T H E P R I M A R Y S O U R C E T H E P R I M A R Y S O U R C E L E T T E R S

L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R
Dear Editor,
In the most recent issue of The Primary Source, an article
appeared entitled The Disturbing Origins of Modern
Education, authored by Aaron Pendola. While I have
not fact-checked the historical aspect of the article, I was
stunned to read a statistic near the end concerning the
effectiveness of modern schools. Literacy in Massachsetts
decreased from 98% in 1850 to 91% in the 1980s
(Richman, 1993). Seeing as this claimed statistic goes
against everything I thought I knew about historical rates
of literacy in America, I found the article that Mr. Pendola
quoted, which is entitled Freeing the Education Market,
by Sheldon Richman, on the website of The Future of
Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org). The article opens with
a claim that this statistic was included in a paper once
issued by Senator Edward M. Kennedy`s oIfce. It closes
with a parenthetical update, Senator Kennedys staff
maintains that no such paper or statement ever eminated
(sic) Irom his oIfce. The allegation that Kennedy once
reIerred to it on the Senate foor could not be confrmed,
despite a thorough search of the Congressional Record for
the relevant period.
Evidently, Mr. Pendola has quoted a statistic that Mr.
Richman fabricated completely. According to an article
published in 1993 by the National Center for Education
Statistics, the literacy rate in America as a whole increased
from 80% in 1870 to 99.4% in 1979. A website containing
the full contents of this article was the third result in my
Google search of historical literacy rate in America.
Mr. Pendolas article was mostly about the history of the
American education system, the accuracy of which I am not
actively disputing. However, this false statistic is situated
in a key position as the last sentence before his closing
paragraph. I imagine the intended effect is to quickly
convince the reader that compulsory education in America
has failed, and support Mr. Pendolas claim that The
coercive monopoly [of education] should be turned over
to the marketplace. Without this statistic, Mr. Pendola is
faced with a large body of evidence showing the gains in
education and productivity that have been accomplished
since the institution of compulsory public education in
America, and his argument is weakened substantially.
Few people on campus see The Primary Source as a
legitimate publication. I want it to be one. Tufts needs
a conservative voice, and I try to always read your
publication. However, if your writers and editors do not
fact check even absurd-sounding claims such as this one,
how can you possibly claim legitimacy?
-Sawyer Bernath
Physics
Tufts Class of 2012
Hi, Mr. Bernath. I have a response for you from Mr. Pendola.
I hope this helps address your query, but I encourage you to
write again if you have further concerns.
Brianna Smith
EIC Primary Source
LA 2012
-------
Hello,
First of all I would like to thank you for reading my article
and taking the time to respond. The statistic that I quoted was
published in Sheldon Richmans book Separating School
and State (http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.
htm) in addition to being published in that article. Sheldon
Richman is associated with the Cato Institute, which does
not have a reputation for fabricating statistics. I have found
a few other sources to support his figures:
Civil War in America, 1850 to 1875 by Richard Selcer
(Chapter 14):
http://books.google.com/books?id=dqIBqiNoB9wC&pg=
PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=literacy+rate+in+1850+massach
usetts&source=bl&ots=uyCUg5bP5R&sig=YoAgqBpd4w
hEhfT05tjqK9Jj5F8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fytYT_nPDsLp0g
Glnr3hDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=literac
y%20rate%20in%201850%20massachusetts&f=false
http://www.educationnews.org/articles/literacy-then-and-
now-.html
http://parentingresourcedirectory.info/public-schools-----
why-on-earth-do-we-need-them.php
http://mises.org/daily/1425#_edn7 (this one just cites
Richman, the Mises Institute is another reputable think
tank)
http://www.doe.mass.edu/acls/SAAL_MA.pdf
http://onmyownreading.com/about/literacy-statistics.html
(the National Center for Education Statistics actually puts
literacy in Massachusetts at 90% as of 2003)
I never intended to cite the national literacy rate as you
wrote in your email, I cited Massachusetts. The statistic
referenced Horace Manns reforms as they applied to New
England at the time. My other statistic cited Massachusetts
for consistency. The decline in literacy should not come
as such a surprise, however; one of Horace Manns main
reforms was a push to adopt the Prussian style of eschewing
the alphabet and teaching children a hieroglyphic system
where they had to read by memorizing entire phrases.
(Continued on next page)
WE D N E S D A Y , MA R C H 1 4 , 2 0 1 2 6
T H E P R I M A R Y S O U R C E
Even if you do not subscribe to my sources or my
interpretation of those statistics, I disagree with your
analysis of my argument. I do not believe public education
has failed on the contrary I believe it is working far too
well. Public schools were not created to teach, but rather
to indoctrinate the masses and train them into becoming
obedient soldiers and factory workers. These intentions are
well documented and I wanted to communicate that reality
through the article. I want people to consider that someone
like the forefather of National Socialism, Johann Gottlieb
Fichte, has a more profound impact on their upbringing than
most other historical figures. The article is not intended
to suggest that schools are failing and that controversial
statistic was honestly an afterthought.
Finally, I would like to take responsibility for the information
in my article. The editor of the Primary Source was rather
meticulous with her copyediting and insisted on fact
checking; based on my sources given above that statistic
cleared. Having said that, I appreciate your feedback for the
article and if you are ever interested in further discussing
any points in the article I would be happy to meet with you.
I encourage everyone who reads the article to pursue their
own research on education models proposed throughout
history and come to their own conclusions about intentions
and development surrounding compulsory monopolized
education.
Aaron Pendola
Tufts 2012 Economics and German Studies
Thank you for your response, and please also send my thanks
to Aaron. I really appreciate the variety of sources he gave
me, and while I do not find all of them to be totally credible,
there is enough there that I am giving up my argument that
the statistic cited was absurd. I also apologize if I insulted
the editorial staff at The Source; I jumped to conclusions. I
accept that the article was appropriately fact-checked to any
reasonable standard of accuracy. In reality, I should have
done more fact-checking of my own before criticizing it.
Thanks again for your response.
-Sawyer
(The links cited by Mr. Pendola are also available on the
PRIMARY SOURCES website - primarysource.typepad.com)
The SOURCE welcomes all letters to the editor.
WE D N E S D A Y , MA R C H 1 4 , 2 0 1 2
7
T H E P R I M A R Y S O U R C E
M
AXIM
IZE YOUR
VERITAS SINE
DOLO
INTAKE!
THE PRIMARY SOURCE Online
primarysource.typepad.com
Read and
comment on
articles.
Browse past
issues and
covers, with
archives
going back to
1982.
See web-
only content,
including
exclusive
video from
our staff.