Doesn't this miss the fact that a large amount of education - perhaps the majority of young childhood education - occurs at home, and is influenced by family environment?

How does the Government recreate a two parent household with the time and resources to cook healthy dinners and spend hours every night reading to their children, for children who are essentially "on their own" once they leave school? Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?

Yes. But despite the fact that it misses this it does capture another huge portion of privilege.

>Is it even reasonable to expect this to be possible (i.e. reduce or replace the influence of families with Government or third-party involvement)?

No. Which is why I'm not advocating that... I'm not even sure how you could read that from my comments. You and the few other replys here seem to think I'm Stalin or pursuing something that is 'perfect fairness.' The original question was just about reducing the influence of wealth, not eliminating it entirely.

You'll forgive me for the long wait time, I got rate-limited and couldn't reply for several hours.

The example of the USSR was already cited, the rich were still rich even though being "wealthy" _formally_ wasn't a thing.

People instead played political games to win positions that brought benefits from the State. Most workers aspired to reach a position that brought with it car ownership.

All of this serves to make the delivering peoples' needs and desires more inefficient and more purely decided by social and political power than by someone's ability to contribute to society.

You also have a built in assumption that education is what causes this success, when I posit it's the result of intelligence, which is the actual driver (and is seen in better results from education).