4 ms·

The US may spend a lot of money on education, but there is an underlying problem that isn't addressed in either your comment or Phil Greenspun's argument. K-12

by mk 18y ago

The US may spend a lot of money on education, but there is an underlying problem that isn't addressed in either your comment or Phil Greenspun's argument. K-12 education is primarily funded through property tax. This results in wealthy communities having great schools with tons of resources and poor communities that are using decades old resources and schools that are falling apart. So maybe you are correct in saying that "more money" isn't the answer. The tax system that we use for education is not equal and is failing us as a country. If we want to maximize the ability of people we should give the most people the best opportunity that we can.

Prrometheus 18y ago
DC is regularly one of the top 3 school districts in the country in terms of per pupil spending. I don't think you would want to send your children there. There are fundamental incentive problems with public monopolies. When you have a group of dedicated, wealthy, involved parents, these negative incentives can be overcome. However, the system fails your average person, and it surely fails those who need the most help even when a lot of money is spent on them. Those of us who advocate market reforms simply want the incentives of the system to be a help, rather than a hindrance. But we're radical right-wing nazis who hate children and eat puppies, so I don't think our plans are going to be implemented any time soon. Also, it's funny that we are characterized that way in the United States, when such right-wing countries as Sweden and the Netherlands already have universal school vouchers that can be spent on private schools.
- tptacek 18y ago
  DC spends more on administrative costs and less in the actual classroom than most other school districts. The fact that DC's money is misspent does not automatically mean that the problem isn't money. And sure, one good way to raise money for the DC school system would be to streamline their administration.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    I agree that DC public schools misspends its money. But I am not very interested in how can we fix the problem in just this particular time and place. I am more concerned about what incentives of the system cause this problem, and what new incentives would keep this problem from recurring in other times and places. It is easier to look at a particular district and point out what they are doing wrong (cronyism, graft, etc.) than to build universal policy that improves the system as a whole. "There are a thousand people cutting branches for every one striking at the root", and all that.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      So, that makes sense, but your original argument appeared to be something to the effect of, "money isn't the solution; we've tried money, for instance in DC, and it hasn't worked". That argument is wrong. It's akin to saying, "penicillin isn't the answer to infection; we've tried it, for instance by putting it on an altar and praying to it, and it hasn't worked". I'm not engaging with the rest of your argument.
      - Prrometheus 18y ago
        The evidence that I've seen suggests the correlation between school spending and educational achievement is weak. There may be specific districts that we can target as being underfunded, and money might help those districts. But untargeted increases in education spending seem unlikely to help. After all, there are very well funded districts in the United States that are horrible. That would be my main argument. Then I wandered a bit.
        tptacek 18y ago
        I guess I'm asking for evidence of school districts that are both well-funded and well-managed, using (for instance) the Charity Navigator definition of well-managed (admin and fundraising costs kept to under N% of program expenditures). If there are a bunch of them, maybe I'd give more weight to your argument. For the time being, I just think about the fact that teachers in these supposedly-overfunded school districts are teaching overcrowded classes in doublewide trailers and spending their own money on books and classroom supplies. And then I think your argument is awfully abstract, counterintuitive, and unpersuasive.
- mk 18y ago
  I'm not really familiar with the DC school district, but LA Unified gets a bad rap for being an awful school district. If you take it on a whole maybe it is, but the wealthy neighborhoods produce very good schools because they are outspending neighborhoods in say South Central Los Angeles or East Los Angeles. Do you think that this is solely because in the richer neighborhoods the parents have more time to spend assisting the students or in the classroom? Also it would be interesting to know how much more the richer schools receive in funding than the poorer schools. It seems like they are getting a two fold advantage. They have more funding available and parents who have more time and/or more involved. Edit: just to clarify I didn't want to come across as calling you a right-wing Nazi baby killer and hope that I didn't in the original post.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    >"Edit: just to clarify I didn't want to come across as calling you a right-wing Nazi baby killer and hope that I didn't in the original post." Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that you did. I was just commenting on my frustration with the general state of public debate in the United States. People who support market-based policies are generally vilified right now. I think it is just a hangover from the Bush presidency, since he is widely disliked and supports market policy in his speeches. Debate will probably become more reasonable when he is gone.
- fizzer9 18y ago
  > When you have a group of dedicated, wealthy, involved parents, these negative incentives can be overcome. I'd go further and say you don't even need the wealth -- just dedicated and involved parents. Success will flow from that. Trouble is, it's a vicious cycle: the kids who need the most help often have the least dedicated and involved parents. People claim that private schools are better than public for all sorts of reasons, but I think the main reason probably is that the parents who care enough to put their kids in private school usually also care enough to be dedicated to and involved in their child's education.
russell 18y ago
In California the public schools are funded mostly by the state with some additional money for wealthy districts grandfathered in. Still we have the disparity. Wealth districts have volunteer parents, fund raising, and voters willing to approve special bond issues. The poorer districts tend to be poorly run, wasting more money. They have less community support, fewer volunteers, etc., etc. There are individual schools in poorer districts that do extraordinary things, but usually it's the case of an extraordinary principal.

