Higher education still seems to be outside the sphere of our discussion.
Colleges and Universities have a variety of ownership possibilities: state,
land grant, private, religious, etc. These all seem to coexist and students
get various forms of state and federal funding for attendance at all of these
institutions.
It is access to these institutions that becomes the gate to economic
empowerment.
A college degree is almost a necessity for a middle class member today.
Outreach to minority students and socio-economically disadvantaged is
commonplace within higher education recruitment.
Given the fact that the funding structure differs, why shouldn't we hold
higher education to the same standard as basic education?
If the historic use of "compulsory" changes the face of the discussion, then
we return to the earlier discussion of "coercion." Certainly access to
material resources and economic success are as coercive as a law.
Also, there has been in our discussion the notion that funding private
education will turn us into a developing nation, at least educationally. Are
there no alternative? I believe that both Canada and Britain have systems of
education that allow for private and public education choices. So, would
private school funding immediately push us to the status of, say, Guatemala?
Or, would the English educational system work?
Michael
Duquesne U.