Literacy - Thread Split from "A Fight Broke Out Today"

[Gordon Nore]

I'm still looking for that video, but in the meantime I thought these articles might be of some interest. They help to demonstrate some of the thoughts of those responsible for aspects of our current government education system as it exists today.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/11801941.html

The article has an agenda, closing 'state run schools.' The case upon which the argument is made is a recent story of a student being placed in a closet and a reader's recollection of having the same thing done to her:

"To the editor: The article in today's (Nov. 9) Review-Journal about" (a local elementary school principal allegedly) "putting a child in a dark closet brings back a horrible memory. My first day of kindergarten, which was 65 years ago in Detroit, was one which I have never forgotten.

This doesn't make the case for closing state run schools. The teacher who put that youngster in the cloakroom decades ago could get away with it. Whomever is accused of doing the same thing today (in public schools in Canada or the USA) would (make that, will) face consequences. Further, such an act today will draw public attention. Corporal punishment has fallen into disfavour in our public schools, just as it is more and more frowned-upon in the general public.

Were I to witness such and act in a school here, wild horses couldn't keep me from responding.

Now, there are good arguments to be made about 'gov't schools' as they currently being run that don't require closing them. Are public schools essentially citizenship training, obedience training, perhaps? Yes, absolutely they are. We're actively engaged in something far more than the 3 Rs from the moment we make children and adults stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or O Canada. National flags adorn the fronts of schools. A principal in a Canadian school can order a free portrait of the Queen to adorn the hallway.

On the other hand, as Lewis Black once joked, "The Pledge of Allegiance is coffee for second-graders."

Additionally, a lot of education is all about 'preparing students for the future,' ie. training them to be workers. There's a lot that I'm not sure about all that goes on. I don't think of myself as driving to work each day prepare students to be citizens or employees. I think about helping them articulate and curious and skeptical, which, of course, means that I am imposing my own values upon the system and upon my children.

What, then, would be an alternative to 'state schools'?

 

[Thesemindz]

The article has an agenda, closing 'state run schools.' The case upon which the argument is made is a recent story of a student being placed in a closet and a reader's recollection of having the same thing done to her:

You're right, the article does have an agenda. However, I posted it for the following quotes -

On Nov. 19, a group called "ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History" placed a full-page ad in the Review-Journal, urging Nevadans to demand that the current crop of presidential candidates to "go on the record on where you stand on fighting extreme poverty and global disease that affect the one billion people around the world."
The group urges candidates to take a number of stands, including an embrace of "universal primary education."
Notice it doesn't say "universal literacy." It seeks plans to impose "universal primary education" -- which any government or U.N. bureaucrat worth her salt will interpret as a call for universal mandatory state-run schools.
The two are not identical.

Tracing the way Prussian-style statist education was brought to this country in the early 19th century by Horace Mann and his associates, Samuel L. Blumenfeld, a research fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, made clear in his 1981 book "Is Public Education Necessary?" that the whole scheme was never about improving literacy, that "literacy in America was higher before compulsory public education than it is today. ..."
Digging into a January, 1828 edition of the American Journal of Education, Mr. Blumenfeld found an indigenous confirmation of what the visiting Alexis de Tocqueville was to confirm in 1831 about American literacy rates prior to the institution of the compulsory government school:
"There is no country, (it is often said), where the means of intelligence are so generally enjoyed by all ranks and where knowledge is so generally diffused among the lower orders of the community, as in our own," the Journal reported. "With us a newspaper is the daily fare of almost every meal in almost every family."

"Is public education necessary?" Mr. Blumenfeld asks. "The answer is obvious; it was not needed then, and it is certainly not needed today. Schools are necessary, but they can be created by free enterprise today as they were before the public school movement achieved its fraudulent state monopoly in education. ...The failure of public education is the failure of statism as a political philosophy. It has been tried. It has been found wanting."

"The whole aim of practical politics," as the great iconoclast H.L. Mencken warned us, 80 years ago, "is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

I thought those quotes could add something to the conversation. Did you read the other article?

Were I to witness such and act in a school here, wild horses couldn't keep me from responding.

That's very admirable of you. I'm not being sarcastic here.

Are public schools essentially citizenship training, obedience training, perhaps? Yes, absolutely they are. We're actively engaged in something far more than the 3 Rs from the moment we make children and adults stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or O Canada. National flags adorn the fronts of schools. A principal in a Canadian school can order a free portrait of the Queen to adorn the hallway.

