|
Little Mac posted:Did you have that red title before you posted this? If not, you earned it here. Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. after reading your posts, im actually starting to agree you should have been put in some kind of institution where you couldn't harm the public
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. "You see, if you accept my base assumption that this cannot possibly be good, it therefore is clearly bad!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. It's a good thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. You save a bunch of money on future services, people who can care for themselves and live in supported environments with supported employment are much less of a burden than those who are institutionalized. And yes, some special education students will actually become productive tax paying citizens, possibly extremely productive ones. If you can spend 70k turning nonverbal kid with autism into a scientist or engineer, that investment will pay for itself, perhaps many times over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. This is a dumb assumption. Also, income tax isn't the only tax paid to the state, FYI, babyhitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
The problem isn't asking for a justification for SpEd resource allocation, the problem is the assumption that justification can't exist because SpEd is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. If you really believe our public education system should be survival of the fittest, equal money doesn't make sense. You should probably drop out the bottom 50% of each class at each grade level and spend the money on whoevers left. They are probably the 'best' investments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Do you have a citation on this? I'd be interested to read the scholarship on spending more on poor schools and having the students performance directly negatively correlate. Thanks! I didn't say they directly negatively correlate - I said rather that the fact that children in poor areas are living in poverty is the primary reason schools with poor tax bases do poorly. It's one of the main conclusions of the Coleman Report. That doesn't mean underfunding schools in poor areas is good! It means that we shouldn't expect that more equitable school funding will dramatically improve educational outcomes in poor areas on its own. on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. on the left is trash but this is worth answering. Special education helps BD or LD children function better as adults. Even in a cruel dollars and sense measure, spec ed means children are more likely to grow up to be self-sufficient adults, and not end up in a care home or in prison. It's the most effective MH therapy program in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Let's just do that dumb YA Netflix original where they do Hunger Games via standardized tests. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:after reading your posts, im actually starting to agree you should have been put in some kind of institution where you couldn't harm the public Not an expensive one, though. That would be a waste of my taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I didn't say they directly negatively correlate - I said rather that the fact that children in poor areas are living in poverty is the primary reason schools with poor tax bases do poorly. It's one of the main conclusions of the Coleman Report Not to quibble but you did say, Cease to Hope posted:While property tax bases are a problem, poor kids in poor schools do worse even when you spend more on them. which rather carries the implication that we shouldn't spend money on poor children. Also, I'm gonna toss out that the Coleman report is over 50 years old. Some more recent research seems to run counter to your claims: quote:We show that school resources play a major role in student achievement, and that finance reforms can effect major reductions in inequality between high- and low-income school districts. Accordingly, while states that did not implement reforms have seen growing test score gaps between high- and low-income school districts over the last two decades, states that implemented reforms saw steady declines over the same period. The effect is large: Finance reforms raise achievement in the lowest-income school districts by about one-tenth of a standard deviation, closing about one-fifth of the gap between high- and low-income districts. There is no sign that the additional funds are wasted. On the contrary, our estimates indicate that additional funds distributed via finance reforms are more productive than funds targeted to class size reduction. Using a different metric, we still see a gain here: quote:To study the effect of these school-finance-reform-induced changes in school spending on long-run adult outcomes, we link school spending and school finance reform data to detailed, nationally-representative data on children born between 1955 and 1985 and followed through 2011. We use the timing of the passage of court-mandated reforms, and their associated type of funding formula change, as an exogenous shifter of school spending and we compare the adult outcomes of cohorts that were differentially exposed to school finance reforms, depending on place and year of birth. Event-study and instrumental variable models reveal that a 10 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25 percent higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families. Exogenous spending increases were associated with sizable improvements in measured school quality, including reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries, and longer school years. How do you explain this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. Oh indeed. What a poor investment giving special ed kids access to services and equipment necessary for the best quality of education they can recieve. I mean, what kind of returns can we possibly expect from that? Especially since the dollar value of individuals is all that matters! Wait, on second thought gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If you really believe our public education system should be survival of the fittest, equal money doesn't make sense. You should probably drop out the bottom 50% of each class at each grade level and spend the money on whoevers left. They are probably the 'best' investments. It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. Hahahaha. The sinister agenda of the disenfrachised wanting the tools for a real chance at success. Yup you uncovered the secret plot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
