5 ms·

It's a self fulfilling prophecy that's been ongoing since the 80s. An entire political party's ideology is based on the idea that government doesn't work and wh

It's a self fulfilling prophecy that's been ongoing since the 80s. An entire political party's ideology is based on the idea that government doesn't work and when in power they set out to prove it by making government dysfunctional by defunding agencies and confusing their mandates. That same party politicized clean air regulations, climate change, and wearing masks. This has crippled expertise because if one side can just pay anyone to say anything, whats the point?

someguydave 6y ago
yeah man, Republicans have ruined education and urban government
koolba 6y ago
The cities and States with the worst public education systems and the highest crime rates have been run by one party, the Democrats, for 50+ years. Some 100+! They can and have continued to raise taxes and subsequently squander any money they collect. Any attempt to break that stranglehold, such as changing teachers union hiring practices or allowing for charter schools, is met with total resistance. You’re right that government is the problem, but get it right which party is responsible.
- sorval 6y ago
  Thats just utterly untrue and the reverse of whats actually true. "states that were coded as blue based upon results from the 2004 presidential election were significantly higher in education funding than were states coded as red. Students in blue states scored significantly higher on outcome measures of math and reading in grades four and eight than did students in red states." https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503486.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503486.pdf
  - roenxi 6y ago
    I note that koolba's comment was evidence-lite and really rather partisan. So it is probably incorrect. However, claiming the reverse is true is also evidence-lite. That paper looks like it was a fairly cursory piece of work and didn't account for population size or characteristics (eg, number of disadvantaged students) in the correlation work. I suspect what it really shows is that political affiliation isn't the biggest driver of outcomes. Looking at the table at the end of the paper and thinking about population, I suspect the aim would be more of what Massachusetts does and less of what California does (both Democrat states) if possible.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Is there any correlation at all between increased school funding and better educational outcomes? For instance, Utah spends $5k per student per year while Baltimore spends $25k per student per year. Utahan children have higher graduation rates, better GPAs, and better standardized test scores. It's the same across the US from NYC to LA. I'm growing more and more skeptical that throwing more and more money into the furnace that is the US education system is suddenly going to produce better outcomes. How much more must Baltimore spend? $30k a student? $50k a student? $100k a student? Where's the magic number?
    - radicalbyte 6y ago
      It could be four things: - Comparing two statistical flukes. - Socio-economic factor: Utah has better wealth distribution. - Socio-economic factor: Utah has affordable housing and Baltimore so the effective wealth gap is lower. - Baltimore has other issues.
    - akiselev 6y ago
      According to [1] Utah spends $10,510 per student per year and according to [2] Baltimore spends $16,184. Where did you get your figures? [1] https://auditor.utah.gov/audit_reports/public-education/ https://auditor.utah.gov/audit_reports/public-education/ [2] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-spending.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-s...
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        I got it from the Annual Survey of School System Finances, U.S. Census Bureau, though on checking it again it's between $6,000 and $7,000 (I was recalling from memory). So not what I put in my comment exactly, but doesn't change my main point in any way.
