SquintGnome wrote:

I am just going to dip my toes in this discussion...

I recall several studies in the sixties and seventies proving that increasing school spending did not increase the scores/learning/education at that facility.

However, I do agree there is a correlation between neighborhood income and the success of the children in the local school.

I think the important thing to remember is that "Correlation does not imply causation".  So, although more money is correlated to better learning, it does not mean that it is causing better learning.  For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, but ice cream sales do not cause shark attacks.  They are correlated because there is another variable involved.  In this example, hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and increased volume of swimmers in the water.

So if more money does not cause better education, what does?  I think the other variable may be the community or family structure in the neighborhood.  Neighborhoods with higher income levels also benefit from elements of social stabilization that may lead to a better home environment for the children which results in better learning.  

From my personal experience the quality of the education is more based on the student's desire than the  money invested in materials.

 

Yeah, the problem with most of those studies it showed: Hey, we pumped in more money year 1 and by year 2 we don't see huge improvement.  Problem 1 who, what, and how was the money spent? Problem 2 is that institutional change generally takes 3-7 years from the implementation of a new program until you get some clear results.  Not too mention ask yourself who is behind those studies? Follow the money.

The worse thing though isn't that "more" money is needed it's that we've been cutting funding for 30+ years, and it's starting to show.  Every time states get those block grants they cut spending from the state budgets so ed gets net zero or a net loss. 

It's multifaceted problem socio, economic, political, and cultural, etc. But, money matters. The top 10 states for teacher pay are all in the top 15 for student performance and are 9 of the top 10. 

BTdubs wrote:

Thingol wrote: Btilly, I agree with your original statement from the other thread...but how would you solve the issue? It can't simply be 'no homework' for all. I must say, for me personally, I generally despised doing homework, but I'm a better mathematician and writer for having done so.

As you state, the main determinant is internal family status. My feeling is that in the last 45 years, the middle and lower middle classes have been asked to bear way too much of the burden in sustaining the economy, war machine and general welfare of the country. With wages that have essentially flattened out (in relation to cost of living rises), this means parents are working more hours, they're generally more stressed, and they have less time and mental energy to invest in their children.

I think the solution lies in turning away from the leadership that has taken us down this avenue and a return to the policies and ideals of JFK and FDR, who felt that the whole society should prosper from this great country and contribute to sustaining and improving it for coming generations.

One factor left out here - public schooling in the U.S. is paid for mostly with property taxes.  Wealthier neighborhood, better school (and better school, higher home prices - it's a self-perpetuating feedback loop).  As a kid, I moved around a bit (four different public schools) and the differences were incredible.  

For example, I finished high school in a well-off Massachusetts school that let me take more Advanced Placement courses in my junior year than existed in the entire school system I attended for middle school in rural western Pennsylvania.  And there were still more left for senior year! 

When I first moved, it took me a while to realize the kids in both schools were about the same degree of smart - but the east-coast kids got quality educations, while the Pennsylvanians got mediocre ones.  All of this is to say that public education can work and does work - but it matters who and where you are.  The way we pay for the system assures that the richer you are, the better public services your kid is going to get.

+1 Yep. And, it just gets worse every time state and federal spending gets cut. Because, then schools need another levy just to maintain the same performance and get homeowners to cough up more of the bill.

Thingol wrote: BTdubs brings up a really good point...and he's correct in the role property taxes play. However, if more funding is coming into the states in the form of block grants...and if the state makes education a priority, a lot of federal money can be used to supplement (reduce) the property tax factor and this can result in a general improvement of all schools in a given state.

Now, to attain this, a couple things would have to happen:
A) a shift in priorities from money towards the military to education
B) a small increase in the top tax bracket

Hah!

Good luck with that...

The shift of spending from military priorities to education could see ALOT of long term benefits for the United States, for sure, but it's a difficult sell because of a huge number of factors.  

One of the biggest being that the economy relies on the war machine to support itself. 

Another of the biggest being the cultural equation of freedom with military strength. 

