I’ve never even used the word “waste” nor did I even talk about “waste” in some general sense. I spoke to the fact that outcomes have not improved with spending.
At any rate, I think I’m done with this conversation at this point. I’ll check my privilege at the door next time.
Anecdotes are nice, but they’re not data. I’m most familiar with Baltimore, but I just meant cities with high concentrations of minorities or even cities that received the SIG funding.
Anecdotes by definition are pieces of data. My city is roughly double the national average of blacks at last census, is that high enough? I believe Baltimore is more like ~50%, but if you’d prefer I can pull examples from the Detroit area (where I’m also familiar with the area). Unfortunately, I have nothing personal to speak to in Baltimore specifically.
By the nature of your absolute “more spending has done nothing (emphasis yours),” a single anecdote invalidates your entire premise. How many anecdotes would you like? My mom only has 20 years experience working with childcare in low income high minority cities so I’ll probably run out eventually.
I didn’t read it as an absolute in the way you are talking about here. Doing nothing to improve the lives of kids doesn’t mean that no kids were helped, but overall it did nothing.
For example, I could give a scholarship to one kid in the city and statistically it would do nothing, but anecdotally it obviously would help one person.
By the nature of math, statistically it did something. It just wasn’t a large effect. If you add 12 to 1 trillion, the number doesn’t fail to increase.
Okay, you got me. Ben Carson’s a neuron surgeon so we can end the SIG program since life in the inner city has improved so much. Fantastic, this privileged white dude can finally save a buck.
Of course, I didn’t mean 100% of the time, but that’s PWI…
Which would be impossible to prove statistically with a margin of error.
To go further, the one kid could have been helped but that situation woudl have caused others to drop out. So statistically it would’ve been worse even though one kid was helped. Just pointing out that I read it as an overall impact, not individual impact. My example might not be the best way of explaining that.
Edit: Also, when I meant “statistically”, having such a small impact would be fairly categorized as nothing. Yes, technically a .000001% change is something, but statistically that is insignificant.
I apologize. The next time you state an absolute, bold it, then defend the absolute after someone challenges it, I’ll remember to ask for clarity on if your words mean what they actually say.
Understood. That being said, it’s not like the govt is pouring money into these areas and helping a SINGLE person and never anything more. Hundreds of families see positive effects from these.
As I said before, it absolutely (correct use of an absolute) causes a positive effect to people’s lives, it’s just not cost effective enough to many people’s opinions.
No, it’s my fault. I forgot how pedantic PWI is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall reading you (could have been someone else) saying something before about being adverse to using absolutes unless you actually mean it. In that context, I tend to take your words at face value.
$7 billion in spending for ineffective (no impact, generally “nothing” overall) improved is a bit more than not cost effective enough.
I think it is worth looking at what can and should be done instead of throwing money at a problem.
I don’t think this is an absolute in the way you are taking it. Overall no impact (nothing) does not mean no individuals were impacted.
You’re half right. I’m adverse to absolutes, but I don’t use absolutes when I “mean it”. It’s either hyperbole or just a mistake. I was talking about the Baltimore City’s education system, which I thought would translate to a statement on average outcomes not improving. I guess it didn’t.
Cost effective is subjective, as is the word waste, as you mentioned above. FWIW, I personally believe our edu spending hasn’t been cost effective. That’s a far far cry from doing nothing (in any context).
100% agreed.
Except there hasn’t been overall no impact either. These anecdotes that everyone is quick to dismiss are events without chance of data being skewed, ignored, given incorrect weights, etc. In a world where nearly EVERYONE is trying to politicize shit for various reasons, make things say what they want them to say beforehand, etc, I feel these anecdotes shouldn’t be ignored so quickly.
To your previous comment about 1 kid getting a scholarship and how it may have negatively impacted someone else, could we speculate that without said spending, the situations these kids find themselves in could have turned out much much worse?
How do you know this is driven by education spend and not something else?
You would bring my shitty example back into the discussion
Sure, we could speculate that. That is why studies on the impact of programs should be done to know if they are having an impact (good or bad) vs. a control. That is obviously hard to do as trials aren’t run on humans. Because of that I think we should find things that are having a good impact, like cognitive behavior therapy, and continue to use those things. Programs that have no statistical impact should not continue to take the funds away from programs that have been shown to work, even in there is a cool anecdote within the overall ineffectiveness.
I previously posted these articles, but I think the concept is pretty cool:
http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/how-chicagos-bam-becoming-a-man-program-works-1183.php
In my mother’s case, I would point to the programs she’s able to enact that are directly funded by education spending.
In the case of my friends whom are inner city teachers, I’m operating under the assumption that the education department is driven in large part by education spending.
Um hey guys. Did some reading and according to the NAEP test scores for all 17 year olds it’s more accurate to say this inflation adjusted massive increase in education spending has done almost nothing. You’ll have to Google NAEP results because it’s a PDF and I’m not sure how to link those on a phone.
There have been great gains in minority scores. But they are still quite behind. That isn’t an educational issue so much as a cultural one. The number of high poverty schools is increasing. The poverty is concentrated.
For all 17 year olds, the US education system is stagnant.
And you’re convinced these kids wouldn’t have succeeded (in whatever way you’re applying success) without said programs?
But the Department of Education has stated the $7B (iirc) didn’t improve average outcomes. So, while your friends have anecdotes that showed the spending helped there must be teachers that saw worse outcomes in order for the average to remain the same, right?
Could probably eliminate some of the programs and see very little change. The ones that come to mind are the arts ones. Personally I think those are wasteful in inner city settings. The ones that have produced the most benefit (in my mom’s opinion) are the vocational programs and the ones targeted specifically at reducing gang membership.
Is this under the assumption that the increased spending somehow caused those worse outcomes? I’m of the opinion that giving spending to inner city areas doesn’t cause these as much as they were going to happen anyway. So while the “overall stats” may have remained flat, the negatives would have happened regardless, causing a net gain in favor of this spending.
Again, FWIW, I believe the education spending isn’t anywhere near cost effective. I place the majority of the blame for that on our wasteful system not being able to stretch a dollar, and not nearly as much on the “spending has no benefit” side.
I don’t know why we even discuss racism in the United States. There are no laws prohibiting anyone from leaving, so it isn’t an issue.
