More wealth/economic security, safe environment, conscientious and attentive parents, good community of role models, peer kids with good parents as well = decent students.

In other words - children are reared by their parents, as they always have (!) and their academic achievement is mostly a function of their upbringing. Sure, some kids hate school or are bad at at even with good parents. Some schools are better than others ...

... but if you have 'decent community, decent parents, decent regular public school' then 'the kids will be ok'.

The discussion in some ways should be more about good jobs, stabilizing dangerous neighbourhoods, flushing out gangs, giving troubled kids a place to hang out + role models, making the learning environment safe where kids can focus on learning.

I just don't believe that the solution to education has much to do with 'teacher quality' or 'competitive teaching' or some kind of new-fangled special kind of education, or even exceptional schools.

More controversially I would say that schools aren't even mostly about learning, other than some very basic mathematical, historical and geographic literacy, schools are mostly about socialization, language and communication. Effectively, kids learn how to communicate (in English, but it's more than just spoken written word), how to behave, 'how to learn something' i.e. not the knowledge, but the processing of learning/doing tasks, basic responsibilities and organization. The 'details' of most subjects are simply less important. Nobody cares if someone has memorized every state capital, but we do care that people are ready, engaged, can focus, communicate, accomplish things etc..

> The discussion in some ways should be more about good jobs, stabilizing dangerous neighbourhoods, flushing out gangs, giving troubled kids a place to hang out + role models, making the learning environment safe where kids can focus on learning.

I think these issues are direct symptoms of poor education quality, which is itself a symptom of the issues you mention. It's a vicious cycle that perpetuates as the kids become adults and parents who create the negative environment and can't support their kids themselves. It's a long game, but investing in education is probably the "easy" place to start while kids are malleable. Adults are harder to reeducate; good luck flushing out the gangs, what are you going to do with those folks? Do as IPS and provide resources for parents to get training for things like GEDs so they can hopefully get better jobs. Provide after school programs and a safe sub community. It'll take time, but the new generation can hopefully grow up in a better place.

I see your point, and I do agree there is to some degree a feedback loop, but I don't think 'bad schools' are a primary driver.

And good point about creating a 'bubble' where kids can learn, you're right, tactical solutions might be apt.

But when the factories disappeared in the 1970's-1990's and the jobs disappeared, a lot of places went to pot.

If there were jobs - kids could bring their own meals, families would be more stable, there'd be less crime, there'd be a foundational social fabric.

Social programs pose all sorts of 'commons' problems ... the best kind of social program is 'a decent job'.

I still can't understand why Google, Facebook and some big banks talk all sorts of 'social progress' crap, but the thing that we need the most: distribution of income - is not on their radar.

I wish Google would open 'service and support' centres in the worst neighbourhoods in America and just give people jobs to do whatever. That would earn my respect.

They can start in East Palo Alto, literally only a few hundred meters from their offices ... I always found the decrepit existence of E. Palo Alto such a stain on the Valley as a whole.

god, I totally agree, don't get me started on all that modern education bullcrap that people with no business being involved in teaching constantly peddle. The worst of them all in my opinion is Vinod Khosla, I rarely heard so much bad information coming out of a single man.

It's interesting, because if we were actually battling a War on Poverty, we wouldn't need to have a war on drugs, or any other kind of crime.

There is always a tendency to make wars against the wrong people like the war on drugs going against drug users or the war on poverty going against poor people.

Money are not needed for parents to be engaged though.

Parents who don't need to work two jobs to support their children are necessary though.

Sure but that applies to any school and a lot more situations bo?

At an individual level, no. At an aggregate, long term, country wide level, yes.

At least good governance and planning and money distribution, possibly not actually more money.

That applies to a lot of things in life not just this so that feels like reaching imo. Sure parents need to be stable not the least financially but they need that to be good parents, good spouses, citizens etc.

But I think the point is that it's really incredibly hard to do any of those things unless you have financial stability; at the very least, it's a hell of a lot easier when you do.

Life is hard. It's still a different discussion unless you don't think it applies to people who don't have any children.