The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

New Federal education law deserves a closer look from those interested in science education

Posted 28 March 2016 by Matt Young

By Gaythia Weis. I want to call attention to the newly enacted legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which relinquishes Federal control over many aspects of the education of our nation's children. In so doing, this law may enable religious activists to exert their influence to a greater extent than previously possible. I need not remind readers of The Panda's Thumb of the manner in which creationists attempt to subvert the public education system to further their own ideological goals. ESSA is the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was first enacted in the Lyndon Johnson administration as a means of furthering equality of education in our nation. ESSA is ostensibly directed to address issues, including excessive student testing and ineffective teachers, that many think were problems with the previous No Child Left Behind program. However, the ESSA is the result of bipartisan political compromise and its provisions raise new issues. Some of these issues ought to be of grave concern to those of us interested in science education. These issues call for our close attention and active monitoring.
I. New law undercuts university teacher-training programs As described here, Title II of this legislation allows states to establish teacher academies as alternatives to university education departments. These academies will be exempt from states' teacher certification requirements and will not be required to obtain accreditation. Additionally, states may not require those teaching at the academies to have experience, degrees, or training in education, to hold advanced degrees, or to conduct academic research. Thus, not only does this legislation diminish Federal guidelines; it reduces state control as well. The Brookings Institution claims that this provision will unlock "business model innovation" in the teacher education process. As Brookings notes, "The challenge for states will be to make sure that the policies and regulations they adopt for authorizing these new programs truly lead to the desired outcome of producing more high-quality teachers." But will adopting a "business model" really increase the sorts of educational innovation for teacher training that leads away from a focus on such things as credit hours taken and towards actual outcomes measurable as teacher effectiveness? Without accreditation or state control of teacher certification, where is the accountability? And what if these academies, states, state boards of education, or local school boards have other motivations? Specifically, academies can hire faculty that suit their religious, moral, or philosophical values. Further, it is not hard to see how undereducated teachers would be forced into rural and underprivileged schools or proprietary charter schools, reducing equity in educational opportunity. The supply of teachers produced by academies may well exert downward pressure on teachers' salaries overall.
II: New law undercuts Common Core Curriculum ESSA returns to the states many aspects of control over what is taught in schools. It moves away from Federal oversight by granting the states greater authority over accountability, school turnarounds, teacher evaluation, and more. It thus reduces Federal leverage for state implementation of Common Core Standards. Some states may rise to the challenge and move forward with innovative and scientifically sound programs. But clearly, giving greater curriculum powers to State Boards of Education and other local entities ought to raise concerns that some states will instead cave in to pressures from ideological or profit-minded special interest groups. The bipartisan compromise continues to require states to adopt challenging academic standards for math, reading, and science. Education critic Diane Ravitch notes, however, that defining challenging is left to the states:

The Secretary [of Education] and peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from reviewing the content of state standards, as the State does not have to submit the standards for review or approval, prohibited in section 1111(b)(1)(A) under the new law. The Secretary cannot require a state to add to or delete from its standards, or interfere with state standards, as dictated by section 1111(e)(1)(B)(ii) in the new law. In section 8527(d), there is an explicit prohibition on any federal approval or certification of standards.

Some sources take an optimistic approach:

"For conservatives out there whose main beef with Common Core was the federal element, they can now rest assured that's over and now we can go back to debating these sets of standards on their own merits," [Michael J. Petrilli, president of the Washington-based, right-leaning Fordham Institute and a supporter of Common Core] said. "I'm hopeful this can actually help keep the Common Core or something very close to them in the vast majority of states."

Relieved of the feeling that they must "teach to the test," innovative teachers may devise wonderfully creative and engaging hands-on science activities such as are described here. But each state can define what it means to have "well rounded" and "environmentally literate" students. Implementation of the ESSA legislation will be highly state-dependent and thus may increase the division between students emerging from states or localities with varying levels of support for science. Educational opportunity will then be determined by the whims of state legislatures, state Boards of Education, local boards of education, and the lobbying groups that influence them. _____
Gaythia Weis is an analytical chemist and a board member of the Colorado Citizens for Science.

37 Comments

harold · 28 March 2016

Title II of this legislation allows states to establish teacher academies as alternatives to university education departments. These academies will be exempt from states’ teacher certification requirements and will not be required to obtain accreditation. Additionally, states may not require those teaching at the academies to have experience, degrees, or training in education, to hold advanced degrees, or to conduct academic research. Thus, not only does this legislation diminish Federal guidelines; it reduces state control as well.
This sounds like a completely insane idea. Incidentally, the significant problem in the US educational system is not (right now) the rare and, so far, never successful, creationist machinations that we protest against here. Of course we must be vigilant against them, but there are, in terms of the overall education system, bigger problems. It's the dichotomy in educational outcomes based on the average income of school districts. Across the US, middle and high income public school districts produce excellent results, including in science. Mediocre US education scores are virtually 100% due to the fact that in the US, students in poor districts score poorly. By a coincidence, or maybe not, our schools are funded by local property taxes. There does not actually seem to be anything wrong with US teacher training, "teaching to the test" (perfectly reasonable if the test itself is reasonable), trained teachers being fired less frequently than minimum wage Wal-Mart employees, or any of the other "problems" that always seem to be "fixed" with kleptocratic schemes (favored by both parties I should add, although not by 100% of Democrats) to hand contracts to connected middle men. So now we're going to have unregulated, Trump University style "teacher academies", that will no doubt rip off many deluded candidates, creating both a pool of unemployed, deeply indebted young people, and a group of unqualified young "union buster" unlicensed teacher candidates who will, of course, be foisted on poor rural school districts, which will, of course, eventually pay a heavy price in law suits when the eventual scandals hit. Mild "teaching creationism in science class" scandals will be the least of it if standards are dropped. For more serious abuse scandals are likely to erupt. I don't think I'll be accused of excessive cynicism when I note that pushing creationism is one reason why some of the-people-least-desirable-as-teachers want to be teachers, but that there are a number of far worse such motivations that may be more common.

harold · 28 March 2016

What a degenerate society we live in. For years, all legitimate outlets for creativity and valid student expression of individual opinion - art classes, music classes, literature, extracurricular science projects, etc - have been slashed.