Then you readily admit that public education is about social engineering. It would seem our difference in opinion then is one of degree, not direction.

On the other hand, as Lewis Black once joked, "The Pledge of Allegiance is coffee for second-graders."

Lewis Black can be very funny, but that doesn't change the fact that the government knows that if you can get them while they are young you can make them anything you want.

Additionally, a lot of education is all about 'preparing students for the future,' ie. training them to be workers. There's a lot that I'm not sure about all that goes on. I don't think of myself as driving to work each day prepare students to be citizens or employees. I think about helping them articulate and curious and skeptical, which, of course, means that I am imposing my own values upon the system and upon my children.

This is why I specify that my distaste is for the system, not for the teachers within it. Are there some bad ones? Sure. But there are many, many good ones, who take their work home with them and fund their classes out of their already meager paychecks.

Sounds like you are a good one, concerned with the growth of your children as thinkers. Perhaps you had some good ones when you were in school. That doesn't change the system or it's aims, it just means those in charge have been imperfect in their application. They need a better hiring process to weed out the good ones such as yourself.

What, then, would be an alternative to 'state schools'?

A combination of private education, home schooling, individual moral instruction and career training.

All of which the state schools have tried to regulate or control for their own purposes. They have adopted these practices for themselves, and go a step further by attempting to prevent anyone else from engaging in them.

The government schools aren't the answer if the question is how can we make better, more challenging thinkers ready to ask the important questions necessary to change the world. They are the answer if the question is how can we create generation upon generation of poorly educated, ambivalent voters who will blindly accede to government authority.

When my wife was in a government high school, early 20th century American history was an elective course. She was not required to learn about the first world war, or the great depression, or the New Deal. How then can she understand the underlying causes of the current housing and economic crisis?

When I was in a government high school, my American Government class consisted of filling out handouts with the answers read aloud to us by the teacher, and printing off news articles relating to the three branches of government to turn in at the end of the semester. That is all. We were not required to understand the founding documents of this country. We were not tested on the purposes of the three branches of government. Just find news articles, you don't even have to read them, and print them off and turn them in.

Government schools require memorization, but not comprehension. They test you on knowledge, but not application. They mark you off for spelling errors, but not for errors in reasoning or judgement.

That is the reality of the government school system. Stand up and say the pledge, don't stand up and ask why. Respond to bells and whistles, but not to the challenges of the day. Accept that a government agent can stop you, or search you, or detain you for any reason or no reason at all. Because that is how it will be in the real world.

At least that's the plan.


-Rob

 

[Gordon Nore]

Notice it doesn't say "universal literacy." It seeks plans to impose "universal primary education" -- which any government or U.N. bureaucrat worth her salt will interpret as a call for universal mandatory state-run schools.
The two are not identical.

I've been out of the adult literacy movement for quite a few years -- I was active during the Mulroney / Bush years, when the spouses of both leaders were proponents of child/family/adult literacy. There was a joke at the time: Nancy Reagan says, 'Just say no.' Barbara Bush says, 'Just spell no.'

There was policy movement on this side of the border, $110 million spent here by the National Literacy Secretariat over five years, which kept me in a job, but didn't translate into a serious commitment. I'm probably talking about something different from what you have in mind -- my 'universal literacy' includes adults, because literate adults have literate children. A real commitment -- on a national scale -- to full literacy would a really remarkable thing, kinda like when my parents were growing during WWII and everybody had to sacrifice and pitch in and contribute something.

In my literacy days I went to endless conferences across North America, and I'd talk to people about all the adults who couldn't read. Then they'd start talking about how to fix schools. Then I'd say, "But these adults don't go to school anymore." The upshot of my diatribe is that all illiteracy is not an educational (ie public schools) issue.

As to the Bloomfield quotes, what is obvious to him is not obvious to me. To me there is nothing inherently wrong with a taxpayer funded system of public education. I welcome it because it provides a range of resources to assist a variety of learners, including students who challenge the system. By "challenge the system," I'm talking about kids who can't toilet themselves; I'm talking about kids for whom a good day means they didn't have a violent outburst; not just kids who are reading a few years behind grade level.

When the rubber hits the road, it seems that various groups, particularly the poor and disenfranchised, don't benefit from our expertise or the wealth of resources available. In that sense, public schooling is merely a reflection of what goes on generally, not inherently a transformer of reality.