by mk 18y ago

Prrometheus 18y ago

DC is regularly one of the top 3 school districts in the country in terms of per pupil spending. I don't think you would want to send your children there. There are fundamental incentive problems with public monopolies. When you have a group of dedicated, wealthy, involved parents, these negative incentives can be overcome. However, the system fails your average person, and it surely fails those who need the most help even when a lot of money is spent on them. Those of us who advocate market reforms simply want the incentives of the system to be a help, rather than a hindrance. But we're radical right-wing nazis who hate children and eat puppies, so I don't think our plans are going to be implemented any time soon. Also, it's funny that we are characterized that way in the United States, when such right-wing countries as Sweden and the Netherlands already have universal school vouchers that can be spent on private schools.

tptacek 18y ago
DC spends more on administrative costs and less in the actual classroom than most other school districts. The fact that DC's money is misspent does not automatically mean that the problem isn't money. And sure, one good way to raise money for the DC school system would be to streamline their administration.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I agree that DC public schools misspends its money. But I am not very interested in how can we fix the problem in just this particular time and place. I am more concerned about what incentives of the system cause this problem, and what new incentives would keep this problem from recurring in other times and places. It is easier to look at a particular district and point out what they are doing wrong (cronyism, graft, etc.) than to build universal policy that improves the system as a whole. "There are a thousand people cutting branches for every one striking at the root", and all that.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    So, that makes sense, but your original argument appeared to be something to the effect of, "money isn't the solution; we've tried money, for instance in DC, and it hasn't worked". That argument is wrong. It's akin to saying, "penicillin isn't the answer to infection; we've tried it, for instance by putting it on an altar and praying to it, and it hasn't worked". I'm not engaging with the rest of your argument.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      The evidence that I've seen suggests the correlation between school spending and educational achievement is weak. There may be specific districts that we can target as being underfunded, and money might help those districts. But untargeted increases in education spending seem unlikely to help. After all, there are very well funded districts in the United States that are horrible. That would be my main argument. Then I wandered a bit.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        I guess I'm asking for evidence of school districts that are both well-funded and well-managed, using (for instance) the Charity Navigator definition of well-managed (admin and fundraising costs kept to under N% of program expenditures). If there are a bunch of them, maybe I'd give more weight to your argument. For the time being, I just think about the fact that teachers in these supposedly-overfunded school districts are teaching overcrowded classes in doublewide trailers and spending their own money on books and classroom supplies. And then I think your argument is awfully abstract, counterintuitive, and unpersuasive.
mk 18y ago
I'm not really familiar with the DC school district, but LA Unified gets a bad rap for being an awful school district. If you take it on a whole maybe it is, but the wealthy neighborhoods produce very good schools because they are outspending neighborhoods in say South Central Los Angeles or East Los Angeles. Do you think that this is solely because in the richer neighborhoods the parents have more time to spend assisting the students or in the classroom? Also it would be interesting to know how much more the richer schools receive in funding than the poorer schools. It seems like they are getting a two fold advantage. They have more funding available and parents who have more time and/or more involved. Edit: just to clarify I didn't want to come across as calling you a right-wing Nazi baby killer and hope that I didn't in the original post.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  >"Edit: just to clarify I didn't want to come across as calling you a right-wing Nazi baby killer and hope that I didn't in the original post." Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that you did. I was just commenting on my frustration with the general state of public debate in the United States. People who support market-based policies are generally vilified right now. I think it is just a hangover from the Bush presidency, since he is widely disliked and supports market policy in his speeches. Debate will probably become more reasonable when he is gone.
fizzer9 18y ago
> When you have a group of dedicated, wealthy, involved parents, these negative incentives can be overcome. I'd go further and say you don't even need the wealth -- just dedicated and involved parents. Success will flow from that. Trouble is, it's a vicious cycle: the kids who need the most help often have the least dedicated and involved parents. People claim that private schools are better than public for all sorts of reasons, but I think the main reason probably is that the parents who care enough to put their kids in private school usually also care enough to be dedicated to and involved in their child's education.

russell 18y ago

In California the public schools are funded mostly by the state with some additional money for wealthy districts grandfathered in. Still we have the disparity. Wealth districts have volunteer parents, fund raising, and voters willing to approve special bond issues. The poorer districts tend to be poorly run, wasting more money. They have less community support, fewer volunteers, etc., etc. There are individual schools in poorer districts that do extraordinary things, but usually it's the case of an extraordinary principal.