6 ms·

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

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.
      - burfog 6y ago
        They should do what my teachers did. Students are to bring specific types of paper according to teacher preference. That could mean lined paper, plain paper, 1mm graph paper, or even a lab book with a stitched binding. Students who do not come prepared for class get "F" grades. It's the same for calculators, pencils, pens, gym shorts, closed-toe shoes, and lots of other things. Teachers should never ever diminish their own pay by buying supplies. That pay is for personal use. Spending it at work creates an ugly competition, especially if the supplies improve teacher ratings. It's an arms race that consumes teacher pay.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I think education for children is important but I feel that it's certainly not where you get a high ROI today. Right now higher education is the real money maker.

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.
    - burfog 6y ago
      They should do what my teachers did. Students are to bring specific types of paper according to teacher preference. That could mean lined paper, plain paper, 1mm graph paper, or even a lab book with a stitched binding. Students who do not come prepared for class get "F" grades. It's the same for calculators, pencils, pens, gym shorts, closed-toe shoes, and lots of other things. Teachers should never ever diminish their own pay by buying supplies. That pay is for personal use. Spending it at work creates an ugly competition, especially if the supplies improve teacher ratings. It's an arms race that consumes teacher pay.
imtringued 6y ago
I think education for children is important but I feel that it's certainly not where you get a high ROI today. Right now higher education is the real money maker.