I don't see the private sector as a rescuer of this. That might be the Canadian in me, but I look at decades of Americans trusting the private sector with health care. And what I see is a bunch of people being screwed. Years ago I did some research on corporate participation in public education in Canada and the US, for an article I published in Our Times magazine -- Pop Goes Education: No choice for a new generation of students. (You can find it referenced on the web -- full text attached.)

Then you readily admit that public education is about social engineering. It would seem our difference in opinion then is one of degree, not direction.

I admit that public education is a public institution. Like my public health care, it ain't perfect, but then again, that same public system provided me and others with enough education and critical thinking to be able to come back and say what's wrong with it. I don't know that I would call all of it 'social engineering.' I would say that the vastness of educational systems lead to institutional type of thinking.

For example, my own school board -- amalgamated in 1998 -- has 575 schools, making it among the five largest in North America. And so, I think the bigness of the exercise is the death of imagination and creativity. When the numbers get that big, making meaningful change, or even having thoughtful discussions about current reality, is slightly harder than moving a graveyard.

The government schools aren't the answer if the question is how can we make better, more challenging thinkers ready to ask the important questions necessary to change the world. They are the answer if the question is how can we create generation upon generation of poorly educated, ambivalent voters who will blindly accede to government authority.

I don't get how corporations fix this. In corporate hands, children are trained to accept corporate authority. I had a co-worker years ago whose child's school was a 'partner' with Proctor and Gamble. So they would have these assemblies that included 'Proctor and Gamble Moments.' They would actually forfeit learning time, so an executive would come to school and tell the kids about some new product or innovation.

TM, I don't agree with many of your thoughts on this, obviously, but your arguments have a compelling edge to them. I hope this discussion can continue and that more people will join in.

 

[Thesemindz]

I've been out of the adult literacy movement for quite a few years...

I'm probably talking about something different from what you have in mind -- my 'universal literacy' includes adults, because literate adults have literate children. A real commitment -- on a national scale -- to full literacy would a really remarkable thing, kinda like when my parents were growing during WWII and everybody had to sacrifice and pitch in and contribute something...

Then they'd start talking about how to fix schools. Then I'd say, "But these adults don't go to school anymore." The upshot of my diatribe is that all illiteracy is not an educational (ie public schools) issue...

I admit that public education is a public institution. Like my public health care, it ain't perfect, but then again, that same public system provided me and others with enough education and critical thinking to be able to come back and say what's wrong with it. I don't know that I would call all of it 'social engineering.' I would say that the vastness of educational systems lead to institutional type of thinking...

I don't get how corporations fix this. In corporate hands, children are trained to accept corporate authority...

TM, I don't agree with many of your thoughts on this, obviously, but your arguments have a compelling edge to them. I hope this discussion can continue and that more people will join in.

First, let me thank you for your educated perspective on the article, without stroking each other too much, it is nice to be able to have an intelligent discussion with a learned person such as yourself that doesn't require either of us to blindly accept the other's views or resort to ad hominem attacks and disregard for each other's positions.

I agree completely with your position on adult literacy, and the fact that universal literacy is not solely an educational issue. Unfortunately, many adults are finishing school without the basic ability to read and write. If the schools did a better job of educating, then fewer adults would be in this situation. To be fair, I have been an instructor in a number of disciplines myself in the past, and I recognize that the teacher can only do so much, some participation is required on the part of the student as well. While I agree that all current illiteracy is not a public school issue, the fact that people are leaving our public schools functionally illiterate is.

As to our private health care system and your public health care system, that would really be another thread. I've heard a number of horror stories about the Canadian system, while I'm sure you have more experiential knowledge of it. I'm not going to argue that our healthcare is perfect. Of course, because it is my personal boogeyman, I would lay much of the blame on government. Licensing, regulation, and federal subsidization all act to decrease both the availability and quality of our health care. Our system also suffers from a lack of transparent billing practices which prevent competitive forces from taking hold in the market place. There are many factors, both public and private, which need to be addressed in our current health care model. It is not wholly private or public, and that creates a number of problems in and of itself. To my way of thinking, as long as people mistake health care for a right, instead of a commodity which must be negotiated for and purchased, there will continue to be problems.

I never said corporations were the answer to these problems. They aren't. In fact, while I have no problem with large businesses, I view corporatism as an evil idea. Corporations are fictitious entities wholly created by the state. In return for increased taxation, the state agrees to shield certain private individuals from personal liability for their actions. This is nothing different from an old fashioned mob protection racket. By seperating action from consequence, this serves to destroy the understanding of cause and effect and encourages irresponsibility. It is wrong headed and dangerous.

