Investments in Education May Be Misdirected

[MeachTheMonster]

yeah, i cant believe how misinformed you are about the charter schools, the whole issue around charter schools is how many of them should be and what limits should be placed on it, money is not what is slowing charter schools, there are plenty of foundations and corporations putting money into charter schools

It's not me that's misinformed. You ignore any and everything that doesn't fit your agenda. Most states dont even have caps and ive shown you miltiple sources that say a lack of funds is a big problem. But you will keep ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative. If you really wanted to advocate for charter schools you would admit that. But by admiring that you would be contradicting your other agenda so you throw all this nonsense in the way.

School districts have limited money. Some of those districts are operating with much less money than they need to provide a quality education to kids. Switching those schools to charter schools won't change the fact that they don't have enough money.

Your too caught up in this republican democrat nonsense. It's democrats who are fighting for charter schools in a lot of cases. The times when they do fight against them is when they are tied to policies that increase inequality like adding schools without adequate funding, or allowing the schools to choose their students.

Every analysis you can find. Even the one you used to start this thread says that a lack of resources in the places where they are needed is a problem. Yet you still continue with this "money doesn't matter" nonsense.

 

[theworldismine13]

It's not me that's misinformed. You ignore any and everything that doesn't fit your agenda. Most states dont even have caps and ive shown you miltiple sources that say a lack of funds is a big problem. But you will keep ignoring it because it doesn't fit your narrative. If you really wanted to advocate for charter schools you would admit that. But by admiring that you would be contradicting your other agenda so you throw all this nonsense in the way.

i havent ignored anything and ive responded to everything, and you are completely wrong, all states that have charter schools have limits on charter schools and the current fight over charter schools is exactly over those limits

here is an article discussing it States Are Lifting Limits on Charter Schools - WSJ.com

you are truly misinformed if you think states do not limit charter schools

School districts have limited money. Some of those districts are operating with much less money than they need to provide a quality education to kids. Switching those schools to charter schools won't change the fact that they don't have enough money.

and i explained that charter schools can cut bureaucracy and they can raise money from private sources and also there is nothing that im saying that precludes adding more money from the government

if more money is needed, then so be it

Your too caught up in this republican democrat nonsense. It's democrats who are fighting for charter schools in a lot of cases. The times when they do fight against them is when they are tied to policies that increase inequality like adding schools without adequate funding, or allowing the schools to choose their students.

im not getting caught up in anything, im just making an observation, of course there are exceptions but generally speaking its unions and democrats that fight charters and vouchers and republicans that are pushing it, im sure the people that are against charters have a perfectly valid reason in their minds why they oppose it but most of those people are democrats

Every analysis you can find. Even the one you used to start this thread says that a lack of resources in the places where they are needed is a problem. Yet you still continue with this "money doesn't matter" nonsense.

i never suggested that you can run a school for free and i never suggested cutting education funding, what i posted is showing that spending money on education doesn't directly correlate with academic performance

and therefore we need to look at other factors that effect academic performance like culture

 

[MeachTheMonster]

you asked where the money is coming from, im just explaining it comes from reducing overhead, it actually isnt a given that you need the same amount of workers and the same amount of management, i dont know why you think that

on of the big criticisms of public schools is that they have bloated bureaucracies, they have a lot of managers and administrators that dont actually teach, charter schools reduce that bureaucracy, im not sure why you think every single manager is important, some are them are not and a lot of their pay can be reduced and a lot of jobs eliminated

The most succesful charter schools have more money than the failing ones.

 

[theworldismine13]

The most succesful charter schools have more money than the failing ones.

i dont even know how you can even say that since each state has its own rules for charter schools and some are privately funded, some public and some mixed, and some charters are run by local orgs and some by national corporations and they all have different philosophies and methods, so its hard to see how you can make such a generalized statement

but if you wish you can draw the conclusion that money is the reason why they are successful and ignore all the other data that show that more money does not equate to higher academic performance and ignore studies that show that culture has the biggest impact

 

[MeachTheMonster]

i havent ignored anything and ive responded to everything, and you are completely wrong, all states that have charter schools have limits on charter schools and the current fight over charter schools is exactly over those limits

here is an article discussing it States Are Lifting Limits on Charter Schools - WSJ.com

you are truly misinformed if you think states do not limit charter schools

Less than half of U.S. states have caps.

and i explained that charter schools can cut bureaucracy and they can raise money from private sources and also there is nothing that im saying that precludes adding more money from the government


if more money is needed, then so be it

More money is needed. But according to you money doesn't matter.

im not getting caught up in anything, im just making an observation, of course there are exceptions but generally speaking its unions and democrats that fight charters and vouchers and republicans that are pushing it, im sure the people that are against charters have a perfectly valid reason in their minds why they oppose it but most of those people are democrats

You like to look at generalities and absolutes. Pay attention to the actual details and you will see republicans who oppose it and democrats that oppose it. Check out their reasoning and its always about money.

i never suggested that you can run a school for free and i never suggested cutting education funding, what i posted is showing that spending money on education doesn't directly correlate with academic performance

and therefore we need to look at other factors that effect academic performance like culture

Yeah and it costs money to change culture. More money than poor school districts currently have

 

[MeachTheMonster]

i dont even know how you can even say that since each state has its own rules for charter schools and some are privately funded, some public and some mixed, and some charters are run by local orgs and some by national corporations and they all have different philosophies and methods, so its hard to see how you can make such a generalized statement

but if you wish you can draw the conclusion that money is the reason why they are successful and ignore all the other data that show that more money does not equate to higher academic performance and ignore studies that show that culture has the biggest impact

It's the fact that those schools do have enough money to provide the students what they need. Beyond that adding money doesn't help. But most of the failing schools charter or public don't have the funds they need to provide the kids with the resources they need.

