4 ms·

Is there even a positive correlation between throwing more money at education and having better-educated kids? It looks like at some point over the last thirty

by _h4xr 18y ago

Is there even a positive correlation between throwing more money at education and having better-educated kids? It looks like at some point over the last thirty years, we got to the point that the administrative cost of distributing the next dollar for education exceeds one dollar, so the extra money gets soaked up by bureaucratic inefficiencies. But whatever! It's only billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent by a monopolist that buys its product from a cartel! Clearly, the important thing is to give more money to this completely deranged system, rather than fixing it.

TFrancis 18y ago
Right, let's reduce education! Ignore the order of magnitude more funding provided to the Department of Defense. This never made any sense to me. I target my voting like I optimize my code. Look for the biggest inefficiencies and start there.
- _h4xr 18y ago
  I don't see why that's relevant. I was responding to the argument that, contrary to the last few decades of high school spending for poorer performance, we might want to consider lowering spending. Unless there is some kind of treadmill of escalating dumbness, and we have to keep spending more and more on schools to break even.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Education spending is not just a single number. Should we spend more or less on: Sports, Teachers, Food, Text Books, Staff, Administration, Trips, Gifted Programs, Counseling Services, Science Fairs, Music Programs, preschool, 1st, 2nd...12th, Collage, Grad School, PhD Programs, Anti Drug Programs, Anti Teen Pregnancy Pamphlets, etc. I think it's safe to assume each of the above have related rates of diminishing returns. If you wanted to evaluate how effective changing each of the above programs where you might come up with an interesting idea but hacking education is more than just how much money should the US government in total spend.
    - _h4xr 18y ago
      Less (kids do sports on their own). Less (by making it easier to fire incompetent teachers). Unknown. Less (textbook companies are almost as bad as the teachers' cartel -- I learn more from old books, anyway). Unknown (what do you mean by staff?) Less (I have never walked into a school's administrative building and thought that these people seemed too busy and that what they did was important). Unknown (some trips are great, some are a waste. Maybe trips geared towards different sets of interests would be better -- e.g. don't send dumb jocks to a play if they're just going to make things miserable for the drama kids). Less (gifted programs tend to suck. Ideal gifted program: let them hang out in the library after hours, and maybe pester interested teachers). Less (counseling is counterproductive. We were a safer, saner country when we didn't diagnose temporary moods as medical problems). I don't understand how you spend money on science fairs. The ones I have been to involved students doing projects and displaying them at school. Who pays how much for what? More (for kids who aren't interested in athletics, music programs are a good way to participate in a team. They also teach some math, which is nice). Less (I've seen no evidence that preschool helps anyone). Less (high school is too expensive because too many people feel obligated to attend. A 14-year-old American who paid a little attention in school has enough knowledge to function at an acceptable level, so someone who could work for four years instead of staying in school should do so. Unless high school is worth more than the $20K/year they could get doing blue-collar work and learning a trade). Less (too many people go to college. Again, time value of money). Less (useful stuff is subsidized by the private sector. PhDs in the semiotics of of Star Trek / Harry Potter crossover slash are paid for by truculent taxpayers like me). Less. Above. Less. I don't think we should impose an anti-drug culture. Let kids learn at home whether or not it's okay to spend their time getting high, and of course to learn which drugs have which effects. Less. There are more efficient solutions.
