5 ms·

It is wild that this is the take. This eep distrust of government is at the root of many American problems. It is deliberately created and fed, and it directly

by jgeada 3y ago

It is wild that this is the take. This eep distrust of government is at the root of many American problems. It is deliberately created and fed, and it directly leads to some truly awful results: bad education, bad healthcare, virtually no public benefit for all the taxes we pay. But we do get world's largest military, large corporate subsidies, highest per capita healthcare costs. Unlike in most other Western countries, education in the US is controlled at a local level; every town, district, and city etc has its own rules, has to hire its own staff and pay for it all out of local taxes. And because the generally tiny constituency of each district, a very small number of nutcases can change the rules and impose their point of view for the school district. And because of the local funding, there can be huge resource and quality differences between schools for adjacent locations, just due to crossing some arbitrary jurisdiction line. It is madness, but it is a madness that is deeply loved/entrenched here.

giantg2 3y ago
It's not really a wild take - that's the reality. It's not really distrust in this case either. The question was can we educate more efficiently. This case is of a group of kids being taught by parents. The parents give up half a day a week to teach one of their homes. They don't need a staff, a building, etc. You really can't be more efficient than that model of using the existing resources. And you're only partially right about local control of education. There are many federal and state regulations that dictate school policies in every facet. These would rule out many of the local "nut cases". Much of the funding is provided by the state and federal government too, depending on the state.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  You really can't be more efficient than that model of using the existing resources. It’s only “efficient” because it doesn’t have to scale. Add non-wealthy kids into the mix. Add children with learning disabilities. All of a sudden, homeschooling fails a massive chunk of the population. Public education has served the US well for most of the post-WWII era. Let’s fix it, not abandon it.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "Let’s fix it, not abandon it." I'm not saying to abandon it. I'm saying if the question is efficiency, that particular homeschooling model is very efficient, even if other arrangements need to be made for certain segments of the population (I would revise your "non-wealthy" statement to be "poor" as much of the middle class could make that system work). Of course there have been multiple attempts to fix the system already. So far we haven't seemed to find the solution. Back to your "non-wealthy" comment, even the current system tends to fail the poor, since parent involvement is one of the largest factors for academic success (this is largely tied to two parent households, but income plays a role as well).
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I'm not saying to abandon it But many people, both in this forum and in meat-space are doing just that. Perhaps not directly, but the end result of "school choice" (of which there are several flavors) will be the end of generally good-enough public education for most of the population. Toss in the latest conservative boogeymen (CRT, book bans, etc) and the outlook looks pretty gloomy. parent involvement is one of the largest factors for academic success I often wonder if our schools are fine, but everything else is broken. Stagnant wages, longer working hours, fewer 2 parent households, other things.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        Is school choice driving the end result, or is it a symptom of that end result? My big question is if the money per student is the same, but the outcomes are better, then what can we emulate from the charter or private schools? Or is it selection bias since the parents are involved enough to get them in?
        alistairSH 3y ago