I think it'd be neat to start seeing Americans protect their education as vehemently as they protect their guns and their "freedom".   Sadly though, a shift away from either of those priorities has short term consequences that I don't think the country can bear without some kind of large scale uprising. 

Money is not the issue. It is a distraction. The problem is cultural. As long as communities do not value education, money pumped into those schools will go wasted and the infrastructure will not be respected and be allowed to fall into disrepair. Our country was built by children who learned in one-room school houses, taught by poorly-compensated teachers with materials handed down from year to year and without buses to shuttle them the miles to and from. My children learned to read before they went to school and we made sure they got a good education, supplementing them at home as needed. There are cultures, not limited to, but primarily Asian, who strongly value education, and those kids today do well in the same classrooms as kids who are failing.  Our problem is that we have become spoiled and lazy from success and have lost track of the values that made us successful.   We are raising generations that take that success for granted.  In some cultural segments, educational achievement is even disparaged and strong negative peer pressure is put upon those kids who do try to learn.

Regarding shifting money from the military to education... the above applies.  It doesn't matter where the funding come from-- it will be wasted and doesn't get to the root of the issue.

ratsy wrote:

I think it'd be neat to start seeing Americans protect their education as vehemently as they protect their guns and their "freedom".   Sadly though, a shift away from either of those priorities has short term consequences that I don't think the country can bear without some kind of large scale uprising. 

Although I know you don't mean literally what you said, you are correct-- it would be nice if Americans applied equal weight to education as we do to protecting our freedom.   <SNARK>But, sadly, Canada and Mexico have become complacent living under the luxury of the protection of the U.S. military umbrella and apparently suffer from the misguided notion that freedom exists just because you want it to.   These countries do not pull their weight and only invest 1/30th and 1/100th, respectively, that the U.S. does in the defense of North America.  It's ironic that with all that extra funding freed up to apply to their education systems that they produce so many naive to the ways of tyranny.  I guess when you're a mouse living in the shadow of the elephant, it's easy to become deluded that tigers don't exist or that they're afraid of mice.</SNARK> (I realize there are many Canadians and Mexicans who do understand and appreciate this and apologize to them if it appears I'm generalizing to all)

MH, my thoughts regarding the shifting of priorities was a two-fold solution:
1) Giving those school districts which are failing due to lack of resources a chance (regardless of your over-generalization about this all being cultural and money wasted, I just simply disagree. I've come across personally areas where money would make a HUGE difference.
2) Shifting some of the burden back to those who get the most fruits from the US economy and away from a strapped middle-class.

You speak also about schooling when America was built. Yes, we were indeed a pretty agrarian populace then, as was much of the world. Even in the early 1900s, we were at an illiteracy rate of 91%.

That's all well and good. I don't wish to return to such times. The times I'd like to return to were when America 'poured' money into public education, which was at the start of the progressive era thru a generation following WW2.

You mentioned we have become lazy. In that, we are in accord. In all due respect, 'that' is a red-herring.

I also didn't see a solution put forward, even if I took your at your premise.

Ratsy, what you wrote is also true. We're now nearly 70 years from the war's end. Isn't is 'about time' we start the decoupling process? It doesn't have to happen overnight (which would indeed cause an uprising). I don't know about you, but I don't like a 'private' defense sector, which has an agenda different from the interests of the citizenry (ie - to obtain and maximize profits, this means producing more weapons and ammunition). I would prefer a defense industry that produces on an as-needed basis. Much better for me as a taxpayer and for my children who I would not want drawn into another war of profit.

I find is disgusting (and dangerous to our security) that we depend soooo much on private industry. For heaven's sake, these companies can up and sell themselves to a foreign country (see United Defense).

Thingol wrote: MH, my thoughts regarding the shifting of priorities was a two-fold solution:
1) Giving those school districts which are failing due to lack of resources a chance (regardless of your over-generalization about this all being cultural and money wasted, I just simply disagree. I've come across personally areas where money would make a HUGE difference.
2) Shifting some of the burden back to those who get the most fruits from the US economy and away from a strapped middle-class.

You speak also about schooling when America was built. Yes, we were indeed a pretty agrarian populace then, as was much of the world. Even in the early 1900s, we were at an illiteracy rate of 91%.