      - Retric 18y ago
        Ok, do you have any research to back up those assumptions? It's easy to have an opinion about such things but on what basis are you making such assumptions. Across the US there is a huge range in how much we spend on each of these. Anyway, the Staff is everyone involved that is not teaching and not an administrator such as janitors, lunch ladies, school buss drivers etc. There is a wide range in cost for each of these across the US and at different points in the educational system. If you averaged each of these based on cost of living per area you would find many schools spend well under the existing average do you want to cut them to zero or bring them up to average and cut out the big spenders. PS: I don't understand how you spend money on science fairs. Every activity from printing a single scrap of paper costs money. I have known schools which stopped doing science fairs because the cost to much (under 1000$) and I know schools that spend a that much or more per student to give them access to the tools they need to do high level experimentation. (AKA access to an electron microscope etc.)
mwmanning 18y ago
I've never understood this mindset. Don't conservative types like you believe in market influences? How could spending more money NOT improve education levels? Just a couple of examples off the top of my head: 1) Spending more means higher teacher salaries. Higher salaries attract better talent, which means better education. 2) Spending more means better facilities and supplies. Decent materials and supplies lead to a better classroom experience. I went to a dirt-poor high school in south Georgia. My chem teacher was senile, our textbooks were 14 years old and falling apart, and the sinks leaked chemicals onto the floor. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but more money would have helped my school a TON. This whole "bureaucratic inefficiency" argument it a catch-all that greedy rich people like to use as an excuse to not help out the less-fortunate.
- _h4xr 18y ago
  "Don't conservative types like you believe in market influences? How could spending more money NOT improve education levels?" It's insulated from the actual market. Government schools are a de facto monopoly, since they sell their product below cost, and you have to pay for it even if you don't use it. They also use a teacher's cartel to supply their teachers, and this cartel pays a lot of money to lobbyists who craft our education policy. Given these layers of monopolies, cartels, and corruption, your reference to 'market influences' makes little sense. "1) Spending more means higher teacher salaries. Higher salaries attract better talent, which means better education" I'd rather figure out how to fire the bad teachers rather than hiring new ones. Imagine how much money we could spend on new teachers if we shut down the rubber room: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10education.html... "Decent materials and supplies lead to a better classroom experience." Oh. Does this mean "I looked at what kind of school supplies people used fifty years ago, and concluded..." or "I imagine..."? "This whole "bureaucratic inefficiency" argument it a catch-all that greedy rich people like to use as an excuse to not help out the less-fortunate." Or this whole "spending other people's money on a system that has only gotten more pathologically ineffective as billions of dollars of other people's money has been spent on it" argument is just a way for people to feel good about themselves without facing reality. Or maybe it's pointless to attribute someone else's argument to their biases, especially when you can't disprove the argument! I think we should accept that school is not for everyone. I think we should get people out of school when they can contribute more to society by working rather than disrupting classrooms. It's a travesty that so many otherwise useful 14-year-olds are earning their straight-D report cards for years (and spending my money to do it!) when they could be mopping floors, flipping burgers, etc. I would have been happier working full-time when I was thirteen, instead of going to school and only getting to work evenings and weekends. Surely I'm not the only one.

