3 ms·
I think a government-run system has incentives that are going to produce a lower quality educational product for everyone. I am for educational markets. Subsidi
by Prrometheus 18y ago
I think a government-run system has incentives that are going to produce a lower quality educational product for everyone. I am for educational markets. Subsidizing the consumption of education by poor people through something like a voucher program would likely mean higher quality education for poor and rich alike compared to the government-run model, for the same price.
I suspect that children of wealthy parents would perform better in school than their less-wealthy peers under any reasonable system. I don't think that is the problem that should concern us the most.
- rw 18y agoDoes it bother you that children are limited by the arbitrary socioeconomic status of their families? Again, luck is determining what any child is able to become.
- Prrometheus 18y agoIf I could choose a world where success were not determined by luck, then I would. Unfortunately that is not compatible with the stuff we are made of, right down to our DNA. Helping the very unlucky is a valuable goal, and a realistic one. "Equality" is not.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoI see no reason to believe that schools can systematically rectify socioeconomic inequalities. Educational attainment and status are outcomes of culture and parenting, not schools and teachers. I think these things are largely immutable, unless you want to start talking eugenics.
- Alex3917 18y agoIf culture and parenting were largely immutable, this would mean that not a single early childhood intervention program would have been able to show a statistically significant improvement. This is not the case.