You can justify sped funding on pure utilitarian grounds. It's cheaper to spend money on education now than incarceration, institutionalization, and increased dependence on social services later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
the sinister agenda of helping the less fortunate
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. It's almost like white people already have the privilege of higher level socioeconomic standing and better funded schools and it's not fair that other groups can't expect the same. "Affirmative action is racist against white people.  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
i do like the lovely troll's admission that as much as america likes to tout equality and fairness, this is in reality deeply unpopular among conservatives who pay lip service to an alleged american ideal while secretly bitching about the poors, blacks, and needy
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. It's almost as though disabled kids....might need more resources! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. Perhaps we should cut all rural education. They are extremely inefficient schools and the money could be better used on the select few.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:We all start at 8, though, and most of the working world starts at 9. Most offices open at 8 but everyone's in at 7. 9 to 5's been a myth for a long time. And if you look at that study it showed that teachers work more than average on sunday (but not by a lot) and less than average on saturday (again, not by a lot), and still work fewer hours a week on average. If you want to present some other data that refutes the Dep't of Labor report maybe that would help?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Most offices open at 8 but everyone's in at 7. 9 to 5's been a myth for a long time. everyone in my office works 10 to 6
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:which rather carries the implication that we shouldn't spend money on poor children. Next sentence, SC. quote:It means that we shouldn't expect that more equitable school funding will dramatically improve educational outcomes in poor areas on its own. Your first paper is arguing about whether poor schools spend the money they get from transfers efficiently relative to other school expenditures. They do! What it doesn't even address is the cause of the difference in outcomes between rich and poor schools. I don't have access to the second paper so I really can't comment on it. For the specific issue of "why do kids in poor neighborhoods have poor educational outcomes", the property tax lottery is seriously overblown. You can't blame all of the problems of American education on the property tax lottery, because the real "problem" is that districts concentrate impoverished students in segregated groups, then presume that those districts are doing something wrong. This doesn't mean that the property tax lottery is just - it should be corrected - but it isn't the reason why the schools teaching poor students are deemed to be "failing." The problem is that the way we evaluate schools is designed to justify white flight. A "failing school", often as not, is one that is doing its best - and a good job! - serving poor kids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Most offices open at 8 but everyone's in at 7. 9 to 5's been a myth for a long time. And if you look at that study it showed that teachers work more than average on sunday (but not by a lot) and less than average on saturday (again, not by a lot), and still work fewer hours a week on average. Sure, when you also present data showing that most working professionals work 7-5 every day! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:everyone in my office works 10 to 6 Everyone in my office works 6:30-5? What line of business are you in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Sure, when you also present data showing that most working professionals work 7-5 every day! Do you think that 2008 Department of Labor report is wrong? It shows teachers working less than other professionals. But here's a gallop poll showing that half of full-time employed American who work a single job average 46 hours a week, which however you divvy it up - 7 to 5, 8 to 6, whatever. http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours.aspx BigFactory fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
All of a sudden I'm hearing on various sites that teachers are actually super lazy. Is this something from the latest right-wing email forward? You guys are organized!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Uh, it shows teachers working less than other professionals by 2-3 hours a week, as I have shown. It also has data with no numbers attached that creates a variable "any given hour", and that's fairly anecdotal? "Any given hour" would absolutely cover a teacher who says "I typically work another 2-3 hours every night grading," as someone like myself would say, as on "any given hour" for those 2-3 hours that teacher is indeed working. So I don't think the data is WRONG but I think you are interpreting it in a completely misleading way in order to prove a point that teachers shouldn't be little whiny baby's because working professionals work FAR harder than them, which seems supported by your citation of longer work day hours without any data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Do you think that 2008 Department of Labor report is wrong? It shows teachers working less than other professionals. Teaching is some of the lowest salary:education there is which makes it a very unattractive profession for talented people. When a 'reformer' talks about how teachers suck and the solution is to slash their pay, take a big drink of johnnie walker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