by _h4xr 18y ago

TFrancis 18y ago

Right, let's reduce education! Ignore the order of magnitude more funding provided to the Department of Defense. This never made any sense to me. I target my voting like I optimize my code. Look for the biggest inefficiencies and start there.

_h4xr 18y ago
I don't see why that's relevant. I was responding to the argument that, contrary to the last few decades of high school spending for poorer performance, we might want to consider lowering spending. Unless there is some kind of treadmill of escalating dumbness, and we have to keep spending more and more on schools to break even.
- Retric 18y ago
  Education spending is not just a single number. Should we spend more or less on: Sports, Teachers, Food, Text Books, Staff, Administration, Trips, Gifted Programs, Counseling Services, Science Fairs, Music Programs, preschool, 1st, 2nd...12th, Collage, Grad School, PhD Programs, Anti Drug Programs, Anti Teen Pregnancy Pamphlets, etc. I think it's safe to assume each of the above have related rates of diminishing returns. If you wanted to evaluate how effective changing each of the above programs where you might come up with an interesting idea but hacking education is more than just how much money should the US government in total spend.
  - _h4xr 18y ago
    Less (kids do sports on their own). Less (by making it easier to fire incompetent teachers). Unknown. Less (textbook companies are almost as bad as the teachers' cartel -- I learn more from old books, anyway). Unknown (what do you mean by staff?) Less (I have never walked into a school's administrative building and thought that these people seemed too busy and that what they did was important). Unknown (some trips are great, some are a waste. Maybe trips geared towards different sets of interests would be better -- e.g. don't send dumb jocks to a play if they're just going to make things miserable for the drama kids). Less (gifted programs tend to suck. Ideal gifted program: let them hang out in the library after hours, and maybe pester interested teachers). Less (counseling is counterproductive. We were a safer, saner country when we didn't diagnose temporary moods as medical problems). I don't understand how you spend money on science fairs. The ones I have been to involved students doing projects and displaying them at school. Who pays how much for what? More (for kids who aren't interested in athletics, music programs are a good way to participate in a team. They also teach some math, which is nice). Less (I've seen no evidence that preschool helps anyone). Less (high school is too expensive because too many people feel obligated to attend. A 14-year-old American who paid a little attention in school has enough knowledge to function at an acceptable level, so someone who could work for four years instead of staying in school should do so. Unless high school is worth more than the $20K/year they could get doing blue-collar work and learning a trade). Less (too many people go to college. Again, time value of money). Less (useful stuff is subsidized by the private sector. PhDs in the semiotics of of Star Trek / Harry Potter crossover slash are paid for by truculent taxpayers like me). Less. Above. Less. I don't think we should impose an anti-drug culture. Let kids learn at home whether or not it's okay to spend their time getting high, and of course to learn which drugs have which effects. Less. There are more efficient solutions.
    - Retric 18y ago
      Ok, do you have any research to back up those assumptions? It's easy to have an opinion about such things but on what basis are you making such assumptions. Across the US there is a huge range in how much we spend on each of these. Anyway, the Staff is everyone involved that is not teaching and not an administrator such as janitors, lunch ladies, school buss drivers etc. There is a wide range in cost for each of these across the US and at different points in the educational system. If you averaged each of these based on cost of living per area you would find many schools spend well under the existing average do you want to cut them to zero or bring them up to average and cut out the big spenders. PS: I don't understand how you spend money on science fairs. Every activity from printing a single scrap of paper costs money. I have known schools which stopped doing science fairs because the cost to much (under 1000$) and I know schools that spend a that much or more per student to give them access to the tools they need to do high level experimentation. (AKA access to an electron microscope etc.)

mwmanning 18y ago

I've never understood this mindset. Don't conservative types like you believe in market influences? How could spending more money NOT improve education levels? Just a couple of examples off the top of my head: 1) Spending more means higher teacher salaries. Higher salaries attract better talent, which means better education. 2) Spending more means better facilities and supplies. Decent materials and supplies lead to a better classroom experience. I went to a dirt-poor high school in south Georgia. My chem teacher was senile, our textbooks were 14 years old and falling apart, and the sinks leaked chemicals onto the floor. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but more money would have helped my school a TON. This whole "bureaucratic inefficiency" argument it a catch-all that greedy rich people like to use as an excuse to not help out the less-fortunate.

_h4xr 18y ago
"Don't conservative types like you believe in market influences? How could spending more money NOT improve education levels?" It's insulated from the actual market. Government schools are a de facto monopoly, since they sell their product below cost, and you have to pay for it even if you don't use it. They also use a teacher's cartel to supply their teachers, and this cartel pays a lot of money to lobbyists who craft our education policy. Given these layers of monopolies, cartels, and corruption, your reference to 'market influences' makes little sense. "1) Spending more means higher teacher salaries. Higher salaries attract better talent, which means better education" I'd rather figure out how to fire the bad teachers rather than hiring new ones. Imagine how much money we could spend on new teachers if we shut down the rubber room: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10education.html... "Decent materials and supplies lead to a better classroom experience." Oh. Does this mean "I looked at what kind of school supplies people used fifty years ago, and concluded..." or "I imagine..."? "This whole "bureaucratic inefficiency" argument it a catch-all that greedy rich people like to use as an excuse to not help out the less-fortunate." Or this whole "spending other people's money on a system that has only gotten more pathologically ineffective as billions of dollars of other people's money has been spent on it" argument is just a way for people to feel good about themselves without facing reality. Or maybe it's pointless to attribute someone else's argument to their biases, especially when you can't disprove the argument! I think we should accept that school is not for everyone. I think we should get people out of school when they can contribute more to society by working rather than disrupting classrooms. It's a travesty that so many otherwise useful 14-year-olds are earning their straight-D report cards for years (and spending my money to do it!) when they could be mopping floors, flipping burgers, etc. I would have been happier working full-time when I was thirteen, instead of going to school and only getting to work evenings and weekends. Surely I'm not the only one.