I think it's more complex than this. The unions have effectively traded higher-pay for greater job security, so we have the worst of both worlds.

I generally find myself pro-organized labor, but when we start reducing in-group competitiveness for high pay, into low pay alternatives like seniority systems, job security becoming job permanence, or outright hostility to technology, that's when I start seeing the model break down.

Quality of the education isn’t the main issue with schools though. Or to put it another way, do you think Baltimore Public schools issues would be resolved with simply better teachers and a more rigorous curriculum?

It's almost like there isn't one cause and YET we try to find the one silver bullet over and over and over again.

Some schools the issue is teacher quality. Some is curriculum and resources. Some is external factors like food insecurity, housing, or crime.

It's weird like that.

After decades in education, I can tell you that the same five ideas get rehashed every six to eight years. And we ignore that our education system is nothing but a reflection of society in the US.

If you have money and connections, everything is groovy. If you don't, it's not.

A more rigorous curriculum? Maybe no. But better teachers? Absolutely yes. There is more to teaching than lecturing in front of a blackboard.

> Given the central role of education in our society

The “central role of education in our society” seems a lot like a slogan that is, at best, aspirational, and at worst false-meritocracy cover for persistent structural inequality.

While educational performance and attainment seems to correlate a lot with success, differences in educational interventions and methods seem to do a lot less: those measures that seem to matter seem to themselves largely be a function of who you are and what your home environment is. Its not clear that education, particularly K-12, is doing a lot more than measuring structural advantage.