If society wants this to change then the answer is to stop treating schools as a free baby-sitting service, allowing both parents to go out to work and contribu

If society wants this to change then the answer is to stop treating schools as a free baby-sitting service, allowing both parents to go out to work and contribute to a nation's GDP, and start treating schools as an investment in a nation's future. I think society is getting exactly what it wants: free baby-sitting service. I imagine that most teachers chose their profession because they want to educate, inspire and shape young minds. But it seems like the primary expectation is that they keep children safe and occupied during the work day. It seems reasonable that smaller class sizes would allow teachers to connect with more students, but that would involve structural and logistical changes beyond just hiring more teachers. It would be very expensive, but entirely possible for most countries to do. There is a perception that the primary purpose of school is 'education', but people vote with their dollars and effective teaching seems to lose out to baby sitting every time. This might be because the function of managing children is more beneficial to society than rigorously educating them is. Allowing both parents to work may contribute more to a nation's GDP than giving as many children as possible a very thorough education. I don't know of any studies on this topic in particular, in part because it seems to be a bit taboo to question the value of a traditional education. But it's entirely possible that we should be spending less money on primary and secondary school education and more money on things that will make life easier for parents. It certainly doesn't seem likely that this will ever be seriously considered, but the question of what it means to "fail" our children is one that we should keep bringing up.