It’s not the system. If you have parents that are involved in education and engage in the kind of child-rearing, that is conducive to education - it doesn’t matter the kind of system you’re operating under (keep in mind, our bar for success is very low - we want kids that graduate high-school to be functionally literate with basic arithmetic and basic general knowledge).
Put another way, if a child graduates and they are functionally illiterate, I don’t care how bad California’s public education is, the fault lays with the parents for letting their child be illiterate.
My parents were straight D/F students and never helped me with classes at all. I would’ve appreciated help that would’ve let me go farther, but that’s at a point well past algebra.
Parents are part of the problem, but it seems like we’re just desperately trying to pin the responsibility on one specific person in the child’s life and put it out of their personal responsibility. That’s not the case. Some kids get everything they need to succeed provided for them and have plenty of assistance and choose to fail. Some have nothing but barriers put all around them and they still bust their ass to succeed.
Today we are graduating an unacceptably large numbers of functional illiterate kids from high school. If a kid graduates high school and they are functionally illiterate, that illustrates neglect by parents over many years. It has nothing to do with the academic background of said parents or whether they themselves can read or write. It has nothing to do with the state of public education, or the quality of teachers - the public system is good enough to teach literacy over 15 years of schooling. The quality of the public system may be important for the last mile of education (where you’re trying to provide kids a richer educational experience), but our bar for success is much much lower.
Put another way, you cannot convince me that the parents are not at fault when a kid can’t read or write after 15 years of education (after having sampled many many teachers and teaching styles, including summer school and remedial education, during that time).
The kid is the one in class choosing not to read. Parents can be destructive influences on kids, but kids also do have free will and destructive influences amongst their peers who they choose to associate with.
It’s a compounding problem and each time we assign blame to one (1) thing, we’re leaving other causes untreated and not making the problem better at all.
I’d say ask find out why they’re saying they don’t want to read and address all those causes.
There are plenty of kids with great parents who are surrounded by awful peers at school and media that glorifies being uneducated. Then you leave 2 bad kids in a class of good kids, and you’ll get endless distractions that cause the others to give up and resent school. You address just one cause and you have countless others. You need to go after a load of issues and it’s honestly more complicated than we want to admit.
If you pin every responsibility to the parents you are just leaving unlucky kids behind. Having someone to blame is not helping kids succeed without much support from the parents. Of course someone will always succeed despite the odds, but the odds are still stacked agains the poor kid. It just entrenches wealth and slows down social mobility.
What's the fix? More support from the state of course.
It really is a task for the society compared to the individual, otherwise you will never ever ever have a fair system. Success in schools should not be so dependent on the parents. What about single parents? Do you just accept that it will be miserable for them to get their kids trough school? Parents without a lot of education will also have a problem of helping their kids. And what about those kids? Will you just leave them behind? It's not their fault they are born in the wrong family. This is just a take I would just really not agree with.
> More support from the state of course … Success in schools should not be so dependent on the parents
That’s the current theory and it fails. The reality is that public eduction is education at (massive) scale. There is no amount of available resources to create, say, a personalized learning environment with dedicated teachers for individual students - when you’re dealing with millions, or tens of millions of students. Parental involvement is so critical because that is the individualized focus that is needed by kids.
There is no way for you to create a public system that overcomes the success that comes out of parents who are involved and invested in their child’s education. No way.
I do not see such evidence, maybe it fails in san francisco but that can have thousands of reasons. Everything I've read here points me to the fact that the public education is not good/comprehensive enough and too inflexible. I am honestly a bit shocked what i've read here, this is definitely not my experience with public education, like not at all. San francisco is rich, people make a lot of money there. There is no excuse why public education should not excel. I bet every major politician has his kids on a private school and also every other decision maker.
> There is no way for you to create a public system that overcomes the success that comes out of parents who are involved and invested in their child’s education
This is not exactly what I said. It is probably impossible in practice to eliminate this advantage. But while impossible to eliminate, you can try to minimise it and you should. It's the only fair thing to do because kids can't choose their parents. I would go further, it's the only ethical thing to do.
> Everything I've read here points me to the fact that the public education is not good/comprehensive enough and too inflexible.
Well … yeah. It’s education at scale. Anything at scale will be inflexible by definition.
> San francisco is rich, people make a lot of money there.
And there’s a lot of funding. The median per student funding in the SF school board is something on the order of 2 or 3 times the median US funding (a quick Google shows ~$22k vs $7k) and when compared to global averages, it’s through the roof. It’s not the level of funding. It’s not even the administration and curriculum either (remember, our bar is very low - we just want kids that can read when they graduate).
The way I figure, optimizing public education is a last-mile problem. There is value in taking kids from a B to an A, or providing a more enriching educational experience. So don’t think I’m arguing against more funding and better management. But this isn’t going to solve the core issue - parental neglect (and it is neglect if a kid graduates high school illiterate). At scale, the state cannot make up for that kind of neglect. In fact, that’s a big reason why you see the divide growing - everything that is tried, just ends up marginally improving or marginally deteriorating educational experience of kids who are already doing reasonably well.
> But while impossible to eliminate, you can try to minimise it and you should.
And my argument is, we’ve largely hit the limit on this kind of optimization. Spending more, and/or changing the curriculum with the same cohort of teachers, isn’t going to give you anything better than trivial (at best) improvements.
> Well … yeah. It’s education at scale. Anything at scale will be inflexible by definition.
Maybe agree to disagree because I don't see that.
> ~$22k
wow...this is honestly insane. I wonder how many full-time teacher positions per class this could afford. What's the most comprehensive schools education you can get there? In germany there's been the recent rise of all-day options at schools (school until 4pm covering lessons, homework and studying for exams and optional topics like school orchestra or more intense sports). 22k should pay for that and this would help overworked or overwhelmed parents. My girlfriend and her sister was raised by a single mother and went to one when it was still the exception (roughly ~40% are enrolling at all day schools right now, but it really started nation wide ~2002). It was quite different to my experience at a "normal" school class. She liked it.
I struggle to imagine how you can raise two daughters, work a full time job in a competitive housing market (so you can't really reduce your hours because the rent is high) while finding the time to invest enough time into the education of your children. At least the amount of time my parents have put in would be straight up impossible (one was working full time, the other reduced to 50% so afternoons there was always one present at home).
It’s not the system. If you have parents that are involved in education and engage in the kind of child-rearing, that is conducive to education - it doesn’t matter the kind of system you’re operating under (keep in mind, our bar for success is very low - we want kids that graduate high-school to be functionally literate with basic arithmetic and basic general knowledge).
Put another way, if a child graduates and they are functionally illiterate, I don’t care how bad California’s public education is, the fault lays with the parents for letting their child be illiterate.