6 ms·

I truly believe there there is very little relationship between funding and performance. Any claim that funding fixes performance problems is destroyed by the D

by burfog 6y ago

I truly believe there there is very little relationship between funding and performance. Any claim that funding fixes performance problems is destroyed by the DC public schools. (only need one counterexample) It isn't totally crazy to think that funding could cause some performance problems. Money buys gadgets, and gadgets are distractions. All computing devices are repurposed into game machines. If teachers "literally had to purchase their own supplies", where was the union? Was the school firing teachers who didn't forego a portion of their pay to get supplies? Replacements get purchased because it won't be acceptable to have some students without the equipment, particularly if that involves any demographic factors that could cause a scandal. The risk of a civil rights lawsuit, or even just a major unflattering news story, is not going to be taken.

qchris 6y ago
This is something people researched for a long time. Either way, you definitely need more than a single counterexample to wholesale claim that there is little relationship between funding and performance. I've linked a couple of studies below; one is a direct rebuttal to a previously done study claiming what you are.[1] Both sides are a little dated, so I've linked a 2016 Rutgers study which directly states in the conclusion that "The idea that 'money doesn't matter' is no longer defensible." [2] I'm sure you can look for additional primary sources in that paper's references. I'd also like to know where the union was, although I suspect they were working on it or were fighting for other things. As I mentioned before, recovery to even pre-Recession levels has taken a long time even with educator union action, and even then has been uneven across the country[3]. If you're actually interested, I can reach out to those people in my life for more specifics, but it may be a few days before I hear back. I disagree about the actions that a school administration would take. To me, it's more likely they'd just say "nope, that didn't work" and use them for in-class-only activities for a few years until the machines gave up, rather than spend money on replacements. Because it's a hypothetical, I don't see much of a way forward here, besides just agreeing to disagree. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543066003361 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/003465430660033... (may need to use SciHub, etc. for access) [2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596199.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596199.pdf [3] https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-19sfp.pdf https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-19s...
- burfog 6y ago
  Looking at study #2... I immediately notice that the study is funded by the American Federation of Teachers. That makes it credible like a smoking study funded by tobacco companies. This should not be getting served by a .gov web site! I also see that the authors have highly biased credentials, and that none are related to economics or statistics. It says "Moreover, using models that estimate the spending levels required to achieve common outcome goals, we find that the vast majority of states spend well under the levels that would be necessary for their higher-poverty districts to achieve national average test scores." which is technically true because the needed funding is beyond infinite. No amount of school funding can fix bad students. The study's comment that this "would likely be a multi-generational effort" can be seen as an admission that the funding won't actually work. The claim that "there is now widespread agreement" that the schools need more money appears to be an argumentum ad populum. I see a repeated claim that schools serving students with poverty need more money per student. If true, this proves that money is not the problem. Bad students are the problem. The "progressivity" idea throughout the document is really disgusting. The idea is that problems unrelated to school funding could be fixed by throwing more money at the problem. There is the assumption that we should prefer spending money to educate people who don't want education over spending money to improve the education of people who actually want it. That is wasteful. BTW, regarding the actions that a school district would take regarding destroyed property, it's not a hypothetical. I think it was last week that I had a teacher explaining it to me, but I can't find the comment right now. The kids were tossing them down stairwells for fun, but I don't remember the brand of hardware. I've also known teachers, not just from my own childhood but as an adult, and it fits. Schools are horribly mismanaged. Bad management shouldn't be rewarded with larger budgets.
  - qchris 6y ago
    I suppose that's fair--funding bias is surely a thing, and may be valid in this case, although I disagree about the actual authors "highly biased" credentials. If someone was interested in education, those are the kind of credentials one would have. It would be like dismissing a civil engineer's opinion about the stability of a bridge, simply because other civil engineers might make money off the repair. >> "would likely be a multi-generational effort can be seen as an admission that the funding won't actually work. I squinted pretty hard, and failed to see that admission. I do see an honest acknowledgement that lack of funding builds systemic issues in areas with poor educational systems, which takes time to resolve. "Give all the money overnight and that will fix everything immediately" is completely different from "some extra money to make sure kids actually have pens and paper". Also, describing "widespread agreement" isn't a logical fallacy in this case, it's a necessary precursor to public policy. Can you imagine setting policy based on the reverse? "Very few experts agree about this topic, so lets do...." It's as important in education policy as it is for choosing the next large particle physics experiment. The article is largely a meta-analysis anyway--describing the current consensus is sort of the point. >> I see a repeated claim that schools serving students with poverty need more money per student. If true, this proves that money is not the problem. Bad students are the problem. This sentence and the following paragraph comes uncomfortably close to being a dog-whistle about poor people (and let's be honest, many of whom are people of color) being fundamentally bad students and not worth spending money on because they don't care about learning anyway. I think your logic about what proves what is shallow and flawed, and the sentiment harmful. I can't prove or disprove your anecdote about kids destroying computers, or how widespread that is, but it's sort of a sidetrack here anyway. There's a spectrum between "every family must pay for private tutors and materials out of pocket for the their children's entire education" and "let's have public schools give free laptops to students to destroy with no consequences". My point is that having thousands of kids in the "go to school but can't be successful because they lack access to the basic materials" part of that spectrum is the wrong answer, and one that is easily fixed by increasing funding for that purpose.