That's all well and good. I don't wish to return to such times. The times I'd like to return to were when America 'poured' money into public education, which was at the start of the progressive era thru a generation following WW2.

You mentioned we have become lazy. In that, we are in accord. In all due respect, 'that' is a red-herring.

I also didn't see a solution put forward, even if I took your at your premise.

Ratsy, what you wrote is also true. We're now nearly 70 years from the war's end. Isn't is 'about time' we start the decoupling process? It doesn't have to happen overnight (which would indeed cause an uprising). I don't know about you, but I don't like a 'private' defense sector, which has an agenda different from the interests of the citizenry (ie - to obtain and maximize profits, this means producing more weapons and ammunition). I would prefer a defense industry that produces on an as-needed basis. Much better for me as a taxpayer and for my children who I would not want drawn into another war of profit.

I find is disgusting (and dangerous to our security) that we depend soooo much on private industry. For heaven's sake, these companies can up and sell themselves to a foreign country (see United Defense).

Thingol, for what it's worth, I didn't have your post in mind when I wrote mine. 

Yes, I am over-generalizing.  That was simply to counter the even more gross over-statement (IMHO) made my some here that the main problem is lack of money (in part due to military spending).   

Yes, I did not offer any specific solutions because that is a very difficult thing given where I see the problem is.  I think it would help if we had a national leader (or two or ten) that didn't constantly extol that the solution to every problem is a new or larger government program instead of a re-focus on our responsibilities for ourselves and for our communities.  I think it helps too when people like myself stand up to the kind of political correctness and emotional arguments that pervade so many of our important societal discussions.

What specific solutions do you have?   It's not enough just to say you'd direct more money to those districts that need it.  How and who decides what need is?   (You might be surprised to realize that I believe there are districts that spend way too much money on their schools and teachers).  What would you do with the money you want to redirect?   And how will you make sure that that money isn't wasted?   Also, what do you think it is that causes some areas to need more money?   It's too simple to just say because some populations have greater affluence.  What is it that causes that?  When do you stop redistributing money or human resources?   When every community in your region has equal facilities?   Or does it not stop until every community in the state, or country, or world has equal facilities.  And how do you make everything equal when teachers are a large factor in the equation?   The current system advocated by teachers unions, the NEA, our current administration, is to do everything possible to prevent the identification and recognition of good versus bad teachers.   Even if you are successful in identifying them, do you force them to relocate until all districts are considered equal?  If you think this out a few steps, you're basically talking socialism (or communism). 

Even if you can make everything equal, how do you get kids that have no support at home and negative pressure from peers... to take advantage of these facilities... and to respect them and take care of them.    I firmly believe that any child/parent/family that wants to learn can learn in "practically" any environment.    The biggest impediment is not where they go to learn, but the people in the community who don't reinforce the value of that learning.   What good does it do for a kid to go to a state of the art school if they've got no family support at home, or their peers deride them,  or our culture distracts them from their educational responsibilities with superficial priorities, or political leaders are constantly brainwashing people that the reason they are not succeeding is solely because the world is against them and the only solution is a more invasive nanny state?  That is, those are,  the biggest problem(s) undermining our educational system and throwing more money at it takes away from solving that and only exacerbates it.

Just to be clear.   I'm not suggesting that any child should be forced to go to a school which is environmentally unsafe or unhealthy.   We can all agree on that.  But, I don't believe that those advocating that more money is the solution are thinking only about those extreme cases... except when they need to pull out those examples to try and apply emotional pressure or distort the message of the opposition.

As your post suggests when you venture into the notion of public versus private sector, this discussion is really more about ideology and a growing leaning in this country towards socialistic principles.  But that is a much bigger discussion than I care to get into here.   My main purpose for jumping in was when I started to see some people becoming so blind to the fact that their freedoms derive from the blood and treasure of our fathers and forefathers.    Simple logic... Since most people want to live in peace and with freedom, if that's all it took, we'd all be living that way.   We've had the luxury of many years of relative peace.  Some of that is due to our geographical location, but most of it is due to the sacrifices and determination to live free on the part of those that came before us and it's sad to see people forgetting that.

