Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
On Apr 30, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Curt Howland wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 30 April 2006 15:26, Rich Johnson was heard to say:
On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Curt Howland wrote:
Your premise is false. The "middle class" and "poor" were doing
very well indeed without coercive "public" schooling.
That's a bit of an oxymoron.
Not in the terms of the discussion.
The poor were hardly "doing well" if they were poor. _How_ well
were they doing (in your book, that is)?
The discussion is in terms of education. Literacy.
The literacy rate of 90%+ prior to compulsory schooling includes poor.
Just as the literacy rate of 50%- at this time includes poor.
Where do these numbers come from?
AFAICT, the 50% number is ~rate of functional literacy of those
_without_ a HS diploma or GED.
I have no idea what the source of your 90% number is. I was under
the impression that in 1840 the overall US literacy rate was about
The CIA reports US literacy rate is 99% (//www.cia.gov/cia/
publications/factbook/geos/us.html), and if thats what my government
says, it must be so, right?