4 ms·

We already spend a shitload of money on education here, and it's crap. Same with healthcare. Our spending is not the problem. Spending more money on schools wi

We already spend a shitload of money on education here, and it's crap. Same with healthcare. Our spending is not the problem. Spending more money on schools will not fix a social problem.

skissane 6y ago
It isn't just about how much money you spend, it is also about how the money is distributed, which actors get it and what they spend it on. If state governments took over control of schools and local school districts were abolished, that might well not lead to any change in the overall amount of money spent on public education, but it would very likely lead to changes in how and where that money was spent.
- nullserver 6y ago
  If kids don’t show up 50% of the time and the mom doesn’t care, and the Dad is long gone. Kids friends think learning makes you into a sell out. Money isn’t going to solve that.
  - skissane 6y ago
    I agree that changing funding models can’t address broader social issues. But at least the school can reach out to the parent(s) and say "your child is skipping school and failing", which this mother claims they did not. Either the mother is being untruthful, or else the school really did fail here in a way which is independent of the social issues of the child and their friends and family. And if the later is the case, changing administrative and funding structures might actually make some difference. Not to the ultimate problem of the child's social deprivation, but at least to the parent(s) saying "we had no idea".
    - nullserver 6y ago
      My wife’s a teacher, deals with lying parents constantly. “You never told me!” Umm we had 27 emails on the topic, you responded on half them. We scheduled 10 conferences and you showed up to none of them.
MarkLowenstein 6y ago
To add to what the problem is not: the dedication of teachers, like others have said. I've known teachers from all kinds of public schools. Almost to the last, they are not just interested in but desperate for their students to succeed. (Often resulting in grade inflation and ill-advised passing.) Also, most parents would really rather their kid succeed. It's easier for them that way. What does it leave? The kids. They resist education because it's hard and involves work; that's only natural. Some more than others, though, and having TV and games competing with school these days makes that number a lot higher than the only other option was rolling a hoop with a stick. Unsuccessful students drag their whole class back with them, because again, the teacher wants them to succeed. So it looks like when you have a critical mass of failing students - 20% maybe? - you descend below the event horizon and the whole school becomes irredeemable.

We already spend a shitload of money on education here, and it's crap. Same with healthcare. Our spending is not the problem. Spending more money on schools will not fix a social problem.

skissane 6y ago

It isn't just about how much money you spend, it is also about how the money is distributed, which actors get it and what they spend it on. If state governments took over control of schools and local school districts were abolished, that might well not lead to any change in the overall amount of money spent on public education, but it would very likely lead to changes in how and where that money was spent.

nullserver 6y ago
If kids don’t show up 50% of the time and the mom doesn’t care, and the Dad is long gone. Kids friends think learning makes you into a sell out. Money isn’t going to solve that.
- skissane 6y ago
  I agree that changing funding models can’t address broader social issues. But at least the school can reach out to the parent(s) and say "your child is skipping school and failing", which this mother claims they did not. Either the mother is being untruthful, or else the school really did fail here in a way which is independent of the social issues of the child and their friends and family. And if the later is the case, changing administrative and funding structures might actually make some difference. Not to the ultimate problem of the child's social deprivation, but at least to the parent(s) saying "we had no idea".
  - nullserver 6y ago
    My wife’s a teacher, deals with lying parents constantly. “You never told me!” Umm we had 27 emails on the topic, you responded on half them. We scheduled 10 conferences and you showed up to none of them.

MarkLowenstein 6y ago

To add to what the problem is not: the dedication of teachers, like others have said. I've known teachers from all kinds of public schools. Almost to the last, they are not just interested in but desperate for their students to succeed. (Often resulting in grade inflation and ill-advised passing.) Also, most parents would really rather their kid succeed. It's easier for them that way. What does it leave? The kids. They resist education because it's hard and involves work; that's only natural. Some more than others, though, and having TV and games competing with school these days makes that number a lot higher than the only other option was rolling a hoop with a stick. Unsuccessful students drag their whole class back with them, because again, the teacher wants them to succeed. So it looks like when you have a critical mass of failing students - 20% maybe? - you descend below the event horizon and the whole school becomes irredeemable.