I think Mostly Harmless has several good points.  Although the reality of any situation is never a one or the other dichotomy. 

The kid needs to: want to learn, have a place or person to learn that from and be able to experience the thing their learning for themselves.  This works better if the place is safe, the kid is full and has slept, and the teacher is competent. 

All of the pieces of the puzzle have to fall into place in order for a kid to learn something in school. 

I think where the debate lies is in how to get all these things in line, so our children can learn effectively, and apply the things they can learn. How do we get from where we are to a better place? 

I can agree that education as a whole, and the quality of education delivered is created and maintained by a cultural framework, as well, the amount of engagement a poplulation has with that educational setup is cultural too.

It also costs money to educate the populace; a school with something to write on (like paper) will almost every-time outperform a school that has nothing to write on.  A school that can attract the best and the brightest by offering them more money than the other schools will also likely outperform school that cannot attract quality teachers, or quality students. 

In the states the cultural priorities tend to get flushed out by policies and spending habits, and public displays, and demonstrations.  Which is what I mean by defending your guns and freedom. There is some amazing education available in the united states - some of the best in the world - and it just seems that those institutions and the culture that created them are eroding some or have eroded over the past 10-15 years. And I never seem to hear about the debate, or a "lets keep schools accessible" rally or even reports of large masses of people that are upset about it.  

If I had the money, I would have gone to an American University. In a heartbeat. 

Heck, I watch the Colbert Report because he entertains me (not because I agree with his politics) and when he had the education minister on there, you could see he was struggling for material, but he's never shy of a freedom quip, or some gag about national defense.  It shows the background nature of the cultural issue, is all I'm trying to say here. 

I can even agree with the snark in alot of ways.  Many people I talk to up here complacently display a "who would ever want to invade Canada?" attitude.  And it's comes from just what you said, we've had it good for a long time.  What kills me is the way we complain about the economic headlock America has us in, and then criticize their military defense policy. There is no doubt we are comfy under the north american defense umbrella.  

I think what many Canadians don't get though is the seemingly economic purpose to the american wars -especially the recent ones-, and I think (and I may well be ignorant in the ways of tyranny) that there is kind of a foggy line between making a decisive attack to ensure your defense and just ensuring your defense. And to me it's a different thing to protect your freedom than to impose your freedom on someone else. Do we really need to kill all the tigers in order to be safe from them? -but this is a digression. 

@ Thingol, I have to agree that we're not lazy, but complacent start to approach the right attitude.   

And I don't even mind private enterprises, because you can rely on them to protect their best interests.  As long as it's in that company's best interest to protect the country, they will do it, efficiently and ruthlessly.  And a company will do that, whether the chinese own it, or the swedes or canadians or americans.  Where it gets scary is when the best interests of a company start being other things than the protection of the country, or a foreign government buys it - not a foriegn business, but a foreign government. That's when you can't rely on that business anymore; when you can't predict what it's trying to do. 

I agree with a lot that Mostly Harmless says. 

The solution to the education problem is to develop communities that encourage students to want to learn. 

Obviously, this is an incredibly complex problem, and humans prefer simple solutions.  So they focus on 'spend more money' as a viable solution, which it isn't.  Then they try it and it doesn't work so they think they didn't spend enough, etc.

I see this happen over and over again in the workplace.  People try to solve complex problems with simple solutions.  None of them work, but instead of thinking harder or having more discipline, they just try another ineffective simplistic solution and keep repeating this process and the problem hangs around for decades.

We can talk all we want about freedom. I have the freedom to marry the girl of my dreams, switch to a more fulfilling job and vacation wherever I want to. Or do I? Do I really?

True freedom derives from financial independence. Financial independence, for the vast majority of Americans, is achieved by educating oneself to the point where one can accumulate enough wealth. A small percentage of folks inherit their wealth. A stagnation of wages and reduced educational opportunities will lead, therefore, to a weakening of 'real' freedom.

