4 ms·

> What makes you think that’s the problem? The NYC school system, for example, spends $38,000 per year per student. Thats about triple what Japan spends per stu

by dgfitz 3y ago

> What makes you think that’s the problem? The NYC school system, for example, spends $38,000 per year per student. Thats about triple what Japan spends per student. What else can the legislature do? And do you think the NY or NYC legislatures are any more corrupt than those in Japan or Germany or Sweden? I wanted to ask if you were joking, but that wouldn’t be productive. What else can the legislature do? Figure out why throwing money at a problem isn’t working. This is the point someone above made about private vs public industry. Private can’t operate at a loss. The federal, state, and local governments can, and generally do. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the federal budget deficit. If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change.

toyg 3y ago
Or - the graduation rate would stay the same, and schools would be asset-stripped so that most of those 38k would flow to shareholders rather than school budgets. There are plenty of examples of mediocre public services getting privatized and becoming even worse, from a capital-efficiency perspective (e.g. UK railways, UK water...). Private companies are out to make a profit, and efficiency is just a mean to it; if there are other means, even to the detriment of what should be their core mission, they will pursue those means. The real objective is both empowering, motivating, and holding accountable the middle-management layers of essential public services: administrators, teachers, railway workers, etc. Privatization doesn't magically do that. Creating a competitive system doesn't require corporate profits.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  Another example of this: in the UK the government pays as much as £250,000 per year for severely autistic young people to be looked after in private homes and hospitals. Many of these were funded by private equity. They take huge profits and the level of care is disgraceful. Even when the patients are not being actively abused [1] they are not receiving any care as such. The homes and hospitals are little better than prisons. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/learning-disabled-autistic-neglect-uk-institutional-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/learni...
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    This always always seems to happen, and the people never wise up. Government acts as a money funnel to private companies, who pocket as much as they can as profit and provide the most criminally minimal service they can get away with. And every time it happens and the people are ripped off, the answer is always “even moar privatization.”
0xcde4c3db 3y ago
> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Often when an ultimatum along these lines happens, whether public or private, the problem winds up being "fixed" in large part by some combination of double standards, gaming the metrics, and outright fraud. Some number called the "graduation rate" would surely change, but it wouldn't necessarily mean the same thing as what was called the "graduation rate" previously, let alone necessarily represent a materially better outcome for students.
acdha 3y ago
> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Perhaps, but the better question is _how_ it would change. As we can see from the history of charter schools, typically that would happen by trying to cherry pick the least expensive, best performing students while excluding the most expensive. As a simple example, one thing which makes large school district costs higher is that public schools are required to have expensive staff to care for students’ health, mental health, and special needs. If you are running a private school, you immediately see a cost advantage if you can find a way to discourage students who need those services from enrolling. It’s illegal to say “no special needs kids” but if you’re careful you can effectively approach the same outcome without a high likelihood of being sued successfully.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  So stop trying to pay the same amount for every student and instead explicitly allocate more money to students who are legally required to be provided with more services. If you're paying for it either way you might as well have an accurate line item in the budget and mitigate the perverse incentive.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    That's exactly what happens. Each student that requires special assistance will get additional funds allocated to the school.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Then why would the charter schools avoid those students? They'd get more money. This would only not be the case if the funding isn't an accurate accounting of the costs.
      - vundercind 3y ago
        You also gave them a graduation rate mandate, that’s why. A school with half the funding full of healthy children of white collar professionals in the ‘burbs will graduate more kids than a school with full funding teaching kids who speak broken English, whose parents move them around a lot between schools because they’re not housing-secure, who don’t always eat breakfast or dinner, and who are on an IEP for a learning disorder. By far the easiest way to hit a graduation rate target is to try to take as few hard-to-teach kids as possible. The funding to make up the difference in difficulty is… I dunno, astronomical. Maybe pay for their family’s entire living expenses or something.
afavour 3y ago
> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Funnily enough NYC has charter schools which aren’t exactly this but are an approximation. They’re renowned for pushing poorly performing students out of their schools and doing a terrible job serving special needs. As a result they do indeed often have great graduation rates.
dgfitz 3y ago
Doesn’t look like I can edit this. See below about how efficient and effective state governments are when it comes to budget initiatives. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/california-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/californ...

