3 ms·

The highest achievers will always have to fight politics instead of depend on it, since while a top achiever may produce 1000x the societal contribution of an a

• diN0bot 17y ago
  Consider also: "For each decision, consider the impact on the next seven generations" If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions? SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
  • MaysonL 17y ago
    Take a look at http://www.hcz.org/our-results http://www.hcz.org/our-results It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age. The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three. Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today. One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.