>>1166455Sounds like the case you're citing has a number of factors to consider. The Camden region clearly is packed with underprivileged minorities in lower income brackets. Given what I'm told about opportunities for that demographic in the States, i'm not surprised the students have a low graduation rate. Not that Canada can hold it's nose up to this issue.
The area's also described by the article as: "being known for corruption." Maybe funds are being misused?
On top of that Ulrich Boser spoke of how one shouldn't compare urban sprawl to the suburbs. I mean, you're talking about children who are generally more healthy, have stable households and are likely being taught by passionate teachers as opposed to jaded urbanites. I think it speaks to reason that less money need be invested where problems are less prevalent.
No where in the article does it say we shouldn't invest in our children. It reads to me like some asshole with an economics degree wrote it to prove that we should just stop trying to help poor children. No doubt he's one of those precious kids who "cost our taxpayers a mere 5000$ a year and rose through the ivy league." All the while having a lovely suburban safety net to return to.
I'm not saying we should throw money around blindly, but the fact is these areas are without a hope at recovery without social support.