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    That’s the most facile thing I’ve ever read. Did it control for cost of living? Did it control for demographics? In 2019, and I’m using this because you can explore it at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/states/groups?grade=8 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/states/groups?... , Mississippi’s 8th grade math mean score was the same as New Hampshire’s, when comparing white students. Mississippi is just way less white than New Hampshire. California, also near the bottom overall, has better white performance than New Hampshire, but not as good as Massachusetts, which has always had a lot of smart people moving to Boston. The ranking there is simply a diversity/brain drain ranking. Mississippi and California are way more diverse, so they rank low. States with nothing to attract or keep smart parents, like West Virginia, rank low too.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - someguydave 6y ago
      Yes, the whole puzzle becomes much simpler to think about when you consider the possibility that the school scores primarily reflect the quality of students admitted, and not the quality of the education administered.
  - madengr 6y ago
    They didn’t score significantly higher, just slightly higher. There isn’t much discrepancy between NE blue states and central red states on that table. If you sort at 8th grade scores, some blue states fall out of the top group.
PeterStuer 6y ago
From a non-US perspective, you described the dominant ideology of both your political parties. I'm not saying they are 'the same', but they both are extreme neoliberale market proponents. They also both embrace a tight intertwined government and enterprise regimen to the point where it becomes very difficult to tell who owns who, or whether it is just one organisation.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  Sorry, no, that is not the dominant ideology of both parties. You didn’t say “both sides are the same” but you are equating neoliberalism with anti-science. Go bang that “neoliberals bad” drum somewhere else.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Neoliberals are pro-market, and markets are inherently anti-science. If they weren't anti-science they wouldn't spend so much time running campaigns to discredit objective scientific research that harms their financial interests - from the effects of tobacco to lead in petrol to opioids to big oil to climate change. The historical record on this is absolutely crystal clear and unambiguous.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      Wow, that's quite a logical pretzel you've twisted yourself into. Congratulations.
_heimdall 6y ago
Elected officials from both parties have failed us. Yes the Republicans have made it painfully obvious just how little they care about the goals of the American experiment these last 4 years, but the Democratic party isn't fundamentally any better. The founders set the entire western world down the path of a bastardization of a republic and a representative democracy out of fear that voters are stupid. That choice has inherent risk that leaders will be corrupted and that those elected will move further away from what is in the public's best interests. The founders simply believed that this wouldn't arise, that the system could correct course and weed out the bad actors. All the Republicans have done since 2016 is shown how that belief fails. We don't have a true democracy, and what semblance of one had been chipped away at for years. The Republican Party of old wasn't wrong in wanting small government, the best way to keep corruption out of a representative system is to keep power out of those representatives' hands. They simply joined the Democratic Party on the side of big government and massive budgetary spending with a different target audience (big business and banks rather than citizens). The Democratic Party can't be ignored though. They have made a career of spending money they don't have and creating social programs that aren't sustainable and can't properly be defined on the scale of 300M+ citizens. Their solution for any problem is more control and more intricate rules, but that just leads to a less resilient system that is more dependant on the idea of leadership having every answer and solution.