by burfog 6y ago

qchris 6y ago

This is something people researched for a long time. Either way, you definitely need more than a single counterexample to wholesale claim that there is little relationship between funding and performance. I've linked a couple of studies below; one is a direct rebuttal to a previously done study claiming what you are.[1] Both sides are a little dated, so I've linked a 2016 Rutgers study which directly states in the conclusion that "The idea that 'money doesn't matter' is no longer defensible." [2] I'm sure you can look for additional primary sources in that paper's references. I'd also like to know where the union was, although I suspect they were working on it or were fighting for other things. As I mentioned before, recovery to even pre-Recession levels has taken a long time even with educator union action, and even then has been uneven across the country[3]. If you're actually interested, I can reach out to those people in my life for more specifics, but it may be a few days before I hear back. I disagree about the actions that a school administration would take. To me, it's more likely they'd just say "nope, that didn't work" and use them for in-class-only activities for a few years until the machines gave up, rather than spend money on replacements. Because it's a hypothetical, I don't see much of a way forward here, besides just agreeing to disagree. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543066003361 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/003465430660033... (may need to use SciHub, etc. for access) [2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596199.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596199.pdf [3] https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-19sfp.pdf https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-19s...

burfog 6y ago
Looking at study #2... I immediately notice that the study is funded by the American Federation of Teachers. That makes it credible like a smoking study funded by tobacco companies. This should not be getting served by a .gov web site! I also see that the authors have highly biased credentials, and that none are related to economics or statistics. It says "Moreover, using models that estimate the spending levels required to achieve common outcome goals, we find that the vast majority of states spend well under the levels that would be necessary for their higher-poverty districts to achieve national average test scores." which is technically true because the needed funding is beyond infinite. No amount of school funding can fix bad students. The study's comment that this "would likely be a multi-generational effort" can be seen as an admission that the funding won't actually work. The claim that "there is now widespread agreement" that the schools need more money appears to be an argumentum ad populum. I see a repeated claim that schools serving students with poverty need more money per student. If true, this proves that money is not the problem. Bad students are the problem. The "progressivity" idea throughout the document is really disgusting. The idea is that problems unrelated to school funding could be fixed by throwing more money at the problem. There is the assumption that we should prefer spending money to educate people who don't want education over spending money to improve the education of people who actually want it. That is wasteful. BTW, regarding the actions that a school district would take regarding destroyed property, it's not a hypothetical. I think it was last week that I had a teacher explaining it to me, but I can't find the comment right now. The kids were tossing them down stairwells for fun, but I don't remember the brand of hardware. I've also known teachers, not just from my own childhood but as an adult, and it fits. Schools are horribly mismanaged. Bad management shouldn't be rewarded with larger budgets.
- qchris 6y ago
  I suppose that's fair--funding bias is surely a thing, and may be valid in this case, although I disagree about the actual authors "highly biased" credentials. If someone was interested in education, those are the kind of credentials one would have. It would be like dismissing a civil engineer's opinion about the stability of a bridge, simply because other civil engineers might make money off the repair. >> "would likely be a multi-generational effort can be seen as an admission that the funding won't actually work. I squinted pretty hard, and failed to see that admission. I do see an honest acknowledgement that lack of funding builds systemic issues in areas with poor educational systems, which takes time to resolve. "Give all the money overnight and that will fix everything immediately" is completely different from "some extra money to make sure kids actually have pens and paper". Also, describing "widespread agreement" isn't a logical fallacy in this case, it's a necessary precursor to public policy. Can you imagine setting policy based on the reverse? "Very few experts agree about this topic, so lets do...." It's as important in education policy as it is for choosing the next large particle physics experiment. The article is largely a meta-analysis anyway--describing the current consensus is sort of the point. >> I see a repeated claim that schools serving students with poverty need more money per student. If true, this proves that money is not the problem. Bad students are the problem. This sentence and the following paragraph comes uncomfortably close to being a dog-whistle about poor people (and let's be honest, many of whom are people of color) being fundamentally bad students and not worth spending money on because they don't care about learning anyway. I think your logic about what proves what is shallow and flawed, and the sentiment harmful. I can't prove or disprove your anecdote about kids destroying computers, or how widespread that is, but it's sort of a sidetrack here anyway. There's a spectrum between "every family must pay for private tutors and materials out of pocket for the their children's entire education" and "let's have public schools give free laptops to students to destroy with no consequences". My point is that having thousands of kids in the "go to school but can't be successful because they lack access to the basic materials" part of that spectrum is the wrong answer, and one that is easily fixed by increasing funding for that purpose.