When I refer to a private sector response, I am not necessarily saying that businesses should be the agents of change. Parents, charity groups, community organizations, churches, clubs, tutors, private schools, and possibly businesses would all have a place. My view is not a world where businesses make all the decisions, it is a world where government does not.


-Rob

 

[Gordon Nore]

First, let me thank you for your educated perspective on the article, without stroking each other too much, it is nice to be able to have an intelligent discussion with a learned person such as yourself that doesn't require either of us to blindly accept the other's views or resort to ad hominem attacks and disregard for each other's positions.

I wouldn't call myself learned, but thanks. I fully admit to a left-wing bias. I worked for a national literacy agency for four years. There are people still working there twenty years later after I went on to better paying jobs in education. When I was doing that work, I traveled alot, became well-versed in the research, met a lot of adult non-readers, teachers, and I listened to more political speeches on the matter than I care to remember.

I agree completely with your position on adult literacy, and the fact that universal literacy is not solely an educational issue. Unfortunately, many adults are finishing school without the basic ability to read and write. If the schools did a better job of educating, then fewer adults would be in this situation. To be fair, I have been an instructor in a number of disciplines myself in the past, and I recognize that the teacher can only do so much, some participation is required on the part of the student as well. While I agree that all current illiteracy is not a public school issue, the fact that people are leaving our public schools functionally illiterate is.

Certainly that is a relevant point. Being illiterate is unacceptable to you and to me. I can't imagine many things worse, because I haven't lived through many things worse. Most profoundly illiterate people I've me have many other concerns in addition to being illiterate. These are things that schools don't fix.

As to our private health care system and your public health care system, that would really be another thread. I've heard a number of horror stories about the Canadian system, while I'm sure you have more experiential knowledge of it. I'm not going to argue that our healthcare is perfect. Of course, because it is my personal boogeyman, I would lay much of the blame on government. Licensing, regulation, and federal subsidization all act to decrease both the availability and quality of our health care. Our system also suffers from a lack of transparent billing practices which prevent competitive forces from taking hold in the market place. There are many factors, both public and private, which need to be addressed in our current health care model. It is not wholly private or public, and that creates a number of problems in and of itself. To my way of thinking, as long as people mistake health care for a right, instead of a commodity which must be negotiated for and purchased, there will continue to be problems.

The chance I took in making this argument was that I was suggesting Canadian health care is perfect. It ain't, but as I have said so many times, neither politicians nor the electorate are willing to say, "You want world class health care on the public dime, you pay for it." Additionally, there is a literacy/poverty connection here -- while we have equal billing, we don't have equal access. We have the research here in Ontario and Canada that shows that poorly educated and impoverished people don't have good health info, don't know what's available, have poorer health practices, and are more likely to wind up in ER with an exacerbated problem that could have been resolved in a street corner CHC.

When I refer to a private sector response, I am not necessarily saying that businesses should be the agents of change. Parents, charity groups, community organizations, churches, clubs, tutors, private schools, and possibly businesses would all have a place. My view is not a world where businesses make all the decisions, it is a world where government does not.

Thanks for the clarification; apologies for my presumption. The above is what most principals I know dream of and even work for. Some of it actually happens.

 

[Thesemindz]

Being illiterate is unacceptable to you and to me. I can't imagine many things worse, because I haven't lived through many things worse. Most profoundly illiterate people I've me have many other concerns in addition to being illiterate. These are things that schools don't fix.

You're right about that. I truly can't imagine many things more horrible. I'm a reader. I've read hundreds, maybe thousands of books. In my home, we don't have our DVD's on display in the living room, instead my wife and I have bookshelves bursting with books. It is a reflection of our values. I prize the written word highly, and cherish books as some of my most sentimental possessions. To be trapped forever within one's own mind, with no way to seek out external knowledge or ideas in the written form is a horrifying thought to me, one I could not live with.

But I know that some people who are illiterate have had to live with rape, or spousal abuse, or child neglect or abuse, or drunken family members, or violent drug addicted parents. For them, in that moment, perhaps those immediate concerns weigh more heavily than literacy, and I certainly wouldn't judge them for it, even if I might be able to take the long view and disagree. It is easy to make these judgements from far away.

