Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by christiangenco 2 hours ago
My understanding of injecting money in education is that it's proven to be extremely ineffective at improving outcomes.

Schools just hire more administrators and build nicer gyms.

4 comments

You have to wait 20 years for the returns to society. Public education was enormously successful when it was introduced in the 19th century. There's just no profit in waiting for second order effects to kick in.
So was Rural Free Delivery. Farmers being able to communicate was a massive boon. There is a channel for farmers called RFD tv. They completely scrubbed the free provided by the government part after private equity bought the tv channel targeting farmers. Then they got Imus in the Morning so farmers listed to Imus, Rush, Hannity, and orielly forgetting the government helps them.
Diminishing returns. Per-student education spending has been going up since 1990 except a dip during the 2008 recession. Adjusting for inflations it’s now double what it was 30 years ago.
The population of students is shrinking and there is (unnecessarily) growing overhead that has to be paid for.
The people in charge of the schools don’t seem to think it’s unnecessary overhead?
of course their luxury SUVs wouldn't think it's an unnecessary overhead. Come on guy, those expense accounts aren't going to pay for themselves...

chop chop... get to it.

Well yes, you have to spend the money wisely. How could we construct a system so that we have 2x as many teachers (thereby halving the classroom size)? That would have a lot of good second-order effects beyond test scores.
So why has per-capita student spending doubled since 1990 (adjusted for inflation) without any increase in test scores? Why haven’t we been spending the money wisely?

Student to teacher ratios have continuously decreased and are about half of what they were in 1960. Data on the results is mixed: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/class-size-what-research-...

Because we have also increased the spending in "un-education" (entertainment, social media, college sport...) ?

What's your own theory ?

Honestly curious, but don’t tests also adjust for “inflation”? Aren’t tests today be harder than they were in 1990?
Maybe don't just 'inject' it.

Maybe use it to increase outcomes.

What about into research grants?