As a public school teacher in a minority school (90%+ black) I concur.
and when I was teaching in one of our capital's toughest, inner city schools I'd say that economics are certainly a factor.
Economics isn't either a causation or a correlation. It can be both, depending on how you talk about it.
No, it doesn't take money to love a kid and nurture learning. But it does take money to provide technology or resources or physical structures (and upkeep) and transportation and nutrition and safety and such that also impact student engagement and achievement.
But it's not the only factor. There are poor kids who do well and rich kids who perform poorly.
I think economics definitely plays a role. It's not the sole determinant, but it contributes.
I've been on campuses that are challenging and poor and underachieving and on campuses that, for example, are all boys boarding institutions whose alum refer to themselves as the "Old Boys" that spend 30-50k per year to attend.
The differences between the two places and what they can offer students is stark in the differences. And that doesn't mean that there aren't flunkies among the Old Boys or that it's impossible to succeed in tougher schools. But it also doesn't mean that money and resources don't play a role.
This post was edited on 12/4 at 2:34 pm