Its been done. Its called a funded welfare state.

> Show me a school model that's succeeding with the most at risk subdemographic within disadvantaged communities and then I'll be impressed.

Absolutely right, because it takes much more thatn just a good school to eradicate poverty. If you really need to help children, you need to start by helping their parents: national healthcare and decent well paying jobs.

Parents will have time to dedicate to their children if they are not busy and drained struggling to keep their head above water.

https://i.imgur.com/JQfZ5vi.png

Inflation adjusted per capita income transfers have roughly doubled since 1990, from ~$4,400 to ~$8,600 in 2016.

I suspect that a big part of it is that money is being wasted (the Fed.Gov cannot negotiate drug prices!), and not reaching the intended beneficiaries. My perception is that there is an industrial-welfare complex that diverts the money.

A better question would be: Is the performance gap between poor students and middle class students lower in Germany?

Truly! But not low enough for the USA to be failing.

> Is it "fair" to only provide them to certain populations, those deemed most in need? If these methods are successful, why should any student be deprived of them?

The fact is, in the upper half of the American class system, educational needs are fantastically well served by redundant layers of investment. I went to an extremely well resourced public high school that made my mid-tier undergrad education a breeze.

That's not saying my school was perfect. Even it did a poor job of addressing the needs of the students at the highest risk. But this is my point. We need an attitude and behavioral shift toward truly embracing the concept that no child should be left behind without a fight.

I don't mean to sidestep your question, but you're identifying a purely hypothetical problem when we're in an ongoing educational crisis. It's kind of like saying, "won't those firehouses cause water damage to the carpet?"

And in the lower levels, we attempt to pick up the slack by spending more money. Unfortunately, this is not a problem money can solve. Motivated parents are the only real solution, assisted by more efficient use of resources.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-mor...

Today's "nonideal" parent is just the kid the system failed yesterday. Any solution has to acknowledge the debt we have built up.

I read the article you linked. It's a great article. But what it doesn't say is "unfortunately, this is not a problem money can solve", and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion.

Of course there are ways of spending money that don't have good "outcomes". But the article both cites examples where monetary investment has paid off and also challenges the reader to take an expansive view of what the "outcomes" are. Which I 100% agree with, because schools in impoverished carry far more of the load of holding together communities and providing essential services than in well off areas.

Subsidise embryo selection for IQ for the poor:

Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have.

[Western] Capitalism does this by concentrating wealth with higher "achievers".

If you're wealthy but less fecund you have more wealth to support each child than someone who is either more fecund or less wealthy.

And yes, dang responds to this kind of garbage, no matter which side it's aimed at...

When I see a comment advocating for actual white supremacy, I will flag it, downvote it, and do my best to rebut it. If you see that as "welcoming", so be it.