The chance I took in making this argument was that I was suggesting Canadian health care is perfect. It ain't, but as I have said so many times, neither politicians nor the electorate are willing to say, "You want world class health care on the public dime, you pay for it."

Which is of course, what I would advocate. Take the government out, let people pay only for the services they desire, and you drive down prices by taking advantage of the competitive forces of the marketplace.

Ultimately, you can't eliminate the cost of health care. For several reasons. One, doctors require training. Hospitals require equipment, and energy to operate, and staff, and materiel, and janitors. All that stuff costs money, and needs to be payed for somehow. I had a coworker tell me that the surgery her sister needed was 12,000 dollars, and that that was "too expensive." So I asked her, what is a "fair" price? The doctor spent a good deal more than that acquiring the knowledge. The hospital must be lit, and heated, and staffed. The equipment must be payed for, the sutures and sponges and bandages supplied somehow. And all that excludes making a profit. Are they not allowed to profit from their investment? So what is "fair?" Is 10,000 "fair?" 5,000? How do you judge "fair" outside of comparing wholesale value and retail cost?

Two, price exists in the marketplace for a reason, it acts to supress demand and allows for supply to be rationed accordingly. Even if you eliminate price, you are still going to have to figure out a way to supress demand and ration supply, but in doing so you also eliminate one of the primary competitive forces which effects product quality and consumer satisfaction.

It is a commodity, not a right. Rights are inherent. You don't need to apply for them, or beg permission for them. They exist free of any external stimulus. Commodities must be acquired. If there were no doctors and no hospitals, where would people go for their "right" to health care? I know you aren't arguing this point here and now, but it is one I get stuck on.

Additionally, there is a literacy/poverty connection here -- while we have equal billing, we don't have equal access. We have the research here in Ontario and Canada that shows that poorly educated and impoverished people don't have good health info, don't know what's available, have poorer health practices, and are more likely to wind up in ER with an exacerbated problem that could have been resolved in a street corner CHC.

Again, valid point. But one which we can only do so much about. Increasing literacy is really the key here, because the availability of information is increasing exponentially. We have the collected knowledge of mankind at our fingertips. Now if we can teach people to read, they can take advantage of that.

Thanks for the clarification; apologies for my presumption. The above is what most principals I know dream of and even work for. Some of it actually happens.

See. I'm not really against teachers or administrators. In fact, we share many common goals. Sometimes our dreams come true. I'm just against the system as it exists today. In my ideal society, there would still be teachers and principles. They would just work for organizations primarily concerned with the same goals and dreams.


-Rob

 

[Gordon Nore]

But I know that some people who are illiterate have had to live with rape, or spousal abuse, or child neglect or abuse, or drunken family members, or violent drug addicted parents. For them, in that moment, perhaps those immediate concerns weigh more heavily than literacy, and I certainly wouldn't judge them for it, even if I might be able to take the long view and disagree. It is easy to make these judgements from far away.

I've found low literacy to be a co-factor or result of numerous issues, only one of which is schooling. This is why I bristle somewhat when there is a discussion of mass illiteracy and it suddenly becomes a discussion of schools. Again, when I'd go out and talk to people about illiteracy, they'd take me aside and tell me about how public education was falling apart because they stopped teaching phonics. Again, I'd say, "Look I'm talking about folks who finished with school before this phonics/whole language discussion ever began."

Which is of course, what I would advocate. Take the government out, let people pay only for the services they desire, and you drive down prices by taking advantage of the competitive forces of the marketplace.

We differ on that.

Ultimately, you can't eliminate the cost of health care.

Agreed. There's no free health care -- there's different ways of billing for it.

It is a commodity, not a right. Rights are inherent. You don't need to apply for them, or beg permission for them. They exist free of any external stimulus. Commodities must be acquired. If there were no doctors and no hospitals, where would people go for their "right" to health care? I know you aren't arguing this point here and now, but it is one I get stuck on.

Canada. I think a majority of Canadians regard health care as a right, and we have legislation that says as much. Cross-cultural difference.

Again, valid point. But one which we can only do so much about. Increasing literacy is really the key here, because the availability of information is increasing exponentially. We have the collected knowledge of mankind at our fingertips. Now if we can teach people to read, they can take advantage of that.

A number of things have to occur. When we speak of illiteracy, we have to take out stereotypes. If I refer you back to the StatsCan study, only people at the lower levels of literacy identify as having a reading problem. I never met many non-readers who said they were "illiterate." It's not a word that people like to use, nor is it a very positive or helpful word. If one goes to a teacher or prof after class for help, s/he isn't required to say, "I'm a dummy," before getting it.

