In related news, many working-class people in England learned to read solely in order to be able to read Rights of Man! No wonder the British government tried to have it suppressed.
Sheldon, I understand very well from the freedom angle your arguments about public schools (compulsory education is inferior to voluntary education, as with all things compulsory/voluntary).
I just wanted to point out that there are other factors at work that inhibit an individual's ability to learn to read -- socioeconomic, ethnic/cultural, native intelligence, etc.
While many of these issues overlap with freedom, even in a free-market educational system there would be individuals who would either fail to learn to read or choose not to learn.
I don't mean to begin an argument, for we mostly agree on the subject. I wholeheartedly agree that free schools are better than coercive schools. I just wanted to point out that, especially in SoCal, ethnic groups such as Hispanics are documented as being more resistant to reading and education in general than Asians and Whites, and that even the best free education system might have difficulty penetrating that cultural barrier.
Granting that free education is better than coercive education, and understanding that the point is freedom not results, have you ever tried to estimate or quantify how much more improved the system would be in a free-market? I know it's near impossible, but that could form the basis for a persuasive debate.
James, free-market education doesn't guarantee results. It simply assures the maximum entrepreneurship and innovation. (I don't see how that could be quantified.) What people do with the services offered depends, as you say, on many things. Reading, however, is not one of the tougher things people learn growing up.
In related news, many working-class people in England learned to read solely in order to be able to read Rights of Man! No wonder the British government tried to have it suppressed.
ReplyDeleteWhat? They didn't wait for England to set up public schools? Everyone knows you can't learn to read without public schools.
ReplyDeleteSheldon, I understand very well from the freedom angle your arguments about public schools (compulsory education is inferior to voluntary education, as with all things compulsory/voluntary).
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to point out that there are other factors at work that inhibit an individual's ability to learn to read -- socioeconomic, ethnic/cultural, native intelligence, etc.
While many of these issues overlap with freedom, even in a free-market educational system there would be individuals who would either fail to learn to read or choose not to learn.
I don't mean to begin an argument, for we mostly agree on the subject. I wholeheartedly agree that free schools are better than coercive schools. I just wanted to point out that, especially in SoCal, ethnic groups such as Hispanics are documented as being more resistant to reading and education in general than Asians and Whites, and that even the best free education system might have difficulty penetrating that cultural barrier.
Granting that free education is better than coercive education, and understanding that the point is freedom not results, have you ever tried to estimate or quantify how much more improved the system would be in a free-market? I know it's near impossible, but that could form the basis for a persuasive debate.
James, free-market education doesn't guarantee results. It simply assures the maximum entrepreneurship and innovation. (I don't see how that could be quantified.) What people do with the services offered depends, as you say, on many things. Reading, however, is not one of the tougher things people learn growing up.
ReplyDelete