[M3L0NM4N]

The number 1 predictor of educational outcome is IQ by a long shot, which is hardly affected by any of the factors you listed. Yes, high IQ kids usually have high IQ parents who are likely to prevent those things, partly because they are likely high income, but none of those are as important as how smart the child is.

[thewebguyd]

The heritability of IQ actually changes based on wealth, so its the other way around. A child from a wealthy family will reach their potential, where one from a poorer family will not. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14629696/)

A child may have the genetic potential but never reach their potential because of outside factors. One's environment shapes one's brain development.

That's why equity is just as important as equality in education. Equity is understanding that children start from different circumstances and may need specific support to actually reach their potential.

Although the biggest factor here would just be for society to make sure no child has an upbringing where food, shelter, other lack of resources are a problem.

[scarmig]

That mistakes the point of education. Schools do not exist to fix every social problem, and demanding they treat fixing every social problem as their number one priority is how we got into this mess of "teach nothing but make sure everyone passes" in the first place.

[hedora]

Yes, but back when California was poorer, it had some of the best schools in the nation. Now that it's richer, the schools are collapsing, so it's really hard to argue that systematic social problems are the root cause.

[Danox]

in comparison to what part of the country because if you have kids, you probably want to be somewhere on the West Coast or somewhere in the northeast if you want your kids to have a better education most of the best schools secondary are in those two areas, and if you are different, speak another language there are whole areas of the country. You definitely don’t want to be in if you have kids.

[ses1984]

The only thing that changed is that California got richer, and it just so happens that wealth was evenly distributed.

How convenient.

[dnautics]

california spends about ~2.5k more per pupil in low income districts than high income districts.

https://www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-publi...

[ses1984]

I’m not sure what this has to do with the assertion above.

[blt]

California is among the US states with the highest income inequality.

[mrgoldenbrown]

Ideally, schools shouldn't have to fix every social problem, but in practice, in modern day America, schools are stuck being the backstop. Schools shouldn't have to provide breakfast to kids, but they do because we keep cutting SNAP and other basic assistance programs. So schools need to pick up the slack, because you can't teach a kid if they're starving.

[59percentmore]

>Schools do not exist to fix every social problem

By law, they monopolize up to half of a child's waking life for more than half of the year. This time commitment requires that parents put at least one meal, a substantial portion of the child's physical development, and almost all of their intellectual development (and, by extension, a substantial portion of their behavioral development) in the hands of the school.

If educational institutions are not taking seriously their potential influence on the social outcomes of their students, they're completely misunderstanding the practical mantle they've taken on. And so have you.

[scarmig]

That's one philosophy, sure. My philosophy is that schools that graduate students who are illiterate and innumerate have failed, no matter what rhetoric they put out about equity and social problems.

(There are limited situations where it does make sense, logistically, for schools to provision social services. E.g. meals for students who don't have access to steady food sources. But those are relatively uncontroversial, as opposed to curricular and classroom management practices that make sacrifices of schools' educational integrity for a theoretical goal of equity, while failing to even deliver that.)

[thewebguyd]

> schools that graduate students who are illiterate and innumerate have failed

I don't disagree.

But at the same time, it's also important to ask: was that child offered to learn and apply themselves in the same, stable environment as a child from a more wealthy upbringing? If the answer is no, that child was done a disservice. If the answer is yes, and they still fail, obviously don't graduate them...

The goal shouldn't ever be "Just pass everyone" it should be making sure that every child has the same opportunity and circumstances to succeed.

[chasd00]

> every child has the same opportunity and circumstances to succeed.

If you’re 18 and can’t read/write/math there is no opportunity to succeed, giving them a diploma doesn’t change that. At some point the child is just out of time no matter the circumstance.

[59percentmore]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that, "A school shouldn't pass students who haven't attained grade-level mastery," and, "Schools have an obligation to support the development of children beyond their basic academic achievement," were mutually exclusive. I certainly didn't state that.

[stogot]

Not only failed, but then commit a fraudulent activity to cover up their sins leading to a systemic destruction of society and theft of taxes

[thewebguyd]

I said "society" not "schools." No, schools do not exist to fix every social problem.

But my point was that wealth = a child more likely to reach their potential. That's a real gap, and a real social problem that needs addressed, by the powers (government) capable of addressing it.

However, schools do have a duty to provide a safe and conducive environment for education. Many don't offer that. Many have meals that are inadequate, many have a bullying problem that schools refuse to address, many care more about their sports stars than they do providing equal opportunity for education, etc.

[borski]

> A child from a wealthy family will reach their potential, where one from a poorer family will not.

may not. I’m not just being pedantic; it’s very important to recognize that being impoverished is not the same as being incapable.

But it does mean you’re living life on hard mode.

[M3L0NM4N]

This is far from proven fact. There are studies that show this effect, and there are studies that disagree. I can certainly see the argument for it being true in extremely Low-SES evnironments, but I don't believe this is true for the vast majority of Americans, and certainly isn't why California schools have such poor outcomes.

[tracker1]

Most people are pretty average and plenty of average people make it through a typical Bachelors program just fine.

While there may be some concepts that some will struggle with or unable to handle, the VAST majority of school comes down to the effort an individual puts in. You won't pass with zero effort. Some may be able to skate by with less effort because they can reason better, but in the end it will always come down to effort put in.

If you are not high IQ, that means you need to put more effort if you want to get "straight A's"... it is emphatically not an excuse to give up, not try or lower standards. I say this as someone somewhat high IQ who was a bit lazy and easily distracted in school. There were lots of kids that weren't as smart that got high grades and did well.. because they put in the work. I'm also a bit older than a lot of people here (early 50's).

[M3L0NM4N]

Okay, I do agree with this. IQ probably correlates with effort a little, but my anecdotal experience is that the most successful people in my school were primarily smart as opposed to being hard workers. Of course, there is a lot of overlap and exceptions.

[a34ta3t]

I scored ~145 on a recent WAIS assessment (with low to average processing scores) and I could train most children to do the same if they started early enough.

That's basically what my upper middle class parents did for me, as the tests were very similar to games I was given since a young age. Of course there are other more important developmental factors like health, stability, and nutrition but those are easier with money too.

Most of HN seem to support a form of modern eugenics.

[M3L0NM4N]

This is laughable. Most children (sampled randomly from the United States) could absolutely not score 145 on a WAIS assessment. Your perception of the average children's intelligence is likely skewed by being surrounded by above average intelligence children (maybe in school). It's not eugenics to acknowledge the strong genetic factor of human intelligence.

[a34ta3t]

Intelligence is strongly hereditary, I haven't seen proof of anything beyond that.

[a34ta3t]

I attended and have worked in US public schools, so I have a very clear picture of why a lot of students are not performing well.

[BobaFloutist]

It's actually zip code.

[M3L0NM4N]

There's no IQ correlation with zip code? Think again

[tptacek]

Almost everything is correlated with zip code, most especially SES, so this comment doesn't really say anything.