2 ms·
>>“We can’t operate under the premise that we’re only willing to spend a certain amount of money on our children’s education.” Love that! Instead we must opera
by breischl 12y ago
>>“We can’t operate under the premise that we’re only willing to spend a certain amount of money on our children’s education.”
Love that! Instead we must operate under the assumption that we're willing and able to spend an infinite amount of money on education!
That kind of brilliant analysis is part of how governments manage to waste tons of money ineffective programs.
- Retric 12y agoYou completely misunderstood that point. The real issue is when you focus on 1 number you tend to lump ineffective programs with effective programs and have no idea what to cut or what to focus on. The important thing is not the $ spent it's the long term ROI on money spent. Consider we could replace some instruction time with high cost videos as it’s not like every classroom really needs a slightly different lecture on the distributive property. If the ROI is high enough we might be better off paying for education with loans. But if it's to low that's a sure way to long term ruin. EX: Handing out ice cream for anyone with perfect attendance for a semester. Sure there 'cheap' but pointless = wasteful. Ramp that up to handing out ice-cream every Friday for perfect attendance and you might actually make some difference. But, the cost is probably not worth it. Again, the value is not keeping under some specific number but maintaining positive ROI.