OT: Purdue/PSU, was [rescue] ss2 under load

Sun Feb 17 23:08:36 CST 2002

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:29:41PM -0500, R. Lonstein wrote:
> What ever generalization you make, I can make a counter
> generalization that is equally useless. It is certain that both good
> and bad examples exist.

> > Hint: before public education started in the US, literacy was about
> > 99%.  It is not that high now.  
> 
> Incorrect. Literacy was not widespread in the United States until the
> post-bellum efforts to provide public education with the exception of
> the Colonial period in the New England colony where the emigrees were
> for the most part schooled in England.

This is not the information I have.  For instance, even in 1600's in
pre-Revolutionary America you were either to be in school or
apprenticed to a trade at the age of 12.  And this applied in Northern
(New England), Middle Colonies (eg Pennsylvania) and Southern Colonies
(Virginia).

Source:

http://alumni.cc.gettysburg.edu/~s330558/schooling.html

click on "Middle Colonies" to read about the law of 1683 - anyone
having charge of children must ensure they can read and write by the
age of 12 .

A Google search for "literacy colonial america" will provide many more
links.

> The first national U.S. census to account for literacy was 1850, prior
> to that there is good evidence that illiteracy was common. From 1870
> through 1979 illiteracy- defined as persons over 14 who were unable to
> to read or write in any language- declined from an average of 20% to
> 0.6%. Meanwhile population grew from 38.5 million in 1870 to 203 million
> in 1970 and to 226.5 million in 1980. Strong evidence that something
> good was happening.

What is the source for your data?  And how is the data averaged?  I
think that the links and data I present below show that quite frankly,
you are wrong.  I could allow that some of the illiteracy was due to
recent immigrants - which would of course have no bearing on the
question of the efficacy of American schools.

In my googling I find homeschoolers advancing the argument that
literacy was in the range of 90 to 98% in colonial America.  I am not
able to find an exact source for the data to support that.

Point 1::
However, in what is apparently a series of notes for AP US History I
find:

"A Massachusetts law (1649) required every town of over one hundred
families to have a tax supported elementary school.  By 1700 nearly
all adult white males in New England could read and write.  The
literacy rate of free males in all thirteen colonies exceeded that of
England which was about 50%.  By 1780 almost half of the white women
in America were literate."
--source for above:

http://www.delbarton.org/academics/descripts/ap_us_history/Unit%20I.html

Point 2::
The online 1850 census data indicates that eg in NY state
there were 40,000 whites out of 3 million who could read or write.  

VA with about 900K whites had about 78K whites who could not read or
write.
(both numbers include men and women)

These figures are from 

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/

Point 3::
Apparently a quote from a textbook or unit called "The Gilded Age":

"In 1800 schoolchildren (ages 5-19) spent an average of only fourteen
days in school each year. By 1850 this figure had nearly doubled,
going to twenty-six days, and by 1860 it had risen to forty days per
year, almost triple the figure for 1800. By 1860 the literacy rate at
age twenty had attained modern levels, exceeding ninety percent among
whites."

source:  http://www.orange.k12.oh.us/teachers/ohs/TJordan/Pages/gildedageobjtest.html

Point 4:
Pierre DuPont, writing in "Education in the United States":
[of the 1812 US population of 7 million]

"...that out of every 1,000 persons fewer than four can't read or do numbers."

>     [snip - Thomas Paine]
> > Read up on the actual history of American education and you will find
> > that it is based on the Prussian model - the same model that led
> > Germany to the formation of the Third Reich.  Not good.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I have. Other than J.P. Gatto, Arianna Huffington
> and the homeschooling movement, who read something ominous into it I
> don't see anything frightening that U.S. "normal schools" were based
> upon the grouping of children by age and having older students reteach
> lessons to younger students. A visit to a public school would
> demonstrate that it is no longer the case. I've also read a pretty good
> amount on rhetoric and when making inductive leaps you need to avoid
> false analogy. HTH.

Would it have been possible to have such a devoted number of Nazis if
even 20% of German teens had been homeschooled?  I think not.

Please comment on the following quote:

"Because of the Prussian failure to defeat Napoleon, Germany took a
long hard look at its institutions-primarily its school system. This
introspection led to the conclusion that Prussian pride and power
could only be restored by restructuring that system.

A strategy was devised in which the Prussian government would set up a
forced government educational system which would turn out well
disciplined students who would follow orders without questioning
authority."

Do you feel that it is historically accurate or not?

Cordially

Patrick Giagnocavo
patrick at zill.net