More School, More Success?

I am an advocate of school. I'm among those who believe that education can lead one to success, no matter the background of the student.

But I do understand how money can be an issue for a student's success. Money keeps children out of colleges, and away from taking SAT/ACT and AP* Tests.

But public education on its own can work miracles if it's a good school.

One thing in the article I read that I couldn't understand was the argument that poverty stricken parents couldn't "afford" to send their kids to the extra-curricular activities that the more wealthy kids could. This kind of struck me by surprise, as I myself do not know of many extra-curricular activities that cost things aside from sports and the fine arts. Clubs, even those that are linked to academic subjects like math and science clubs are mostly free so far as I'm concerned. But maybe there are extra fees I was never aware of, though how there were without me noticing, I can't think of.

Not all public schools are awful, and if it's public, the poorer classes could access it. Roosevelt, Hubble, Cowles, all great examples of great schools that are absolutely free of charge.

I expected this article to be one of those "year-round" school advocacy papers, but it had far more to do with affordability then the actual length of the year or day. I'm skeptical about some of their arguments, but the rest actually seems rather sound.