So that's the positive, but you completely ignored the negative. I know you did it on purpose, but I don't know why.

The kids who were already statistically bound for a positive outcome due to family and income are fine, and locking that in even tighter. The kids who have hurdles have EVEN HIGHER hurdles now.

why do people need to be consumed by the negative all the time? must everybody be an activist? what do you realistically expect people to do besides talk about it online? is this really the place to virtue signal?

Are you only allowed to be a “builder of tomorrow” if you’re a high achiever from a high income district?

That would be a sad indictment of our society if true.

> That would be a sad indictment of our society if true.

You say that like it's evidence against (rather than for) it being true.

Let's assume it is true that richer areas have more builders of tomorrow. That's going to be true whether or not they get better schools. And giving them better schools does a disservice to the population. So "it sounds great" is severely misguided.

Giving better schools to students that highly achieve at least has some justification, but is probably unnecessary if we get all the schools up to 'competent' and have some money for various kinds of advanced placement programs.

I meant that "[You are] only allowed to be a "builder of tomorrow" if you're a high achiever from a high income district[.]" is, at least approximately (there are almost always exceptions of course) and in practice, true. I wasn't making any claim about whether that was good thing, either normatively or pragmaticly.

That is probably true though.

Would you like to continue your line of thought all the way and return to having poor children work in factories?