        A bit of both, probably. But the school choice movement is largely being driven by wealthy people who could afford private schools or homeschooling without any need to destroy public education. Selection bias a real problem with charters and privates. We've already selected for "parents who give a shit". And frequently for "no IEP or other learning disability". So, kids who are, at worst, average intellect with parents who care enough to fill out some paperwork and drive them to school - those kids are going to succeed almost anywhere. And I totally understand the desire to get your own children a high quality education. That's a large part of why I moved back to Fairfax County. But, I also feel strongly that strong public schools are a requirement for a healthy society.
- swalling 3y ago
  Education is not a market, efficiency is not the primary goal. Quality and equity of outcomes for students is the goal. The system today is optimizing for standardization federally in order to try and fight the natural entropy toward a highly unequal system where rich kids get dramatically better education and there is a downward spiral for poor kids. It's not achieving this goal today, but decentralizing the system would most definitely reinforce unequal outcomes, not avoid it.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "Quality and equity of outcomes for students is the goal." That's the goal[1], but what is it constrained by? Primarily that constraint is cost. If you can improve efficiency (improved outcomes per dollar), everyone stands to benefit, especially at the lower end if you can reallocate that money towards them. The main problem is that school is trying to be utilized to fix multiple issues at home that it simply can't correct for under the current system (yes that other person's example would make it worse). Federal standards and more money won't fix it. Other policy changes might help, but would be difficult to implement. [1] I'd argue the goal is for each individual to reach their best potential as opposed to equity. Otherwise we end up with perverse systems that limit some upper end students, as we're starting to see innsome areas. That is not good for society/humanity. Equitable resourcing could be good.
    - swalling 3y ago
      Your entire framework is capitalist voodoo. The US education system can stand to spend way more money compared to other budget areas like defense that are massively overfunded. Teachers are paupers for absolutely no good reason. Furthermore, what are you measuring outcomes against? We don't even have a holistic universal measurement of positive outcomes. Standardized tests are a joke and everyone knows it.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "Your entire framework is capitalist voodoo." This feels like youre getting outside the HN guidelines. What framework? Which parts? "The US education system can stand to spend way more money compared to other budget areas like defense that are massively overfunded." Would that money fix anything? Do you have any stats/criteria for how a particular area of the budget is overfunded? Otherwise when taken with your other verbiage, it sounds like just an inflammatory opinion. The US already spends 6.1% of its GDP on education, which is more than most other countries. "Teachers are paupers for absolutely no good reason." This is a bit dramatic given the definition. There are a few states with low teacher pay. However, you have to also look at median income and cost of living. Yeah, the average teacher makes about $50k in MS, but median income for MS is $48k per year with a low cost of living in most of the state. I have friends who have turned down public teaching that would pay more than their private teaching job due to the way the schools are run. Clearly pay is not the main issue in my area. "Furthermore, what are you measuring outcomes against? We don't even have a holistic universal measurement of positive outcomes." In general, you are right. In the context of this thread, those would be test scores, graduation rate, job/college placement rates. "Standardized tests are a joke and everyone knows it." No, not everyone knows it. Care to explain? It seems the test measure what the kids are supposed to know at a specific level. Are there some problems with things like teaching to the test instead of teaching for durable knowledge or love of learning, sure. But if you know how to read/write/etc at your grade level, then your scores will be fine. Seem like one of the best comparisons we have. Are there better alternatives?
jtriangle 3y ago
>Unlike in most other Western countries, education in the US is controlled at a local level It is not. Curriculum is decided far above the heads of the districts, as is standardized testing. Funding is a problem, though, how much of a problem is wildly variable depending on where you are.

