4 ms·

> How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? I'm not. But you have

> How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? I'm not. But you have the burden of evidence backward! If you want to use metrics like standardized tests in this manner, then it's your job to prove to me that standardized tests are reasonably good metrics. Why? Because forcing schools to optimize for counter-productive metrics is actively harmful! Better to have no idea how to measure than to measure the wrong thing, use that metric to make high-stakes decisions, and thereby actively harm true outcomes. > I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing I mean parents who send their kids to private schools or home-school. Lots of them loathe standardized tests. Google will help you find the manifestos. > Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes? Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. > Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience. Well sure, if you happen to work in a trade where formal education isn't necessary. Nothing wrong with that of course! Most parents want to give their children the option to do something else, at least in their early formative years. I've no problem with my kid going to a tech school or even dropping out for on-the-job training, but I don't want to lock them into never being a doctor/lawayer/scientist before they hit puberty. > thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

cmdrfred 10y ago
You claim >But you have the burden of evidence backward! Then claim >Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. >Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me. You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupils-50-worse-poor-Children-lower-income-families-likely-achieve-three-Levels-subjects-including-maths-English.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poorer-families-do-worse-at-school-report-shows-a3341231.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo... https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor-kids-school-its-not-word-gap https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. Of course! There are really two claims in my argument that I need to defend: 1. Pay is effecting the number of highly skilled people who enter the field. (Also that standardized testing is effecting the number of high skilled people who enter the field, but that was a bit of a tangential point I think?) 2. high skilled teachers provide better educational outcomes. I THINK you're asking for evidence of the non-parenthetical portion of 1, so that's what I've provided. If I mis-interpreted your request for evidence, definitely let me know. I have cited good introductory essays for each of these three claims I've made. So, here's evidence for the claim that pay is effected teacher quality. This article from WaPo is a pretty balanced perspective (despite the clickbait title), citing some major names on both sides of the debate. It doesn't contain any of the data or analysis -- just competent summaries -- but it does link to the actual research if you're interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/16/think-teachers-arent-paid-enough-its-worse-than-you-think/?utm_term=.6167a899c4e7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/... From there you can follow bibliographies and get a pretty decent picture of the landscape. One key take-away that resonates with my experience, both interacting with STEM teachers and tutoring college kids: "Generally speaking, the small fraction of the most cognitively skilled college students who elect to become teachers has declined for decades (Corcoran, Evans, and Schwab 2004)". Other research does the work of tying those choices to various things, most notably pay. > You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? Of course I do. What I don't believe is that local school districts are anywhere remotely close to taxing people into poverty. Your claim was NOT that "poor students perform worse", which is what all your evidence backs. Your claim was that education budgets are such an enormous drain on household incomes that they make an appreciable difference in quality of life. I think that's probably bullshit.

cmdrfred 10y ago

You claim >But you have the burden of evidence backward! Then claim >Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. >Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me. You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupils-50-worse-poor-Children-lower-income-families-likely-achieve-three-Levels-subjects-including-maths-English.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poorer-families-do-worse-at-school-report-shows-a3341231.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo... https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor-kids-school-its-not-word-gap https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...

throwaway729 10y ago
> Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. Of course! There are really two claims in my argument that I need to defend: 1. Pay is effecting the number of highly skilled people who enter the field. (Also that standardized testing is effecting the number of high skilled people who enter the field, but that was a bit of a tangential point I think?) 2. high skilled teachers provide better educational outcomes. I THINK you're asking for evidence of the non-parenthetical portion of 1, so that's what I've provided. If I mis-interpreted your request for evidence, definitely let me know. I have cited good introductory essays for each of these three claims I've made. So, here's evidence for the claim that pay is effected teacher quality. This article from WaPo is a pretty balanced perspective (despite the clickbait title), citing some major names on both sides of the debate. It doesn't contain any of the data or analysis -- just competent summaries -- but it does link to the actual research if you're interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/16/think-teachers-arent-paid-enough-its-worse-than-you-think/?utm_term=.6167a899c4e7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/... From there you can follow bibliographies and get a pretty decent picture of the landscape. One key take-away that resonates with my experience, both interacting with STEM teachers and tutoring college kids: "Generally speaking, the small fraction of the most cognitively skilled college students who elect to become teachers has declined for decades (Corcoran, Evans, and Schwab 2004)". Other research does the work of tying those choices to various things, most notably pay. > You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? Of course I do. What I don't believe is that local school districts are anywhere remotely close to taxing people into poverty. Your claim was NOT that "poor students perform worse", which is what all your evidence backs. Your claim was that education budgets are such an enormous drain on household incomes that they make an appreciable difference in quality of life. I think that's probably bullshit.