Now when it comes to the basics, grammar, spelling, writing, basic math, learning the basics of science, where rigor should trump creativity, suddenly the language of creativity and "critical thinking" is hypocritically raised as an excuse to lower standards, bring in profit-taking middle men, and pander to ignorant religious fanatics.

eric · 28 March 2016

The Brookings Institution claims that this provision will unlock “business model innovation” in the teacher education process.
Huh? Last time I checked, many if not most businesses hiring white collar professionals specified academic degree requirements in their application procedures. How is not requiring a degree from an accredited university mirroring regular business practices? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this section, but as written, the 'academy model' seems more like an Orwellian doublespeak version of 'business model innovation' than anything else.

harold · 28 March 2016

eric said:
The Brookings Institution claims that this provision will unlock “business model innovation” in the teacher education process.
Huh? Last time I checked, many if not most businesses hiring white collar professionals specified academic degree requirements in their application procedures. How is not requiring a degree from an accredited university mirroring regular business practices? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this section, but as written, the 'academy model' seems more like an Orwellian doublespeak version of 'business model innovation' than anything else.
When some sleazy company sets up an "online non-accredited teacher academy" that charges 200 grand for a degree that will get 10% of the students a temporary job teaching science denial in Alabama and 90% a ticket to the unemployment line, you can bet your ass that the accountants for that company will have real CPA licenses, the executives of that company will have real college degrees from accredited colleges, and the lawyers for that company will have real law degrees and will have passed real bar exams. The "unaccredited academy diploma" will not qualify anyone to work at a high level for a company that sells "unaccredited academy diplomas", that's for sure.

Matt Young · 28 March 2016

So now we’re going to have unregulated, Trump University style “teacher academies”, that will no doubt rip off many deluded candidates, creating both a pool of unemployed, deeply indebted young people, and a group of unqualified young “union buster” unlicensed teacher candidates who will, of course, be foisted on poor rural school districts, which will, of course, eventually pay a heavy price in law suits when the eventual scandals hit.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I received Ms. Weis's draft was, "Back to the 2-year normal schools of the nineteenth century" -- before teaching was considered a profession. The next thing was Trump "University." By coincidence, The Nation ran an article today, Documents Show Just How Suckered Students of the Trump Institute Felt. According to the article,

[T]he grievances [of the former students] are strikingly consistent: false promises of prosperity, the illusion of serious pedagogy, little accountability.

Precisely what we can expect from the proposed teacher academies. At a time when science teachers, at least, need all the training they can get, the law proposes markedly less.

DS · 28 March 2016

Teacher 1: Dude, we're totally not meeting the teaching standards.

Teacher 2: Yea, this really makes us look bad. So what should we do about it?

Teacher 1: Maybe we should like, lower the standards, man.

Teacher 2: No. That will just get us in trouble again if we fail to meet even the lower standards.

Teacher 1: Dude, how about if we throw away the standards all together. Then we can never fail, man.

Teacher 2: They'll never go for that.

Teacher 1: Sure they will, man. We'll just call it a "business model".

teacher 2: Far out!

Michael Fugate · 28 March 2016

The first provision is truly insane - it may be true that any idiot can be a representative or a senator (not that they will be good at it), but they can't be a teacher.

eric · 28 March 2016

harold said: When some sleazy company sets up an "online non-accredited teacher academy" that charges 200 grand for a degree that will get 10% of the students a temporary job teaching science denial in Alabama and 90% a ticket to the unemployment line, you can bet your ass that the accountants for that company will have real CPA licenses, the executives of that company will have real college degrees from accredited colleges, and the lawyers for that company will have real law degrees and will have passed real bar exams.
Oh we probably don't even have to extrapolate. We can probably just look at the Brookings Institute and ask if it hires analysts without degrees. I.e., whether right now it takes its own advice.

Gaythia Weis · 28 March 2016

Matt Young said:

The first thing that crossed my mind when I received Ms. Weis's draft was, "Back to the 2-year normal schools of the nineteenth century" -- before teaching was considered a profession.

Hey! My grandmother was one of those Normal school grads, and became a teacher, at age 16! She had some problems controlling the farm boys in the classroom, until her older brother showed up to say that if he heard of any nonsense, he'd horsewhip the lot of them. Isn't this just what some Presidential candidates have in mind?

Gaythia Weis · 28 March 2016

This legislation is the result of a bipartisan compromise primarily between Washington State Democratic Senator Patty Murray, and Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander. I personally would put the emphasis on "conjure" in this headline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/senators-conjure-lost-art-to-get-support-for-education-bill-compromise/2015/07/28/c1bb953a-3177-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html. I would agree with Alexander's quote in that article: "“It was a very complicated piece of legislation with crocodiles lurking every 100 yards,”" IMHO, the way that they handled those crocodiles was by skirting around them and letting them be. For example: "They convinced committee members to save controversial amendments for debate before the full Senate, fearing that if political arguments consumed the committee, the bill would never make it to the floor. " "That meant Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) withdrew an amendment to allow federal tax dollars to be used to pay tuition at private schools, while Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) withdrew his proposal to extend federal civil rights protection to gay, lesbian and transgender K-12 students. Both later were introduced on the Senate floor during full consideration of the bill; neither got enough votes to pass, but the lawmakers felt gratified that they had an opportunity to make their arguments. "
I've been at political gatherings in which Patty Murray happily took credit for what she sees as a big accomplishment here. I am failing to feel the full gratification. I still wonder about the actual results as will be experienced by all of the nation's children. The ones that are LGBT would be one example.

Gaythia Weis · 28 March 2016

One of the theories that I believe might explain the bipartisan support of this bill is that given by Education Professor Ken Zeichner, in a post embedded towards the end of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/05/the-disturbing-provisions-about-teacher-preparation-in-no-child-left-behind-rewrite/.

"... the provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act that relate to teacher preparation academies have been primarily written to support entrepreneurial programs like those funded by venture philanthropists. "

(Teach for America might be one such example.)

Zeichner goes on to express concern about under-qualified teachers:

"It is wrong, though, for public policy and public funds to be used to support sending under-prepared teachers into schools impacted so profoundly by poverty and to continue to deny our most vulnerable students equitable access to fully prepared, certified, and in many cases experienced teachers. Parents have a right to expect that all teachers are required to meet the same high standards in order to become a teacher-of-record fully responsible for a classroom."

He suggests that the funding is misdirected:

"Over the last decade, there have been severe cuts in state support to public universities which have undermined opportunities to innovate in teacher education programs and to make them more connected and responsive to public schools and local communities. The funds proposed in the Every Student Succeeds Act” offer an important opportunity to support and extend in significant ways the innovation that is already underway in college and university teacher preparation programs, and in programs run by others."

(The WAPO piece seems to be a little confused as to which UW Zeichner is at, but my online search points to the University of Washington: https://education.uw.edu/people/faculty/kenzeich).