An increasing number of Americans who work extremely hard and don't do anything 'wrong' are being left by the wayside. From personal experience, I know that just running across a manager/superviser that simply doesn't like you can ruin or severely curtail an otherwise outstanding career.

Now, let's revisit the public-private debate for a sec. The notion of a 'public sector' is a democratic (or republican if you prefer) principle. As such, we have always been a quasi-social, quasi-capital country. The dynamic is the mixture. I hate the slippery slope argument as those who see the world in such light always think their 'side' is either losing or winning and fail to try to find an ideal mixture. Just because I advocate moving the meter a tick or two to the left doesn't mean that I would want to see the arrow continue towards full-on socialism and I resent those that imply such. On a counter note, does the fact that the top tax bracket has dropped nearly 60%, that the top bracket is now at the middle-class level (what was 200K in 1940 worth in today's dollars?) and that corporations now dominate the political scene demonstrate that we have become a pseudo-fascist country? One might look at the 'father of fascism's (Mussolini) definition of fascism for that answer.

I think the real root cause of the education inequalities is the folks who think investing in people is a 'waste.' There has always been a segment of our society that resents 'sharing' knowledge with the average Joe American. These people do not seek 'real' solutions for they look only for simple, quick solutions. In reality, even the best solutions take time. It may take a generation or two to really see the effects, but, to quote a famous leader, "let us begin."

Just remember, there was a time, prior to the Progressive Era, when a majority of Americans lived in poverty, including over 80% of the elderly, when the illiteracy rate was 91%.

There was also a time when the US led or was near the top of math and science. This was at a time when education was a priority and it was a key component in allowing us to become the dominant power in the world. The proof is in the pudding and we need only look at our own history.

So MH, it sounds a bit like the issue is one of accountability for you.  Accountability from parents, who need to support their children's learning, communities who need to enable learning, and learners who need to be accountable for their learning.  

We already hold the learners accountable (sort of) with the grading system.  What system hold parents accountable for their children's learning?

We also try to hold communities accountable in a lot of cases, through involvement and initiatives directly from the schools, but this is pretty limited.  How to get them to be accountable for the quality of education of out children?

As a parent who has been involved and seen your children succeed, how can other parents be accountable to do the same?

M57 wrote:

'Tis definitely a multifaceted issue, and causality can be viewed on a micro and macro (global) level as well.  I found this recent NYT article fascinating. It suggests yet another consideration ..culture.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html?referrer=

A new book on the same topic by the authors of the column M57 linked to

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/04/new-book-finds-unlikely-traits-explain-success-various-groups

"It's not that groups that succeed in the United States haven't come to value education, the authors say. It's that there are underlying traits that lead them to do so -- and to find success. Those three traits, the authors say, are a feeling of superiority, a simultaneous feeling of insecurity, and impulse control."

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/04/new-book-finds-unlikely-traits-explain-success-various-groups#ixzz2sN2l8xyH 
Inside Higher Ed 

Wow.

Interesting related study: http://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622

That study supports your earlier argument BT, that environmental factors around a child play a very significant role in their educative process. I happen to concur with that point. Then, the next question is - what is to be done about improving these environmental factors? MH may argue that it's simply a waste of time and resources. Obviously, I don't think so. And I also feel the trend is that more and more children (including white children MH) are falling into environmental distress. Shall we wait until your grandchildren or great-grandchildren are faced with this dilemna before addressing?

At the rate we are going, with more folks slipping out of the middle class and with property taxes ever-increasing, there will be bitterness between the upper middle and wealthy classes towards everyone else. There will be an effort to do away with public education altogether as the two aforementioned classes feel the brunt of the financial burden.

Thingol wrote [except]:  .... Obviously, I don't think so. And I also feel the trend is that more and more children (including white children MH) are falling into environmental distress. Shall we wait until your grandchildren or great-grandchildren are faced with this dilemna before addressing?

I purposely didn't revisit this topic after my last post because I was afraid it would turn into a "flame-war" (I suppose I'm dating myself with that expression) and I was already finding it challenging to share my thoughts in an objective, non-emotional manner.    I was pleasantly surprised, however, to see a lot of objective responses (even when challenging my position) and I appreciated those and found that to be very encouraging.  

