I think you analysis is missing a couple of things. (I don't at all disagree with what you've set out.)
Nobody has ever addressed the consequence of women's lib; people don't go into teaching as a route to education and independence anymore, they go into teaching because they want to teach/it seems like the least-bad option. The effect is that you have to pay much more for teachers since you're not longer systemically forcing supply by not letting women have other avenues to university education or professional jobs. (and now you've got a big pool of very angry teachers who do not trust any politician and who view the duty of their profession as being maintaining control of the classrooms.)
Second, education drives social change. Since about 1980, the "no change! none! this is perfect!" faction has had political control, and it's not so much that they don't want to fund education as they want to prevent education. If they want to prevent change, they have to prevent education.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-03 09:53 pm (UTC)I think you analysis is missing a couple of things. (I don't at all disagree with what you've set out.)
Nobody has ever addressed the consequence of women's lib; people don't go into teaching as a route to education and independence anymore, they go into teaching because they want to teach/it seems like the least-bad option. The effect is that you have to pay much more for teachers since you're not longer systemically forcing supply by not letting women have other avenues to university education or professional jobs. (and now you've got a big pool of very angry teachers who do not trust any politician and who view the duty of their profession as being maintaining control of the classrooms.)
Second, education drives social change. Since about 1980, the "no change! none! this is perfect!" faction has had political control, and it's not so much that they don't want to fund education as they want to prevent education. If they want to prevent change, they have to prevent education.