Scott F · 28 March 2016

My wife has been a teacher of K-12 students for many years. In her experience, the problem is far less the quality of the teachers, and far more the quality of the curricula chosen by the Districts for those teachers to teach. It's far harder for a poor teacher to mess up a good curriculum, than it is for a good teacher to fix a bad one.

Also, the teacher "education" programs that she has attended at actual universities tend to be pretty much of a joke, even before this new law. She learned absolutely nothing (and was taught absolutely nothing) about how to actually teach students in any of her two years of classes toward her degree in teaching. She learned far more about organizing a program, about the theory of learning, and about motivating students in the dog-training programs that she has attended.

At least, that's one person's experience. I'm sure that there are fine teacher education programs out there. She just couldn't find any locally, and we weren't going to be moving cross country just for that.

My limited experience in the military is that classes are often taught by officers or leading petty officers who are often just a couple of weeks ahead of their "students" in the curriculum being taught, and with little if any formal training in "teaching". But because the curriculum is so regimented (and typically so good), the instructor often makes little difference in the outcomes. Of course such courses tend to be more "technical", or hands-on vocational, so your mileage may vary.

While I would be totally leery of the "Trump University" style of rip-offs, if freeing Common Core allows states and districts to choose better curricula, my personal opinion is that it would be, on balance, a better alternative than the status quo.

fusilier · 29 March 2016

Scott F said: My wife has been a teacher of K-12 students for many years. In her experience, the problem is far less the quality of the teachers, and far more the quality of the curricula chosen by the Districts for those teachers to teach. It's far harder for a poor teacher to mess up a good curriculum, than it is for a good teacher to fix a bad one. Also, the teacher "education" programs that she has attended at actual universities tend to be pretty much of a joke, even before this new law. She learned absolutely nothing (and was taught absolutely nothing) about how to actually teach students in any of her two years of classes toward her degree in teaching. She learned far more about organizing a program, about the theory of learning, and about motivating students in the dog-training programs that she has attended. At least, that's one person's experience. I'm sure that there are fine teacher education programs out there. She just couldn't find any locally, and we weren't going to be moving cross country just for that. My limited experience in the military is that classes are often taught by officers or leading petty officers who are often just a couple of weeks ahead of their "students" in the curriculum being taught, and with little if any formal training in "teaching". But because the curriculum is so regimented (and typically so good), the instructor often makes little difference in the outcomes. Of course such courses tend to be more "technical", or hands-on vocational, so your mileage may vary. While I would be totally leery of the "Trump University" style of rip-offs, if freeing Common Core allows states and districts to choose better curricula, my personal opinion is that it would be, on balance, a better alternative than the status quo.
My Beloved and Darling Wife is retiring after 40+ years in special education (Learning Disabilities, Physical Handicaps, Mental Handicaps) at all levels, from pre-K though post secondary. Of course she's also credentialed for Regular Ed K-8. She had lots more than two years of undergrad courses in education - in fact she took courses during summer sessions to graduate in four years rather than five. The only reason I have been moderately successful teaching human anatomy to pre-nursing students at a community college for the past couple of decades is her coaching on classroom management, assessment, and student engagement. She learned all of that, and more, at her "Teachers College." WRT military classes, yeah, the curriculum is good, because it's been designed by real teachers. (Also, the instructor doesn't have to worry about motivating a little fellow with ADD/ADHD whose parents are using him as a pawn in very nasty divorce proceedings.) YMMV, to be sure. fusilier James 2:24

Gaythia Weis · 29 March 2016

Scott F said: a better alternative than the status quo.
I agree with much of the evaluation of your wife. Certainly many attempts at educational reform, as interpreted by the educational establishment, turn out awful in many instances of actual set curriculum, practice guidelines and mechanisms for measurement and assessment. And there is a lot about University teaching practices, including teacher education, that are divorced from the world outside the academic bubble and also in need of reform. I am sure that there are states, and school districts that will use this new flexibility wisely, and put ESSA provided funding to very good use. And there certainly were problems under No Child Left Behind, that incentivised punitive measures against poorly performing schools. Which in turn punished teachers in poorly performing classrooms regardless of the reasons behind such poor performance. And led to pressures in teachers to teach to the tests. We need to work to see that the Common Core guidelines do not become just another educational fad, locking down new pedagogical dogma. Innovation expanding the framework of the guidelines needs to be actively encouraged. And, the Common Core standards, at this point, do not extend beyond English and Math. Social Studies and Science both being fraught with political controversy. But the purpose of these extensions of President Lydon Johnson's now 50 year old Elementary and Secondary Education Act was, and still ought to be, furthering our best efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for all students. across the nation. And in that regard, having some forms of accountability and baseline for teacher education and credentialing, and for educational standards is crucial. In particular, for the purposes of my post here at Panda's Thumb, what I believe needs to be emphasized is the strong need for vigilance as the usual suspects use any tool available to attempt to subvert the teaching of actual science.

Gaythia Weis · 29 March 2016

Scott F said: a better alternative than the status quo.
I agree with much of your wife's analysis. Certainly the educational system as provided by the Nation's Universities is as much in need of reform as that of the K-12 system. Common Core at this point only covers English and Math. Social Studies and Science being too fraught with controversy to for full development to have been enabled yet. See: http://www.corestandards.org/. I do believe that there are going to be many examples of states, local school districts, and individual teachers who are able to put the ESSA based Federal grant funding mechanisms to very good use. And there were many negative aspects to the previous No Child Left Behind Act which enabled very punitive actions against failing schools, teachers in those failing schools, and therefore encouraged teachers to "teach to the test". But these legislative acts are extensions of the now 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This originated in the Lyndon Johnson administration with the intention of furthering the expansion of equal educational opportunities for America's school children nationwide. The purpose of my post here at Panda's Thumb is to highlight what I see as the manner in which the ESSA limits the ability of the Federal government, and even state governments, to appropriate monitor the performance of schools. I think that that lack of accountability has many potentially negative aspects. But the one on which I hope to inspire vigilance on the part of Panda's Thumb readers is in guarding against the threat that the usual suspects can exploit aspects of the ESSA to thwart the teaching of science and to impose their religious dogma on schoolchildren.

Gaythia Weis · 29 March 2016

Gaythia Weis said:

How odd. You can test me for consistency. I thought that the first version was lost.

