4 ms·

There's alot of evidence that he disparity between schools and lack of equality in opportunity are the problem. This article is trying to address this. https://

There's alot of evidence that he disparity between schools and lack of equality in opportunity are the problem. This article is trying to address this. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2008/06/10/4567/ensuring-equal-opportunity-in-public-education/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/repor...

indubitable 9y ago
Where is the evidence? That article again simply seems to have assumed its conclusion. For fear of just repeating myself, we already spend substantially more public funds, than nearly everywhere in the world, on our children's educations. Even the less well funded districts are receiving far more money per child than the children in numerous nations that are outperforming us. To be more clear, finding that wealthier school districts perform better than poorer school districts does not immediately imply that the problem is money. I've yet to see compelling evidence suggesting that it is, and I think I've provided reasonably compelling evidence suggesting that it is not. To make this even clearer, let's use the same logic to make an absurdly false argument. 'Poor countries tend to do better than rich countries when it comes to training world class runners. Therefore, the problem for the richer countries is that they have too much money to train world class runners.' The statement is so illogical it reads nonsensically, yet if the reverse were true and that richer countries did a better job of producing world class runners, you might have been inclined to agree with that exact same fallacious logic!
- danans 9y ago
  > Even the less well funded districts are receiving far more money per child than the children in numerous nations that are outperforming us. Without some citable international performance numbers that are adjusted for 1) purchasing power parity, 2) class parity 3) social services and infrastructure availability and quality (i.e Sweden vs US) 4) education accessibility, this is a suspect claim,and on it's face it is very overgeneralized. Countries and their students are not monoliths.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    And I've already provided these data. Vietnam being my favorite example as a nation now pulling far ahead of us. The reason I mention that country is because I'm quite familiar with it, and even Houdini level mental gymnastics are not going to spin them ahead of us socially or economically in any way whatsoever. And they're not cherry picked. We rank 40th internationally in math now, far below even the OECD average. There are plenty of other examples to demonstrate that our problem is not money.
    - danans 9y ago
      Thanks for pointing out those links. Per the data available there, compared to other developed countries, the US is middle of the road in terms of % of public spending that goes toward public spending on education: https://data.oecd.org/chart/537O https://data.oecd.org/chart/537O I'm not advocating that putting more money in the education system alone is a solution, but considering that nations that spend more and those that spend less as a % of GDP get both better and worse results suggests it's not as simple as suggesting that more money won't help. If a lot more money is going to spent, it ought to be spent to address the root issues in poor communities (unemployment, lack of security, healthcare), whose effects ultimately manifest themselves in the classroom. What's unlikely to help educational outcomes in poor communities in the US is continued divestment and chalking the problem up to "cultural" issues in those communities. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, if we continue to expect (as we currently do) teachers in poor communities to function as social workers for the problems created by divestment instead of addressing the socioeconomic issues at their root, then we should pay teachers more for providing those services in addition to teaching. Vietnam is an interesting example, thanks for sharing. Notably, according to [1] it has a centralized state-run public educational system where public schools are directly administered by the government. Vietnam is also an authoritarian, single-party, and nominally communist society. That level of socialist-style centralization is not feasible (or even desired) in most parts of the US, where even at the state level, the government stays relatively removed from the day-to-day administration of the schools. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Vietnam

indubitable 9y ago

Where is the evidence? That article again simply seems to have assumed its conclusion. For fear of just repeating myself, we already spend substantially more public funds, than nearly everywhere in the world, on our children's educations. Even the less well funded districts are receiving far more money per child than the children in numerous nations that are outperforming us. To be more clear, finding that wealthier school districts perform better than poorer school districts does not immediately imply that the problem is money. I've yet to see compelling evidence suggesting that it is, and I think I've provided reasonably compelling evidence suggesting that it is not. To make this even clearer, let's use the same logic to make an absurdly false argument. 'Poor countries tend to do better than rich countries when it comes to training world class runners. Therefore, the problem for the richer countries is that they have too much money to train world class runners.' The statement is so illogical it reads nonsensically, yet if the reverse were true and that richer countries did a better job of producing world class runners, you might have been inclined to agree with that exact same fallacious logic!

danans 9y ago
> Even the less well funded districts are receiving far more money per child than the children in numerous nations that are outperforming us. Without some citable international performance numbers that are adjusted for 1) purchasing power parity, 2) class parity 3) social services and infrastructure availability and quality (i.e Sweden vs US) 4) education accessibility, this is a suspect claim,and on it's face it is very overgeneralized. Countries and their students are not monoliths.
- indubitable 9y ago
  And I've already provided these data. Vietnam being my favorite example as a nation now pulling far ahead of us. The reason I mention that country is because I'm quite familiar with it, and even Houdini level mental gymnastics are not going to spin them ahead of us socially or economically in any way whatsoever. And they're not cherry picked. We rank 40th internationally in math now, far below even the OECD average. There are plenty of other examples to demonstrate that our problem is not money.
  - danans 9y ago
    Thanks for pointing out those links. Per the data available there, compared to other developed countries, the US is middle of the road in terms of % of public spending that goes toward public spending on education: https://data.oecd.org/chart/537O https://data.oecd.org/chart/537O I'm not advocating that putting more money in the education system alone is a solution, but considering that nations that spend more and those that spend less as a % of GDP get both better and worse results suggests it's not as simple as suggesting that more money won't help. If a lot more money is going to spent, it ought to be spent to address the root issues in poor communities (unemployment, lack of security, healthcare), whose effects ultimately manifest themselves in the classroom. What's unlikely to help educational outcomes in poor communities in the US is continued divestment and chalking the problem up to "cultural" issues in those communities. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, if we continue to expect (as we currently do) teachers in poor communities to function as social workers for the problems created by divestment instead of addressing the socioeconomic issues at their root, then we should pay teachers more for providing those services in addition to teaching. Vietnam is an interesting example, thanks for sharing. Notably, according to [1] it has a centralized state-run public educational system where public schools are directly administered by the government. Vietnam is also an authoritarian, single-party, and nominally communist society. That level of socialist-style centralization is not feasible (or even desired) in most parts of the US, where even at the state level, the government stays relatively removed from the day-to-day administration of the schools. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Vietnam