Has it declined as much as we would expect, given the decrease in religiosity in the US over that time period? I've only found data going back to 1995,[0] which shows relatively flat numbers for the past 15 years or so.
(And the amount of parents which are interested in their children attending private schools vs those who have access to and can afford them is an entirely different discussion.)
> given the decrease in religiosity in the US over that time period?
Has religiosity actually decreased? Christianity certainly has, maybe even all god-based religions, but the religion of formal education seems to have fully picked up the slack. There are a shocking number of people who believe that you will be stricken to the hell of flipping burgers at McDonalds if you don't praise the institution and attend college worship. And it seems likely that anyone who buys into that religion is prone to want to send their kids to private schools given the prevailing ideas about what private school offers.
> And the amount of parents which are interested in their children attending private schools vs those who have access to and can afford them is an entirely different discussion.
It is, indeed. There is a huge chasm between wants and musts. It would require an entirely different discussion to turn us towards wants. Although it is not clear what purpose that discussion would serve? What were you hoping to add by mentioning this?
This is fair* (and I expect many Christians would agree with you in generalities of "everyone worships something"); what I was getting at here was that (by the first numbers I found) those who regularly attend organized "god-based" worship has dropped by ~1/3 over the past 20 years or so, and so I would expect roughly a corresponding drop in attendance in parochial schools. If the drop is less than that,** that would seem to support the author's hypothesis.
> What were you hoping to add by mentioning this?
Along the same lines as the previous: even if more families aren't able to send their kids to private schools, but desire to do this, the could support two parts of his narrative: (1) decrease in social capital (of which he defines part as, to paraphrase, schools that people trust); and (2) that more essential parts of life (such as education, as opposed to television) are becoming rapidly more expensive.
(Not stating which of his points I agree with, but I think that "private school enrollment is declining" does not necessarily rebut the core of his arguments.)
* Though I think my meaning was clear
** Though of course this becomes more complicated when you look at figures for all private schools
> I would expect roughly a corresponding drop in attendance in parochial schools.
Why's that? Around here the parochial schools are fuller than ever. Not because people have taken a greater interest in the religion — the local data shows the same decline in god-based religious observance that you spoke of — but because they are the schools which have gained a reputation for providing a better education, which strikes a chord with those fearing the fiery hell of the McDonald's grill.
Heck, even if we assume for the sake of discussion that the original claim is the truth and that parents must turn to private schools, why does that preclude parochial schools? On the premise given, if that's where the "desirables" are found that is where the students needs to go, even if one doesn't buy into the religious foundation of the school.
> the could support two parts of his narrative
If it had said that parents want to turn to private schools then you'd have a point, but it says they must. "I cannot afford it" doesn't fly for things you must do. Since it is something they have no choice in now, that they didn't do decades ago, where is it showing up in the data? Another comment indicated that charter school growth is where the data suggests there is a clear growing trend. We could accept the premise that parents actually see those features in charter schools instead, but then that same comment pointed out that charter schools are often the most diverse, which contradicts the original premise.
Consistency: the only case where he used BCE is in an image caption. The description on Wikimedia Commons uses BCE, so my guess is that he defaults to writing BC but reading that subconsciously put him in the frame of mind to write BCE. From a skim, he never uses CE or AD in this article.
Omission: this confused me at first, but really the entire article is set 3000 years ago, so it's not particularly ambiguous. If you think in the context of "lecture on the bronze age" you wouldn't expect him to specify every time.
> That's just such a weird point to make. It is great that my kids' primary school teachers are super kind and loving. But it's not what they're for, and it's definitely not what AI tutors are for. Nobody is claiming this will replace a hug from a parent.
This doesn't seem weird at all. Developmentally they need (kind, loving) human interaction. That's obviously not the only purpose of teachers, but if you think 7 hours a day without it wouldn't make a difference... just like a computer can't be held accountable, a computer can't have compassion.
I rarely have online meetings, but what annoyed me most last time I did was that I had multiple AI note taking services magnanimously send me multiple emails each telling me how if I signed up for their service they could share their meeting notes with me. It wasn't even that important of a meeting!
Okay, because no one seems to be answering the Venice question:
- They had a strong navy (and shipbuilding capacity), making a blockade difficult
- They traded with many nations, so no one group could cut off their food supply
- Fish
- They had a near monopoly on the trade of salt and spices, the former of which was important to everyone and the latter of which was important to aristocrats
(note: I read a few sources but this is not thorough research)
It is a recurring phenomenon. Venice, Netherlands, and today Singapore. Small countries without resources and, hence, needing trade. They become open trading hubs and grow.
Sadly, countries with a single easy-to-harvest resource —- like oil, gold, or gems —— are more likely to become closed dictatorships.
Medieval Netherlands had a single easy-to-harvest resource: sea fish; a very valuable commodity for protein-starved medieval peasantry. They were very lucky to be able pivot from that to trade (the pivot required a war between merchants and nobles, which the merchants won) before the herring and cod started to run out.
Venice is the extreme "tail wagging the dog" situation. Venice is dinky. It's not much bigger than San Francisco. Yet it was a major European power for centuries.
Venice was small by land mass, but controlled the Eastern Mediterranean, and therefore the Black Sea endpoint of the Silk Road, which was immensely profitable.
Consequently, Vasco da Gama rounding Africa in 1498 doomed Venice as a great power.
(And the amount of parents which are interested in their children attending private schools vs those who have access to and can afford them is an entirely different discussion.)
[0] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_205.10.a...