3 ms·
There's something really interesting here. Consider what you just said and then go check this [1] out. Those are data from the OECD for expenditures on educatio
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
There's something really interesting here. Consider what you just said and then go check this [1] out. Those are data from the OECD for expenditures on education per capita. We spend more than nearly anywhere else in the world on education. You might be thinking 'well that's because university costs so much' but those data show the breakdown in costs by various filters such as primary or secondary. And you'll see there too we spend more than nearly anywhere. For all combined education outside university we're 5th in the world.
The public/private spending tables are not so useful because they measure based on GDP, which leads to bizarre results like South Africa and Costa Rica being top of the world in education, but you can convert it into usable data. For instance we see that we spend 3.2% of our GDP publicly on all education outside of university, and we spend 0.31% of it privately. So we can combine those two to tell us that 3.2 / (3.2 + 0.31) = 91% of all spending on education outside of university is publicly funded. Since we spend $12,424 per student per year on this education group, we can then say that we publicly spend $11,327 of public funds per student per year. Now going back to our education table we can see that this means we are ranked 8th in the world by spending even if we only compare out public spending to every other country's public+private spending.
The point of this is that we spend alot on education. Yet as you yourself have said, we have quite an awful education system. By contrast you'll find many countries spending a tiny fraction of what we do, even parity adjusted, and excelling. For instance here are the PISA results, which provide a means of comparing educational performance between nations. [2] We definitely have a major problem with education, but I think there is no evidence that more money is anything like a solution.
If you genuinely care about children in general, then I think a far more productive idea would be to do something like join the Big Brothers and Big Sister's Program from United Way, and get to play a positive role in the life of disadvantaged youth. That program works, is fun, and you'll spend way less than you would just asking the government to take more money from you and others, and you can actually make a very positive change in somebody's life.
[1] - https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm
[2] - https://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-ma...
- dorchadas 8y agoAs a teacher, I see two major problems with education in the States. 1) It's so inconsistent across states. Like, some required a masters to teach, some don't. Some require you to have Algebra 2 to graduate, some don't. etc. etc. 2) Our schools are going through an identity crisis, are are trying to be everything to everyone. The schools are trying to prep students for college, while also trying to make them career ready. We haven't struck a balance, and instead are trying to do both for all students, instead of setting one of them on a vocational track. Yes, some schools are good at that, but then those vocational students still often have the same graduation requirements as those who are planning on going to college; or they only have slightly lowered ones (at the school I teach at, the difference is chemistry and 2 years of a foreign language). It's an issue that can only be resolved, in my opinion, by basically creating two types of schools, and separating the students at, say, age 15 or 16. And, of course, allowing them to change if they show the desire (and ability) to later.