> If we were to think about this assertion rationally instead of emotionally, we would have to face what California has done: consigned its most vulnerable stud

> If we were to think about this assertion rationally instead of emotionally, we would have to face what California has done: consigned its most vulnerable students to some of the worst K–12 schools in America ...assuming a given school is responsible for 100% of its students' SAT scores. In reality parents are responsible for at least 50% of a kid's performance in school and so even if you put low income students into gold-plated schools they would still underperform because they lack a strong family life outside of school (i.e. educated, non single, motivational parents) that would have prepared them. Take a truant kid from Baltimore and put them in the finest high school in America and they would still fail because the problem is the family life enabling truancy, not how much money the school has.