[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.