GP did say "all the kids", so maybe they actually meant all the kids, as in rich, poor, in-between. So that it wouldn't be based on family income or school sector or what-have-you.

Of course, this could be construed as "discrimination" against the better off, since they have to go through what seems like a tough time "just because of the poor people".

There is a long history of marxist groups trying to destroy the family by forcibly removing children and making them live in various communal camps. For example this was done in forced collectivization projects in the USSR and China, and also by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I really recommend watching the film "The Killing Fields", in order to see this in action.

Both the USSR and China ended up abandoning these efforts and now acknowledge them as terrible failures. The Khmer Rouge had to be forced out via military invasion.

Always the justification is the fact that smarter parents tend to have smarter kids, patient parents tend to have patient kids, etc. E.g. most things in life are at least half heritable, and so you will see both competency and dysfunction cluster in families. This offended the levelers greatly and so they decided that families need to be broken up and the kids randomized in order to achieve a Great Leveling.

The result has always been catastrophic, not to mention a gross human rights violation.

Hardly just the Marxists - the Nazis gave it a go, the Danes gave it a go and so did the Canadians [1]. This idea spans the political spectrum, and it tends to go, er, predictably.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06...

Meh… the Canadian example is more complex than the article infers. The idea is that all children should be educated in the public system. (we still do it today - education is mandatory). For First Nations in remote communities, those children would be required to attend residential schools since no local school existed.

If anything the mentality has more similarities to race relations today - “the White Man’s burden” of helping these cultures “bring themselves up”. Back then they took kids from parents and gave them a European education, and told them their current culture should be forgotten.

Today we just get rid of failing grades, calculus in high school, and standardized testing and implement racial quotas. In the end it’s the same - assuming we know best for other groups even if in the end it harms them.

Indeed, I didn't mean to equate them in any way other than "children were removed from their parents and educated according to prevailing practices." I suspect each example is quite unique.

Oh well this is a terrible idea beyond imagination. Even just simply "solving" poverty by the means of good old segregation, delimiting poor places with barbed wire, sounds better to me.

America is actually surprisingly socialist. Children from all backgrounds go to the same school.

In my country the middle class guards their children from the deplorables. Education is no longer equal for all.

It's not, because America is highly segregated by self-increasing difference in school quality (because more expensive homes in the area yield more property taxes to the municipality which are used to fund school), and better schools make richer people move to the place, driving up both home prices, and school qualities too by improving racial and social mix of students, and it goes on and on in a self-propelling virtuous cycle. As a result most places are strictly segregated and no, children from all backgrounds don't go to the same school because they don't live (poor can't afford) in the same school district.