by dgfitz 3y ago

toyg 3y ago

Or - the graduation rate would stay the same, and schools would be asset-stripped so that most of those 38k would flow to shareholders rather than school budgets. There are plenty of examples of mediocre public services getting privatized and becoming even worse, from a capital-efficiency perspective (e.g. UK railways, UK water...). Private companies are out to make a profit, and efficiency is just a mean to it; if there are other means, even to the detriment of what should be their core mission, they will pursue those means. The real objective is both empowering, motivating, and holding accountable the middle-management layers of essential public services: administrators, teachers, railway workers, etc. Privatization doesn't magically do that. Creating a competitive system doesn't require corporate profits.

masfuerte 3y ago
Another example of this: in the UK the government pays as much as £250,000 per year for severely autistic young people to be looked after in private homes and hospitals. Many of these were funded by private equity. They take huge profits and the level of care is disgraceful. Even when the patients are not being actively abused [1] they are not receiving any care as such. The homes and hospitals are little better than prisons. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/learning-disabled-autistic-neglect-uk-institutional-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/learni...
- ryandrake 3y ago
  This always always seems to happen, and the people never wise up. Government acts as a money funnel to private companies, who pocket as much as they can as profit and provide the most criminally minimal service they can get away with. And every time it happens and the people are ripped off, the answer is always “even moar privatization.”

0xcde4c3db 3y ago

> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Often when an ultimatum along these lines happens, whether public or private, the problem winds up being "fixed" in large part by some combination of double standards, gaming the metrics, and outright fraud. Some number called the "graduation rate" would surely change, but it wouldn't necessarily mean the same thing as what was called the "graduation rate" previously, let alone necessarily represent a materially better outcome for students.

acdha 3y ago

> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Perhaps, but the better question is _how_ it would change. As we can see from the history of charter schools, typically that would happen by trying to cherry pick the least expensive, best performing students while excluding the most expensive. As a simple example, one thing which makes large school district costs higher is that public schools are required to have expensive staff to care for students’ health, mental health, and special needs. If you are running a private school, you immediately see a cost advantage if you can find a way to discourage students who need those services from enrolling. It’s illegal to say “no special needs kids” but if you’re careful you can effectively approach the same outcome without a high likelihood of being sued successfully.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
So stop trying to pay the same amount for every student and instead explicitly allocate more money to students who are legally required to be provided with more services. If you're paying for it either way you might as well have an accurate line item in the budget and mitigate the perverse incentive.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  That's exactly what happens. Each student that requires special assistance will get additional funds allocated to the school.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Then why would the charter schools avoid those students? They'd get more money. This would only not be the case if the funding isn't an accurate accounting of the costs.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      You also gave them a graduation rate mandate, that’s why. A school with half the funding full of healthy children of white collar professionals in the ‘burbs will graduate more kids than a school with full funding teaching kids who speak broken English, whose parents move them around a lot between schools because they’re not housing-secure, who don’t always eat breakfast or dinner, and who are on an IEP for a learning disorder. By far the easiest way to hit a graduation rate target is to try to take as few hard-to-teach kids as possible. The funding to make up the difference in difficulty is… I dunno, astronomical. Maybe pay for their family’s entire living expenses or something.

afavour 3y ago

> If a private company was given the same 38k per student with the mandate “fix the graduation issue or you’re fired” the graduation rate would absolutely change. Funnily enough NYC has charter schools which aren’t exactly this but are an approximation. They’re renowned for pushing poorly performing students out of their schools and doing a terrible job serving special needs. As a result they do indeed often have great graduation rates.

dgfitz 3y ago

Doesn’t look like I can edit this. See below about how efficient and effective state governments are when it comes to budget initiatives. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/california-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2024/04/californ...