2) Poor groups can't raise their own children and there should be intervention.
I think you may be misunderstanding part of the discussion. Saying that the poor cannot provide certain advantages to their children that better off parents can provide is not saying that the poor cannot raise their own children.
I think it is obvious that more well off people can provide advantages. The better off can afford extracurricular activities for their children, an abbundance of books, healthier food. At the truly high end of the economic spectrum you see private schools, private tutors, trips to other countries. And that is before you mention that generally the better off are better educated so they provide more cultured, articulate role models for their kids. Etc.
This is not saying that the poor cannot raise highly moral, hard working, children that become excellent people. But it is saying that when it comes to raising children that are educated, literate, and articulate the poor tend to be at a disadvantage.
And saying that the children from the poor could benefit from some appropriate assistance is not offensive, it is a simple fact. In fact, some programs for that very purpose already exist like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program and I have not yet heard it called offensive.
Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me.
Well, one obvious difference is the word "forced", another was that was trying to deliberately destroy the Native American's culture rather than providing education for people who (generally) want education. The forced assimilation programs were a national tragedy. Attempting to level the playing field in youth so that the children of the poor have a realistic chance of competing with the children of the better off in the job market is generally a good thing for the nation, as long as the programs involved are both effective and voluntary.
I think you may be misunderstanding part of the discussion. Saying that the poor cannot provide certain advantages to their children that better off parents can provide is not saying that the poor cannot raise their own children.
I think it is obvious that more well off people can provide advantages. The better off can afford extracurricular activities for their children, an abbundance of books, healthier food. At the truly high end of the economic spectrum you see private schools, private tutors, trips to other countries. And that is before you mention that generally the better off are better educated so they provide more cultured, articulate role models for their kids. Etc.
This is not saying that the poor cannot raise highly moral, hard working, children that become excellent people. But it is saying that when it comes to raising children that are educated, literate, and articulate the poor tend to be at a disadvantage.
And saying that the children from the poor could benefit from some appropriate assistance is not offensive, it is a simple fact. In fact, some programs for that very purpose already exist like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program and I have not yet heard it called offensive.
Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me.
Well, one obvious difference is the word "forced", another was that was trying to deliberately destroy the Native American's culture rather than providing education for people who (generally) want education. The forced assimilation programs were a national tragedy. Attempting to level the playing field in youth so that the children of the poor have a realistic chance of competing with the children of the better off in the job market is generally a good thing for the nation, as long as the programs involved are both effective and voluntary.
(edit: spelling)