[EthanHeilman]

The education in the form of literacy is not incidental, it is most the entire point. Imagine how US Capitalism would function with a 10% literacy rate?

Without Public education or something similar to replace it is unlikely that we would have the high levels of literacy to which we are accustomed. Public Education successfully teaches most of the population to read and write English (including the children of immigrants whose parents may not speak English). This is a historically impressive feat.

1000 years ago the world literacy rate was less than 1%, 100 years ago the world literacy rate was less than 10%. Now it is roughly 80%!

It is clear Public Education could do much better, but lets not confuse failing to do better with failing to do anything or its most important job.

[emerod]

The literacy rate cannot function as a measure of the success of public education in the US. Rather, it is a measure of how useless the US public education system is, because it accomplishes little more than maintaining a basic level of literacy for the majority of the US population.

"it is generally accepted that literacy rates in the United States were quite high before compulsory schooling was mandated starting in the 1840's."[1] See the extensive citations at the link.

[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/5/4379/-

[EthanHeilman]

>"it is generally accepted that literacy rates in the United States were quite high before compulsory schooling was mandated starting in the 1840's."

This is why I wrote "Public Education or something like it". We need education systems for literacy, however it does not to be compulsory or public if nearly everyone uses it and can afford it. It seems unlikely that these two conditions (affordable and widely used) would be met in our present society without public funding of education.

Note that in that article you link to they say that Southern Whites in the 1860s had a "56.4%" literacy rate.

[tracker1]

But even then we are falling... My great grandmother taught school back in the 1940's-1970's, and I recall reading through one of the 5th grade English subject books from around 1950, and it was significantly more advanced than what I was seeing in an English class for high school seniors (short of AP).

So, effectively even at the subject you mention, literacy (english language communications), we are teaching less with 5 more years than we taught just over half a century ago (assuming that it hasn't improved since I left HS about 24 years ago).

I love technology... I love history.. and a lot of things.. that said, I think we're letting the core that is pure communication (reading, writing, and effectively communicating) is falling behind at the expense of being able to follow [INSERT_CELEBRITY] on [NEW_SOCIAL_MEDIA_PLATFORM].

[stevenmays]

The textbook was more advanced, but how was well was the information retained? Perhaps most fifth graders are retaining information better now with books more suited to them?

Literacy rates have increased throughout the years: https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

[tracker1]

If it was replicated/repeated for the next several years, I'd imagine the retention was relatively good. Likely as good or better for most people than today.

[EthanHeilman]

Far fewer people in the past graduated Highschool as well. For instance only 50% of students graduated Highschool in the 1950s. As of 2008 the Highschool graduation rate is 80%.

[tracker1]

So, why lower the bar? A "C" is a passing grade by all accounts... lowering the bar only serves to hold back those able to do better.