There's a bit of a false dilemma in this article, as the author suggests that the choice facing egalitarians is to accept inequality or prevent well-off parents from "reading to their children." It is by no means that simple, but I have seen numerous studies showing that the best indicator of educational success is social class. It may be the best indicator, but it isn't the cause. Educational success has its roots in the benefits of a wealthier upbringing, including proper nourishment, leisure time, community (or family) support, and access to resources. Merely providing 'more education' in the absence of these is like pumping gasoline into a car without an engine. To achieve parity of opportunity, it isn't necessary to take these away from children of well-off parents, but rather, to provide these (or their equivalent) to all children in society. It's not that hard to do, and we have the means to do it, but from where I sit the greatest stumbling block isn't the means but rather the resistance (as exemplified by this article) of those who are better off - after all, who wants to lose their advantage? How, for example, could anyone oppose providing proper nourishment for children? Yet - somehow - people do (these same people have from time to time the termerity to lecture me on ethics). Via ArtsJournal.
Today: 3 Total: 9 [Direct link] [Share]
