3 ms·

> Countries like Japan and Singapore went from being desperately poor (at a level unimaginable even to an inner city American) to developed in a couple of gener

by danans 5y ago

> Countries like Japan and Singapore went from being desperately poor (at a level unimaginable even to an inner city American) to developed in a couple of generations in the 20th century Those countries did so by making absolutely massive infrastructure and human development investments in their poor populations during their industrializing phase, very similar to what the US did for its previously poor white population after the 2nd world war. The people who face the greatest educational obstacles in the US today are disproportionately people who were also largely excluded from the huge post-WW2 investments and ensuing economic miracle, and have since faced the economic brunt of de-industrialization. > I’m pretty sure they didn’t (and still don’t) have a bunch of school psychologists on staff. They have far less crime and trauma to deal with, are not awash with weapons, and had very strong communal support systems. They were/are also quite authoritarian. Those are very different societies with very different circumstances. You can't directly compare the situation in post war Japan and Singapore with inner city America. By dint of our own history, issues of education and equity actually quite a bit harder here.

rayiner 5y ago
> Those countries did so by making absolutely massive infrastructure and human development investments in their poor populations during their industrializing phase, very similar to what the US did for its previously poor white population after the 2nd world war. Japan and Singapore aren’t Nordic social welfare states. They invested heavily in development but not particularly targeted at the poor. > The people who face the greatest educational obstacles in the US today are disproportionately people who were also largely excluded from the huge post-WW2 investments and ensuing economic miracle, and have since faced the economic brunt of de-industrialization. Only if you pretend that white people in Appalachia are the same group as white people in Massachusetts. > They have far less crime and trauma to deal with, are not awash with weapons, and had very strong communal support systems. They were/are also quite authoritarian. Those are very different societies with very different circumstances. That indicates that America’s problem is culture, not the availability of school psychologists.
- danans 5y ago
  > Japan and Singapore aren’t Nordic social welfare states. They invested heavily in development but not particularly targeted at the poor. Nor are they comparable to American inner cities. My own anecdote about Singapore is an old friend who grew up very poor in Singapore (themself a child of impoverished rural immigrants laborers from India), but whose family received subsidized housing, transportation, and most of all, stability and security. If their family had arrived in Singapore as slaves, their outcome might have differed. > Only if you pretend that white people in Appalachia are the same group as white people in Massachusetts. Who is pretending that? Not me. I agree that they also have born the brunt of disinvestment and de-industrialization, and we are seeing the effects of that in the opioid and methamphetamine epidemics in those areas. It's interesting that we don't usually call it a culture problem with them though, like we do with black inner city communities facing similar challenges. > That indicates that America’s problem is culture, not the availability of school psychologists. It indicates a problem of economics and disinvestment. The psychologists are only there to manage the impacts of that disinvestment on society, not solve the original problem of lack of economic opportunity. I'm also happy to reduce the number of school psychologists when teachers no longer have to deal with traumatized children disrupting and endangering their classes. Until then someone has to manage those issues, and as you stated, that's what we expect public schools to do.

by danans 5y ago

rayiner 5y ago

> Those countries did so by making absolutely massive infrastructure and human development investments in their poor populations during their industrializing phase, very similar to what the US did for its previously poor white population after the 2nd world war. Japan and Singapore aren’t Nordic social welfare states. They invested heavily in development but not particularly targeted at the poor. > The people who face the greatest educational obstacles in the US today are disproportionately people who were also largely excluded from the huge post-WW2 investments and ensuing economic miracle, and have since faced the economic brunt of de-industrialization. Only if you pretend that white people in Appalachia are the same group as white people in Massachusetts. > They have far less crime and trauma to deal with, are not awash with weapons, and had very strong communal support systems. They were/are also quite authoritarian. Those are very different societies with very different circumstances. That indicates that America’s problem is culture, not the availability of school psychologists.

danans 5y ago
> Japan and Singapore aren’t Nordic social welfare states. They invested heavily in development but not particularly targeted at the poor. Nor are they comparable to American inner cities. My own anecdote about Singapore is an old friend who grew up very poor in Singapore (themself a child of impoverished rural immigrants laborers from India), but whose family received subsidized housing, transportation, and most of all, stability and security. If their family had arrived in Singapore as slaves, their outcome might have differed. > Only if you pretend that white people in Appalachia are the same group as white people in Massachusetts. Who is pretending that? Not me. I agree that they also have born the brunt of disinvestment and de-industrialization, and we are seeing the effects of that in the opioid and methamphetamine epidemics in those areas. It's interesting that we don't usually call it a culture problem with them though, like we do with black inner city communities facing similar challenges. > That indicates that America’s problem is culture, not the availability of school psychologists. It indicates a problem of economics and disinvestment. The psychologists are only there to manage the impacts of that disinvestment on society, not solve the original problem of lack of economic opportunity. I'm also happy to reduce the number of school psychologists when teachers no longer have to deal with traumatized children disrupting and endangering their classes. Until then someone has to manage those issues, and as you stated, that's what we expect public schools to do.