[markpercival]

"The rise of American education was, overwhelmingly, the rise of public education — and for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Education, as one of the largest components of public spending, has inevitably suffered." - Paul Krugman

So Mr. Krugman thinks we should throw more money at the problem by way of State stimulus? A quick look at the figures would tell anyone that funding isn't the primary issue.

Current expenditure per pupil in 2006 dollars

1961 - $2,670

2008 - $9,391

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

[krschultz]

It would be hard for me to believe that my parents generation was better educated than mine.

For one, when they graduated in the early 60s there was a massive gender gap in college attendance - my mom was valedictorian and went to secretarial school because her parents told her "women can be teachers, secretaries, or nurses", by the 70s she knew she should have gone to college. For comparison the female valedictorian from my HS went to Harvard.

Then there is the general quality of the education. Neither of them took Calculus in high school. They had Latin and most schools today teach Spanish, French, and Italian but aside from that they think my education was much harder. College is unquestionably more rigorous today.

On a shorter time frame, say the last 10 years, MAYBE that argument holds true. In my home state the last 3 have had serious state budget problems that affected the schools but until then it was getting better and better every year.

[kevbin]

"College is unquestionably more rigorous today." This is likely true at the high-end. But the vast majority of college students are not at the high-end. At the mean, universities have to mop-up after a dysfunctional K-12 establishment based on self-esteem and social-promotion. Remedial reading, writing, and mathematics are common at second- and third-tier universities. The scope of "special needs" has been broadened to include customers who are incapable of producing college-level coursework.

To ensure that students who elect to pursue a rigorous education are not penalized relative to those who do not so choose, grades at those institutions have been inflated to meaningless extent.

The educational industrial complex is geared toward growth. Effectively serving that market requires lower baseline standards and less meaningful quality metrics within the serviced population. Certainly the market is consuming more educational product than in the early 60s, but whether this produces a better educated populace is less obvious--unless "better educated" is defined to mean "consumed more educational product."

~

"in the early 60s there was a massive gender gap in college attendance" As an aside, today's gender gap is the opposite: colleges attract fewer males than females. If you consider graduation and 4-year graduation rates, the gap is greater and growing faster. I don't know that this marketing failure says anything about the quality of education though.

[bkovitz]

Someone tell me if this is right (it's just guesswork):

Decades ago, there was a clear distinction between colleges and vocational schools (or "trade schools"). The purpose of colleges was to bring you into a certain culture and tradition: the culture of educated people. The purpose of vocational schools was practical job training, nothing more.

Attending "college" was more prestigious, but also of little interest to most people. (Most people are basically practical.) Social initiatives to bring poorer people into the educated world put money into colleges, not vocational schools. But most people don't want to learn about Keats and the Magna Carta and that sort of thing, they just want to get skills to do a job to make more money than they could without those skills.

Over time, the purpose of colleges became confused. People today see colleges as intended to provide job training, and just doing a lousy job of it. Colleges, with their state funding, grabbed much of the market from vocational schools, killing off most of them.

So today, we have many colleges, with vast numbers of students. Most of the students mostly jump through useless bureaucratic hoops for four or five years, don't learn the things educated people know, and don't get job skills, either.

[willchang]

I've always thought this way too. The fact that car mechanics make more than programmers points to the fact that there is actually a dearth of education leading up to being a capable mechanic, and perhaps a surfeit of education leading up to being a mediocre programmer. The fact that manufacturing has been shedding jobs for decades makes it even weirder that competence in the manual trades is so expensive to hire. Perhaps America has never provided decent educational support for the trades, and for a long time, the average manufacturing job required little. I wonder how different the nation would be if this education had been available all along.

[kevbin]

According to the BLS* Computer Programmers (15-1021) average $73,000/yr. Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics(49-3023) average $37,540/yr, or roughly half what programmers make.

* http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm

[krschultz]

Yes, but in the past it wasn't like only great students went to college. My Dad's sole motivation for college was escaping the Vietnam draft. There were many like him. In fact the college he attended went out of business because it was so bad and so few students wanted to go there.

[Alex3917]

The point is that funding isn't very well correlated with achievement outcomes. Schools could easily do a much better job with a fraction of their current budgets.

[krschultz]

"Easily", how?

"Fraction" - 9/10ths, 7/8ths.

I really don't know what you would cut out of schools to make it better. Teachers are under paid, most school districts are short on their infrastructure budget, and "extraneous" classes like music, art, or physical education are getting cut all over the country.

If you ask me the biggest waste of money in the school district is the computer in every class room theme. So many hundreds of thousands of dollars in every district for computers, IT professionals, ethernet cables strung to every room, software all over. And how many classes are really improved by this?

[kevbin]

"Teachers are under paid"

What makes you think so? Working 9 months/yr, elementary school teachers average $52,240 or $5804/mo., high school teachers $54,390 or $6043/mo.. These are jobs with tremendous security and benefits. The average registered nurse makes $65,130 or $5427/mo. Accountants average $65,840 or $5486/mo.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b25-0000

"…the biggest waste of money in the school district is the computer in every class room…"

Right on. You and I agree with Steve Jobs:

"I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.

It's a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they're inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I'm one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html

[Alex3917]

"I really don't know what you would cut out of schools to make it better."

First, there is a lot of administrative overhead that has nothing to do with instruction. Second, the Gary Plan is inherently very wasteful. Under the current system when kids fall behind (or if they're gifted) then you need to do 'pullouts'. This is enormously expensive. On the other hand, if you were to do something akin to open systems instruction then a kid would stay in the same 'class' only until they finished the unit, and then move on to a new teacher for the next unit. This means you wouldn't have to do pullouts, because the kids who were having trouble would just spend more time in that section. Then each school just has one or two people who monitor the pupil's time per unit compared to their expected time to complete that unit, which is based on their past performance in the subject compared to the standard performance on that unit. The other benefit of this is that now you have accountability for each student throughout the system as a whole, whereas currently troubled students are just shuffled from class to class without anyone caring enough to fix the problem.

[bhousel]

Would be very interesting to see a comparison of a typical 1961 operating budget vs a typical 2008 operating budget, to see where the differences are.

My guess would be that the biggest differences would be for teachers' pensions and benefits, extracurricular activities, technology, facilities -- but that's just a guess.

I can't imagine that they spend 3.5x as much on textbooks..

[linhir]

Just FYI, nominal price figures over time are pretty meaningless due to inflation.

What cost $2670 in 1961 would cost $19,226.05 in 2008 (BLS calculator: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), which means that expenditure per pupil, in real terms has decreased quite a bit. Based on that same calculator, the amount of money we are spending now is $1,304 in 1961 dollars, far below the 2.6k you mention.

[Luc]

Numbers given are inflation adjusted to 2006 dollars.

[linhir]

Ya, I see that now, my error. I would delete my meaningless comment if I could.