uating classes as an assembly line product. In essence, I believe the point he is trying to convey is that schools produce certain types of people according to societys needs (or shall I say the needs of politicians and those who own large corporations). A definite correlation between impoverished school districts and disciplinary action can be seen throughout the U.S. This increase in security and authoritarianism teaches poor children their future place in society by inducing fear of authority and habits of obedience. He also mentions that corporations often target the least prosperous districts to market their products under the guise of educational tools. These schools often discourage creative thought and teach students that reading is dull and tedious as well. Conversely, the financially secure children can avoid public schools altogether by attending private school, or go to a public school with monetary advantages due to its location. Both of these options give well-to-do children access to a far better learning experience.One conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that children of impecunious families are undoubtedly at an educational disadvantage to begin with. Because of the pervasive toward those with low incomes, low-income schools expect less from their students. People tend to live up to the standards set for them, and since they are expected to anyway, there is little chance for creative, independent thought. Advanced courses that encourage this are often times not offered at these schools this maintains low standards. The odds are unquestionably stacked against the poor.On the other hand, the upper class, especially politicians and the owners of multi-billion dollar corporations, has a great interest in maintaining the status quo. Many politicians rely on huge corporations for much of their campaign funds, in turn, these corporations receive preferential treatment if the corporations have no money bad poli...
