<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let me just correct you on the notion that “social programs only exist because they sounded good to some interested parties.” They exist (as an aspect of misappropriated educational funding) partly in response to observed social urgencies (family problems, poverty, involvement with law enforcement, psychiatric issues) which do in fact jeopardize learning outcomes. But the model of the State (i.e., the Government) solving such problems is a “solution” fraught with its own failure, or at least limitations.</p>
<p>If anyone’s wondering, it is not my imagination that the intent is to use governmental funding to address these social ills in the schools. It is explicitly stated by the loudest advocates of urban school reform especially, and those advocates go further than what I enumerated. They have seriously stated that “the only way” for the schools to be effective in at-risk neighborhoods is for the school – yes, the school – to offer employment training and placement to parents of the students :eek: as well as all of the other non-academic services already available.</p>