4 ms·

Wow, could these people miss the point more? It isn't about "removing measurable goals", rather letting each school set goals and not the DOE.

jeffdavis 15y ago
I see people arguing until they are blue that national standardized testing is bad. But it doesn't get them anywhere because they miss a crucial point: If someone gives money, they want measurable, or at least visible, results. If you want autonomy at the level L (federal/state/county/local), you can't take any money from any level greater than L. You may not want complete autonomy, just a better national system. If that's the case, then you need to come up with a better way to measure results -- not inputs -- and suggest that. If it's really better, then people will listen, and maybe the existing standardized tests will be replaced with this better system. There is less of a demand for testing at the local level, of course, because people generally know pretty well how their local schools are doing. But nobody in Kansas is going to take a tour of schools in Alabama to see if the federal money is being spent wisely. They need a number. It doesn't matter how counterproductive you say it is to collect this number, they will only stop asking for a number when we stop asking for their money.
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  people generally know pretty well how their local schools are doing Yes, they do, don't they? I think this is the essential fact that keeps getting forgotten. I've long supported voucher systems for just this reason: they return control to the parents. Maybe vouchers aren't the best way to do that; I'm open to alternatives. But I think that's what we have to do. (Edit: formatting)
- praxeologist 15y ago
  Nobody is giving money to public schools. It is taken under the threat of punishment. If you homeschool or put your kids in private schools, you still pay taxes for public schools. By all measures test scores are not improving in spite of quadrupling the DOE budget over the past 40 years. How about them metrics? This suggests we should abolish the pervasive bureaucracy.
  - jeffdavis 15y ago
    > Nobody is giving money to public schools. It is taken under the threat of punishment. Let me rephrase to be more precise: a person who votes for federal education spending will also tend to vote for federal control over education (regardless of the effectiveness of that control). And that goes for everything. Federal spending means federal control over anything related to that spending. Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking.
    - praxeologist 15y ago
      Not only do people not pay for public schools in the same way they buy sweet & salty snacks because they want them, nobody "votes for federal education spending". About 1/2 of people who can vote in presidential election years and in other years about 1/3. Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE. $200 million goes to the Institute of Educational Sciences to track score data. In the absence of the IES would people pay this much for the data? I don't think so. I'm not sure what you mean by "Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking." Education is not fundamentally different than any other good or service, besides that it is "important" and easy to convince the majority of people that it will cease to exist if the government doesn't provide it.
      - jeffdavis 15y ago
        "Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE." At least two candidates proposed eliminating the DOE during the Republican primaries. One was Rick Perry, where the DOE was one of the 2 departments he remembered to cut; and the other was Ron Paul, who may or may not have said it explicitly, but I'm sure he has said so at some point. I disagree. People do vote for federal education spending. This pressure to spend comes from somewhere. However irresponsible it is, many people simply vote for more money, regardless of where it comes from. Some people will even vote to have money taken from them and given back -- strings attached. "I'm not sure what you mean by 'Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking'" I meant that it's wishful thinking to expect money to keep raining down with no strings attached. I agree that education is not fundamentally different from other goods and services.

jeffdavis 15y ago

I see people arguing until they are blue that national standardized testing is bad. But it doesn't get them anywhere because they miss a crucial point: If someone gives money, they want measurable, or at least visible, results. If you want autonomy at the level L (federal/state/county/local), you can't take any money from any level greater than L. You may not want complete autonomy, just a better national system. If that's the case, then you need to come up with a better way to measure results -- not inputs -- and suggest that. If it's really better, then people will listen, and maybe the existing standardized tests will be replaced with this better system. There is less of a demand for testing at the local level, of course, because people generally know pretty well how their local schools are doing. But nobody in Kansas is going to take a tour of schools in Alabama to see if the federal money is being spent wisely. They need a number. It doesn't matter how counterproductive you say it is to collect this number, they will only stop asking for a number when we stop asking for their money.

ScottBurson 15y ago
people generally know pretty well how their local schools are doing Yes, they do, don't they? I think this is the essential fact that keeps getting forgotten. I've long supported voucher systems for just this reason: they return control to the parents. Maybe vouchers aren't the best way to do that; I'm open to alternatives. But I think that's what we have to do. (Edit: formatting)
praxeologist 15y ago
Nobody is giving money to public schools. It is taken under the threat of punishment. If you homeschool or put your kids in private schools, you still pay taxes for public schools. By all measures test scores are not improving in spite of quadrupling the DOE budget over the past 40 years. How about them metrics? This suggests we should abolish the pervasive bureaucracy.
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  > Nobody is giving money to public schools. It is taken under the threat of punishment. Let me rephrase to be more precise: a person who votes for federal education spending will also tend to vote for federal control over education (regardless of the effectiveness of that control). And that goes for everything. Federal spending means federal control over anything related to that spending. Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking.
  - praxeologist 15y ago
    Not only do people not pay for public schools in the same way they buy sweet & salty snacks because they want them, nobody "votes for federal education spending". About 1/2 of people who can vote in presidential election years and in other years about 1/3. Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE. $200 million goes to the Institute of Educational Sciences to track score data. In the absence of the IES would people pay this much for the data? I don't think so. I'm not sure what you mean by "Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking." Education is not fundamentally different than any other good or service, besides that it is "important" and easy to convince the majority of people that it will cease to exist if the government doesn't provide it.
    - jeffdavis 15y ago
      "Less than 1% of candidates propose even cuts to federal education spending, let alone abolishing the DOE." At least two candidates proposed eliminating the DOE during the Republican primaries. One was Rick Perry, where the DOE was one of the 2 departments he remembered to cut; and the other was Ron Paul, who may or may not have said it explicitly, but I'm sure he has said so at some point. I disagree. People do vote for federal education spending. This pressure to spend comes from somewhere. However irresponsible it is, many people simply vote for more money, regardless of where it comes from. Some people will even vote to have money taken from them and given back -- strings attached. "I'm not sure what you mean by 'Anything else is sustainable only by wishful thinking'" I meant that it's wishful thinking to expect money to keep raining down with no strings attached. I agree that education is not fundamentally different from other goods and services.