Regarding Profs vs. Parents:
No human being has the ultimate unifying knowledge of the truth about how physics or purposefulness are organized and determined. What we have are models that seem to be practical to levels of accuracy that are contrived to convenience. Because we are so far unable to unify the models to any rigorous completion, we learn to compartmentalize and live with the cognitive dissonance. At best, we "reconcile" the dissonance by resort to figurative interpretations and great circles of parables. Much of religious and moral training is filled with seeds of cognitive dissonance, with which children are nurtured and learn to cope. So, to whom should children be expected to yield, as the main authority for helping them learn to live with whatever leaps of faith may be necessary in order to cope with what seems to be inherent cognitive dissonance? For examples, does any non-trite or non-circular understanding or connotation come to mind when one discusses such concepts as: contemporaneous determination, fetal rights, free will, moral purposefulness, epicurean pleasure, freedom of association and choice, discrimination, profiling, judgment, charity, killing with kindness, fairness, property, allocations based on merit, and "material progress"? Can such concepts really be applied in any consistently scaled or linear way?
When an authority, in triteness, says to a child that he should take such and such on faith, "just because," and the authority seems to be in conflict with others, then to which authority should the child ordinarily be expected to yield? To cronies, government, elites, profs, parents, peers, chance, convenience, or inner conscience (however undeveloped it may be)?
The trend is one of consolidation of power to confound free thinking by bending minds, or at least by bending the free expression of minds. Islamists bend and subjugate minds by threatening death for apostasy or "dishonor." Profs bend minds by dropping "hints" about how grades are determined. Governments bend minds by picking the models of thinking which they will fund. Cronies bend minds by controlling governments and employers, by nurturing political correctness, and by creating and funding hostile environments of ridicule against all families and parents who may think against the trend of the regime.
As mind control is consolidated and centralized, the authority of parents is necessarily undermined. For a representative republic whose citizens are accustomed to freedom to think for themselves, the question is: To whose comfort, convenience, and control should such citizens cater? That is, should parents and families consent to the undermining of their authority by a police state (even if it is supported by elitist apologists)? If not, how can the thinking middle class of parents possibly hope to unite to resist the great weight and financing of the cronydom that is so obviously agglomerating and quickening against them?