The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn is planning to close about fourteen more schools. This is in addition to the twenty-two schools shut in 2005 and seven more since then. The diocese has closed about one-third of its schools in the last ten years. Read Diocese Announces 29 Regional School Reconfiguration Proposals for the details.

What's going on in Brooklyn? The same thing which is going on everywhere. Enrollments are declining as the birthrate has slowed. The church's financial resources were hard hit by settling the sex scandal lawsuits of the past decade. Neighborhood demographics have changed, leaving once teeming schools virtually empty. The older buildings are expensive to operate and maintain. The religious who used to teach in Catholic elementary schools have retired and been replaced by lay teachers who expect to be paid.

What alarms me very much is that I suspect that there are many more Catholic and other private schools which will have to cease operations in these tough economic times. More's the pity because this is just when the country needs well-educated graduates to help re-establish the United States as the leader in innovation and invention. What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you have been thinking about sending your child to private school for fall for 2010, then now's the time to start the process. Use Choosing A Prep School to scope the project out. Then a School Search Time Line will keep you on track.

They sure can. Students in private school have no constitutional rights per se. You and our child's rights are spelled out in the contract you sign with the school. Accordingly, your rights are governed by contract law, not constitutional law.

None of this should come as a surprise to either parents or students. Why? Because as part of your orientation as a new student, the disciplinary code of the school is reviewed and explained carefully. After all, the school really would much rather keep you, than expel you. Expulsion is a very serious step which every private school takes as an absolute last resort.

I have opposed teen drinking for many years. Admittedly I am biased because I lost my wife to liver disease eleven years ago. So I was interested to read Ted's comments on my blog on Social Host Laws. He has a point which I used to agree with thirty years ago. Here are his comments in their entirety.

Social Host laws are very redundant. The reason for our binge drinking phenomenon, almost exclusive to the U.S. is because we are one of only four countries to implement such a high drinking age. In most European countries, drinking is not viewed as taboo or dangerous, and reasonable drinking is taught at a much younger age, making people from these countries who drink more responsible and safer.

Youth aren't dangerous because they drinking, drinking laws are dangerous to youth. People who believe we should have more restrictions on drinking are very much encouraging drinking amongst youth because they want to rebel. the only real solution is either total prohibition (which obviously doesn't work) and reducing the drinking age and teaching responsibility.

What do you think about teen drinking? Should it be legal?