That was, until I got down to the referenced post above and saw the implied reference to my "racism".   

This is an example of one of the primary problems preventing minorities from addressing and overcoming problems.  If one suggests that some of the problems are the responsibility of that community, you are considered a racist.      I am white and I was definitely referring to primarily black urban communities when I described *some* of the problems I see.  I guess that makes me a racist.   But, I was also (I think clearly) thinking of the broader American culture which includes my children's peers  in many of the other problems I mentioned.     The common denominator in all are communities who do not take responsibility for valuing education.

I grew up in a middle-class suburb of Chicago although my father's income was arguably lower-class.  We had enough to make end's meet but not much more and I did without much that my friends had.  But, I lived during a time when parents still respected the value of education.  Some of our schools were new but others were falling apart to the point of causing injury.   If I screwed up at school, my parents first response was to double that discipline when I got home, not to march into school and threaten the teachers and administration.    Some of my teachers were great but most were just ok and some awful.    I was the first from either side of my family line to go to college.   When I look back on why I succeeded, some of it I can say was because I was brighter than average, but a lot of it was because I lived in a community that expected children to apply themselves at school and I had very few peers who didn't at least respect or fear the consequences of challenging that standard.  

The suburb I grew up in is now far wealthier and the schools more modern in building and technology.   The home I grew up in now stands amongst 1/2 million dollar McMansions and will probably be replaced by similar by the next owner of the property.  And yet, education standards are falling and discipline, violence/crime, drug abuse, and pregnancy problems among school age students is on the rise.   Graffiti, which was rarely a problem in my day, I can now see is routinely painted-over.    There is a strong police presence at after-school events like football games.    What has changed is not a decrease in government funding and involvement, but a change in the standards of community.  

There is an old saying that something that is everyone's responsibility is no one's responsibility.  And that is one way of expressing one of the primary problems with our society and declining education system.  We are gradually abdicating personal responsibility to the government/"system" and enforcing our values through impersonal,  one-size-fits-alll legislation instead of interpersonal application of standards and values. 

You can choose to disagree with my opinions, but to discount them by throwing out the charge of racism is intellectually dishonest or ignorant and only serves to perpetuate the problems that *are* particularly challenging in the minority communities.   But if the only problems that can be addressed are those that point the finger at the the bogie-man, then you are condemning the children of those communities to generations of continued challenges.   There is no better exemplar of this then NYC's current mayor.  Read what he's doing to charter schools that are benefiting minorities and ask who is the real threat to the lower-class. 

BTdubs wrote:

Interesting related study: http://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622

Thanks, I found this interesting and it invokes a lot of observations and thoughts for follow-up experiments.  It would be interesting to have a group discussion on this amongst people who all watched it together.  

Good points MH.  BTW, the 'racist' charge was merely a dig.  It would be hard to charge someone with racism without knowing them well.  Though we haven't 'fought' against eachother in a game in a while now, I've enjoyed the games in the past.

Now, in regards to personal responsibility, we Americans have always cherished the rugged individualism we enjoy.  However, it's a bit hard to take responsibility when one doesn't have the basic necessities of life (some semblance of a way to feed, clothe and shelter oneself).  As a large portion of those in poverty are children, it's a bit harsh to say to them 'go get a job'.  I know there is a push by those on the right to repeal every good law that passed in the 20th century, including the child labor laws.  I would rather educate them and let them use their knowledge to get out of poverty.

Thingol wrote:

Good points MH.  BTW, the 'racist' charge was merely a dig.  It would be hard to charge someone with racism without knowing them well.  Though we haven't 'fought' against eachother in a game in a while now, I've enjoyed the games in the past.

 

Now, in regards to personal responsibility, we Americans have always cherished the rugged individualism we enjoy.  However, it's a bit hard to take responsibility when one doesn't have the basic necessities of life (some semblance of a way to feed, clothe and shelter oneself).  As a large portion of those in poverty are children, it's a bit harsh to say to them 'go get a job'.  I know there is a push by those on the right to repeal every good law that passed in the 20th century, including the child labor laws.  I would rather educate them and let them use their knowledge to get out of poverty.

