I don't exactly know how you go from "Teacher's Unions are stifling to innovation" into "...teachers should be evaluated based on student outcomes..." and straight into "...strange aversion to letting anyone other than state-certified teachers do any teaching." So somehow innovative teaching is connected to teacher evaluations, but you will only accept evaluations that link student results to teachers (apparently ignoring things like the impact a student's home life or economic situation will have, regardless of how good the teacher is) but ignore the idea that the state-certified teachers have been evaluated, at least at a basic level, in order to become state-certified? Because requiring a teacher that teaches at the most needy schools to be evaluated on the same criteria as a teacher that teaches at the richest school seems pretty unfair--why would I want that job? The students are more likely to be difficult, the parents are more likely to be absent or adversarial (as opposed to constructive with their child's education), and I'm less likely to get higher raises because my students are less likely to do as well? Particularly in a profession that often requires working late nights and early mornings for relatively little pay? Wooo, where do I sign!

As a side note, I'm curious to see this brochure. Is it possible that the brochure was saying parents shouldn't correct their child's improper spelling or pronunciation because, in education, one of the parent's prime roles would be as their child's cheerleader, whereas the child's teacher should be the one to correct their child's improper spelling and pronunciation? It's hard to say, of course; context is key.