They're only in contention if we use the same measures for both, which is the root problem imo. In the United States our schools are more than places to expose children to literature, mathematics, and civics. It's a crucial social service and one with massive reach - if you want to affect change for the children and youth of America, schools are the place to go.

The contrary is also true. When we don't effectively use schools as these crucial public services, we wind up with the "school to prison pipeline" as it's called.

In my opinion the notion of "no child left behind" shouldn't equate to every kid going to college or becoming a doctor. We can design schooling metrics better than test scores and academic outcome. Like criminal justice outcomes, health outcomes like obesity, voting or civic participation, or even social outcomes. The goals of schooling shouldn't be wholly academic. That is why secondary education exists.

It feels like people just aren't in agreement on the goals of school. And without agreement on the goals, it's going to be hard to succeed.

As far as I can tell, in most of the world and for a long time, school has been a place for academic education. Those that could not be educated for whatever reason were dismissed.

The idea that school should be a general social service for children seems popular among politicians and school administrators, but less accepted among parents and teachers. Furthermore, there was no explicit decision to move away from a focus on academics, it just kind of happened. That's not a recipe for good results.

It's not an idea, it's reality. Schools are state run childcare and child rearing facilities in the United States. Academics are one of their activities.

But it's an inconsistent and ad hoc reality. Let's coalesce on the real goals, and document them, and communicate the goals to everyone, and move on.

Right now we are in limbo. The meaning of "school" is drifting and that obviously creates confusion and arguments, as well as bad results.

Teachers don't like teachers being social services. They are right. That doesn't mean they are opposed to schools providing social services.

Families getting fed at school like getting fed. They aren't opposed to eating.

I didn't say "opposed". Parents expect teachers to teach and teachers expect to teach. But the job decription is changing and inconsistent -- both at the high level of "what is a school" and the low level of "what should I, as a teacher, try to accomplish today?".

Goals are unclear right now. That, by itself, is bad. We need an explicit decision here, and that needs to be communicated to everyone involved.

> Parents expect teachers to teach and teachers expect to teach

As the child of a public grade school teacher (early childhood), I would suggest you go visit some Title I schools and ask lower income parents there what they expect from the school with respect to their children.

What you're being told in this thread: they will say they're happy to have a place that will take care of their kids while they're working, keep them reasonably safe, provide them food, keep them busy, and educate them

What you seem to think they would say: education their kids to the highest level possible

When there aren't consistent meals, access to health care, or clothing at home, and when home is a place of violence and/or substance abuse, priorities look a lot different.

All of these are things that were not uncommon, year after year. That's the reality public school teachers and administrators have to deal with.