Society would lead you to believe that we need to help the lower classes more than the classes that are already excelling because, well, of exactly that reason.

"Johnny already has straight A's and top level education, he doesn't need to be any smarter, because Jamal is barely passing and has no tools".

I think this outlook is wrong.
While it is very important to help the lower-class to an elevated level of education and standard of living, it is absolutely essential for the furthering of humanity, and the development of the United States of America to promote people to not just be smart, not to just be innovative, but to be genius'. To be people who revolutionize the way a certain enviornment is seen, portrayed, and studied.

We used to promote that. Now that general education, even in it's lower classes, is still overall much better than it has ever been in the history of mankind (in other words, even the stupid people are smart as hell in relation to humans in the past) people feel that we don't need to elevate, or push those people who *can* develop amazing things for humans and the country they live in, to new heights.

People have this misconception that we already know all that there is to know, that physics and theorys are already figured out, tried, true. We don't need to persue it. Now we need to make everyone smart so everyone can live a nice healthy life. Wrong.

Some people are unable to live at the standard of living that you or I live, and some of those people are perfectally happy with their standard of living.

So to answer your question. We should ensure that we are giving the poorer people and the at risk students a choice of what to do with their life. Definitely give them the tools to become smarter, more sucessful and out of trouble, but by no means should we take tools away from those who have already decided that was the path they wanted to go with their life. WE should promote that, and help them further.

Sorry for the long post.

 

i see that. but then you have kids out there capable of so much more. but theres nothing out there for them to explore. most of the time its a financial thing that stops them.

funding isnt...not really. the percentages up there was just the population of an average school in oakland. the program i am at now targets southeast asian kids. its about 90% asian, 5% black, 5% white. the program is aimed at that population because at that particular school, they were well misunderrepresented.

 

OK USA!

 

your outlook is like mine. more money needs to be put into education.

ive been in the non-profit org for 2 years. ive seen what great changes it has made. its really depressing to see funding getting cut left and right.

 

Ask yourself this: if you put the money into the at risk kids are they going to make the effort to learn and become more intelligent?

 

When it comes to this kind of situation, it is a tough call.
But I honestly think that if you look at the cost-benefit ratio, funding the program to help the underrepresented kids is better than helping some smart kids further their education plan.

If your program can help 100 at-risk kids, but only 10 already smart children, then helping the 100 kids yield better results.

 

I agree. Better education. However, that doesn't necessarily mean more money. The current way we spend our educational dollars is assinine. Basically if you don't spend it you don't get it the following year. That's ludicrous.

We need to educate the lower class, and offer paid-for high-end classes for the Super-Smart, to make them excel and promote growth in our country and in the world... but that's where the money should go.

It doesn't need to go to putting a computer on every kids lap. A full-sized desk, or even smaller class-sizes. It needs to go to the teachers pockets, so they can give the tools to each individual student as they see fit.

There's no way to make a broad generalization of a student-body and say what they need or don't need. Each student is different, and no person is better to tell what that student needs, than the teacher who is in front of them every day.

 

I think the funding should go to the high risks kids, otherwise peeps like Dubster would be out of luck. h:

 

I agree with both antarius and Will

 

I would use it in a way that benefeits all students equally. The top-performing kids already have an edge, and half-measures aren't going to make a difference for "at risk" kids. It's not fair to neglect the middle-of-the-road kids just because they aren't exceptional. In fact, an afterschool program that has something for everyone might do more good by having all classes of kids mix socially, vs. the separation that targetted programs breed.