Read this excerpt from the dissent on tinker v. des moines: the original idea of schools, which i do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached a point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach of their elders . . but one may, i hope, be permitted to harbor the thought that taxpayers send children to school on the premise that, at their age, they needed to learn, not teach. what is the reasoning in this argument?

The argument is that children go to school to learn not to teach their elders , where teachers can be included. Public schools are subsidised with taxes. Bearing this in mind, we may say that taxpayers send their children to school for them to learn not to teach. This was what the taxpayers did when they themselves were  students . Therefore, taxpayers send their children to school on the premise that, at their age, they needed to learn, not teach is the reasoning of the argument.

That children are sent to school to learn, not to teach, so the students in this case were in the wrong by trying to “teach” others something by wearing armbands

i dont know doing this for points