| Kasz216 said: Highest rating student? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
and contrasting it with changes in the NAEP achievement scores... which have shown that our students essentially haven't gotten any better at reading and Math, and have gotten worse at Sceince.
That there isn't correlation is exactly my point. You can keep spending more and more and it's not going to improve test scores. |
The highest rated student measures the maximum CAPABILITY of those funds. Of course, students wont learn if they don't want to, so it's only fair to leave those out of the equation and cater for maximum benefit, since we have no control over student will (Unless you prefer a dictatorship).
Second, show me that the classrooms of 1970 don't differ one bit to the ones of 2010. Additionally, I'd like to see that the tests taken from 1970 are exactly the same as the ones taken in 2010. Tests ARE a shifting trend as well, which this graph absolutely fails to take into account.
You still haven't answered my question as to why the costs are a displacement figure whereas benefits are a dertivative. Of course, when placed on a similar axis, the costs would ALWAYS win out, unless you had some kind of higher than exponential growth of test results, which is incredibly unlikely.
I'd also like to ask, is this graph for the entire US? If so, I have plenty of good claims as to why only SCIENCE scores reach that low...
