[ams6110]

Inner city school. First of all they often have basic infrastructure issues: leaky roofs, poorly- or non-working heat, rodent and insect infestations. OK those things are in theory correctable.

Secondly is the demographics. Inner city kids are often from low-income single-parent homes, living with foster parents or extended relatives, moving a couple of times a year, one or both parents may be incarcerated. Being around substance abusers is another big problem. Education is really low on the list of things they or their parents care about. And it's impossible to fix that at school.

[c06n]

Would you say that once (a part of a) society is broken, it's broken for good? And that we would have to "transfer" people out of it if they are to have a future?

[rayiner]

I wouldn't say broken for good, but I would say that education isn't the solution for what is fundamentally a social problem. In D.C., the public school district spends $30,000 per student (only slightly less than tuition at Sidwell Friends, where the Obamas send their kids). Many of the buildings are beautiful. And school performance is a disaster, because the vast majority of the families are low-income. Better schools and more qualified teachers are never going to fix their problems. It'd be better to just take a third of that money and write each kid a $10,000 check every year.

[ams6110]

I hope it's not broken for good, but I do maintain that in this example it's not something that teachers or schools are going to be able to rectify. And I agree that pragmatically, when you have one bright kid among 100 heathens, the best thing you can do for that kid is get her someplace where she can learn something.