[darkroasted]

There is a problem with how parents are involved with their kids education.

This is being too harsh on parents. My parents were very much involved with my own brother's education. They tutored him, got him extra help, set up incentives, etc, etc. But he still did far worse than me. Meanwhile they had to pull me away from the books. I never got help with math homework because I never had any trouble with it. School just came naturally to me. I was just born much smarter than my brother. My parents never had to pressure me to learn programming, I picked it up because it was fun and I was good at it. Heck, I taught myself calculus because I found the problem solving fun.

And I see this observation over and over again. If a person is naturally good at cognitive work, sooner or later they will go whole hog on learning some economically useful cognitive skills. If a person is just naturally a bit slower, it will always be an uphill battle.

These personal observations are corroborated by adoption studies and twin studies. Twins raised separately end up closer together than non-twins raised together. Adopted children end up closer to their biological parents than their adopted parents. Etc. (sources; http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023048987045774784... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influ... )

[humanrebar]

> This is being too harsh on parents.

You're looking on the wrong end of the spectrum. The thought is that kids with uninvolved parents tend to have external distractions, behavioral problems, an unwillingness to do homework, underage pregnancies, etc.

[ThomPete]

Wasn't my intent to be harsh on parents. I am simply saying that involved parents on average means more involved children who will then learn more.

Of course there are kids who just learn naturally but they aren't a part of the problem the article is discussing and there are parents who aren't involved in their childrens education.