Not to disagree with anything you say, but it's not just funding. There's also an immense, yawning lack of consensus on what and how children should be taught.
For example, I would expect much, much more science to be recommended by the typical HN commentator than by the typical teachers' union.
The consequence is that the "traditional" high-school curriculum, which was invented well over a century ago, has barely changed since because nobody can get all the stakeholders to agree.
Start with funding. Pay teachers well. Make being a teacher the same as being a lawyer or a good engineer.
> For example, I would expect much, much more science to be recommended by the typical HN commentator than by the typical teachers' union.
Great point. I understand that some teachers wouldn't really understand a bad science text book/curriculum vs a good one, because they are not that good at it. Associate schools with local universities. Ask university math and physics professors to rate a curriculum., don't just rely on English majors being influenced by book publishers to determine how science should be taught
Fundamentally education is so far down the list after wars spending, elderly care and other issues that it just gets the short end of the stick. If they approached it with the same budget and interest as they approach a new aircraft carrier fleet we'd have a world-class education system.
If the goal is science literacy wouldn't it make sense to use a scientific approach to determining whether there is a correlation between spending and achievement in schools?
For example, I would expect much, much more science to be recommended by the typical HN commentator than by the typical teachers' union.
The consequence is that the "traditional" high-school curriculum, which was invented well over a century ago, has barely changed since because nobody can get all the stakeholders to agree.