The Built for Zero example really hits home because my city's traditional approach was just shuffling people between shelters and streets. My sister works in case managment and says the difference when programs actually track individual progress while also fixing systemic gaps is night and day. I dunno why more places havent figured this out yet.
For decades, school reformers and poverty relief advocates have argued about what it takes to close the achievement gap. Some scholars, like Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom, argue that school-based interventions are the most promising solution. Others, like Richard Rothstein, argue that schools are not the most efficient platform for fighting the effects of poverty and that society could better help low-income students succeed in school by spending scarce dollars on programs that target children’s health and well-being.
With the aid of sound theory, the theory of interdependence and modularity, we can see that both sides are right—and that both are also wrong.
I wonder how intentional structuring could work with something like workfare in a political environment of polarized premises. By the time to discuss areas of agreement, the original premises of one side are imprinted by the other side and vice versa. My assumption is that to break the impasse, the messengers and negotiators for each side's original premises must be replaced by more interest-based players. That requires enough players to short-term buck the polarized premise structures that seem endemic to both major parties. What do you think, Lauren?
The Built for Zero example really hits home because my city's traditional approach was just shuffling people between shelters and streets. My sister works in case managment and says the difference when programs actually track individual progress while also fixing systemic gaps is night and day. I dunno why more places havent figured this out yet.
Enjoyed reading this! I think you'd resonate with something we wrote on this topic in 2016:
https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publication/the-educators-dilemma/
Here's the opening:
For decades, school reformers and poverty relief advocates have argued about what it takes to close the achievement gap. Some scholars, like Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom, argue that school-based interventions are the most promising solution. Others, like Richard Rothstein, argue that schools are not the most efficient platform for fighting the effects of poverty and that society could better help low-income students succeed in school by spending scarce dollars on programs that target children’s health and well-being.
With the aid of sound theory, the theory of interdependence and modularity, we can see that both sides are right—and that both are also wrong.
I wonder how intentional structuring could work with something like workfare in a political environment of polarized premises. By the time to discuss areas of agreement, the original premises of one side are imprinted by the other side and vice versa. My assumption is that to break the impasse, the messengers and negotiators for each side's original premises must be replaced by more interest-based players. That requires enough players to short-term buck the polarized premise structures that seem endemic to both major parties. What do you think, Lauren?
Epistemologically ?
OK, that got my attention 😀
Gregory Bateson ?