Free after school programs, free lunches, Medicare for All, public housing. These are all things that would level the playing field for poor kids and allow them to make the same decisions that wealthy kids get to make.

It’s not about choosing for them, it’s about lifting the boot on these kids necks enough so they can choose for themselves.

> Free after school programs, free lunches, Medicare for All, public housing.

Poor kids in America already get all of these, even free healthcare. The families of middle class kids have to pay for all of that, but not the families of poor kids.

Quadruple all these programs and you'll still have a situation where some kids want to do well but simply don't have the brains for it, and some kids who could do well but have shitty parents.

Early childhood (0-3) nutrition could probably productively use more expenditures. Setting that aside, I think your last point is a very large part of the problem (which also includes the nutrition point).

> What would the end state of the latter part of look like? Taking kids away from their families at birth and raising them in state not-quite-orphanages?

In other words, Plato's Republic.

I believe the model you're talking about is a Kibbutz, though I don't think they were state run.

If it's not state-run (or otherwise mandated), I think you'll still see significantly unequal access to friends (and family members) of different attitudes and aptitudes.

The really interesting thing about Kibbutzes is that they're radically communal - to the point where children are not supposed to belong to any individual, but to the community.

I'm sure it's impossible to factor out the human element of relationships, but it is interesting to me as an example of the spectrum that human societies will build.