3 ms·

Because they are the ones who will see the biggest benefit from a good teacher. And concomitantly your country will benefit from a higher level of preficiency i

by feurio 5y ago

Because they are the ones who will see the biggest benefit from a good teacher. And concomitantly your country will benefit from a higher level of preficiency in maths of the population.

fallingknife 5y ago
Going from 25th percentile to 75th at math does little good. Going from 90th percentile to 99th is more valuable. Better to have a population that has a lower median math skill, but many math geniuses than a population that has a slightly higher median, but few right tail geniuses.
- nisegami 5y ago
  In a democracy, I strongly disagree. The masses have a tremendous impact on the society that your geniuses have to live in.
- feurio 5y ago
  If you're a genius, you're a genius - an average teacher would be able to point you in the direction of the more specialised coaching that would benefit you. For the kind of people who don't seem to be able to weigh up basic risk levels and end up dying unvaccinated at six times the rate of those that do, I'd suggest that going up enough percentiles to save their lives would be, yeah, kinda useful.
dahfizz 5y ago
> Because they are the ones who will see the biggest benefit from a good teacher. This is a big assertion, and one not well supported by data[1][2]. Money is not the bottleneck at any public school in the West. A student's performance is very well correlated to external factors like parental income and education level, and is NOT well correlated with the amount of money the state spends on education. Utah spends a third of New York per student, and still outperforms in test scores. I agree that the best teachers should go to the students who would benefit from those teachers the most. The students that would benefit most from good teachers are the good students, who exist in an environment that enables them to learn and excel. [1] https://medium.com/@tgof137/increased-school-funding-doesnt-improve-test-scores-here-s-what-might-3d46ebf5c1d https://medium.com/@tgof137/increased-school-funding-doesnt-... [2] https://www.alec.org/article/increasing-education-spending-equal-higher-test-scores/ https://www.alec.org/article/increasing-education-spending-e...
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  Who said anything about funding? You are attacking a strawman. Money isn't the bottleneck, but teacher quality is.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    The original assertion was > lowest scoring areas get the most funding and the highest paid teachers. I think using highest paid teachers as a proxy for best teachers makes sense in this context, because that's how the public policy works. A state looking to hire better teachers would raise teacher salaries in order to attract better teachers.

by feurio 5y ago

Because they are the ones who will see the biggest benefit from a good teacher. And concomitantly your country will benefit from a higher level of preficiency in maths of the population.

fallingknife 5y ago

Going from 25th percentile to 75th at math does little good. Going from 90th percentile to 99th is more valuable. Better to have a population that has a lower median math skill, but many math geniuses than a population that has a slightly higher median, but few right tail geniuses.

nisegami 5y ago
In a democracy, I strongly disagree. The masses have a tremendous impact on the society that your geniuses have to live in.
feurio 5y ago
If you're a genius, you're a genius - an average teacher would be able to point you in the direction of the more specialised coaching that would benefit you. For the kind of people who don't seem to be able to weigh up basic risk levels and end up dying unvaccinated at six times the rate of those that do, I'd suggest that going up enough percentiles to save their lives would be, yeah, kinda useful.

dahfizz 5y ago

> Because they are the ones who will see the biggest benefit from a good teacher. This is a big assertion, and one not well supported by data[1][2]. Money is not the bottleneck at any public school in the West. A student's performance is very well correlated to external factors like parental income and education level, and is NOT well correlated with the amount of money the state spends on education. Utah spends a third of New York per student, and still outperforms in test scores. I agree that the best teachers should go to the students who would benefit from those teachers the most. The students that would benefit most from good teachers are the good students, who exist in an environment that enables them to learn and excel. [1] https://medium.com/@tgof137/increased-school-funding-doesnt-improve-test-scores-here-s-what-might-3d46ebf5c1d https://medium.com/@tgof137/increased-school-funding-doesnt-... [2] https://www.alec.org/article/increasing-education-spending-equal-higher-test-scores/ https://www.alec.org/article/increasing-education-spending-e...

sanxiyn 5y ago
Who said anything about funding? You are attacking a strawman. Money isn't the bottleneck, but teacher quality is.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  The original assertion was > lowest scoring areas get the most funding and the highest paid teachers. I think using highest paid teachers as a proxy for best teachers makes sense in this context, because that's how the public policy works. A state looking to hire better teachers would raise teacher salaries in order to attract better teachers.