tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1791506199370072070.post5041680095966885694..comments2023-10-19T04:51:35.118-07:00Comments on Sanity Preferred: Throwing Money at the ProblemBarefoot Lancehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08292581709352836050noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1791506199370072070.post-82899903561121006322009-11-11T13:32:46.613-08:002009-11-11T13:32:46.613-08:00Innovationtool: I understand your points. That'...Innovationtool: I understand your points. That's why I put in the bit about the dangers of compressing the data.<br /><br />To rebut: <br /><br />Life-cost and teacher salary: I doubt this is impacts the data. Is New York really 67% more expensive than California? Somehow I doubt it, yet their graduation rates are similar (California is higher).<br /><br />Teacher per student: irrelevant to the argument. A graduation rate is a graduation rate is a graduation rate. If graduation rate is your measure of success then whether you spend the money on more teachers to reduce class size, more computers, better music education, more field trips, or increased janitorial staff does not enter into the argument so long as increased spending improves the graduation rate.<br /><br />Spending money now vs. graduation rates in the future: I can't speak to this. I did not investigate the data beyond what was presented in the graphic, so I don't know if the dollars were for a single year or averaged over a period of time. Clearly the data would be clearer if the dollars were averaged over the usual 13 years of primary and secondary education.<br /><br />Knowledge being path dependent: yes it is. However, while some kids will be inspired by a teacher, most will likely take their educational cues from their parents, just as they take their political and religious cues from them. I suspect that parental attitudes are a huge factor in high school graduation rates - and one that additional funding will not affect at all.<br /><br />Criticizing government strategy: I do not intend to criticize any strategy. My interest is simply in understanding the data presented. Certainly there needs to be investment in education, but like any other investment, there are diminishing returns and it may simply be that we have hit that point as far as gross dollars being invested in education. We have plucked the low-hanging fruit. If that is the case then to improve education it is necessary to target specific factors that not only correlate to improved graduation rates, but are in fact causal factors in the improvement.<br /><br />Two things to keep in mind, though. First, the federal government really only has one tool at its disposal: money. As the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, by which I mean it is difficult for the federal government to solve a problem that cannot be fixed by additional funding.<br /><br />Second, not all factors will be affected by money. If parental influence were to be the largest factor in high school graduation rates, then all the money in the world would not change the outcome.<br /><br />One other thing to consider: maybe the least expensive solution is simply for the federal government to pay X thousand dollars to each student on graduation. It sounds crass, doesn't it? But having an explicit, tangible goal might encourage a higher graduation rate than anything else the federal government could do. How motivated would a kid be to get $13,000 on graduation, no strings attached? And that's just a thousand dollars per year per kid. Just a thought. A heretical thought to be sure, but if you're only looking at the dollars spent versus graduation rates then it is a viable solution.Barefoot Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08292581709352836050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1791506199370072070.post-38779430745068318642009-11-11T04:59:22.352-08:002009-11-11T04:59:22.352-08:00I appreciate your add'l graphic. Brings a lit...I appreciate your add'l graphic. Brings a little more clarity. We have three children in two different public schools in NYC, and even then, the parents are expected to donate additional monies ($250/student in one and $600/student in another) to augment what the DOE doesn't give us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1791506199370072070.post-47378102190636328102009-11-11T02:58:42.525-08:002009-11-11T02:58:42.525-08:00What about life-cost and teacher salary? What abou...What about life-cost and teacher salary? What about teacher-per-student? What about school infrastructure? And how does spending money now affects graduation of those that are studying for the past 14 years? Is that spending an average? Knowledge is path dependant, people who have learnt how to learn in the past (when perhaps expediture was higher) will have better performance, for example.<br /><br />These numbers say nothing, rather than try and fail (if you go just a little beyond the number) to criticize the government's strategy. Look at South Korea, Finland, China, and so many other countries history of education investment and you'll see that their relative fast economic (and life standards) growth is directly related to education expenditure - but of course with the delay of students actually getting into the market place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com