Eitzen and Zinn's argument about teaching control vs teaching education is a good one. Some of the stuff they also could have mentioned include: the fact that they suspend students for using tobacco, using inappropriate language, and refusing to let students leave class if they have to relieve themselves. I do not think young people should be using tobacco, but I refuse to buy into the idea that they should be suspended or deprived of their education simply because they do. And the use of poor language is simply language used by the poor. People who grow up in working class families usually hear darker language than those who group up in rich ones. The idea that this can be used to keep kids from getting an education is ridiculous. Finally, the dump factor. There are times I remember when I raised my hand in class to ask if I could use the restroom only to receive the response "No, you should have went on break". If that isn't about control than I don't know what is. I understand that order is important in school, but dress codes and not letting students poop when they need to isn't about order, it's about making obedient servants. The paradox's mentioned in the book hold true. Schools don't educate; They train. There is a subtle difference. People who are trained know what they know. People who are educated know what they know and ask why. Schools don't want people to ask why. Why isn't on the agenda. Why is what causes chaos and revolution. So they train students to wait until class is over, straining to control their bowels, with out ever the thought of asking why.