6 ms·

As a parent of a public school kid, I am deeply frustrated by the overburdened mission scope of the school system. Schools must be a social welfare program, a b

As a parent of a public school kid, I am deeply frustrated by the overburdened mission scope of the school system. Schools must be a social welfare program, a babysitting service, and an educational system -- my impression from my own kids' journey through the system is that the priorities go in that order. When the essay talked about "high cost" students, my first thought was special ed. In my district, the 2021-22 budget allocates about $71M and 513 FTEs to serve 10,475 special ed students. Or, about $6778/yr and 2 hours per week per student. I've aggregated that across several categories -- in the most expensive of those, the per-student cost is $21,351/yr and 7.9 hours/week., which is over triple the average cost of an average student. This may sound shocking, but these kids have special needs, and those needs require resources to be met. Now let's look at a "low cost" special need: kids whose academic performance is very strong. In my district, the principal way that these kids are served are through the "Talented and Gifted" program (TAG). This program is nearly unfunded. The district has an annual budget of roughly $1b/yr., and serves nearly 40,000 students across over 50 schools. About 6,333 of those students are in TAG. The program has a total budget of roughly $387k/yr., or about $61/student/yr. It has 0.8 FTEs allocated -- that is to say, the budget allocates 32 hours a week of labor to serve the entire district's TAG K-12 needs, or about 18 seconds per week per TAG student. "TAG" kids are successful but they still have needs. They need extra attention from teachers and mentors. They need the opportunity to work on challenging coursework, focused on their areas of talent and interest. They need to be able to work with peers who can keep a similar pace. All of that costs a lot more than $61/yr. and needs more than 18 seconds/week of someone's time, but that's presently what they get. And I think that's because these kids look like they're doing great -- they get good grades, they're less likely to be on drugs or involved in gangs, and their attendance is usually solid. But that viewpoint only considers these kids in terms of the needs of the school and society at large, rather than their own need to be stimulated and cultivated and to have so much of their childhood spent wisely. Because nothing immediately blows up when those needs are unmet, nothing is spent to meet them, and the money goes towards the squeaky wheels. So when the linked essay talks about "low cost" students, I think it fails to address that they actually have high cost needs that are going unpaid. As a result, their parents have to shoulder the extra cost themselves by either paying out of pocket for a private school, or taking the time (and career sacrifice) to home school. That's exactly the kind of burden social programs like public education are supposed to avoid! Many families simply can't afford this or are unable to do this due to other barriers, and so their kids' needs simply go unserved. To be clear, there are many possible solutions here, of which the status quo and vouchers are just two. I don't think they're even the best options. But I also don't think advocates of either are dishonest. I don't think parents are running a scam when they advocate for their kids to receive just as much support as anyone else's. I don't think it's dishonest for them to want access to schools that specialize in their kids' needs, and I don't think it's unfair for those schools to reject students whose needs are very different.

TimPC 5y ago
In a certain sense everyone is high cost because the Bloom 2-sigma effect says that giving a student one-on-one tutoring instead of other methods of education will move them from the 50th percentile to the 98th percentile. As much as the quality of gifted education can be woeful and quite limited in the US and those students have unmet needs by arguing that those needs deserve budget taken from special needs students you're implicitly arguing that those sets of needs are morally equivalent. A gifted kid without enrichment is overwhelmingly likely to perform at grade level. A special needs student that needs a special needs assistant and isn't given one is overwhelmingly likely to not be able to attend school. These aren't at all equivalent. To be clear the argument that vouchers are a scam is entirely about taking money from special needs students by hiding it in the average cost. There is no moral basis for students to be entitled to the average cost. I'm not saying gifted students don't deserve enrichment I'm just saying it doesn't provide a moral basis for taking money from special needs students through vouchers.
- helpfulclippy 5y ago
  I make no claims of morality here, implicit or otherwise. I agree that everyone is potentially high cost, and that's the point. We have to decide who gets more, and who gets less. Some people are going to say that it is more moral to invest in the kids who are most able to deliver return value to society, and they're also going to say that those are the high-achieving kids. Some people are going to say that every kid should have an equal claim to public funds, and it immoral to allocate resources so unevenly. You may not share such perspectives, but there's no reason for anyone who does not already share your moral framework to agree with your assessment either.
  - TimPC 5y ago
    I think we are moving well outside the Overton window with your example though. The specific things being balanced in this case are a quality improvement in a specific student's education against a resource necessary for a student to receive education. By advancing the idea that the later claims don't have moral priority over the former you seem to be contradicting the idea that every child has a right to an education. I don't think you meant your statement that way but that is the effect of ideas like "every child has an equal claim to public funds and it is immoral to allocate resources so unevenly." Vastly unequal allocations of public funds are simply necessary to meet special needs so if we want to provide those kids an education we have to accept that consequence even if we have desires to spend the money elsewhere.

TimPC 5y ago

In a certain sense everyone is high cost because the Bloom 2-sigma effect says that giving a student one-on-one tutoring instead of other methods of education will move them from the 50th percentile to the 98th percentile. As much as the quality of gifted education can be woeful and quite limited in the US and those students have unmet needs by arguing that those needs deserve budget taken from special needs students you're implicitly arguing that those sets of needs are morally equivalent. A gifted kid without enrichment is overwhelmingly likely to perform at grade level. A special needs student that needs a special needs assistant and isn't given one is overwhelmingly likely to not be able to attend school. These aren't at all equivalent. To be clear the argument that vouchers are a scam is entirely about taking money from special needs students by hiding it in the average cost. There is no moral basis for students to be entitled to the average cost. I'm not saying gifted students don't deserve enrichment I'm just saying it doesn't provide a moral basis for taking money from special needs students through vouchers.

helpfulclippy 5y ago
I make no claims of morality here, implicit or otherwise. I agree that everyone is potentially high cost, and that's the point. We have to decide who gets more, and who gets less. Some people are going to say that it is more moral to invest in the kids who are most able to deliver return value to society, and they're also going to say that those are the high-achieving kids. Some people are going to say that every kid should have an equal claim to public funds, and it immoral to allocate resources so unevenly. You may not share such perspectives, but there's no reason for anyone who does not already share your moral framework to agree with your assessment either.
- TimPC 5y ago
  I think we are moving well outside the Overton window with your example though. The specific things being balanced in this case are a quality improvement in a specific student's education against a resource necessary for a student to receive education. By advancing the idea that the later claims don't have moral priority over the former you seem to be contradicting the idea that every child has a right to an education. I don't think you meant your statement that way but that is the effect of ideas like "every child has an equal claim to public funds and it is immoral to allocate resources so unevenly." Vastly unequal allocations of public funds are simply necessary to meet special needs so if we want to provide those kids an education we have to accept that consequence even if we have desires to spend the money elsewhere.