Thanks, Thingol, appreciate the clarification and likewise have appreciated our past games.  I'm not immune to bias or ignorance, I think that's the nature and limitation of being human, but I do have a sincere interest in the subject and strive at all times to be as objective as I can.  

In today's political environment, because so few politicians on either side practice intellectual integrity, and because our media fails at calling them on it, we all live in a world that is easily polarized by political rhetoric and it's difficult to throw that off when entering into public discourse, particularly if one comes into the discussion with pent-up frustration as I often do (and I suspect most do who care enough to try and stay involved and make a difference).   That frustration often results from a sense of helplessness which is in turn manipulated intensely by self-serving politicians and opportunists.

Ultimately though, I do believe that if we can communicate long enough to get past those influences, we'll find that most all want the same things out of life and we can agree much more than disagree.  In other words, getting us all level-set is the hard part and after that, the solutions come much easier. I think, though,  it takes a kind of constant faith or belief in each other to overcomes the political influences that so easily divide us and particularly challenging when there is some ill in our lives that we feel needs immediate remedying.

It's easy to over-simplify things in trying to form solutions.   Some of that I think comes out of a desire to fix things sooner than later and some of that might be because human society is so complex that it's beyond our capability to wrap our brains around the more complex solutions.   

I certainly recognize that I'm not offering any concrete solutions when suggesting that much of the problem lies in our community values.  It's overwhelming to me to figure out how to right the course of societal change which has occurred over decades and is the consequence of millions of influences.  

I do see parallels though with nature and natural selection and evolution.   No, I'm not suggesting we abandon society to a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality.  What I am getting at is that I think complex systems tend to do better and find a natural balance when left to their own than when we try to manipulate them.  In practical terms, this translates into the need for minimal (not none) government and, hence, more personal responsibility.      I believe communities can better determine and target the needs of that community than an impersonal government.  Yes, that does mean that sometimes we sacrifice the power of making sweeping changes that only a large government can impose, but I've seldom seem where the positive expectations for that approach achieve the well-intended goals or that they overcomes the negative consequences of such large government influence (waste, beurocracy, potential for abuse, one-size-fits-all solutions, etc).

I think a fundamental mistake we all make is in the belief that there can always be a positive resolution to every negative aspect of life.    I think we tend to do this more in the USA where we're a bit more spoiled and grow up with a cultural value system that believes "right" will always win out.    It's a great philosophy and I wouldn't personally value anything less, but in life, it doesn't really work that way.  I'm not saying life sucks, but frankly, it does more than we want to admit.  Many people who immigrate here from other countries are just grateful to have political stability and to live in an environment which is relatively safe and offers some potential for improvement.    It's why so many immigrants are happy to take jobs we prefer not to, or why they can thrive in an education system which has problems.   I think we need to find a way to get back to that more simpler appreciation and value set.    But, unfortunately, we have too many external influences which corrupt and distort our perspective on what's important such as political opportunism/pandering, materialism, idol worship, apathy, and laziness, all of which are the cancerous offspring of the very successful culture we've had here.   I've found for myself, and I believe I've observed historically, that mankind is always at it's best when there is a bit of stress to keep us striving for more and reminding us of what's important.   The problem is, we can't contrive that and achieve the same results.  ... although it seems great civilizations have a way of causing that to happen through their own excesses.   Perhaps that's simply another example of nature finding it's own balance.  

I know I've not moved this subject forward and gone on a rambling tangent with this post, but for those who care, I hope I've offered a glimpse into the philosophy  behind my societal problem solving.

I believe the best achievements that have occurred in human history have been when people have come together to accomplish it. Call it government...or civilization. Quite often, there is a wastefulness element. One must take the bad with the good, always trying to minimalize the bad and build on the good. It's unrealistic and overly pessimistic to expect otherwise.

Nevertheless, your last two posts have an heartfelt feeling about them and that can be appreciated.