Flint · 30 March 2016

harold said: Incidentally, the significant problem in the US educational system is not (right now) the rare and, so far, never successful, creationist machinations that we protest against here. Of course we must be vigilant against them, but there are, in terms of the overall education system, bigger problems. It's the dichotomy in educational outcomes based on the average income of school districts. Across the US, middle and high income public school districts produce excellent results, including in science. Mediocre US education scores are virtually 100% due to the fact that in the US, students in poor districts score poorly. By a coincidence, or maybe not, our schools are funded by local property taxes.
This strikes me as quite misleading, because it implies that poor education can be "solved" by throwing lots of money at it. My reading is, this does not work. The students who perform best tend to be children of educated parents who appreciate the value of a good education and impart it to their kids (and pay close attention to what their kids are doing and learning in school). To be sure, poor districts are populated largely by uneducated people who tend to regard schools as free day-care. Moving those children (either through parental relocation or by busing) doesn't tend to improve their performance, except insofar as they then find themselves surrounded by classmates who take it seriously. Conversely, putting children of motivated parents into poor districts doesn't much reduce their performance. The quality of any child's education lies much more in the home than in the school. I have met quite a few families who regard public school as a burden to be suffered through before the kids can get out and GET A DAMN JOB! Those parents never saw much value in a high school education, and didn't rub elbows with anyone who had a college education (aka "those guys who get paid all the money while WE do the actual work.") Pouring money into schools in areas where these attitudes prevail, simply wastes money because money isn't the problem.

Rolf · 31 March 2016

We are born curious and playful, and that applies not only to 'us' but to all other animals as well. That's how we learn how to navigate and survive in the world. What kid isn't fascinated by the enormous dinosaurs, those incredible creatures of the past? Even the best birds are a poor substitute.

The best gift we can give our children is to kindle their curiosity and teach them the joy of learning to know, love and understand the world around us. Lego is fine, but T-Rex rules!

eric · 31 March 2016

Flint said: This strikes me as quite misleading, because it implies that poor education can be "solved" by throwing lots of money at it. My reading is, this does not work. The students who perform best tend to be children of educated parents who appreciate the value of a good education and impart it to their kids (and pay close attention to what their kids are doing and learning in school). To be sure, poor districts are populated largely by uneducated people who tend to regard schools as free day-care.
I think this is untrue and unfair. Yes I would agree that poorer parents probably on average direct their children to less educational play and may have them do more menial work compared to wealthier parents. But that's mostly because they have to. You can't buy Leapfrog pads or spend hours reading to your kid when you work 16 hours a day at two minimum wage jobs. When that's what you need to do just to make rent and put food on the table, your kid is going to get grandma-as-babysitter, TV, and maybe a set of legos for Christmas rather than family visits to the museum and theater. Likewise, the type of preschool/childcare you can afford is going to be much more limited because the government doesn't pay for that. My kid's preschool costs me more per year than my own undergraduate college education did;* I can guarantee you that no household earning less than $40k/year is sending their kid there, because they simply wouldn't be able to afford it. And this is going to set my kid up for success in elementary school, of course - he's going to be ahead of the curve. We already know this. Not because he's especially gifted or anything, but just because mommy and daddy could plonk down money on preschool for an effective education. Sure there are parents who don't value education. But I think you get it wrong to assume that the rich/poor divide in educational quality is about that. Its (IMO) far more about means than motivation. Wealthier parents have the means and time to provide positive educational experiences for their kids, spend a lot of quality time with them, etc. People working long hours and yet still living paycheck to paycheck do not. Which, IMO, makes it all the more important to ensure the state funds schools in low income areas as well as they fund schools in high income areas. Because for people like me, good public schooling adds to what I am able to give my kid due to my prosperity. For people with lower income and less letters by their name, the public school is the one and only basis their kid may have for education. *Nor is my kid's preschool particularly expensive. An exercise for any would be parents-to-be: calculate the annual cost of your child's preschool, assuming $15/hour (a typical pay for 'babysitting'), 6 hrs/day, 20 days/month, 10 month/year. It will shock you.

Michael Fugate · 31 March 2016

We have never thrown very much money into education - continually under-funded. If we were serious - and we aren't - we would train them well in both subject matter and pedagogy - it takes lots of training - and pay them lots of money; they are as important if not more so than physicians.

harold · 31 March 2016

Flint said:
harold said: Incidentally, the significant problem in the US educational system is not (right now) the rare and, so far, never successful, creationist machinations that we protest against here. Of course we must be vigilant against them, but there are, in terms of the overall education system, bigger problems. It's the dichotomy in educational outcomes based on the average income of school districts. Across the US, middle and high income public school districts produce excellent results, including in science. Mediocre US education scores are virtually 100% due to the fact that in the US, students in poor districts score poorly. By a coincidence, or maybe not, our schools are funded by local property taxes.
This strikes me as quite misleading, because it implies that poor education can be "solved" by throwing lots of money at it. My reading is, this does not work. The students who perform best tend to be children of educated parents who appreciate the value of a good education and impart it to their kids (and pay close attention to what their kids are doing and learning in school). To be sure, poor districts are populated largely by uneducated people who tend to regard schools as free day-care. Moving those children (either through parental relocation or by busing) doesn't tend to improve their performance, except insofar as they then find themselves surrounded by classmates who take it seriously. Conversely, putting children of motivated parents into poor districts doesn't much reduce their performance. The quality of any child's education lies much more in the home than in the school. I have met quite a few families who regard public school as a burden to be suffered through before the kids can get out and GET A DAMN JOB! Those parents never saw much value in a high school education, and didn't rub elbows with anyone who had a college education (aka "those guys who get paid all the money while WE do the actual work.") Pouring money into schools in areas where these attitudes prevail, simply wastes money because money isn't the problem.
A simple statement of a fact cannot be "misleading". If facts make people uncomfortable, that's too bad, but that facts themselves are not misleading. The US, more than other rich countries, has a dichotomous performance in its public school system, with districts where parental income is low doing much more poorly. The good news is, we know how to run a decent school system, because public schools that aren't in low income districts are doing very well by international standards. Even if students from lower income families do get a job the minute they graduate high school, or even if they drop out, it still serves society better to provide them with adequate education while they are in school. More money doesn't guarantee success, but lack of money guarantees failure. "Throwing money at schools" is an extreme Fox News straw man. My comment merely noted facts and did not advocate any solution. But it is clear that literally no-one is advocating undirected spending.

