How would society change if the federal government did not provide school lunch programs for students from low-income families, or support research in education?

If the federal government stopped lunch program support:

The majority of kids benefited from lunch programs would definitely decrease their performance at school. They would also develop malnutrition and they would get sick, bad notes and eventually stop going to school or dropping out after many years of difficulty. Access to opportunity is the biggest determining factor in developing countries.

If the federal government stopped research in education support:

The education experience would not progress. We would face the same results we are seeing right now and we would not improve it. Therefore, only a fraction of the population would develop significant learning experiences, and progress would be limited.

Explanation:

All right, first of all, the lunch programs are incredibly necessary for U.S. Public education. Because they attend a big need that determines the chance someone has to grow and develop. Latin America, Africa, and western Asia suffer from poor access to opportunity and they are countries with high levels of drop out and no tertiary education because children get tired o not having enough resources to enjoy educative experiences. They fight to survive and to perform well at school. Therefore only less than 20% of the population study a tertiary level of education even when education is free in those countries. That would be the effect in the U.S. if the lunch program stopped.

Research in education improves it and makes it a better experience for both the student and the teacher. Nevertheless, if we don't support it. We would get the same results we are getting today, leaving no room for improvement. The nation would suffer a decline in technology, production, and would lose the development race against countries that would support it.