{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
6/30/2016 6:27:30 AM
16
Arguably, both. Reroute spending to internal/interpersonal projects (education, housing, medical care, etc), and reduce funding to external and military R&D type projects. So instead of funding the "newest and greatest" military debacle, we put that money into improving the Education system. Instead of galavanting off to another pointless conflict, we fund better, more affordable housing for the poor. Instead of creating our newest pet project for dick-measuring contests, we provide better access to medical care. Etc.
English
-
[url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/07/study-no-link-between-school-spending-student-achievement/]Spending is not the problem in education.[/url] [quote]The study from the CATO Institute shows that American student performance has remained poor, and has actually declined in mathematics and verbal skills, despite per-student spending tripling nationwide over the same 40-year period.[/quote] [quote]The 60-page report confirms data showing that American students have remained internationally mediocre since 1970, even amid a [b]tripling in inflation-adjusted dollars being spent per-student[/b]. A National Public Radio analysis finds that U.S. students are not in the global top 20 for math, reading or science scores.[/quote] - Der
-
That's because you have poor areas schools, that are indeed underfunded, dragging down averag significantly. Our education funding isn't uniformly distributed at all.
-
See my answers below, but the key point would be a complete reformatting of the education system, alongside massive repair/replacement of infrastructure, and other programs.
-
[quote] Reroute spending to internal/interpersonal projects (education, housing, medical care, etc),[/quote] Education can take a hit. Spending on education is absurdly inefficient.
-
The issue is we just throw money because we're too focused on other things. I'm talking infrastructure and curriculum overhauls, better access to post-secondary education, and more education programs.
-
Would that be more or less expensive than currently? Because right now, it's safe to say that spending can be reduced with no adverse effects on test scores. States have been trying out every play in the book, but scores seem to be largely independent of spending. (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/state-education-trends) You can look at each state on a case-by-case basis. Despite different spending levels, test scores veer off in all sorts of different directions.
-
Short-term? Markedly more. Repairing/constructing better schools, getting think tanks to rework the current education system, providing more funding for post-secondary educations, funding new programs, things like that wouldn't be cheap. But it would be beneficial in the long game.
-
We've had 40 years to implement changes like that. The money is gone and the test scores are stagnant. What makes you think it will work this time?
-
Those changes haven't been considered. The curriculum hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, the measuring tools have changed a lot, bouncing around between this test and that, but the educational curriculum itself is terribly out of date.
-
Because this would be a full overhaul, not just flinging more money at the problem and hoping it goes away. We'd study the 30-something countries beating us in education, see how their systems work. We'd ensure that schools in need of better infrastructure got it. We'd entirely tear down the current curriculum and replace it, etc. That would be the difference.
-
[quote]We'd study the 30-something countries beating us in education, see how their systems work. We'd ensure that schools in need of better infrastructure got it. We'd entirely tear down the current curriculum and replace it, etc. That would be the difference.[/quote] And that couldn't be cheaper?
-
Arguably, not initially. Infrastructure alone would be a fairly large initial sum, with a significantly smaller follow-up. Research and conceptualizing the new curriculum, at least if we want quality, would take paying psychologists, neurodevelopmental specialists, education professionals, and the like as well
-
And over the long term? Less spending than current levels?
-
Roughly the same, more likely. But with a much higher impact. Better overall education, massively improved world standing, much deeper talent pools across the board, etc.
-
I'm skeptical. The state has shown itself to be completely incompetent in regards to education spending. Despite sweeping federal reforms passed alongside massive spending increases, test scores haven't budged. Another sweeping reform isn't going to be the magic touch.
-
The major point would be better oversight, as well. Department of Education ACTUALLY watching both spending and test scores, making sure schools aren't squandering the money, etc.
