One of my pet peeves is the appalling state of education in this country, and I've tended to focus on misguided educational theories, as well as teachers who can't teach.

Patrick Welsh, an English teacher from Alexandria, Virginia, argues that in a rush to blame teachers, too many people are forgetting that American students just don't apply themselves:

When asked to identify the most important factors in their performance in math, the percentage of Japanese and Taiwanese students who answered "studying hard" was twice that of American students.

American students named native intelligence, and some said the home environment. But a clear majority of U.S. students put the responsibility on their teachers. A good teacher, they said, was the determining factor in how well they did in math.

"Kids have convinced parents that it is the teacher or the system that is the problem, not their own lack of effort," says Dave Roscher, a chemistry teacher at T.C. Williams in this Washington suburb. "In my day, parents didn't listen when kids complained about teachers. We are supposed to miraculously make kids learn even though they are not working."

As my colleague Ed Cannon puts it: "Today, the teacher is supposed to be responsible for motivating the kid. If they don't learn it is supposed to be our problem, not theirs."

And, of course, busy parents guilt-ridden over the little time they spend with their kids are big subscribers to this theory.

Maybe every generation of kids has wanted to take it easy, but until the past few decades students were not allowed to get away with it. "Nowadays, it's the kids who have the power. When they don't do the work and get lower grades, they scream and yell. Parents side with the kids who pressure teachers to lower standards," says Joel Kaplan, another chemistry teacher at T.C. Williams.

Every year, I have had parents come in to argue about the grades I have given in my AP English classes. To me, my grades are far too generous; to middle-class parents, they are often an affront to their sense of entitlement. If their kids do a modicum of work, many parents expect them to get at least a B. When I have given C's or D's to bright middle-class kids who have done poor or mediocre work, some parents have accused me of destroying their children's futures.

I went to a private religious school, and if a student didn't pay attention, inevitable consequences would follow. If he was distracting other boys, he'd be immediately kicked out of class and sent to the principal. If he merely didn't apply himself, he'd get a failing grade. If these problems persisted, he'd be kicked out.

What complicates this process in the public schools is that they're held hostage by a lack of alternative schools (and fierce legal opposition to the few that exist). As a practical matter, what is to be done with kids who simply will not pay attention, who will not learn, and who are disciplinary problems? It all seems to come down to this notion that there's a "right" to be there.

I don't think there is any such right. Whether there's a "right" to education is questionable at best (as a libertarian I have a problem with the theory), but even if we concede that there is such a "right," what does it mean? A right to be educated? What is that? A right is something we normally think of as voluntary. In theory, a right is not a duty. The First Amendment right to free speech no more imposes a duty to speak out publicly than the Second Amendment imposes a duty to carry a gun.

So how does this education "right" factor into the theory of rights? As a right to simply be in a physical location where there is an opportunity to be educated? The problem with seeing education as a "right" is that we don't see it as a right. We use government force to compel students to be in these places. Thus, it is not reasonable to see education merely as a right. What we call "education" is a duty imposed by the state as well as a right. If the state can impose such a duty, and compel the physical presence of students in places of learning, I see no reason why it can't require them to behave in certain ways. To do otherwise means that education ceases to be education, and ceases to be a right. Schools simply become government-mandated holding facilities for children.

I'm not saying that there should not be government-mandated holding facilities for children, mind you. But why not restrict them to the students whose conduct demonstrates that they don't want to be in real schools? A two tiered system -- one for students who want to learn, and another for "students" who won't -- strikes me as eminently reasonable, and better than the present system of pretending that a duty is a right.

This idea has been tried in the form of "alternative schools." But it's opposed -- and litigated every step of the way -- by people whose subordinates the rights of the many to the tyranny of the few -- the latter consisting of people who seem to think the right to education means the right to destroy it for others:

Discipline and behavior problems in America's public schools are serious, pervasive and are compromising student learning. They are also driving a substantial number of teachers out of the profession. These are some key findings from a new national study of teachers and parents which found that while only a handful of trouble makers cause most disciplinary problems, "the tyranny of the few" leads to a distracting and disrespectful atmosphere. Teachers in particular complain about the growing willingness of some students and parents to challenge teacher judgment and threaten legal action.

According to a new report by the nonpartisan, nonprofit opinion research organization Public Agenda, teachers too often must operate "in a culture of challenge and second guessing" that is affecting their ability to teach and maintain order.

Nearly 8 in 10 teachers (78%) said students are quick to remind them that they have rights or that their parents can sue.

Nearly half of teachers surveyed (49%) reported they have been accused of unfairly disciplining a student.

More than half of teachers (55%) said that districts backing down from assertive parents causes discipline problems in the nation's schools.

The more troubling moral question is whether or not a student has a right to refuse to be educated. Does the right to education include the right to fail? I'd argue that it does, because without failure, there is no right to succeed.

But if failure is not an option (as many don't think it should be), then why pretend there is such a thing as a right to education?