6 ms·

I think it's worth mentioning that almost any public health, education, welfare program for children gives excellent returns on investment, compared to trying t

I think it's worth mentioning that almost any public health, education, welfare program for children gives excellent returns on investment, compared to trying to apply that same money to people later in life (unemployment benefits, job retraining, etc). The amount you can positively change a child's life for the better means that reasonable expenditures on known problems should almost be a no-brainer. ( I'll see if I can dig up an article link about the difference in outcomes per $ spent, versus age of recipient.) Edit: here are multiple links within the article about the above: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/business/social-programs-profit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/business/social-programs-...

barry-cotter 6y ago
This isn’t true in education. I can’t speak to other fields but early childhood interventions are not more effective than later ones in that field. We can’t be sure, statistically, but the opposite is more likely to be the case. https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-heckman-curve-is-flat.html?m=1 https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-heckman... https://www.nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Rea_and_Burton.pdf https://www.nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Rea_and_B... IS THE HECKMAN CURVE CONSISTENT WITH THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON PROGRAM RETURNS BY AGE? The Heckman Curve depicts the empirical evidence on rates of return to public investment in human capital as rapidly diminishing with age. Investment early in the life course is characterised as providing significantly higher rates of return compared to investments targeted at people who are older. In this paper we use the Washington State Institute for Public Policy estimates of program benefit cost ratios to assess whether the Heckman Curve is consistent with the latest evidence. The data does not support the claim that programs targeted earlier in the life course provide the largest returns, or that adult programs will have benefit cost ratios that are less than one. The paper concludes by discussing the various features of both human capital and interventions that might explain why the predictions of the Heckman Curve are not consistent with the evidence.
- harikb 6y ago
  Isn’t it unfair to compare the overzealous first-world parents who try to push education more at preschool level to those parents targeted by GP, providing a “decent lower school education” to the poor? I think education is also high ROI, but just like anything else in economics, you can only push it to a certain level after which one gets diminishing returns. For the purpose of the discussion here, we should spent more on education of younger kids.
  - danaris 6y ago
    In particular, we should spend more on education of young, low-income kids. The idea that "throwing money at" education will yield no benefit is preposterous on the face of it, when so many schools lack such basics as sufficient textbooks, desks, and pencils. This is not even getting into the more modern research on better pedagogical techniques or the other ways in which a school can be a support system for at-risk children (like meals).
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      Education spending is up 180%, inflation adjusted since 1970, per student. Number of teachers is up ~50%. Student learning it’s basically flat. https://www.cato.org/blog/there-really-national-teacher-shortage https://www.cato.org/blog/there-really-national-teacher-shor... Practically unlimited school budgets in Kansas City had ~0 impact on student test scores. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-costly-educational-failure https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-c... Throwing money at education works if money is the limiting factor. That is not the case in any large part of the US, or most of the developed world.
      - qchris 6y ago
        Look, obviously you've provided a couple of sources, and my own experience is anecdotal, but I don't think your statement that "That is not the case for any large part of the US" can be true. I have a friend who went into Teach for America after college, and my cousin taught in NYC public schools for a bit after her undergrad. I've seen the look in my friend's eyes when I ask about his school's resources (we both went to a fairly good public school). I don't think he'll ever teach in a public school again. I once bought my cousin classroom supplies for her birthday so she wouldn't have to. I mean, printing paper for assignments, pens, that sort of thing; the bare minimum that she was otherwise paying out of pocket. She cried after receiving them, as a human I don't typically associate with overbearing emotion. These are Chicago and NYC public schools, respectively. I know it's a big country, but in both cases, we're talking thousands of kids in each of these districts. And it seems unlikely to assume that these two anecdotal experiences are somehow insane outliers among schools in the US, at least according to the experience of (almost) every other public school teacher I've talked to. Money matters, a lot, and if the total amount in schools somehow isn't a problem, then then the process of distributing it to where it's most needed sure as hell is.
aaron695 6y ago
I agree, but I think this also applies more to infants -> children. You can waste money on schooling or get proper care to infants in the first place.
Viliam1234 6y ago
Some educational programs have excellent results in short term, but the effect disappears in long term. For example, do some extra activities with kids during the first grade, and they will have measurably better outcomes in the second grade, but will be indistinguishable from their peers by the fifth grade.
- Waterluvian 6y ago
  Education is a ball being rolled up a hill. It’s not a bucket being filled with water. Super oversimplified but I’ve found it tells the general story: you can’t just come back to it later and expect to find the same progress. Constant nurturing, whether from yourself or a caregiver or an education system, is what has an impact. And I believe this is true for almost any age.
- k__ 6y ago
  If you teach a child good learning habits, it will probably also do good in the fifth grade. But yes, some less general stuff will get old quick.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Did they just do the activities in the first grade, then stop? If so, that doesn't seem to reflect real-world conditions. Parents/guardians that are attentive and involved in the first grade are likely to remain so throughout.
waheoo 6y ago
You're not wrong, but we're talking about 50c worth of deworming medicine to change the long term outcomes of someone's life drastically. Thats just insane.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Yeah but today policy is determined by tie-wearing businessman with Excel spreadsheets and fancy words like "opportunity cost" etc and anyway why spend 50c per person when you can spend the equivalent of $100 in some fancier military gear /s I'm all for planning and financial outlooks but there's a point where this becomes "let them eat cake"

