So your reasoning is "elites have always been more educated then average, so standard education cannot have had an effect in average literacy"? It is far more reasonable (and verifiable) to conclude that widespread standard education is more than just correlated with higher average rates of literacy.

Byran Caplan's Case Against Education might be a good place to start. The author has collected a lot of statistics.

For the second time in as many days, I find myself saying on HN: your argument only makes sense if you reduce all societal logic to economic logic. What a way to live.

If schools aren’t even teaching basic things like arithmetic and literacy, then what are they? Just a place to park kids while their parents work? In that case, might as well also do some programming classes, right? If the other option is learning nothing.

I mean, if you want to totally revamp the education system, I’m here for it, but I guess that seems like a bigger project to me.

Bryan Caplan's Case Against Education might be a good place to start, if you want to have a broader discussion about the education system.

And yes, baby sitting is a big part of the package that schools do provide in practice.

> In that case, might as well also do some programming classes, right?

I don't think programming classes would do any more damage than the current curriculum.

> If the other option is learning nothing.

Well, giving the kids free time or more physical activity might also be useful?