Ordinarily, I am enthralled by the work of Planet Money’s Adam Davidson. Davidson’s contribution to the New York Times Magazines special edition Failure is great when explaining why “Losers Win.” But, he doesn’t mention two-thirds of the story about the loss of economic stability in modern America. Consequently, his proposed solution, while valuable, is too narrow.

Davidson recalls the confidence, continuity and prosperity of the middle of the 20th century. He notes, “Our institutions – unions, schools, corporate career tracks, pensions and retirement accounts – were all predicated on a stable and rosy future.”

Viewed from the bottom up, this affluence and the promise that everyone could someday share the wealth was first undermined when the 1973 Energy Crisis started the deindustrialization of America. During the Reagan era, Supply Side Economics artificially accelerated the destruction of good jobs, wrecking families and the hopes of blue collar workers. I wish Davidson had included at least a paragraph on the destructiveness of the political tilt toward corporate powers before he explaining how those defeats are also measured in careers destroyed and divorces.

Of course, the destruction of careers and marriages undercut hope in the future, damaging schools and the educational performance of students caught in the churn.

Instead of acknowledging the ways that the rise of poverty, especially child poverty, has undermined teaching and learning,  Davidson stresses the entrepreneur’s top-down perspective.  He writes that the greatest challenge for American workers appeared in the 1970s in the form of computers. He predicts that this digital disruption will now transform health care, finance, education, and government, which now represent half of our economy. In doing so, Davidson stresses the positive potential of “never-before-seen” complex statistical models, the Maker Movement, and 3-D printing.

While I appreciate Davidson’s optimism, I don’t think he tackles the magnitude of the problem. Oxford University scholars estimates that 45% of American workers’ jobs are at high risk of being eliminated by computers in the next two decades. Yes, as Davidson notes, when the lives of tens of millions of workers change, we will need a far stronger social safety net. He does not explain how that would be possible without revitalizing the power of labor unions.

Young people, more than ever, will also require mentors who can help nurture the confidence and resiliency that the post-industrial world requires. But Davidson describes the likely effects of these economic changes on families and concludes, “The advice of mentors, whose wisdom is ascribed to a passing age, will mean less and less.”

In regard to education, Davidson’s vision is much too narrow. Yes, in terms of continuing education, he astutely calls for “the societal equivalent of those office parks in Sunnyvale (in Silicon Valley).”  But in terms of public education, he calls for schools like the Khan Academy and Coursera that will serve as teaching tools for career changers. Such a suggestion is merely using online tutorials to subsidize the Human Resources departments of corporations (that are already rolling in money.) It would do nothing to improve the life trajectories of the vast majority of students who need holistic, meaningful educations as well as the guidance of loving adults.

Davidson fails to address the inadequacy of market-driven reformers’ shortcuts for school improvement. He doesn’t seem to realize that corporate reformers – at best – are whistling past the graveyard as they pretend that their test, sort, and punish education policies can lead to college-readiness for everyone, much less increase the number of 21st century jobs.

What we really need is the societal and educational version of the way that family and neighborhood role models prepare children for meaningful lives. We need full-service community schools that will nurture the socio-emotional and the full potential of young people. Schooling must become a team effort, a loving cross-generational refuge. Education must be built on trusting emotional relationships that lay the foundation for a culture where creativity and innovation can blossom.

Davidson is half right in concluding that the enemy is “fear of failure.” But the real enemy is fear.

And the real solutions are the opposite of a frightened preoccupation with global competition. Any society that could invent the digital miracles that Davidson rightly praises is capable of restoring some of the economic equity that we once enjoyed.

I don’t want to leave a false impression. I don’t know the word limit on Davidson’s ambitious article and how much room he had for a discussion of education, and what he would have written on the subject if he had had unlimited space for it. To read multiple perspectives on school improvement, including the science-based approach with the most potential to improve 21st century education, go to Davidson’s Planet Money NPR web site.

What do you think? Why have reformers held themselves to such low standards, embracing an obsolete and impoverished vision of learning? Can Silicon Valley entrepreneurs learn about education or are they always going to dismiss public schools as too far below them to merit serious attention?