(Good) teaching is a lot more like performing than sitting at a desk in an office job. You have to be "on" the whole time. The archetypal bad teacher sits behind a desk, disengaged from the class. comparisons based solely on hours and not on intensity of work are probably misleading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Furthermore, here is some data compiled by Scholastic and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation in 2012 which found that, on average, teachers work 10 hours and 40 minutes every day: https://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full.pdf Data on page 15, methodology at the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Uh, it shows teachers working less than other professionals by 2-3 hours a week, as I have shown. It also has data with no numbers attached that creates a variable "any given hour", and that's fairly anecdotal? "Any given hour" would absolutely cover a teacher who says "I typically work another 2-3 hours every night grading," as someone like myself would say, as on "any given hour" for those 2-3 hours that teacher is indeed working. The data is derived from surveys conducted by the Department of Labor. That "any given hour" statistic isn't misleading. Maybe you're misunderstanding it. What do you teach?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. Easily the most hilarious tinfoil poo poo I've ever heard in my life. Like, what? Anyway. When we discuss SpEd we often forget who is covered under that umbrella. I had a student who was blind, and otherwise loving brilliant. SpEd services made it possible for her to be in her honors classes. She is in college now and will probably become some sort of badass. Wouldn't have happened without SpEd dough. Everyone thinks SpEd is 100% made up of kids with mental retardation or autism but even if that was true, poo poo is a spectrum. I have lots of students with autism, they're loving fine in my (general population) class since they have services and support. They will be totally fine as adults.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:The data is derived from surveys conducted by the Department of Labor. That "any given hour" statistic isn't misleading. Maybe you're misunderstanding it. What do you teach? Is your question here implying that because I don't teach Statistics or Math or any other data related subject that clearly, as a lazy teacher, I couldn't possibly be able to comprehend the data correctly? I can't see any other reason why you would ask me my subject here. And it is possible I am misunderstanding it because I said initially "correct me if I'm wrong, I might be misunderstanding this!" But from what you are saying, "on any given hour" would cover a teacher who works 45min a day and a teacher who works 3 hours a day and contribute to the findings in the same manner. Is that incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:For the specific issue of "why do kids in poor neighborhoods have poor educational outcomes", the property tax lottery is seriously overblown. You can't blame all of the problems of American education on the property tax lottery, because the real "problem" is that districts concentrate impoverished students in segregated groups, then presume that those districts are doing something wrong. This doesn't mean that the property tax lottery is just - it should be corrected - but it isn't the reason why the schools teaching poor students are deemed to be "failing." even in a large system with fairly equitable funding, individual SES segregation plays a huge part in the atlanta public school system funding is largely equitable across districts. but schools in the largely black neighborhoods are 'failing' where they aren't in the largely white neighborhoods. this is because parents of public school children generally pay close attention to the district their kids will be placed into, and if they can they try to get into the best school possible. unfortunately, this creates bidding pressure which drives up housing prices in the 'good' districts and leaves the 'bad' districts more affordable, leading to SES sorting and segregation. this then perpetuates the myth of 'bad' schools as students in poverty are concentrated in certain districts etc. so on it's not just funding provided to districts but rather that desirable districts attract more involved parents who have more means to intervene and support the school, and less desirable districts have trouble attracting these hands on parents and tend to see more disengaged or overwhelmed parents in poverty than you see in the rich districts BigFactory posted:Everyone in my office works 6:30-5? What line of business are you in? a different one than you are ~anecdotes~
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Is your question here implying that because I don't teach Statistics or Math or any other data related subject that clearly, as a lazy teacher, I couldn't possibly be able to comprehend the data correctly? I can't see any other reason why you would ask me my subject here. Yes, that sounds incorrect. It means that based on the data the survey recorded, that if you isolate any single hour between 2PM and 10PM, 25-30% of teachers surveyed reported that they worked during that hour. BigFactory fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Someone is more than welcome to explain to me why I am misreading that statement, then, since you are correct that I do not teach statistics!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Do you have a citation on this? I'd be interested to read the scholarship on spending more on poor schools and having the students performance directly negatively correlate. Thanks! The School Improvement Grant program dumped $7 Billion on struggling schools with no significant benefit found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1c9c_story.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:Someone is more than welcome to explain to me why I am misreading that statement, then, since you are correct that I do not teach statistics! I don't have the survey in front of me, but I imagine that it had a question where it asked you to respond yes or no whether you worked between: 6AM and 7AM (yes) (no), 7AM and 8AM (yes) or (no), etc... Between any one hour window from 2 to 10PM, 25-30% of teachers reported that they worked. So you might have responded to that question by checking off yes on each box from 7AM to 2PM, and then 3 other boxes in the evening. Right? And workers in other professions, on average, responded that they worked more hours in the day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:13
|
|