Some weeks ago, social media was full of comparisons of educational results in Mississippi and wealthier states, with the key detail that the numbers were adjusted for poverty.  Elsewhere on the landscape of public debate, progressives were asserting that the effects of hunger on students’ ability to learn make it obligatory for schools to supply nourishment for all students.

The relevance of children’s well-being to their openness to education is, in general, obvious.  I’ll even go so far, as a Roman Catholic, as to say we, as a society, have a responsibility to address hunger and poverty.  But none of this means that the best way to handle such problems is always and everywhere to use education as a lever to impose socialism.  We cannot behave (but too often do) as if policies have straightforward solutions.  Rather, every change has myriad consequences, often in ways we don’t expect

Speaking with Jordan Peterson not long ago, Tony Robbins told the story of when his father left his family.  The final straw for his father came when somebody brought the family a charitable meal for Thanksgiving.  One can infer that it was a signal to him of his uselessness.  Mr. Robbins can certainly be faulted for his weakness, but he illustrates an important principle about our roles in society.  When teachers are feeding your kids, what’s your role?  What’s your responsibility?

And for that matter, what is the role of the schools? Note how much more quickly administrative staff has grown in the past couple decades compared with the number of teachers. When the focus of an organization changes, so do the points of leverage and priority within it.