My sister is 5 years younger, and when my parents registered her for school they were given a choice to sign up for a new French Immersion program that the school board was offering. So they signed her up.
That group of students vastly out performed their peers, and by the time they graduated high school, her class comprised nearly all of the top students. People looked at the program and thought it was something to do with language, or funding, or other factors. People even bitched when those kids got all the scholarships, saying things like in this thread about wealthy parents, and funding and opportunities.
But they were dead wrong. The program cost the parents nothing. There were no requirements to get in. Parents had a form they filled out with the rest of the forms, ANY child rich or poor could have been signed up for this program. When looking at the kids in it, they didn’t come from either the richest or the poorest families, they were solidly middle to lower class. They didn’t get any extra funding, or better teachers. They simply represented parents that put in that little extra thought about their kid’s future.
Keep in mind, these kids were actually at a huge disadvantage since the parents didn’t speak French. Kids with French parents had their own school. So my parents had to try and help her without knowing French.
The next several cohorts continued to excel, and it took quite a few years before the “bad parents” started putting their kids in thinking it would compensate for being a bad parent. Now the program pretty closely resembles the standard school program.
So should the US take money from the Swedes and give it to Brazil?
Ah, I see. Well, here is a picture of a cat
Except, lots of kids in the impoverished schools are able to succeed. And you can find schools in middle class neighbourhoods with similar funding issues, where kids are able so succeed. Simply throwing a ton of funding at the school is unlikely to help if the parents don’t give a shit.
From what I remember in Malcom Gladwell’s books he looked at a voucher system and noticed that the kids of parents who applied performed better even when they didn’t go to a voucher school. The act of applying coincided with parents that gave a shit. And the kids of parents that care perform better regardless of school funding.
Many do try to tell them, I tried, those that listen are grateful and no longer in poverty.
Loosely? You have got to be kidding me. Please say that was a joke.
In the 50s the top tax rate was 91% and was lowered to near 70% in the 60s. The poverty rate was about 23% in the 50s and fell to about 12% in the 60s. The “loose” connection is that poverty fell along with the top marginal tax rate.
Fortunately for you I don’t believe correlation implies causation, so I’m willing to say there is no direct connection. Some how you got “loosely” out of that.
What’s funny about this post, is that when you compare being born in the US vs being born in Somalia, it really belittles the people in the US complaining about where they were born. You weren’t born in Somalia so quit your fucking bitching and do your homework. If you want to know what poverty is like go to Somalia and see what sort of social programs the various war lords offer.