Traub's argument mostly focuses on the fact that as long these children are in such a poverty striken environment that they will constantly struggle to graduate from high school. Even if money is given to these children's education it will not have much effect if the poverty cycle remains. Bringing early intervention programs, providing better equipment, lower number of students per class, sufficient books and determined upbeat teachers will help but it will not solve the problem. .
Children are not stupid, when they see the poor environment they live in, they see no hope of leaving for greener pastures. Especially if their family, friends and peers don't see themselves improving their life styles why should these children be anymore optimistic? Most of these children's parents are working a lot to support them and are not even around a lot to help their children with school or to keep them properly motivated. Not only is the condition of their schools and home lives not up to par, but the streets they walk on and the town they live in are in horrible shape also. That could heavily discourage a child, because I would bet that the idea of getting home safely is more important then a weekly spelling test. Not to mention sewage overflows and blankets of smoke cover some of these towns. So if these children are not physically healthy it is that much harder for them to function properly on any level. Because these children don't have suffici!.
ent medical coverage to seek the needed health care. .
These children need more then money, they need more then most people can provide. They need to have safety, health, attention and education. Things most of us have had and take for granted, but they don't. And they also need to see what is outside the poverty stricken boundaries they live so they can see that there is hope for a better life. .
Kozol's argument is based on that we give equal amounts of money to all schools then these children then the educations received will be more equal.