Comment by Empact | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Empact | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> So the question is, where should the fix be applied?

We could start by not forcing them into a school system that is highly correlated with outcomes of criminality[1]. Then we could stop subsidizing dependency and instead ease the paths work, education, and entrepreneurship, e.g. by reducing the cost of compliance by e.g. reducing scope and burdens of licensure requirements, instituting opportunity zones.

I leave as an exercise to the reader considering why the Democrat party does not support the above policies, while the Republican party does.

[1] "Overall, I find that winning the lottery to attend a first-choice school has a large impact on crime for high-risk youth. High-risk lottery winners experienced roughly a 50 percent reduction in the measures of criminal activity that weight crimes by their severity." https://www.educationnext.org/does-school-choice-reduce-crim...

Genuinely inquiring here, on the study you linked: The study is that high-risk youth are less likely to engage in criminal activity if they attend a first-choice school. Why not inquire why those schools are first choice & if those factors can be deployed to every other school?

Similarly, what do you mean stop subsidizing dependency? What specific dependencies are being subsidized and what are the outcomes of no longer subsidizing them?

> Why not inquire why those schools are first choice & if those factors can be deployed to every other school?

That's not an easy question to answer, but have you asked it yourself? Why don't public schools adopt the successful practices of charter schools that have the prospect of saving their youth from a life of crime? My explanation is that teacher's unions fight against the practices proven successful in other context, such as merit-based hiring and compensation.

If we're going to ascribe success to a factor like school choice, we should also rule out other factors such as what those schools are being chosen for. [For example, if it turns out that there are no academic differences in chosen vs non-chosen schools, and its simply that the mere ability to choose a school causes benefits, that's really important to know!]

> I leave as an exercise to the reader considering why the Democrat party does not support the above policies, while the Republican party does.

Simple, because these policies don’t threaten the status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com