by jgeada 3y ago

giantg2 3y ago

It's not really a wild take - that's the reality. It's not really distrust in this case either. The question was can we educate more efficiently. This case is of a group of kids being taught by parents. The parents give up half a day a week to teach one of their homes. They don't need a staff, a building, etc. You really can't be more efficient than that model of using the existing resources. And you're only partially right about local control of education. There are many federal and state regulations that dictate school policies in every facet. These would rule out many of the local "nut cases". Much of the funding is provided by the state and federal government too, depending on the state.

alistairSH 3y ago
You really can't be more efficient than that model of using the existing resources. It’s only “efficient” because it doesn’t have to scale. Add non-wealthy kids into the mix. Add children with learning disabilities. All of a sudden, homeschooling fails a massive chunk of the population. Public education has served the US well for most of the post-WWII era. Let’s fix it, not abandon it.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "Let’s fix it, not abandon it." I'm not saying to abandon it. I'm saying if the question is efficiency, that particular homeschooling model is very efficient, even if other arrangements need to be made for certain segments of the population (I would revise your "non-wealthy" statement to be "poor" as much of the middle class could make that system work). Of course there have been multiple attempts to fix the system already. So far we haven't seemed to find the solution. Back to your "non-wealthy" comment, even the current system tends to fail the poor, since parent involvement is one of the largest factors for academic success (this is largely tied to two parent households, but income plays a role as well).
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    I'm not saying to abandon it But many people, both in this forum and in meat-space are doing just that. Perhaps not directly, but the end result of "school choice" (of which there are several flavors) will be the end of generally good-enough public education for most of the population. Toss in the latest conservative boogeymen (CRT, book bans, etc) and the outlook looks pretty gloomy. parent involvement is one of the largest factors for academic success I often wonder if our schools are fine, but everything else is broken. Stagnant wages, longer working hours, fewer 2 parent households, other things.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Is school choice driving the end result, or is it a symptom of that end result? My big question is if the money per student is the same, but the outcomes are better, then what can we emulate from the charter or private schools? Or is it selection bias since the parents are involved enough to get them in?
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        A bit of both, probably. But the school choice movement is largely being driven by wealthy people who could afford private schools or homeschooling without any need to destroy public education. Selection bias a real problem with charters and privates. We've already selected for "parents who give a shit". And frequently for "no IEP or other learning disability". So, kids who are, at worst, average intellect with parents who care enough to fill out some paperwork and drive them to school - those kids are going to succeed almost anywhere. And I totally understand the desire to get your own children a high quality education. That's a large part of why I moved back to Fairfax County. But, I also feel strongly that strong public schools are a requirement for a healthy society.
swalling 3y ago
Education is not a market, efficiency is not the primary goal. Quality and equity of outcomes for students is the goal. The system today is optimizing for standardization federally in order to try and fight the natural entropy toward a highly unequal system where rich kids get dramatically better education and there is a downward spiral for poor kids. It's not achieving this goal today, but decentralizing the system would most definitely reinforce unequal outcomes, not avoid it.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "Quality and equity of outcomes for students is the goal." That's the goal[1], but what is it constrained by? Primarily that constraint is cost. If you can improve efficiency (improved outcomes per dollar), everyone stands to benefit, especially at the lower end if you can reallocate that money towards them. The main problem is that school is trying to be utilized to fix multiple issues at home that it simply can't correct for under the current system (yes that other person's example would make it worse). Federal standards and more money won't fix it. Other policy changes might help, but would be difficult to implement. [1] I'd argue the goal is for each individual to reach their best potential as opposed to equity. Otherwise we end up with perverse systems that limit some upper end students, as we're starting to see innsome areas. That is not good for society/humanity. Equitable resourcing could be good.
  - swalling 3y ago
    Your entire framework is capitalist voodoo. The US education system can stand to spend way more money compared to other budget areas like defense that are massively overfunded. Teachers are paupers for absolutely no good reason. Furthermore, what are you measuring outcomes against? We don't even have a holistic universal measurement of positive outcomes. Standardized tests are a joke and everyone knows it.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "Your entire framework is capitalist voodoo." This feels like youre getting outside the HN guidelines. What framework? Which parts? "The US education system can stand to spend way more money compared to other budget areas like defense that are massively overfunded." Would that money fix anything? Do you have any stats/criteria for how a particular area of the budget is overfunded? Otherwise when taken with your other verbiage, it sounds like just an inflammatory opinion. The US already spends 6.1% of its GDP on education, which is more than most other countries. "Teachers are paupers for absolutely no good reason." This is a bit dramatic given the definition. There are a few states with low teacher pay. However, you have to also look at median income and cost of living. Yeah, the average teacher makes about $50k in MS, but median income for MS is $48k per year with a low cost of living in most of the state. I have friends who have turned down public teaching that would pay more than their private teaching job due to the way the schools are run. Clearly pay is not the main issue in my area. "Furthermore, what are you measuring outcomes against? We don't even have a holistic universal measurement of positive outcomes." In general, you are right. In the context of this thread, those would be test scores, graduation rate, job/college placement rates. "Standardized tests are a joke and everyone knows it." No, not everyone knows it. Care to explain? It seems the test measure what the kids are supposed to know at a specific level. Are there some problems with things like teaching to the test instead of teaching for durable knowledge or love of learning, sure. But if you know how to read/write/etc at your grade level, then your scores will be fine. Seem like one of the best comparisons we have. Are there better alternatives?

jtriangle 3y ago

>Unlike in most other Western countries, education in the US is controlled at a local level It is not. Curriculum is decided far above the heads of the districts, as is standardized testing. Funding is a problem, though, how much of a problem is wildly variable depending on where you are.