Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
Highest rating student? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
I'm not sure if you understand the graph... but it's showing the Real cost of education per student. (Adjusted for inflation and all 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...
|
Except you know...
A) total student achievement is the very heart of what this whole conversation about. To leave it out would be well... missing the whole point of the conversation.
B) The NAEP tests are the same. That's sort of the whole point of the NAEP.
C) I finally see what your saying. The answer is. It isn't.
It's not showing percentage of change per year. It's showing the percentage of change since 1970.
The baseline figure in 1992 and the baseline figure in 2008 are the same.
For an example showing the same data. (Top 2 are the same Purple and Yellow.)
|
And that's where your argument comes undone. Public schools don't pick what students they get, they have to work with what they're given. One could even argue that if average intelligence IS going down, then the cost of maintaining that level is justified. Once again, MANY other factors at play here. Public schools could spend as much money as they want on a sudent, but if the student is unwilling to learn, then it's not going to make a difference.
A derivative measuring from 2 points (1970-x) is still a derivative. The difference is that the costs STARTED on their displacement cost for 1970. Why didn't it start at a derivative of +0, may I ask? Are we expecting sudents of 2010 to do twice as good as students of 1970, given that they decided to add two completely different axes with no correlation on the one axis, and the fact that the tests have a ceiling? (ie How are students who scored 100% in 1970 able to be outperformed by students in 2010?).
