5 ms·

>You provide individual, one-on-one full time tutoring to each student So, at a modest 2 hours of instruction per day, and assuming people spend on average 12

by pliny 8y ago

>You provide individual, one-on-one full time tutoring to each student So, at a modest 2 hours of instruction per day, and assuming people spend on average 12 years in education and 48 years in the workforce, you need at minimum for 1/16th of your adults to be teachers. Not 1/16th to be employed in education but just teachers and just for this education scheme. Today it's about 1/40th (in the us) and that includes post-secondary and administration, logistics etc. so you're scaling up the education sector by 3x or 4x AND you need to find something to do with the kids for the other 5-6 hours when their parents are working. >It's worth it, since educational spending is close to the most effective public spending imaginable - something in the $3-$5 return per dollar spent Marginal ROI does not work that way. Even assuming you get that return on what you're spending now, that doesn't mean the marginal dollar invested in education is getting that return nor that you can scale up the amount you spend and continue getting that return.

jaggederest 8y ago
Closer to 1/3rd of the working population as teachers, actually, by my numbers. Current spending is $13k/yr per student, I'd bump that comfortably up 4x to $52k per year. That's about one full time teacher per student. As for marginal ROI, if the effects are as dramatic as the stated research implies, it'd be more than worth it. It would be a larger increase than the entire implementation of formal secondary and tertiary education system combined, which cost a lot more than K-8. I don't think you can overstate how large the demonstrated effect size was. Think "industrial revolution" or "invention of the printing press". Essentially you'd be spending an extra 3x the amount we currently spend to get... 5x? 10x? better outcomes. Results from those studies were equivalent to making the current best students in the country suddenly the very lowest tier of educational attainment - top 1% suddenly becomes the minimum standard. Think Rhodes scholars being "the new special ed kids", or the new "functionally illiterate must-pass graduates". (This is all assuming that the research was accurate, and the magnitude of difference is really that large. I'd want to see a lot of follow up.)
ProblemFactory 8y ago
> modest 2 hours of instruction per day Isn't this close to what students could/should be spending doing homework, reading or doing some projects together with their parents - effectively one-on-one tutoring for every single one of them? I suspect that US education spending is so high compared to other developed countries because it has to compensate for lack of social support elsewhere in society. The #1 factor in student success is parental involvement. Instead of buying iPads for low-income schools, what's needed is stable 35-40/hr week jobs that you can live on for low-income parents so that they can spend evenings with their family.

by pliny 8y ago

jaggederest 8y ago

Closer to 1/3rd of the working population as teachers, actually, by my numbers. Current spending is $13k/yr per student, I'd bump that comfortably up 4x to $52k per year. That's about one full time teacher per student. As for marginal ROI, if the effects are as dramatic as the stated research implies, it'd be more than worth it. It would be a larger increase than the entire implementation of formal secondary and tertiary education system combined, which cost a lot more than K-8. I don't think you can overstate how large the demonstrated effect size was. Think "industrial revolution" or "invention of the printing press". Essentially you'd be spending an extra 3x the amount we currently spend to get... 5x? 10x? better outcomes. Results from those studies were equivalent to making the current best students in the country suddenly the very lowest tier of educational attainment - top 1% suddenly becomes the minimum standard. Think Rhodes scholars being "the new special ed kids", or the new "functionally illiterate must-pass graduates". (This is all assuming that the research was accurate, and the magnitude of difference is really that large. I'd want to see a lot of follow up.)

ProblemFactory 8y ago

> modest 2 hours of instruction per day Isn't this close to what students could/should be spending doing homework, reading or doing some projects together with their parents - effectively one-on-one tutoring for every single one of them? I suspect that US education spending is so high compared to other developed countries because it has to compensate for lack of social support elsewhere in society. The #1 factor in student success is parental involvement. Instead of buying iPads for low-income schools, what's needed is stable 35-40/hr week jobs that you can live on for low-income parents so that they can spend evenings with their family.