6 ms·

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 “d

by 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.
      - danaris 6y ago
        You....know that in many of these places, the reasons the teachers have to bring in supplies is the exact same reason the students can't, right? This is basically the education version of "let them eat cake", no exaggeration. Schools are funded out of local property taxes. Thus, poor areas—where the students and their families can't afford to be paying for specific school supplies that may vary "according to teacher preference"—are exactly the ones that don't have enough money for the school to be providing these things. I agree that teachers should never be spending out of pocket to provide supplies for their classes. But the solution isn't to force students whose families are already having to choose between food and heat, or rent and a new pair of (second-hand, beat-up) shoes for their rapidly-growing adolescent, to be the ones paying out of pocket. The solution is to fund all schools adequately so that the supplies necessary for reasonable teaching styles can be properly provided for by the school.
        burfog 6y ago
        I had to eat cake, like it or not. Nobody gave me the option to show up without school supplies. That would be an "F" grade. The schools are funded. Some of our best funded schools, the ones in DC for example, are particularly terrible. It's crazy enough to make one wonder if funding makes things worse! Typical problem: The school buys Chromebooks or iPads for everybody. There is no consequence for property destruction. Kids make a sport of tossing them down stairwells. The school provides replacements at no cost to the student. Maybe the student is "supposed to" reimburse the school, just like the student is "supposed to" not purposely destroy property, but nobody has the will or ability to enforce anything.
  - danaris 6y ago
    You have, once again, completely ignored the well-documented cases of schools whose buildings are falling down, whose desks all date back to 1953 (and show every year of it), who cannot afford basic supplies like pencils and textbooks, and so on, and on, and on. Tell me, Mr. Cato Institute, how "throwing money at" these problems can't solve them.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      Money would fix many problems if the political will were there. Unfortunately, those who make the biggest fuss about education are the ones doing the most to make it worse. ([0]Referring to the teacher's unions trying to conveniently kill off charter schools while they simultaneously remove standardized testing) The net result of policy like the above is 'grades have gone up (because of no uniform measuring) and our union is receiving record dues!' We have to push our elected officials towards practical and meaningful improvements and stop letting outside interests influence elections and policy so heavily. [0] https://www.demandsafeschools.org/demands/ https://www.demandsafeschools.org/demands/
- umvi 6y ago
  Yeah well half the problem with impoverished schools is rampant truancy. It doesn't matter how awesome the school is if the kids don't go (and the parents don't make them go)
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.

by harikb 6y ago

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.
    - danaris 6y ago
      You....know that in many of these places, the reasons the teachers have to bring in supplies is the exact same reason the students can't, right? This is basically the education version of "let them eat cake", no exaggeration. Schools are funded out of local property taxes. Thus, poor areas—where the students and their families can't afford to be paying for specific school supplies that may vary "according to teacher preference"—are exactly the ones that don't have enough money for the school to be providing these things. I agree that teachers should never be spending out of pocket to provide supplies for their classes. But the solution isn't to force students whose families are already having to choose between food and heat, or rent and a new pair of (second-hand, beat-up) shoes for their rapidly-growing adolescent, to be the ones paying out of pocket. The solution is to fund all schools adequately so that the supplies necessary for reasonable teaching styles can be properly provided for by the school.
      - burfog 6y ago
        I had to eat cake, like it or not. Nobody gave me the option to show up without school supplies. That would be an "F" grade. The schools are funded. Some of our best funded schools, the ones in DC for example, are particularly terrible. It's crazy enough to make one wonder if funding makes things worse! Typical problem: The school buys Chromebooks or iPads for everybody. There is no consequence for property destruction. Kids make a sport of tossing them down stairwells. The school provides replacements at no cost to the student. Maybe the student is "supposed to" reimburse the school, just like the student is "supposed to" not purposely destroy property, but nobody has the will or ability to enforce anything.
- danaris 6y ago
  You have, once again, completely ignored the well-documented cases of schools whose buildings are falling down, whose desks all date back to 1953 (and show every year of it), who cannot afford basic supplies like pencils and textbooks, and so on, and on, and on. Tell me, Mr. Cato Institute, how "throwing money at" these problems can't solve them.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    Money would fix many problems if the political will were there. Unfortunately, those who make the biggest fuss about education are the ones doing the most to make it worse. ([0]Referring to the teacher's unions trying to conveniently kill off charter schools while they simultaneously remove standardized testing) The net result of policy like the above is 'grades have gone up (because of no uniform measuring) and our union is receiving record dues!' We have to push our elected officials towards practical and meaningful improvements and stop letting outside interests influence elections and policy so heavily. [0] https://www.demandsafeschools.org/demands/ https://www.demandsafeschools.org/demands/
umvi 6y ago
Yeah well half the problem with impoverished schools is rampant truancy. It doesn't matter how awesome the school is if the kids don't go (and the parents don't make them go)

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.