Real cost per student is going up... and results stay the same. (As in adjusting for inflation.)

What's misleading about that?

I'll put it another way:

What if the graph was about cost vs the test score of the highest rating student as a %. You'd see the benefits line close to the top of that graph.

That's because there's no direct correlation between the two.

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.)

Steady woudln't seem problematic, except everyone elses scores and competency are increasing.

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?).

There was no regulation. Banks did all sorts of risky deals, lending money to people who clearly could not pay(Even with interest rates at about 0%).

It's not... I feel like now you don't know what a derivative is now. 

Look at the chart i just showed you.

I feel like you walked into this thread with zero understanding of the thread, looked at the graph and read nothing else.

You are just... wrong and now argueing for argueings sake....

coming up with claims without an actual shred of data to back it up.

Could students be getting dumber?  Sure.  They also could be getting smarter... making things look worse then that chart.

My money would be on smarter... considering generally IQ tests have to be revised to be made harder generation after generation.

The difference between the chart above and the one you showed me was that this chart does indeed work with displacements. As you can see, initial figures START with their initial value, not a value based in the CHANGE of a previous value. I ask the question back to you: do YOU know what a derivative is? I thought you used to work with statistics.

Coming up with claims without an actual shred of data to back it up? Once again, it was YOU displaying the graph, which I have mentioned before, makes a TON of assumptions, and not taking other factors into account. You're preaching the graph like it's some kind of actual gospel fact, and when somebody questions the figures DUE TO EXTERNAL FACTORS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THIS GRAPH, you decide to start acting like this guy:

I did, that's how I know your wrong.

A derivative value has to stay that way the whole way through.

If you look at the two charts, you'll notice, they are exactly the same.  The only difference is the labeling.  You could eaisly transpose the numbers on the second chart, and replace the percentages on the first chart, and the data would remain exactly the same.

It's not a derivative value.  The best arguement you can make is that it's labeled confusingly.  It doesn't change how the graph looks in general.

I said you didn't read, because well... you haven't read.  External factors have been my point in this entire thread... and I know a lot more about said factors then you do.

If you want to actually come up with an external factor you don't think is covered.  Do so.  With evidence and facts that actually mentions it. (Like I have... in this thread no less.)

If you can't... what are you trying to argue?  May as well argue kids tests scores are stupider because of a magic dumb fairy going house to house making people dumb.

Again, you are just wrong, and argueing just to argue.

If you read the whole thread... one thing you'd of noticed already is that the vast majority of money spent... is spent on employee salaries.