4 ms·

First, that's maybe acceptable if you live in a place with such a great math education program available in the public system, but most of the world does not an

First, that's maybe acceptable if you live in a place with such a great math education program available in the public system, but most of the world does not and limiting the options of people in a region to only attend the public option creates a local maxima. What if someone were in a region where the math education program was #100 in the world? Would it not be reasonable to want to create a private program providing an education that is capable of producing students that are competitive to those students from your province? What if some parents from your province weren't satisfied with being #2 or #3 and instead want the option to send their kid to a local program competitive with the #1 ranked program in the world? > and you aren't allowed to run a private school with a different curriculum - at all That's some Harrison Bergeron level thinking that is blatantly liberty reducing. You might say that I left off the rest of that statement, "beyond a certain amount of enriched tracks that are available to anyone.", but even that ignores the fact that resources are finite. Parents more invested in their children's futures might be able to pool resources together in the form of a more competitive private program for their children but not have enough resources for all children. One of those finite resources might be the ability to attract enough world class educators and still maintain a low teacher to student ratio that the teachers can have a significant impact on each child.

sudosysgen 6y ago
If the education is not good enough, the solution is to make it better. As a society, we made the decision that it is not fair for children of richer parents to be able to have much better education that the rest, and instead made it better for everyone. Since you insist on stating it in terms of freedom, we traded freedom from the obligation of public schooling for the freedom to have high quality education (and thus equal opportunity). Thanks to this choice, we have better outcomes than the US, and just as much freedom - just not the reductive kind of freedom you recognize. If you really want even better math education, the solution is that instead of shelling out money, you can do research on how to ameliorate teacher education or pedagogical techniques, or run as a politician to get those resources allocated. That is also your freedom. Ultimately, if you care about creating something resembling equality of opportunity and if you want to reduce inequality, you will have to abandon your reductive concept of freedom, where a homeless man starving enjoys more freedom than if he was in public housing, somehow.
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  This isn't just a matter of richness. It is also a matter of how much parents are willing to invest in their children's education. I know many "poor" parents that invest a great deal in their kids' eduction (time and money) and many "wealthier" parents that invest less. We shouldn't punish those who are willing to give more to their own kids' education. How do you handle this in a "fair" way - can't force people to care about their kids more.

sudosysgen 6y ago

If the education is not good enough, the solution is to make it better. As a society, we made the decision that it is not fair for children of richer parents to be able to have much better education that the rest, and instead made it better for everyone. Since you insist on stating it in terms of freedom, we traded freedom from the obligation of public schooling for the freedom to have high quality education (and thus equal opportunity). Thanks to this choice, we have better outcomes than the US, and just as much freedom - just not the reductive kind of freedom you recognize. If you really want even better math education, the solution is that instead of shelling out money, you can do research on how to ameliorate teacher education or pedagogical techniques, or run as a politician to get those resources allocated. That is also your freedom. Ultimately, if you care about creating something resembling equality of opportunity and if you want to reduce inequality, you will have to abandon your reductive concept of freedom, where a homeless man starving enjoys more freedom than if he was in public housing, somehow.

rwcarlsen 6y ago
This isn't just a matter of richness. It is also a matter of how much parents are willing to invest in their children's education. I know many "poor" parents that invest a great deal in their kids' eduction (time and money) and many "wealthier" parents that invest less. We shouldn't punish those who are willing to give more to their own kids' education. How do you handle this in a "fair" way - can't force people to care about their kids more.