someguydave 6y ago

yeah man, Republicans have ruined education and urban government

koolba 6y ago

The cities and States with the worst public education systems and the highest crime rates have been run by one party, the Democrats, for 50+ years. Some 100+! They can and have continued to raise taxes and subsequently squander any money they collect. Any attempt to break that stranglehold, such as changing teachers union hiring practices or allowing for charter schools, is met with total resistance. You’re right that government is the problem, but get it right which party is responsible.

sorval 6y ago
Thats just utterly untrue and the reverse of whats actually true. "states that were coded as blue based upon results from the 2004 presidential election were significantly higher in education funding than were states coded as red. Students in blue states scored significantly higher on outcome measures of math and reading in grades four and eight than did students in red states." https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503486.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503486.pdf
- roenxi 6y ago
  I note that koolba's comment was evidence-lite and really rather partisan. So it is probably incorrect. However, claiming the reverse is true is also evidence-lite. That paper looks like it was a fairly cursory piece of work and didn't account for population size or characteristics (eg, number of disadvantaged students) in the correlation work. I suspect what it really shows is that political affiliation isn't the biggest driver of outcomes. Looking at the table at the end of the paper and thinking about population, I suspect the aim would be more of what Massachusetts does and less of what California does (both Democrat states) if possible.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Is there any correlation at all between increased school funding and better educational outcomes? For instance, Utah spends $5k per student per year while Baltimore spends $25k per student per year. Utahan children have higher graduation rates, better GPAs, and better standardized test scores. It's the same across the US from NYC to LA. I'm growing more and more skeptical that throwing more and more money into the furnace that is the US education system is suddenly going to produce better outcomes. How much more must Baltimore spend? $30k a student? $50k a student? $100k a student? Where's the magic number?
  - radicalbyte 6y ago
    It could be four things: - Comparing two statistical flukes. - Socio-economic factor: Utah has better wealth distribution. - Socio-economic factor: Utah has affordable housing and Baltimore so the effective wealth gap is lower. - Baltimore has other issues.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    According to [1] Utah spends $10,510 per student per year and according to [2] Baltimore spends $16,184. Where did you get your figures? [1] https://auditor.utah.gov/audit_reports/public-education/ https://auditor.utah.gov/audit_reports/public-education/ [2] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-spending.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/school-s...
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      I got it from the Annual Survey of School System Finances, U.S. Census Bureau, though on checking it again it's between $6,000 and $7,000 (I was recalling from memory). So not what I put in my comment exactly, but doesn't change my main point in any way.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  That’s the most facile thing I’ve ever read. Did it control for cost of living? Did it control for demographics? In 2019, and I’m using this because you can explore it at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/states/groups?grade=8 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/states/groups?... , Mississippi’s 8th grade math mean score was the same as New Hampshire’s, when comparing white students. Mississippi is just way less white than New Hampshire. California, also near the bottom overall, has better white performance than New Hampshire, but not as good as Massachusetts, which has always had a lot of smart people moving to Boston. The ranking there is simply a diversity/brain drain ranking. Mississippi and California are way more diverse, so they rank low. States with nothing to attract or keep smart parents, like West Virginia, rank low too.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - someguydave 6y ago
    Yes, the whole puzzle becomes much simpler to think about when you consider the possibility that the school scores primarily reflect the quality of students admitted, and not the quality of the education administered.
- madengr 6y ago
  They didn’t score significantly higher, just slightly higher. There isn’t much discrepancy between NE blue states and central red states on that table. If you sort at 8th grade scores, some blue states fall out of the top group.

PeterStuer 6y ago

From a non-US perspective, you described the dominant ideology of both your political parties. I'm not saying they are 'the same', but they both are extreme neoliberale market proponents. They also both embrace a tight intertwined government and enterprise regimen to the point where it becomes very difficult to tell who owns who, or whether it is just one organisation.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
Sorry, no, that is not the dominant ideology of both parties. You didn’t say “both sides are the same” but you are equating neoliberalism with anti-science. Go bang that “neoliberals bad” drum somewhere else.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Neoliberals are pro-market, and markets are inherently anti-science. If they weren't anti-science they wouldn't spend so much time running campaigns to discredit objective scientific research that harms their financial interests - from the effects of tobacco to lead in petrol to opioids to big oil to climate change. The historical record on this is absolutely crystal clear and unambiguous.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    Wow, that's quite a logical pretzel you've twisted yourself into. Congratulations.

_heimdall 6y ago

Elected officials from both parties have failed us. Yes the Republicans have made it painfully obvious just how little they care about the goals of the American experiment these last 4 years, but the Democratic party isn't fundamentally any better. The founders set the entire western world down the path of a bastardization of a republic and a representative democracy out of fear that voters are stupid. That choice has inherent risk that leaders will be corrupted and that those elected will move further away from what is in the public's best interests. The founders simply believed that this wouldn't arise, that the system could correct course and weed out the bad actors. All the Republicans have done since 2016 is shown how that belief fails. We don't have a true democracy, and what semblance of one had been chipped away at for years. The Republican Party of old wasn't wrong in wanting small government, the best way to keep corruption out of a representative system is to keep power out of those representatives' hands. They simply joined the Democratic Party on the side of big government and massive budgetary spending with a different target audience (big business and banks rather than citizens). The Democratic Party can't be ignored though. They have made a career of spending money they don't have and creating social programs that aren't sustainable and can't properly be defined on the scale of 300M+ citizens. Their solution for any problem is more control and more intricate rules, but that just leads to a less resilient system that is more dependant on the idea of leadership having every answer and solution.