We live in a post-literature culture. We are sent messages all the time in our popular culture that we don't have to read anymore.

Adult non-readers are not, for the most part, going to become readers by entering classrooms. It's not practical or desirable. Most taxpayers wouldn't be crazy about it -- they blew their chance why should I pay for it. So then it comes down to a voluntary effort, which is interesting. You get a kid a couple behind grade level in school, and in comes a paid reading specialist. You have an illiterate adult who can't get a job -- the answer is a literacy volunteer.

That school kid is a potential earner taxpayer; the adult is being written off.

My contention has always been that if we redefined the literacy task as substantial across the board effort to bring everyone up, regardless of whether there were foreseeable economic paybacks, then we really would be saying we are committed to education for all. Phrases like, "universal literacy," would have some meaning.

In 1960 Cuba undertook an extraordinary campaign to bring one million of its four million citizen to higher literacy be dispatching 100,000 students to various towns. The instructors were trained, equipped with tents and instructional materials and sent out to teach in villages and camps. You'll not several shiny lanterns in the video link. These were highly symbolic, as they provided the light for night time lessons. Once the instructor was finished working with a family, s/he left the lantern behind as recognition of their achievement. This exercise in three short years brought Cuba to the highest literacy of the developing world, and energized education in the process. http://www.theliteracyproject.org/cuban_lit.htm

[/quote]

 

[Thesemindz]

I've found low literacy to be a co-factor or result of numerous issues, only one of which is schooling. This is why I bristle somewhat when there is a discussion of mass illiteracy and it suddenly becomes a discussion of schools. Again, when I'd go out and talk to people about illiteracy, they'd take me aside and tell me about how public education was falling apart because they stopped teaching phonics. Again, I'd say, "Look I'm talking about folks who finished with school before this phonics/whole language discussion ever began."

I think you and I basically agree on this point. But the original discussion began with me challenging the government schools as failing, and while I agree that there can be many different approaches to addressing adult illiteracy, the fact that there are illiterate adults who are graduates of the government schools is the problem that I was originally pointing to.

But you are right throughout your posts. Regardless of the cause, there are illiterate adults, and all of society, every society, would be better off if we could address that. I don't want government to do so, and I don't think they do either, but I still believe it can be done.

We differ on that.

Yah, I know. I was being cute by selectively quoting and emphasizing your text to make it seem like we agreed. It's ok for us to differ on this one.

Agreed. There's no free health care -- there's different ways of billing for it.

Yep. Unfortunately most people either can't or won't accept this.

Canada. I think a majority of Canadians regard health care as a right, and we have legislation that says as much. Cross-cultural difference.

It's not a cultural difference. Most Americans regard it as a right as well. They are simply wrong.

We live in a post-literature culture. We are sent messages all the time in our popular culture that we don't have to read anymore.

Which a suspicious person such as myself might think is a purposeful attempt to create a society of illiterate followers who lack the ability to research issues for themselves.

That school kid is a potential earner taxpayer; the adult is being written off.

They're both being written off from my point of view.

In 1960 Cuba undertook an extraordinary campaign to bring one million of its four million citizen to higher literacy be dispatching 100,000 students to various towns. The instructors were trained, equipped with tents and instructional materials and sent out to teach in villages and camps. You'll not several shiny lanterns in the video link. These were highly symbolic, as they provided the light for night time lessons. Once the instructor was finished working with a family, s/he left the lantern behind as recognition of their achievement. This exercise in three short years brought Cuba to the highest literacy of the developing world, and energized education in the process. http://www.theliteracyproject.org/cuban_lit.htm

All of which is wonderful. And if it was voluntary and paid for privately, I'd support it one hundred percent.

We need more programs like this. We just need them to be funded outside the public structure.


-Rob

 

[Marginal]

Here's a book online about the creation of compulsory education around the world as well as here in America.

It details the reasoning behind it's creation as well as the effects.


-Rob

The whalloping difference that a lot of folks turn a blind eye towards is the idea that everyone needs to read at a certain level. That everyone needs to do math at a certain level etc. In a non-compulsory education setting, a school can simply boot out an under performing kid.

Test scores shoot up as a result though the booted kid is now cheerfully not getting an education. Thankfully they don't have to fret over those hard math problems anymore though. The world needs poo shovelers too I guess.