barry-cotter 6y ago

This isn’t true in education. I can’t speak to other fields but early childhood interventions are not more effective than later ones in that field. We can’t be sure, statistically, but the opposite is more likely to be the case. https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-heckman-curve-is-flat.html?m=1 https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-heckman... https://www.nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Rea_and_Burton.pdf https://www.nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Rea_and_B... IS THE HECKMAN CURVE CONSISTENT WITH THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON PROGRAM RETURNS BY AGE? The Heckman Curve depicts the empirical evidence on rates of return to public investment in human capital as rapidly diminishing with age. Investment early in the life course is characterised as providing significantly higher rates of return compared to investments targeted at people who are older. In this paper we use the Washington State Institute for Public Policy estimates of program benefit cost ratios to assess whether the Heckman Curve is consistent with the latest evidence. The data does not support the claim that programs targeted earlier in the life course provide the largest returns, or that adult programs will have benefit cost ratios that are less than one. The paper concludes by discussing the various features of both human capital and interventions that might explain why the predictions of the Heckman Curve are not consistent with the evidence.

harikb 6y ago
Isn’t it unfair to compare the overzealous first-world parents who try to push education more at preschool level to those parents targeted by GP, providing a “decent lower school education” to the poor? I think education is also high ROI, but just like anything else in economics, you can only push it to a certain level after which one gets diminishing returns. For the purpose of the discussion here, we should spent more on education of younger kids.
- danaris 6y ago
  In particular, we should spend more on education of young, low-income kids. The idea that "throwing money at" education will yield no benefit is preposterous on the face of it, when so many schools lack such basics as sufficient textbooks, desks, and pencils. This is not even getting into the more modern research on better pedagogical techniques or the other ways in which a school can be a support system for at-risk children (like meals).
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    Education spending is up 180%, inflation adjusted since 1970, per student. Number of teachers is up ~50%. Student learning it’s basically flat. https://www.cato.org/blog/there-really-national-teacher-shortage https://www.cato.org/blog/there-really-national-teacher-shor... Practically unlimited school budgets in Kansas City had ~0 impact on student test scores. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-costly-educational-failure https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-c... Throwing money at education works if money is the limiting factor. That is not the case in any large part of the US, or most of the developed world.
    - qchris 6y ago
      Look, obviously you've provided a couple of sources, and my own experience is anecdotal, but I don't think your statement that "That is not the case for any large part of the US" can be true. I have a friend who went into Teach for America after college, and my cousin taught in NYC public schools for a bit after her undergrad. I've seen the look in my friend's eyes when I ask about his school's resources (we both went to a fairly good public school). I don't think he'll ever teach in a public school again. I once bought my cousin classroom supplies for her birthday so she wouldn't have to. I mean, printing paper for assignments, pens, that sort of thing; the bare minimum that she was otherwise paying out of pocket. She cried after receiving them, as a human I don't typically associate with overbearing emotion. These are Chicago and NYC public schools, respectively. I know it's a big country, but in both cases, we're talking thousands of kids in each of these districts. And it seems unlikely to assume that these two anecdotal experiences are somehow insane outliers among schools in the US, at least according to the experience of (almost) every other public school teacher I've talked to. Money matters, a lot, and if the total amount in schools somehow isn't a problem, then then the process of distributing it to where it's most needed sure as hell is.

aaron695 6y ago

I agree, but I think this also applies more to infants -> children. You can waste money on schooling or get proper care to infants in the first place.

Viliam1234 6y ago

Some educational programs have excellent results in short term, but the effect disappears in long term. For example, do some extra activities with kids during the first grade, and they will have measurably better outcomes in the second grade, but will be indistinguishable from their peers by the fifth grade.

Waterluvian 6y ago
Education is a ball being rolled up a hill. It’s not a bucket being filled with water. Super oversimplified but I’ve found it tells the general story: you can’t just come back to it later and expect to find the same progress. Constant nurturing, whether from yourself or a caregiver or an education system, is what has an impact. And I believe this is true for almost any age.
k__ 6y ago
If you teach a child good learning habits, it will probably also do good in the fifth grade. But yes, some less general stuff will get old quick.
triceratops 6y ago
Did they just do the activities in the first grade, then stop? If so, that doesn't seem to reflect real-world conditions. Parents/guardians that are attentive and involved in the first grade are likely to remain so throughout.

waheoo 6y ago

You're not wrong, but we're talking about 50c worth of deworming medicine to change the long term outcomes of someone's life drastically. Thats just insane.

raverbashing 6y ago
Yeah but today policy is determined by tie-wearing businessman with Excel spreadsheets and fancy words like "opportunity cost" etc and anyway why spend 50c per person when you can spend the equivalent of $100 in some fancier military gear /s I'm all for planning and financial outlooks but there's a point where this becomes "let them eat cake"