Poor kids need the most resources yet they get the least. Nothing you can say will change that. Until we get those poor kids the resources they need, they will continue to fail.

 

[theworldismine13]

It's the fact that those schools do have enough money to provide the students what they need. Beyond that adding money doesn't help. But most of the failing schools charter or public don't have the funds they need to provide the kids with the resources they need.

Poor kids need the most resources yet they get the least. Nothing you can say will change that. Until we get those poor kids the resources they need, they will continue to fail.

there is nothing that im saying that precludes increasing funding, in fact the article i posted originally is making the case for increasing funding, its just that i dont support putting money into a bloated bureaucracy and a system that doesn't address culture

by switching to charters and vouchers you can redesign schools to address cultural issues, bring in new creative and innovative ideas, eliminate the bloated bureaucracy and add money from private sources

 

[theworldismine13]

Less than half of U.S. states have caps.

and? whats your point? a lot of those caps have been eliminated during the past couple of years, and not all states have charter schools, so i dont see how that helps your case, you said that the main thing holding charter schools back is money, which isnt true

More money is needed. But according to you money doesn't matter.

its not according to me, its according to the studies posted in this thread

You like to look at generalities and absolutes. Pay attention to the actual details and you will see republicans who oppose it and democrats that oppose it. Check out their reasoning and its always about money.

i think i just said that there are exceptions but generally democrats are against charters and republicans are for it, so im aware that some republics are opposed and some democrats are for it, that is why i said its a general comment

im not really sure what is the point you are trying to make, everything in politics is about money, why would schools be any different?

Yeah and it costs money to change culture. More money than poor school districts currently have

and those schools are not using money efficiently and so the extra money comes from eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and closing down non performing schools

 

[DEAD7]

Government investment is always misdirected.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Does Money Matter in Education

a broad range of resources were positively related to student outcomes, with ‘effect sizes’ large enough to suggest that moderate increases in spending may be associated with significant increases in achievement.

Once we adjust for labor market factors, we estimate that raising teacher wages by 10 percent reduces high school dropout rates by 3 percent to 4 percent.

We used data from Project STAR and the Lasting Benefits Study to examine the long- term effects of small classes on the achievement gap in mathematics, reading, and science scores (Stanford Achievement Test). The results consistently indicated that all types of students benefit more in later grades from being in small classes in early grades. These positive effects are significant through grade 8. Longer periods in small classes produced higher increases in achievement in later grades for all types of students. For certain grades, in reading and science, low achievers seem to benefit more from being in small classes for longer periods. It appears that the lasting benefits of the cumulative effects of small classes may reduce the achievement gap in reading and science in some of the later grades.”

increases in per-pupil spending led to significant increases in math, reading, science, and social studies test scores for 4th- and 8th-grade students. The magnitudes imply that a $1,000 increase in per-pupil spending leads to about a third to a half of a standard-deviation increase in average test scores.

It is certainly reasonable to acknowledge that money, by itself, is not a comprehensive solution for improving school quality. Clearly, money can be spent poorly and have limited influence on school quality. Or, money can be spent well and have substantive positive influence. But money that’s not there can’t do either. The available evidence leaves little doubt: Sufficient financial resources are a necessary underlying condition for providing quality education.

 

[theworldismine13]

Does Money Matter in Education

I think what's really pathetic is how you lack the reading comprehension to see how cautious their language is and in the end do not really support what you are saying, in the end the report is really just saying that money has a little bit of impact on education, essentially the same thing all the other reports say

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I think what's really pathetic is how you lack the reading comprehension to see how cautious their language is and in the end do not really support what you are saying, in the end the report is really just saying that money has a little bit of impact on education, essentially the same thing all the other reports say

Nope you can read it if you want. The truth is out there but if you want to ignore it go right ahead. You said there is no evidence that increasing money increases acheivment. This report and plenty of others prove that assertion wrong. In fact it also proves that previous attempts at financial equality for schools have produced great results, yet people such as yourself use old studies and incomplete information to undermine this progress.

 

[theworldismine13]

Nope you can read it if you want. The truth is out there but if you want to ignore it go right ahead. You said there is no evidence that increasing money increases acheivment. This report and plenty of others prove that assertion wrong. In fact it also proves that previous attempts at financial equality for schools have produced great results, yet people such as yourself use old studies and incomplete information to undermine this progress.

The report clearly says that increasing money has moderate to little impact on outcomes, you can't see it because you lack reading comprehension

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The report clearly says that increasing money has moderate to little impact on outcomes, you can't see it because you lack reading comprehension

you said it has no impact.

increases in per-pupil spending led to significant increases in math, reading, science, and social studies test scores for 4th- and 8th-grade students. The magnitudes imply that a $1,000 increase in per-pupil spending leads to about a third to a half of a standard-deviation increase in average test scores.

Significant does not mean "very little"

On the flip side you advocate charter schools which have been proven to offer no significant improvement over public schools whatsoever.

 

[Slang]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."