinators rather than passive consumers of state services. They choose curricula, monitor progress, and adapt instruction to their children's unique needs and interests. Family bonds strengthen as parents take active roles in their children's development.

Or so the theory goes. Maybe not for everyone, such as the low-trust inner cities. But for English villages, it's quite perfect.

The Market Always Wins

Socialist state education consumes £116 billion annually in Britain while delivering declining results and ideological brain-rot. AI tutors cost £20 monthly while providing superior personalised instruction with partisanship which can be controlled. It signals the death of education unions' influence and control.

A single AI system can tutor millions of students simultaneously while human teachers struggle with thirty-pupil classes. The cost per student drops toward zero while educational quality soars through infinite patience and personalised attention. Which is why we will inevitably see an attempt by the state to monopolise and licence AI models for educational use – ones which will advance the cause of socialism, comrades.

Traditional schools cannot compete economically. Their fixed costs—buildings, administrators, pension obligations—become unsustainable when superior alternatives exist at fraction of the price. The death spiral accelerates as better students flee, leaving schools with declining enrollment and deteriorating peer effects.

The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-25 represents socialist education's death rattle. Faced with technological obsolescence and parental rebellion, the state is attempting to regulate homeschooling into extinction through mandatory registration and local authority approval.

Because, of course. Regulation fixes everything. Including the market; the weather; the next three generations; religion, etc.

The legislation reveals profound desperation. Rather than improving state schools, it focuses on eliminating alternatives. Parents face mandatory registration of homeschooled children, local authority power to deny homeschooling itself, and official interference in family educational decisions.

Parents increasingly ask why the system requires coercive measures to maintain enrollment if it provides superior services. The answer— it doesn't—drives more families toward educational independence.

Individual Excellence Is Returning

The future belongs to personalised education delivered through technology and coordinated by parents. Children will learn through AI tutors adapted to their unique learning styles, interests, and abilities. They will progress at natural speeds rather than bureaucratic age-groupings, master subjects thoroughly rather than superficially, and explore specialised interests impossible in standardised curricula.

Community centres will replace schools as venues for socialisation, sports, and arts where human interaction remains essential. Children will develop both academic excellence through technology and social skills through community participation.

Families will strengthen as parents reclaim educational authority from state bureaucrats. Mothers – the career towards all others point – will coordinate children's learning while accessing funding currently wasted on educational bureaucracy. The family will rightly reassert itself as the primary educational institution, as it was two centuries ago.

The transformation is inevitable because it serves human nature rather than opposing it. Boys will learn through competition and achievement, via things, rather than collaboration and emotional processing. Girls will receive personalised attention and relationship-based instruction, via people they love and trust, rather than bureaucratic management. Parents will control their children's moral education rather than submitting to state doctrine.

Socialist education faces extinction not through political defeat but technological obsolescence. AI provides everything its systems lack—personalisation, excellence, and objectivity. Parents will choose superior alternatives while abandoning failing institutions, because they love their kids and want the best for them.

Taxing private schools drives families toward homeschooling. Mandating LGBT grooming motivates parental resistance. Regulating homeschooling highlights state education's inadequacy.

We will get it wrong a thousand times: bots, robotic voices, partisan framing, hallucination replies, and so on. But the point is the destination, not the bumpiness of the journey. Education has to be as personal and unique as the individual person.

Kids do not learn the same way: some are visual; some are audial, and some need 3D space. Some kids need to dance to think. Some need to do the homework first rather than afterwards, and some need to be taught with hand-holding rather than left alone. But we all agree education is not only good, it is the silver bullet of social mobility.

This is the Achilles Heel of socialist education: collectivism cannot provide for individualism. Opposition to personal education will show the communist up for what he is: a bloodthirsty tyrant in need of total control.

The future belongs to families, technology, and market choice rather than bureaucrats, ideology, and state coercion. Children will learn as individuals rather than collective Borg units, excel through personal achievement rather than social conformity, and prepare for productive careers rather than state dependency.

Every parent wants the same thing: for their children to have the very best education possible, so they have the widest range of opportunities in life so they can prosper.

If that costs $10 or $100 a month, it's better than state crap, and mum can be with the kids as she wants, why wouldn't the market win?

What are they going to do – ban education?

The socialist revolution in education is ending not with triumph but the sad whimper of obsolescence. Technology has made centralised, standardised, bureaucratic education as relevant as medieval guilds or Soviet factories. The market has decided, and the decision is final—individual excellence will return, and collective mediocrity will perish.