Flint · 31 March 2016

harold said: A simple statement of a fact cannot be "misleading". If facts make people uncomfortable, that's too bad, but that facts themselves are not misleading.
Half-truths are simple statements of fact. They are also misleading. Yes, nobody disputes that poor districts tend to have underperforming students. This naturally raises the issue of WHY this is the case. But anyway, you should know that creationists state "facts" all the time, carefully cherry-picked with an agenda. You should make your agenda clear.
The US, more than other rich countries, has a dichotomous performance in its public school system, with districts where parental income is low doing much more poorly. The good news is, we know how to run a decent school system, because public schools that aren't in low income districts are doing very well by international standards.
Yes, I agree. And I suggested that these neighborhoods are poor because the parents aren't well educated, and don't earn much. And such people tend not to regard education is all that important. A good education almost always requires parents who know what one is and demand their children take it seriously.
Even if students from lower income families do get a job the minute they graduate high school, or even if they drop out, it still serves society better to provide them with adequate education while they are in school.
Yes, of course. Problem is, too many of these parents don't realize that. Educated people tend to value education, and instill that value into their children. Money might be a long-term motivator to get better educated, but expensive schools full of kids from homes where education is seen as a temporary evil, aren't going to do well.
More money doesn't guarantee success, but lack of money guarantees failure.
Oh my no! Some of the very best (as well as some of the very worst) students are home-schooled. These parents are frequently not wealthy, but if they take their kids' educations seriously, they can turn out highly educated children. You are reversing cause and effect. The money doesn't cause good schooling, good schooling leads to good money.
"Throwing money at schools" is an extreme Fox News straw man.
This is not my experience, or my reading of this material. I've seen multiple experiments where poor inner-city schools have received grants to hire good teachers, buy expensive equipment, have smaller classrooms and more one-on-one time, etc. And STILL, all too often, the focus on the ground is in disarming the kids and stopping fights between gangs. I know you are not recommending undirected spending. But I think the problem of poor school systems is a cultural rather than a financial problem. I would certainly argue that poor school systems can be improved, perhaps enormously, with a realistic budget, decent administration, and a LOT more interaction between schools and parents. But money spent wisely doesn't often fix problems inextricably tangled with culture, economics, history, bigotry, apathy, broken homes, poverty, indifference and hopelessness. I'm not even sure increasing school budgets is the best place to start.

Flint · 31 March 2016

eric said:Sure there are parents who don't value education. But I think you get it wrong to assume that the rich/poor divide in educational quality is about that. Its (IMO) far more about means than motivation. Wealthier parents have the means and time to provide positive educational experiences for their kids, spend a lot of quality time with them, etc. People working long hours and yet still living paycheck to paycheck do not.
I don't know that we disagree here. In my world, few people with the means to fund a good school system, are as poorly educated as those whom poor school systems produce. Education generally means greater means, which means educated parents, who almost always take education seriously. So I'm arguing that, in the longer run, the motivation is what produced the means. If parents with means placed no value on their childrens' education, and the kids knew it, they wouldn't learn much. You sound here like exhibit A for my case: you CARE, and I'm confident your children will excel because of that. You don't need to be wealthy to care, but it's hard to be wealthy if your parents didn't care. (And I will note that our worlds are a bit different. You speak of parents who "direct their children to less educational play and may have them do more menial work." I'm speaking of the single mothers, with the unwanted children from multiple fathers, who have no interest in raising them and welcome the street gangs that provide them a home. And the gangs are deeply suspicious of the system, or anyone who values it at all. And generally, all of these people can see that those few who DO make the effort and suffer the ill treatment for doing so, have doors slammed in their faces after they graduate anyway, for reasons having nothing to do with the cost of their education.)

eric · 1 April 2016

Flint said: So I'm arguing that, in the longer run, the motivation is what produced the means.
No, it frakking doesn't. This is the great republican myth, that the poor are poor just because they don't want to work hard or get their kids a good education. Their poorness is a result of lack of motivation. Its IMO completely untrue. Someone could have motivation out the wazoo, ten times as much as I do, and if they're stuck in a menial job earning $15/hour, their kid will not be able to get the preschool education mine does. Period. End of story. Too bad so sad, someone in that position can work their ass off, they can put me to shame in the motivation department, and yet never be able to give their kid what I can give mine. Motivation will not supply the means. To put it in less angry, more academic terms, motivation may be a necessary condition for success in life, but it isn't a sufficient one. Hollywood, college varsity teams, most professional offices, and college application pools are full of extremely motivated, highly qualified people, only a very few of whom will advance over their competitors. And their advancement over those equally motivated and qualified competitors will be in some large part due to luck or factors beyond their control. We do not get what we deserve in this life, and someone being poor (i.e., lacking means) does not necessarily reflect a lack of motivation. And the fact that we live in this sort of cynical reality, the fact that 'we get what we deserve' is a myth more than a reality, is precisely why a good public education for all people regardless of means (along with other social programs) are such a good idea. Because if we give the means to these parents who have strong motivation but nevertheless lack the means - a group which, from your last post to Harold, it appears you discount as less large or important compared to the 'unmotivated' poor, and yet which IMO comprises the majority of the poor - their kids will do great. To paraphrase Harold, a well-funded or well-equipped education system may not guarantee success, but the lack of it can guarantee failure. Because you're wrong, being motivated about your kid's education is simply not typically enough to supply the means for your kid's education.
I'm speaking of the single mothers, with the unwanted children from multiple fathers, who have no interest in raising them and welcome the street gangs that provide them a home.
I know exactly how you're characterizing the poor. The difference is, you see the above example as representative of poor poeple and the counter-example of a hard-working, motivated poor person doing everything they can to raise good kids - yet still failing, because the world rarely rewards people in direct proportion to what they deserve - as the rare exception. Which I think is wildly, utterly wrong; the hard-working motivated poor are the majority, the person you describe above is the extremely rare exception.

Robin · 1 April 2016

As an anecdote to Eric's point, my parents really kind of think of poorness in most cases as a character flaw. They really do believe that a majority of poor people want to mooch off the government (and, by association, them). My mom kept sending me this video from Fox News of this bozo twenty-something surfer dood who admitted to eating lobster and steak on his food stamps (and other abuses of government benefits) and kept insisting that he was representative of the problem with our welfare programs. My father really believes that some mythical welfare woman with three kids, no husband, and no job making something on the order of $70,000 per year is what all welfare recipients are. That may not be representative of all republicans, but I know where I live (outside Washington DC) it's not an uncommon view.

