4 ms·

> Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. Because achievement is hard to measure. > If you hold ac

> Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. Because achievement is hard to measure. > If you hold achievement constant, but spend more, that is objectively worse. Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. Consider e.g., Lakeside's teletype terminal in 1960s. If computer access didn't increase aggregate ACT scores (which, it probably didn't...) was it then "objectively a waste of money"? Having grown up in post-NCLB school system, I'm extremely skeptical of standardized tests as a measure of educational achievement. We're a couple decades into confusing the map for the territory on this one. It's Lockhart's Lament [1] on steroids and in every subject. Funding levels are at least positively correlated with paying people well, which -- in every field I've worked in at least -- is typically correlated with higher quality employees. [1] https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....

darawk 8y ago
> Because achievement is hard to measure. Except that they already are measuring achievement. If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. > Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. No, it does not. It is always worse to spend more for the same level of achievement. If your argument that achievement is mismeasured, that is a completely separate issue.
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  > Except that they already are measuring achievement They are measuring performance on standardized tests. If by "achievement" you mean "does well on multiple choice exams", then sure. I don't trust standarized tests as a metric of achievement. Even without metric gaming they are pretty awful. And we've been solidly in systematic metric gaming land for least the past two decades. The entire K12 system is designed around increasing these test scores. > If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. No, you assume there's a hidden function that you can't measure or explain but which is representative of reality and also positively correlates funding levels with performance. I know it's a radical proposal in STEM communities, but sometimes measuring things causes a lot more problems than it solves.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Do you think those are good measurement of "achievement"? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But spending is never a good measurement of achievement. > No. My assumption is that measuring achievement is inherently impossible in something as multi-faceted and large as universal education. You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly. You think it is measured imperfectly. And I agree with you. But i'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending. I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards. And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly).
    - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
      > But spending is never a good measurement of achievement. Nobody said it was. > You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly. Obviously not. That's a ridiculous strawman and I think you know it. > But i'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the availability of resources IS a useful metric. > Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending. How is availability of resources unrelated? The idea that the level of resources available is irrelevant strikes me as fairly insane. You're really saying that you'd have the same quality teachers as $40k/yr as at $90k/yr or $500,000k/yr? CLEARLY resources effect outcomes. It's not the whole story, but it is a useful feature. To claim it's completely irrelevant because "oh look multiple choice exams that everyone has been systematically gaming for 20+ years" seems absolutely insane to me. > I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards. Sure. > And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly). I think the fundamental thesis of the article -- that we can scientifically manage a system of universal education -- is fundamentally and impossibly flawed. Especially given the current state of assessments and the incentive structures built around them.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  There's nothing inherently wrong with paying higher wages even if they generate no increase in performance. That's a wealth transfer, which could be either good or bad, depending on other factors.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Totally agree with you. But two things: 1) Wages weren't being measured, spending was. Not necessarily the same thing. 2) Teacher wages may be relevant as moral issue, but they are not the same thing as measuring the quality of a school, from an academic perspective, which is what the point of this article was.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Teachers are relatively privileged—college educated, middle class, and oh disproportionately white (80%). Raising teacher wages without seeing a benefit to the nation’s disproportionately minority (50%), lower income student population is shameful use of finite public money. If public money is invested, it should be done based on ROI. If there is no ROI, that’s welfare, and welfare should go to those with the greatest need.
    - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
      > If public money is invested, it should be done based on ROI. If there is no ROI, that’s welfare, and welfare should go to those with the greatest need. The problem we're currently facing -- on full display in this article -- is the wide-spread delusion that confuses "ROI" with "performance on one extraordinarily poorly designed multiple-choice test from the 70's".
  - sjg007 8y ago
    Especially when different locales have different costs.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    Paying higher wages is not the same as spending more. The us has extremely low wage growth for teachers among oecd nations while having the 5th? I think? highest per student expenditures among the oecd.

darawk 8y ago

> Because achievement is hard to measure. Except that they already are measuring achievement. If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. > Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. No, it does not. It is always worse to spend more for the same level of achievement. If your argument that achievement is mismeasured, that is a completely separate issue.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago
> Except that they already are measuring achievement They are measuring performance on standardized tests. If by "achievement" you mean "does well on multiple choice exams", then sure. I don't trust standarized tests as a metric of achievement. Even without metric gaming they are pretty awful. And we've been solidly in systematic metric gaming land for least the past two decades. The entire K12 system is designed around increasing these test scores. > If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. No, you assume there's a hidden function that you can't measure or explain but which is representative of reality and also positively correlates funding levels with performance. I know it's a radical proposal in STEM communities, but sometimes measuring things causes a lot more problems than it solves.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Do you think those are good measurement of "achievement"? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But spending is never a good measurement of achievement. > No. My assumption is that measuring achievement is inherently impossible in something as multi-faceted and large as universal education. You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly. You think it is measured imperfectly. And I agree with you. But i'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending. I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards. And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly).
  - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
    > But spending is never a good measurement of achievement. Nobody said it was. > You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly. Obviously not. That's a ridiculous strawman and I think you know it. > But i'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that the availability of resources IS a useful metric. > Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending. How is availability of resources unrelated? The idea that the level of resources available is irrelevant strikes me as fairly insane. You're really saying that you'd have the same quality teachers as $40k/yr as at $90k/yr or $500,000k/yr? CLEARLY resources effect outcomes. It's not the whole story, but it is a useful feature. To claim it's completely irrelevant because "oh look multiple choice exams that everyone has been systematically gaming for 20+ years" seems absolutely insane to me. > I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards. Sure. > And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly). I think the fundamental thesis of the article -- that we can scientifically manage a system of universal education -- is fundamentally and impossibly flawed. Especially given the current state of assessments and the incentive structures built around them.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
There's nothing inherently wrong with paying higher wages even if they generate no increase in performance. That's a wealth transfer, which could be either good or bad, depending on other factors.
- darawk 8y ago
  Totally agree with you. But two things: 1) Wages weren't being measured, spending was. Not necessarily the same thing. 2) Teacher wages may be relevant as moral issue, but they are not the same thing as measuring the quality of a school, from an academic perspective, which is what the point of this article was.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Teachers are relatively privileged—college educated, middle class, and oh disproportionately white (80%). Raising teacher wages without seeing a benefit to the nation’s disproportionately minority (50%), lower income student population is shameful use of finite public money. If public money is invested, it should be done based on ROI. If there is no ROI, that’s welfare, and welfare should go to those with the greatest need.
  - thrmsforbfast 8y ago
    > If public money is invested, it should be done based on ROI. If there is no ROI, that’s welfare, and welfare should go to those with the greatest need. The problem we're currently facing -- on full display in this article -- is the wide-spread delusion that confuses "ROI" with "performance on one extraordinarily poorly designed multiple-choice test from the 70's".
- sjg007 8y ago
  Especially when different locales have different costs.
- dnautics 8y ago
  Paying higher wages is not the same as spending more. The us has extremely low wage growth for teachers among oecd nations while having the 5th? I think? highest per student expenditures among the oecd.