Raising children is different from anything you do in the workplace. "Professional" abilities aren't the key metrics for this responsibility. The best "boost" I'm aware of for being good at the job is being raised by good loving parents and thus having a good model to then emulate when it becomes your turn. Sometimes people can find good models elsewhere, but the number of places one can do that today is pretty small — media and movies certainly don't.

From my research, the sociological numbers bear this out, good homes make better well-adjusted successful and able children who generally go on to make another generation of well-adjusted and successful children.

Broken families, single parents homes, have lower success rates.

If you want to create an environment where our most valuable resource is given the best shot, then we should be teaching about marriage, man+woman partnership, fidelity and faithfulness. We don't have any known better models for raising them — and it isn't even close.

>Why would you allow untrained professionals to raise our most valuable resource?

I'm so sorry your parents didn't show love to you.

"Why would you allow untrained professionals to raise our most valuable resource? "

I would start by saying that anyone who would even use that kind of language is living in a totally different dimension of reality than I, and so first, I'd have to bridge that gap.

Our children are not 'resources' and while teaching certainly requires a degree of professional demeanour, raising children has nothing to do with 'professionalism' per say.

For gosh sake ... life is about life (!) - the whole gosh darn point of 'the economy' is so that families can be families and communities, not the other way around, i.e. that they can be turned into 'proletariat resource factories'.

We live, we have our communities, our culture, our institutions, our faith, our celebrations, our hopes, our fears, our failures, our conquests, our rituals. The economy can be a part of that. Stopping really bad acting (i.e. abuse) is always good. The state has a role even in education, obviously.

But the language you are using is the same type of culturally secular language that totalitarian systems adopted and resulted in dramatic failure.

If you want to see what that looks like, visit non-Moscow Russia, the parts that were designed in built in the latter part of the 20th century. Or better yet, Poland, because they will not romanticize that era in a perverse way and give you an earful.

The 'best' schools in the world, in Finland, if one could describe their approach it would be 'Communitarian' more than anything. Yes, they have standard European views on equality and somewhat higher taxation, but they are not 'top down secular equality socialists'. Instead, they value teachers as a culture. They value reading, education, intellectualism, they work as local communities. We would consider them 'somewhat progressive' in many ways, but they are not what we would call 'woke'. Their method of education is not anything special, it's downright ancient if anything. They are not what we would nominally call 'capitalist' either, they have a blended communitarian + regulated free-market + socialization in certain sectors and definitely national strategic cooperation between state, established families/wealth, industry.

They are a great example, there are others, though ideas and rhetoric are always good, there's no need to roll back to 100 year old ideas that have been essentially discredited.