Is there a direct correlation between education spending and "student quality"?

[Zebo]

NO. If we are talking at the primary education level it's all about discipline and standards. This gives the children a basis for proper behavior which follow them thoughout life, gives them the knowlegde of the three R's, and leads to a condusive learning enviroment while thier in primary school. Go to Andover (a 35K a year elementy school) and you'll see very proactive discipline and NO parantal envolvment since it is after all a boarding school. These kids are future leaders of men.

Now at the university level I think money makes a big difference. You can hire top researchers to teach and mentor. You can have excellent facilities for cutting edge development etc etc etc l,

 

[Zebo]

Recipe for successful teaching:
- A place. ( a corn field/old church was good enough for the likes of RR and FDR)
- A good teacher. ( agree, give them back the ruler, a carbon fiber one this time)
- Some learning materials. ( books are cheap, especially non-copyright ones)
- An attentive student. (whack, do I have your attention yet?)
- An involved parent. ( BS, blaming the parents is an easy scapegoat (like the teachers too) again the top schools in the country have absolutly ZERO parental envolvment (boarding schools). Mine go a private school which is $3000 less per annum than the public schools in the area and this school has consistantly beat the public schools in SATs and college entrance for 20 yrs. I have yet to go to one PTA meeting. When they are in varsity sports/drama whatever then I'll go. Until then I know they are in good hands.

 

[JellyBaby]

Because it's the answer Republicans give for America's success. It works for Republicans, it should work for the down and out and poor. Capitalism in the schools is the ticket, Laddy.

Well if you want to experiement with it I say why not? Please use you own money though. 🙂

Actually, an economic incentive has been (and still is) used to encourage kids to get good grades. No, not a grand socialistic, wealth-transferring scheme to bribe youth. Parents give their kids money when they do well. Could be a bump in allowance, could be $5 for an "A", etc. I don't believe that qualifies as greed. Obviously, the parents aren't gaining anything in excess and neither are the kids. So I wonder if the notion passes your acceptability parsers?

Zebo, you sound like a "hands off" parent. If true I abhor you; if I'm wrong forgive me. There is more to life than indoctrination in a quasi-military institution, nothing more beautiful than a parent helping teach and guide a child through life. Go to that PTA meeting or at the very least ask your kid(s) how they feel about your handsoffiness.

 

[Bleep]

A place. ( a corn field/old church was good enough for the likes of RR and FDR)

Who is the FDR that you refer to in this statement? Was it the President? If so you do not know your history and so your whole post becomes suspect. President FDR was from a elite family and never went to a public school, he was also a elitist, check your history before spewing false information.

Bleep

 

[FacelessNobody]

I know there WAS a study done here in MN I think regarding breakfast and academic performance. One high school was given the funding to provide everyone with breakfast, and the test scores rose noticeably that year. Funding was then withdrawn, because the study was complete 🙁. If you wanna throw money at the problem, maybe there's a good starting point. I do however agree with the more conservative guys here (which is uncommon for me 🙂) that this system needs a total overhaul.

 

[Moonbeam]

The way to improve test scores if to administer IQ tests and everybody in the bottom half gets steralization. Five or six generations down the scores will be significantly improved.

 

[Rio Rebel]

There is no such thing as "proven" studies in educational psychology.

That being said, there have been all kinds of studies indicating all kinds of results when it comes to money and performance. Common sense will tell you that it takes a certain amount of money to run a school system, below which instruction must be affected. Common sense will also tell you that *when money is applied efficiently*, increases in money will benefit the system. Whether the money is (or can be) applied efficiently is another question.

For those of you who completely buy into the "America's education system is horrendous" argument, consider a few things. No other country tries to provide such a broad spectrum of instruction (home economics, jazz band, auto mechanics, etc.) to such a DIVERSE group of students, in such a politically difficult climate (lawsuits, political pressure, etc.) as the current US education system. When you compare test scores across nations, or when you compare today's scores to those 80 years ago, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

 

[JellyBaby]

When you compare test scores across nations, or when you compare today's scores to those 80 years ago, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

True, tests from that long ago were much harder.

Perhaps education is in the shape it's in because it focuses on that broad spectrum of instruction you mentioned instead of core subjects.

To me it almost sounds like you're coming up with excuses to explain poor performance instead of seeing the poor performance, questioning why it exists and determining the best course of action (other than spending more for oak desks for administators) for improvement. Or do I get a failing grade?

Only 50 years ago, America had the best educated kids on earth. Today, especially in math and science we consistently rank near the bottom. 🙁

 

[Rio Rebel]

Jellybaby,

Your comments are understandable, and express a popular sentiment, but they are all assumption. "Tests from that long ago were much harder"...? Harder in what sense, and by what standard? And who took those tests? And what was the curriculum at that time? Until you ask those questions, it is silly to use it as an indictment of our current system.

I would agree that, most likely, mathematics tests were "harder" years ago. We taught a more succinct system of mathematics, and did not focus on the creativity of thought or "critical thinking" that we so strongly encourage today. Most likely, students were drilled in a much more efficient and structured way in mathematics. They spent a great deal more time in mathematics. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that students years ago were probably more well-versed in traditional mathematics than they are today.

Today, we are not dealing with all-white, mostly male students when we talk about students taking college entrance exams. We are talking about students from all walks of life, all ethnic backgrounds and both genders, taking courses in math alongside courses in home construction, web page design, business law, and driver education. We are talking about students who are expected to know not only 50 or 100 years more history, but MUCH, MUCH more about the history we already had. We challenge our students today to know the Vietnam War not only by knowing which battles were won or lost, but also by understanding the life of the Vietnamese peasant and why he might have assisted the Viet Cong. We expect our students not only to know the capital of the 50 states, but also the effect of coal mining on the enviroment, the implications of energy shortages in California, and the reason that corn is grown predominantly in the Midwest.

There ARE reasons that performance is different today than it was years ago. But before we panic and turn education on its head, let's look at how and why things are different, and how we might prioritize efforts (and possible redefine out testing in light of our priorities) to most effectively educate our children.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
There is no such thing as "proven" studies in educational psychology.

That being said, there have been all kinds of studies indicating all kinds of results when it comes to money and performance. Common sense will tell you that it takes a certain amount of money to run a school system, below which instruction must be affected. Common sense will also tell you that *when money is applied efficiently*, increases in money will benefit the system. Whether the money is (or can be) applied efficiently is another question.

For those of you who completely buy into the "America's education system is horrendous" argument, consider a few things. No other country tries to provide such a broad spectrum of instruction (home economics, jazz band, auto mechanics, etc.) to such a DIVERSE group of students, in such a politically difficult climate (lawsuits, political pressure, etc.) as the current US education system. When you compare test scores across nations, or when you compare today's scores to those 80 years ago, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

There is a good bit of truth to what you say here. However schools and school systems that broken at the local level should be shut down and fixed. THose parents and kids that want to excel should not have to a broken school.