Flint · 2 April 2016

eric said:
Flint said: So I'm arguing that, in the longer run, the motivation is what produced the means.
No, it frakking doesn't. This is the great republican myth, that the poor are poor just because they don't want to work hard or get their kids a good education. Their poorness is a result of lack of motivation.
Nope, I regard that myth as pure bullshit. You are kneejerk reacting to a caricature of what "conservatives" think, rather than to what I'm trying to say. Try setting your ideology aside long enough to consider the nature of the problem. It is NOT purely, or directly, a financial problem.
Its IMO completely untrue. Someone could have motivation out the wazoo, ten times as much as I do, and if they're stuck in a menial job earning $15/hour, their kid will not be able to get the preschool education mine does. Period. End of story.
Granted, parents need to take their kids' educations seriously, or nothing will improve. In your scenario, you have a single parent, earning very little, with neither the remaining time nor energy to pay the necessary close attention. Yes, this is a shame. No, pouring money into the school system will NOT buy the parent the time and energy required. And incidentally, studies have consistently shown that the headstart from even the best preschool programs fades out by the second grade at the latest.
Too bad so sad, someone in that position can work their ass off, they can put me to shame in the motivation department, and yet never be able to give their kid what I can give mine. Motivation will not supply the means.
Baloney. A child's interest in education, his curiosity, his proximate rewards for learning are not purchased. How much does it cost to say "what did you learn in school today? Hey, that's great. Now, how about this? See where this can go?" Good parents make learning exciting. Indifferent parents make school a purgatory.
To put it in less angry, more academic terms, motivation may be a necessary condition for success in life, but it isn't a sufficient one.
Yes, I agree. Motivation alone isn't sufficient. Money alone isn't sufficient either. As I said (and you ignored), we are dealing here with cultural issues, which are partly economic, partly historical, partly institutional, partly racial. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it SOUNDS like you are saying, "if government policies resulted in amply funded public education programs in districts that are now doing poorly, these districts will do well." And this is at best only a little bit true. Take a thousand kids of well-educated parents, prohibit those parents from putting any money into their educational system, provide lousy teachers, and the kids will STILL do well, because their peers and their parents believe in doing well. Take those same kids and stick them into a system where parents are too busy to care, where doing well in school is punished by their peers, inject tons of money for small classes and individual computers and instruction, and see what happens.
Hollywood, college varsity teams, most professional offices, and college application pools are full of extremely motivated, highly qualified people, only a very few of whom will advance over their competitors.
Yes, competition can be fierce. You probably won't find ANY products of our failing schools in these teams, offices, and pools.
And their advancement over those equally motivated and qualified competitors will be in some large part due to luck or factors beyond their control. We do not get what we deserve in this life, and someone being poor (i.e., lacking means) does not necessarily reflect a lack of motivation.
I agree. When we're looking at competition among the top graduates of the most outstanding schools, where EVERYONE is pulling down a damn good salary, further advancement often depends on a combination of who you know, and luckily being in the right place at the right time.
And the fact that we live in this sort of cynical reality, the fact that 'we get what we deserve' is a myth more than a reality, is precisely why a good public education for all people regardless of means (along with other social programs) are such a good idea.
Sure, but you are wandering off topic here. Nobody WANTS anyone to suffer a lousy education. The question isn't whether that's a good thing, the question is why it's happening and what we can do about it.
Because if we give the means to these parents who have strong motivation but nevertheless lack the means - a group which, from your last post to Harold, it appears you discount as less large or important compared to the 'unmotivated' poor, and yet which IMO comprises the majority of the poor - their kids will do great.
Sigh. Yes, yes, yes, IF the parents are educated, IF they pass this value to their children, IF the children are surrounded by other children who share this value, and IF everyone is motivated to do well, then probably better school funding will produce better schools. Money will NOT motivate children whose parents don't value education and whose peers mock anyone who tries to learn.
To paraphrase Harold, a well-funded or well-equipped education system may not guarantee success, but the lack of it can guarantee failure. Because you're wrong, being motivated about your kid's education is simply not typically enough to supply the means for your kid's education.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Many great and famous people were educated in 1-room schoolhouses, by people themselves uneducated. The desire to learn is paramount. Where that desire is absent, for whatever reason, you have failure regardless of funding.
I know exactly how you're characterizing the poor. The difference is, you see the above example as representative of poor poeple and the counter-example of a hard-working, motivated poor person doing everything they can to raise good kids - yet still failing, because the world rarely rewards people in direct proportion to what they deserve - as the rare exception. Which I think is wildly, utterly wrong; the hard-working motivated poor are the majority, the person you describe above is the extremely rare exception.
Dream on. I'm describing the norm, your "majority" person exists largely in your ideology, not in reality. But I can recognize the futility of talking to someone who has never been there, and who prefers to believe that parental and peer interest can be purchased by boosting funding for school systems. Sure, money helps. Money can open plenty of doors for those who care to go through them. Money will NOT buy that care. And let me try to get the politics straightened out a bit. Progressives seem to think that if only we could stop wasting money on wars and armies and weapons and instead focus it on building a good properly-funded educational system, this country would be far better off. Conservatives seem to think that nobody is poor or remains poor who truly wishes to be better off, and is willing to do what is required to rise economically. Reduced to slogans, these positions amount to "money can buy good educations" and "the poor are content to be poor." Both of these are hopeless oversimplifications. At the risk of political incorrectness, I will ask WHY some ethnic groups start out mired in poverty, but manage within a generation or two to excel and overpopulate the best grad schools, while other ethnic groups remain poor and uneducated for a dozen generations. Do you seriously argue that inner-city Asian ghetto schools are all that much better funded than inner-city black ghetto schools? That Asian parents (who can't even speak the native language and have no marketable skills) have such greater wealth and means than black parents (who DO speak the native language)? So WHY the vast difference in their educational attainments? Hint: money it ain't.

Flint · 2 April 2016

Robin said: As an anecdote to Eric's point, my parents really kind of think of poorness in most cases as a character flaw. They really do believe that a majority of poor people want to mooch off the government (and, by association, them). My mom kept sending me this video from Fox News of this bozo twenty-something surfer dood who admitted to eating lobster and steak on his food stamps (and other abuses of government benefits) and kept insisting that he was representative of the problem with our welfare programs. My father really believes that some mythical welfare woman with three kids, no husband, and no job making something on the order of $70,000 per year is what all welfare recipients are. That may not be representative of all republicans, but I know where I live (outside Washington DC) it's not an uncommon view.
And I understand as well as you do that this absurd caricature doesn't actually exist in the Real World. I was mildly surprised to learn that over a 5 year period, fully 80% of those in the bottom 20% economically, had been replaced by others. And something like 10% of those who HAD been in the bottom 20%, were (after 5 years) now in the TOP 20%. "The poor", if defined as the bottom 20% economically, has thorough and rapid turnover. The Great Recession temporarily shifted me from the top to the bottom 20%. And even though I'm 70 years old, I've left the bottom 20% and will keep moving up again. Some of which is due to "free" educational programs, to be sure. And some of which is due to willingness to take advantage of them. Now, if we correct your parents' caricature, we in fact DO find that it's possible to subsist, if just barely, on handouts today. And of course there are people engaged in scams. There is also an underground economy (plenty of people working for undetectable cash, and dealing drugs). I personally know several people who chose to remain unemployed because the minimum wage was such a tiny improvement over unemployment benefits that "why work 40 hours a week for a net 10 cents an hour." The argument that if you work hard for couple months you'll make a lot more is lost on people looking at what career door greeters at WalMart make. In the cold outside world, as eric says, things are highly unfair. And the unfairness is NOT random. There is always the human tendency to believe that one EARNED what one has, but one was DENIED BY OTHERS what one doesn't have. In college, this comes out as "I earned an A in this class, but he gave me a D in that class. But we should admit that certain people ARE given low grades for reasons beyond their control. I'm willing to bet that if your parents should fall on hard times, they will never think it might be their fault at all.

