Mike is too gentle with this broader, bolder initiative. First, a chicken and egg problem arises. Improving education is generally touted as the seminal route by which the nation can decrease social and economic inequality--but the bolder, broader folks think that decreasing social and economic inequality is crucial if America is to improve k-12 education. Puzzling. And then there's all this:
Nevertheless, there is solid evidence that policies aimed directly at education-related social and economic disadvantages can improve school performance and student achievement. The persistent failure of policy makers to act on that evidence--in tandem with a school-improvement agenda-is a major reason why the association between social and economic disadvantage and low student achievement remains so strong.
Note the part I've bolded. What does it mean? Are readers to believe that the "association between social and economic disadvantage and low student achievement remains so strong" because policy makers haven't confronted every type of inequality at the same time, in tandem with school-improvement agendas? While we're at it, perhaps the authors can go even broader by adding some foreign affairs components and connecting the whole, overarching scheme to a plan to provide housing for every family and daisies for all schoolchildren?
You get the point. The recommendations--"Pay more attention to the time students spend out of school," "Increase investment in health services," etc.--are each, in and of themselves, incredibly large and complicated and expensive policy projects. To loop them all together in a mish mash; to insert...