So if you're not new to this, why is your logic completely out the window? You're trying to argue your points from an Ethos standpont. I can see I'm going to have to dumb it down a bit, because you're obviously not getting it. 

Firstly, the DERIVATIVE value of benefit (x-1970) differs from the DISPLACED value of cost (y - '0') not only in terms of initial value, but also in terms of skew. since we're working on a % difference from a set value, any sharp, notable rises are represented on a far shallower incline than what they actually represent.

Secondly, you're placing two axes with no correlation towards the other whatsoever on the same axis. Do we know that $150k should warrant exaclty twice the performance of $50k? Who is making this assumption of scale?

Thridly, you mentioned yourself that NAEP tests do not change. If that's the case, then hwo are the kids who achieved the ceiling mark in 1970 supposed to be outdone on performance? And back to my 1970 argument. If the kids did incredibly poorly in the 1970s, we'd be seeing an incredible climb in the statistics, but the fact that the the hurdle of the majority of score had already been cleared by 1970, you have a much smaller window to achieve the same performance boost, especially with a ceiling involved. Students COULD be performing better, but the ones "saturated" at the ceiling are throwing off the true figures.

I've mentioned a few factors already, such as the rising cost in classroom needs, the rising QUANTITY in classroom needs and the association of a cost and benefit on the same axis. I see those never got mentioned again. You're arguing that spending more doesn't make a difference, I'm arguing that it could work differently than a linear scale. This graph assumes linearity between both.

1) Considering there is basically zero change in NAEP results, this is a meanginless statement.

2) See 1.

3) Again... see 1.  You haven't mentioned any factors with any actual evidence to suggest they should be worth considering.  Also... this is spending per student.  So quantity would be irrelevent.

4) See 3.

If you have actual data, feel free to present it... otherwise I'm not going to provide data point after data point right down to water content levels because your too lazy and uninformed to come up with anything to support your arguements.

You're relying too much on the result of the graph, and making the assumption that students aren't performing better. As I stated in my 3rd case, since the tests contain a ceiling, saturation of improvement can occur at 100%. Students might likely be more capable, but a fixed exam can not really take that into account, can it? After all, they're not changing, and they're not asking a limitless number of questions (you ARE taking the average scores between students as a measurement, are you not?) This makes your first point completely debatable, which you base most of your answer on.

What is this cyclic shit? I dont have to worry about saturation because the results didn't change? Don't you understand? The saturation CAN change the results, and for tests, upper hand saturation can make performance look much worse than it actually is. Why are you relying so heavily on this graph with no backup? The onus is on you to provide the evidence that this graph takes saturation into account. this isn't "I have a graph and it's totally right, so unless you have evidence to prove me wrong, then I'm right". That's how religious arguments work, not logical ones.

the point is... we aren't near saturiation.  Not remotely so.  That's pretty obvious simply by looking at how we place in comparison to other countries... well and comparison to the NAEP scores.

I've provided evidence.  It's up to you to provide counter evidence.  That's not religion... that's science.  Your operating off blind hope an assumption.

I left Cali 5-years ago because of the bolded. 

It's a real shame: amazing state ruined by its own people who can't seem to grasp that money does not grow on trees and that people like me are not going to stick around and be stuck with a bill for insanely profligate spending that goes to everything except the people that are actually paying most of the taxes*. (Which is ironic because if Cali folds, we'll ALL end up paying for it because we lack the political will to tell Californians to live with their own, awful decisions.)

*Of course the middle class in Cali is the one that caused a huge portion of this mess, so I have virtually no sympathy for them, either.

And seriously: LMAO at the notion this was a Republicn or conservative-caused problem. I mean, seriously, how little do you understand/grasp about Cali politics? It hasn't had meaningful Republican representation since the '80s.

So you're saying not one student has ever gotten 100% in the exam, based on the placement against other countries (which I might add is another average).

Who's assuming again?  I've said that the potential for satuation is there, which IS fact. Do you doubt that at all?

Your argument is no student has (or can't get) 100%, so saturation is not a factor....

Potential is irrelevent without proof... you have no proof that the situation is there.  How is what your saying any different from "Prove that god doesn't exist"?  If you've got proof that it's there, provide it.  If not... your guesses are just that.  Uneducated guesses.

And no... 1 student getting 100% is not a factor.  Saturation would only be a factor if

A) A large amount of students got 100%

and

B) There was an actual... change.  There isn't.  Aside from which, a law of dimishing returns would support my point... making your arguement well... off.

I'll ask you again. Are you saying that NO student in the span of 40 years ever got 100% on that test? The existance of students with 100% pass would show that saturation does indeed exist and should be catered for. Unfortunately, this graph only shows performance WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NAEP TESTS.

Another factor not taken into account is if the test is considered easy to obtain a high score. If this is the case, then of course there will be a lot smaller gain in benefit in the time than if the test was difficult. Once again, NAEP test scope.

Once again, the onus is on you, as initial provider of data to justify criticism. If I'm criticising that it's subject to saturation and scope of difficulty, and shown HOW it is (which I've explained many times already), it is then up to YOU to justify why it's not. Your answer of "It would only make a large difference if a lot of students got 100%" would only become valid if you proved that a large number of students did NOT achieve that score (and none of this "I'm sure they wouldn't cos we're ranked so low" crap).

Your B statement is actually false and I'll tell you why. You see with averages, more students COULD get 100%, but the average score would not change, because of disparity between tests. You, as someone working with staticstics should already know this. The effect wouldn't even require as much disparity in non-limited terms either, especially if more students are subject to the ceiling figure. 

Except.  It isn't.  Once data has been provided, it's up to the critics to prove valid criticism.  Which you have not done.

You are just spitballing random ignorant sugestions at this point... about something you know zero about.

You may as well be argueing evolution was faked because some ancient civilization buried dinosaur bones all over the place.

You cant' deny that COULD happen.... now can you?  You can't deny that it's a possibility.

It's a very unlikely, stupid possibility... but it sure is possible.

I'm guessing you also believe global warming is fake.  After all, climate scientists don't have answers for EVERYTHING in the climate system, so it's totally possible there are other natural gases causing it, since they can't measure everything it's far too vast and complicated a system... there are plenty of possibilties that are unaccounted for so far afterall.

And i mean... apparently that's all you have to say, with zero data... and that's it.

So you're denying that there's no such thing as saturation? That there's no ceiling for the test, because what I have shown is HOW saturation can play a part in skewing the results, which you're ignoring. I'm starting to wonder if you have ANY clue about mathematics if you're willing to ignorantly deny one of the somplest factors on gathering averages that contain a ceiling.

What you're doing is using this graph as a basis of student performance, when in fact it's limited to the scope of the exam. You're not going to go ahead and deny that too, are you? You did admit, after all, that the results obtained were from the NAEP exams, which are apparently so good that they're able to justify every cent being spent on a student.

The difference between evolutionclimate change and this is, there has been substantial evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it they both existm whereas your argument is "Education spending is out of control with zero result ON THIS ONE EXAM  TYPE that has a ceiling and NO ACTUAL DATA ON THE SCOPE OF SAID EXAM" for all you've provided, it could be something as easy as an entrance exam. Your argument is RIDDLED with holes, so don't you dare place it anywhere near the same places as evolution/climate change.