phhht · 2 April 2016

Flint said: I was mildly surprised to learn that over a 5 year period, fully 80% of those in the bottom 20% economically, had been replaced by others. And something like 10% of those who HAD been in the bottom 20%, were (after 5 years) now in the TOP 20%. "The poor", if defined as the bottom 20% economically, has thorough and rapid turnover.
Source? I ask because the Wikipedia article on socioeconomic mobility mentions no such figures. Indeed, it says "43% of children born into the bottom quintile remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile will remain there as adults. Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults."

Flint · 2 April 2016

phhht said:
Flint said: I was mildly surprised to learn that over a 5 year period, fully 80% of those in the bottom 20% economically, had been replaced by others. And something like 10% of those who HAD been in the bottom 20%, were (after 5 years) now in the TOP 20%. "The poor", if defined as the bottom 20% economically, has thorough and rapid turnover.
Source? I ask because the Wikipedia article on socioeconomic mobility mentions no such figures. Indeed, it says "43% of children born into the bottom quintile remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile will remain there as adults. Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults."
This came from a fairly lengthy article I read in the WSJ. And yes, I know they have their own axe to grind. This may be a case of lying with statistics, since the WSJ didn't represent the data quite the same way. Asking "how many people born in a quintile remain there as adults?" is somewhat different from asking "what percentage of people within a quintile today were in it 5 years ago?" As I read it, the keyword here is "raised". My interpretation of these various data-slicings is that quintiles are composed of both low and high mobility people. The WSJ, I think, focused more on high mobility individuals. So it's possible that BOTH "4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults" and that "10% of those in the top (or bottom) quintile at time T had moved to the bottom (or top)quintile at time T1" can be true. All of which, I hope we both understand, is HIGHLY culture dependent. If we're talking about Asians, 43% being born into the bottom quintile and staying there as adults is probably unrealistically high. If we're talking blacks and Hispanics, it seems low. So WHY is socioeconomic mobility so much more positive for Asians than for blacks? Clearly, money per public school student isn't the answer. So what is it? (And part of it really IS stereotype expectations. But the actual situation is complex beyond what I can boil down into a few words. Clarence Thomas, as I understand it, got EVERY ONE of his advantages through affirmative action - his college acceptance, his college curriculum, his law school admission, his judicial appointment, and eventually (due to his politics as well as his color) his SCOTUS position. Clearly, he sincerely believes that he needed NONE of those benefits on the merits, being himself brilliant and motivated. And that MIGHT be true, but if he were white, would he have achieved any of that on any demonstrated merits ever since? So we have to ask ourselves -- did a deserving man achieve high office by benefit of a bureaucratically-mandated color blind system, or did a system distorted by good intentions place a mediocrity in a position of power? When we read of the efforts to elevate blacks, or Catholics, or liberals, or women in order to put checks into checkboxes, does merit matter?) Anyway, back to your good question, since there will ALWAYS be a bottom quintile, do we prefer high or low mobility among quintiles? Neither the WSJ nor Wikipedia discusses movement of the ENTIRE bottom quintile relative to some "objective" standard. ANYWAY, I want to make something clear to you and eric and Harold: I think education is key. I sincerely believe that the way to a higher quality of life for everyone, according to every metric of quality, is education. What we want is people who KNOW a lot and who are able to think about what they know, and able to add to human knowledge. I think the process starts when we're very young and never stops. I don't think the public school system, by itself, is either the problem or the answer. It's a potentially valuable tool. But I believe the proper starting point is in the home, the family, the parents, and the social values believed and accepted there. In this respect, I may be like the fundamentalists, except I regard knowledge and understanding as the appropriate family values, rather than bigotry and xenophobia.

phhht · 2 April 2016

Flint said: This came from a fairly lengthy article I read in the WSJ.
Reference?
If we’re talking about Asians, 43% being born into the bottom quintile and staying there as adults is probably unrealistically high. If we’re talking blacks and Hispanics, it seems low.
Source?

stevaroni · 2 April 2016

Flint said: And I understand as well as you do that this absurd caricature doesn't actually exist in the Real World. I was mildly surprised to learn that over a 5 year period, fully 80% of those in the bottom 20% economically, had been replaced by others. And something like 10% of those who HAD been in the bottom 20%, were (after 5 years) now in the TOP 20%. "The poor", if defined as the bottom 20% economically, has thorough and rapid turnover.
Um... so it's your assertion that the populations of, say, West Virginia and Silicon Valley change places every year or so and this somehow goes unnoticed by the rest of us.

aehchua · 2 April 2016

Anyone in education knows socioeconomic status (not teaching) is the biggest predictor of success. Just go to Academic Search Premier and search for "SES" and notice how just about every quantitative measure of education includes SES as a factor. For a good discussion of this, look up Stephen Leavitt's writings- his Freakonomics series of books is pretty easy to read.

