responses to "Promoting Social mobility"
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSALISM
In Response to Heckman's "Promoting Social Mobility" Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift point out that James Heckman may be accused of disrespecting the cultural values of the disadvantaged in his work "Promoting Social Mobility" because he has determined that the problem creating and contributing to the disadvantaged is quality of parenting among other beliefs and social practices of the population. Brighouse and Swift concede that "interventions may impose white, middle-class norms," but believe "that shouldn't stop reformers." Some behaviors or traits may not be valuable in themselves, but at the same time be valuable and rewarded in the dominant
In Response to Heckman's "Promoting Social Mobility" Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift point out that James Heckman may be accused of disrespecting the cultural values of the disadvantaged in his work "Promoting Social Mobility" because he has determined that the problem creating and contributing to the disadvantaged is quality of parenting among other beliefs and social practices of the population. Brighouse and Swift concede that "interventions may impose white, middle-class norms," but believe "that shouldn't stop reformers." Some behaviors or traits may not be valuable in themselves, but at the same time be valuable and rewarded in the dominant
culture. To not teach these to children would leave them at a disadvantage in society. They support the potential early intervention method of universal provision, which can be viewed as a resource rather than an intervention. Offering universal provision and charging a graduated rate based on income is known as "progressive universalism," which they call a "realistic way forward."
To read more of this response click here.
To read more of this response click here.
LEAVE IT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Neal McCluskey's response is very different. He maintains that it is not the job of public schools or the government to conduct early intervention, but that this should be left to be the responsibility of the private sector. He questions the small-scale of the effects of early intervention, whether the government could recreate those small scales, much less make them larger and worthwhile, and whether they are cost effective. He admits that the "accident of birth" that Heckman insists we rectify may exist, but that government programs such as Head Start do not show lasting cognitive effects, have management problems, wasteful bureaucracies. Oversight is difficult and expensive in these programs, so unsuccessful programs continue because their failures rarely get brought to the government's attention. Private funding can be pulled easily by voluntary funding, which creates accountability and incentives for continuing fruitful practices and abandoning unsuccessful methods.
To read more of this response click here.
Neal McCluskey's response is very different. He maintains that it is not the job of public schools or the government to conduct early intervention, but that this should be left to be the responsibility of the private sector. He questions the small-scale of the effects of early intervention, whether the government could recreate those small scales, much less make them larger and worthwhile, and whether they are cost effective. He admits that the "accident of birth" that Heckman insists we rectify may exist, but that government programs such as Head Start do not show lasting cognitive effects, have management problems, wasteful bureaucracies. Oversight is difficult and expensive in these programs, so unsuccessful programs continue because their failures rarely get brought to the government's attention. Private funding can be pulled easily by voluntary funding, which creates accountability and incentives for continuing fruitful practices and abandoning unsuccessful methods.
To read more of this response click here.
To read more responses to James Heckman's "Promoting Social Mobility," click here.