Public Education: Vital for modern society or a scam?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think you appreciate the gravity of the situation in urban school districts. Budget constraints are forcing school closings, teacher lay-offs, closing of school libraries (by the way, public libraries are being closed and having reduced hours in Philadelphia as well), inadequate supplies of textbooks...

None of which have been shown to affect outcomes at all. If they're all snake oil then there is no gravity.

[Al B. Sure!]

Having a textbook per student and a textbook that you can take home to read and study from is obviously related to performance.

"Having a doctor diagnose and treat your illness is obviously going to help."

What the **** does this even mean?


I'll be back.

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't think you appreciate the gravity of the situation in urban school districts. Budget constraints are forcing school closings, teacher lay-offs, closing of school libraries (by the way, public libraries are being closed and having reduced hours in Philadelphia as well), inadequate supplies of textbooks...

None of which have been shown to affect outcomes at all. If they're all snake oil then there is no gravity.

HOLY ****. NO TEXTBOOKS.

HOW THE **** ARE STUDENTS SUPPOSED TO LEARN WITHOUT TEXTBOOKS?!

[Jon Miller]

I would be much more inclined to believe a problem with the allocation of funding than a pure problem of funding.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

What the **** does this even mean?

I'll be back.

Would you have agreed with that sentence in the 19th century? It's "obviously true", isn't it, that doctors will improve health outcomes? How could you imagine anything else?

[Kuciwalker]

HOLY ****. NO TEXTBOOKS.

HOW THE **** ARE STUDENTS SUPPOSED TO LEARN WITHOUT TEXTBOOKS?!

Are they actually learning anything when they do have textbooks? More importantly, are they learning anything that they'll use or even remember after the year is out? And of those things, how many would not have been learned without public schooling?

[Heraclitus]

Would you have agreed with that sentence in the 19th century? It's "obviously true", isn't it, that doctors will improve health outcomes? How could you imagine anything else?

People have a strong bias towards trusting doctors and overestimating the efficacy of treatment, so this isn't really a good example. It is however funny since you specifically talk about the 19th century and this should give people a clue, there is a reason Theodore Roosevelt decided against having the bullet removed, medicine and especially surgery in the 19th century was very liable to get one killed.

[Kuciwalker]

People have a strong bias towards trusting doctors and overestimating the efficacy of treatment, so this isn't really a good example.

No, it's a perfect example.

[KrazyHorse]

There are a number of studies showing that if there is a relationship (across the range of per-pupil expenditures seen in the US) which remains after controlling for other factors like parental income and education, then it is a singularly weak one. Anybody who has thought seriously about this issue already knows that.

albie, you moron, which part of the bolded phrase didn't you understand?

gribby, as somebody who went to a relatively "elite" high school whose textbooks were almost all older than 10 years, you're acting like an idiot.

DaShi: I am currently in Palm Beach and writing this on my phone while drinking frozen rum drinks poolside. Doing digging to get you references will not happen before tomorrow night at the earliest.

[Al B. Sure!]

It doesn't matter what other factors affect school performance. When the basics like textbooks and a school library are not provided, there is a problem.

What variables do you propose are the deciding factors determining success? Are these variables concentrated in wealthy areas?

If, like gribbler, you assert that home support for education, parental involvement, etc. enhance a child's ability to learn then how do you propose improving those areas in urban districts? And why do you dismiss the idea that better teachers who can concentrate on fewer students would not help alleviate some of these problems? Yeah, mom may not be much good fostering education but special attention from a good teacher can encourage a student and provide the foundation of a life-time of learning.

But that isn't even considering the lack of some basics. How effective is a curriculum when students can not take home textbooks or when there isn't a textbook for every student?

[Al B. Sure!]

And besides, if funding is irrelevant, what is the point in maintaining such inequalities between districts? Philly spends $8985/student, Lower Merion township which borders the city spends $18,791/student.

Why maintain the inequity in spending per student? Why not pool property taxes at the state level and distribute them equally by student?

[giblets]

If funding is irrelevant, then there's no point in eliminating inequalities in funding either.

[Al B. Sure!]

People have a strong bias towards trusting doctors and overestimating the efficacy of treatment, so this isn't really a good example.

No, it's a perfect example.

No it's really not.

You're using it to respond to the idea that textbooks improve one's ability to learn (as measured by test scores).

Yes, today, if you get shot (I like this better than 'sick' because going to the doctor for merely being 'sick' has unnecessary connotations with regards to the inflation of healthcare costs), you damn better go to the hospital. The likelihood of death by not going to the hospital is significantly greater than the likelihood of death by going to the hospital. Primitive medical conditions in the 19th century meant that this relationship was reversed at the time and you would be better off not receiving treatment for a gunshot wound.

However, I fail to see the relevancy of this analogy with respect to textbooks improving one's ability to learn.

In one case, low levels of medical care made going to the doctor for a condition a hazard... the hazard was due entirely to the quality of healthcare, not to the 'fact' that receiving medical attention itself was a bad idea. That's why today yes, you should go to the doctor. The quality of 19th century medicine was the issue, not medicine itself; in the other case, textbooks and learning. What the ****?

[Al B. Sure!]

If funding is irrelevant, then there's no point in eliminating inequalities in funding either.

But there is enough popular conception (or misconception) that funding matters. Why not silence this by giving everyone the same thing?

It is usually given that the explanation to the Easterlin Paradox (that people living in poverty in other countries are no less happy than our much more affluent poor) is that perceived economic disparity is related to happiness more than absolute living standards are. In other words, the Johnsons would always be content with a 20-inch television until the Jeffersons next door get their 30-inch. Then the Johnsons suddenly start to get less utility out of their television than they did before. Straight-forward concept.

Now what if education is analogous? No, not necessarily that being aware of the distinctions in funding would suddenly make those on the poor end learn less as the Johnsons would have less happiness. But instead, a perception of "They", the powers that be, care enough about us in Philly to give us the same shot as those in Lower Merion could be beneficial to making people feel better about their situation, feel less burdened by the difficulties set before them by their social conditions, be encouraged, etc.

If the average teenager in Philly already has the deck stacked against him, even if extra funding would not literally enhance his ability to learn in a statistically measurable manner, why not at least give him the same books, materials, etc. as the rich people in Lower Merion get?

[Kuciwalker]

No it's really not.

You're using it to respond to the idea that textbooks improve one's ability to learn (as measured by test scores).

1) I haven't assumed that metric.
2) Regardless, you haven't shown any evidence that they do.

Yes, today, if you get shot (I like this better than 'sick' because going to the doctor for merely being 'sick' has unnecessary connotations with regards to the inflation of healthcare costs), you damn better go to the hospital.

That's why I said in the 19th century, moron.

Primitive medical conditions in the 19th century meant that this relationship was reversed at the time and you would be better off not receiving treatment for a gunshot wound.

You were better off not receiving treatment for any illness because the entire medical practice was snake oil. There was absolutely no scientific basis for the measures prescribed. This is identical to the modern public school system.

However, I fail to see the relevancy of this analogy with respect to textbooks improving one's ability to learn.

You have yet to show any evidence that anything done in the public school system (with or without textbooks) actually improves outcomes.