I'd also point you to http://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-early-education-come-way-too-late-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ which was an interesting take on the issue. The argument was the best way to improve student learning was not teach the students- it was to teach the parents how to teach the students. Basically, the hypothesis (which was supported for whites, and hispanics, but not blacks) is that the parent is the most important element in the child's educational attainment, NOT the teacher or school.

eric · 2 April 2016

Flint said: And I understand as well as you do that this absurd caricature doesn't actually exist in the Real World. I was mildly surprised to learn that over a 5 year period, fully 80% of those in the bottom 20% economically, had been replaced by others. And something like 10% of those who HAD been in the bottom 20%, were (after 5 years) now in the TOP 20%e
The irony of you quoting these numbers is that, while others have taken serious issue with them, if you believe them, they utterly undermine your position. You've got such a bias going you can't see how your own data destroys your point. More on that bias later. For now: a lower quartile that is composed of different people every year is a clear indication that the people in it are in it for external reasons such a bad luck, an injury, economy producing layoffs, etc., and not internal/character reasons such as laziness or lack of motivation. If you were right and the poor consisted of welfare mothers happily living off baby daddys and the government dime with no intention of ever working, the quartile wouldn't switch. So congrats, your data blows up your stereotype. Nice job.
Baloney. A child’s interest in education, his curiosity, his proximate rewards for learning are not purchased.
Sure they are, because money is mostly fungible. I purchase my child's interest in education by having a good job that allows me ~4-8 hours/day off of work to spend with him, plus extra money after necessities to give him wonderful and interesting experiences. I purchase it by being able to afford a house in a safe and crime-free neighborhood so that extraneous safety concerns don't limit his experience. These purcahses and similar things are not available to lower working class people.
In the cold outside world, as eric says, things are highly unfair. And the unfairness is NOT random. There is always the human tendency to believe that one EARNED what one has, but one was DENIED BY OTHERS what one doesn't have.
This is called the attribution bias, it works in another way too, and you have that other side of the attribution bias in spades. The flip side is to unfairly and unwarrantly assume that in the case of people you don't empathize with, their failures are a result of internal factors (desires, motivation, etc.) and their successes are more due to externalities. Everyone has both sides of this bias to some extent; the unconscious assumption that what *I* got by hard work, *he* got by luck, and conversely *my* setbacks are mostly bad luck while *his* are due to not working hard enough. And the latter? Look in the mirror, its exactly what you're doing; without any hard data on individual motivation at all (and while simultaneously quoting data that undermines your point!!!), your natural bias and inclination is to assume that if someone ends up poor, it's for internal reasons. The most neutral, unbiased position is to assume that you and I are not particularly exceptional examples of the human race; we're not outliers. In cosmology this is referred to as the Copernican principal (the Earth is not in a privileged position in the universe) and in philosophy the mediocrity principle (a random pull from any group is unlikely to be an outlier). Thus we should expect that regardless of someone else's socioeconomic status, they care about as much about their kids education as you and I do. They are just as motivated to secure a prosperous future for their kids. They are equally hard working as us (and equally lazy!), and so on. The only place we should recognize ourselves as exceptional is where we have solid data for that, and there is one particular area where we can do that: accident of birth. We are exceptional in that we were lucky enough to be born into families in middle (or above class) of the modern west. Which means we started out in about the top 10-20% of wealthiest humans on the planet. In that respect, we are exceptional; we gut more lucky in our birth situation than a significant majority of humanity. The most exceptional quality about you, Flint, is you started off ahead of 90% of humanity. And you call the result of this good start earned!

TomS · 2 April 2016

I've heard ads which tell parents things like, "Talk to you kids. That builds vocabulary." I assume that this means that there are parents who need to hear that.

Dave Luckett · 3 April 2016

I don't believe that is a safe assumption, TomS. The safe assumption is that whoever commissioned and purchased those ads thinks that there are parents who need to hear that. How right they are to think that is another question.

harold · 3 April 2016

Others have mainly addressed Flint's comments, but there are a couple of points I think need special attention. Although my main point is to further lambaste Flint by picking out bits that I think haven't yet been trounced enough, I will close on a point of agreement.
Yes, of course. Problem is, too many of these parents don’t realize that. Educated people tend to value education, and instill that value into their children. Money might be a long-term motivator to get better educated, but expensive schools full of kids from homes where education is seen as a temporary evil, aren’t going to do well.
Of course well-off educated parents will tend to educate their children. That isn't good enough for a modern society. Our society needs an educated population for economic development and national defense. Children don't choose their parents. To fatalistically declare that a child can't be educated because their parents didn't value education is insanity. But then there's this...
Oh my no! Some of the very best (as well as some of the very worst) students are home-schooled. These parents are frequently not wealthy, but if they take their kids’ educations seriously, they can turn out highly educated children. You are reversing cause and effect. The money doesn’t cause good schooling, good schooling leads to good money.
Home schooling is the most expensive possible method of education, and that's obvious. Just the labor opportunity cost alone - one parent working as a full time teacher. Materials are also much more expensive when purchased in low amounts. The fact that some parents do a terrible job doesn't change the fact that they're doing an expensive job. It's easy to understand this when you consider the equivalent without opportunity cost - hiring a full time tutor for your children and buying all the materials yourself. That's what nobles used to do. That's why what we call a "private school" here is a "public school" in England. "Public" in the sense that you can go there if you meet the standards and can pay the fees, and the costs are divided among many families. As opposed to a true "private" school in the home of an aristocrat, which is not open to the public regardless of individual aptitude or financial resources, and which is funded entirely by one family. The very point of public schools is to make education affordable. It's true that we have to transport children to public schools and we have to maintain the school buildings, but compared to the cost of an adequate home school education for every child this is peanuts.
I don’t think the public school system, by itself, is either the problem or the answer. It’s a potentially valuable tool. But I believe the proper starting point is in the home, the family, the parents, and the social values believed and accepted there.
No-one in their right mind would deny that importance of the family environment. However, fatalism is often a rationalization. You can't change the "social values" of the parents. Public education is the method we have.
Progressives seem to think that if only we could stop wasting money on wars and armies and weapons and instead focus it on building a good properly-funded educational system, this country would be far better off. Conservatives seem to think that nobody is poor or remains poor who truly wishes to be better off, and is willing to do what is required to rise economically. Reduced to slogans, these positions amount to “money can buy good educations” and “the poor are content to be poor.” Both of these are hopeless oversimplifications.
Actually, it's obviously true that if we could stop wasting money on war and armies and weapons and instead focus on education, this world would be far better off. That's not an oversimplification. Just because it's really, really obvious doesn't make it an oversimplification. We need national defense and probably always will because we're aggressive primates and somebody will always get the idea to attack somebody else in some way, but we need efficient national defense that counters actual threats, not crony capitalism disguised as "defense spending", and pathetic, amoral failed adventurism against poor countries that always successfully resist us as some kind of lame national viagra that doesn't even work. Moving on to a point of strong agreement, though -
In this respect, I may be like the fundamentalists, except I regard knowledge and understanding as the appropriate family values
I completely agree. But someone somewhere has to be the first member of the family to adopt that value. If it was a long ago ancestor in ancient China, lucky for that family. However, just because a family doesn't currently have those values does not mean that a child might not pick them up and change the future family dynamic. Families don't exist in a vacuum. Not everyone who has children is perfectly engaged with their education, but society can provide some counter-balance.

Michael Fugate · 4 April 2016

As Jim Hightower said about President Bush - "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."