Live data from Hacker News

Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

nytimes.com

211–220 of 548 posts

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#211

Two parts: First, I think the ability to DO THINGS is the great equalizer at this point. Being a do-er lifts you out of poverty (or at least out of poverty's worst resting state). Being a do-er expands your network. Being a do-er prolongs your life (people with jobs/daily activities tend to live longer healthier lives). The best part about this is that technology has made it easier to become a do-er. You don't need a…

> chronically underfunding schools In Washington State, for decades there was a big push to "fully fund" the schools. They finally got their way a couple years back, i.e. just about everything they wanted. There has been zero improvement in results. There has been no further mention of "fully funding" the schools in the press since, but the demands for more and more money for the schools have not abated at all. Edit:…

Things like that puzzle me.

Baltimore, MD high school graduation rate is under 70% [1].

They spend $18k per student [2] - more than 45 other states on average [3]

Citizens of Baltimore even elected a black grassroot mayor who understands needs of the community [4] and Maryland's police brutality is among the lowest in the country [5].

Yet something doesn't work.

WHY?

[1] https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/baltimore-ci...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/03/30/bal...

[3] https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Scott

[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123317/rate-people-kill...

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it appears that even the deepest red states have school hierarchies run by the blue This is definitely not the case. Consider: unless consistently-"red" legislatures and governor's offices are putting "blue" people in charge of their educational departments, it couldn't be the case. Further, in many states, individual districts play a major role in deciding the course of education, so even if that were the case, "r…

I don’t buy this argument for a couple of reasons. The first is that you have to look at the percentage of candidates for the job from each tribe. Just like really blue cities are inevitably at odds with their really red tribe police officers who inevitably live in the suburbs. Similarly, public universities in red states have no choice but to hire really liberal professors because like 95% of professors vote Democra…

Ah, higher ed. Yes, that may have a different dynamic. My comment was from the POV of primary and secondary education. For instance, it's definitely not the case that this:

> Secondly, these sorts of policies often come from the bottom up, from students or teachers. Administrations often roll over out of self preservation or apathy.

Is happening in any widespread or common way in k-12 school districts, with admin hired by "red" school boards elected by "red" voters capitulating to most any "blue" political inclinations of teachers. As for the students in those age ranges, for most of that span they have a strong tendency to very closely follow the political views of their parents, so that's mostly irrelevant as far as pressure goes.

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unless there are numerous private schools in West Virginia that charge $4600 or less in tuition, which I would not expect. There seem to be quite a few: https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/west-virgi... In general, Catholic school is per capita cheaper than public. In fact, according to https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-private-school , $4600 would be enough to cover the average Catholic eleme…

> I also notice you use religious as a pejorative. There is little reason to do so. While I tend to agree that Catholic schools are good at teaching science (except for reproductive science!), evangelical schools often teach against evolution, climate change, etc. A popular Christian textbook refers to the theory of evolution as “a wicked and vain philosophy.” And many of these schools accept vouchers! That means tax…

> except for reproductive science!

People claim this with little evidence. At my conservative Catholic school we discussed contraception in great detail. More than my public school classmates. We learned about all the available options, how they worked at the chemical level, and why they were morally unacceptable. In fact, we had a whole full-semester class on this and on abortion. We learned about the various drugs used to induce abortion. The various methods of abortion. Our first sex ed curriculum was in the fourth grade. And yes, this was a very conservative catholic elementary school, with a very strict orthodox Irish nun for principal.

The real complaint here isn't that Catholic schools don't teach contraception, abortion, etc. It's that they teach that they are immoral. The morality of contraception and abortion is not a scientific argument.

Another complaint I hear about 'conservative' sex ed, is that they don't talk about sex as fun, but I literally never experienced this at my catholic school. We had our married teachers be incredibly candid about pleasure. In my all boys high school, I remember one in particular pointing out that sex without a condom felt way better. And guess what... he was right... thanks Mr Tory.

The last thing I'll say is my own experience as a newlywed. My wife when we first married had irregular cycles. She went to public school. She accepted this as normal (which it is certainly, but not the way she was having them.... 100 day long cycles followed by 20 day ones). I went to all boys Catholic school, where we learned about natural family planning. By the time we married as 21 year olds, I knew that the church taught a system of menstrual tracking that could be used to avoid or achieve pregnancy and fix cycle issues.

I encouraged us to sign up for an NFP class. My wife wanted to use the pill. I told her that based on her history of migraine, the pill may cause blood clots and lower libido (which newly wed wants that...). Anyway, she went on the pill and had all the typical reactions one would expect. She decided in frustration to take an NFP class.

Anyway, we did that, and my wife learned so much about her cycle. She said she wished she had learned it in school. Guess what? The girls at our all girl sister school did learn about it. Via NFP tracking, she learned her cycles were likely off due to her thyroid. A trip to the doctor later, she had normal cycles. Then we had a series of miscarriages, including some late ones. We visited a Catholic doctor who took her full history and looked at her menstrual charts. She immediately saw some more discrepancies that indicated some hormone things, but she also noted that her migraines could be a blood clotting problem, especially given her reaction to the pill. Anyway, some tests later, and some blood thinners and some supplemental progesterone, we had our first child after seven miscarriages. Now, after successful pregnancies, we know that it's likely a blood clotting problem. Man... if only she had learned that a bad reaction to the pill and a history of migraines is often indicative of blood clotting problems, she would have avoided all that unnecessary suffering. Thank goodness we learned about it in Catholic school.

That is to say, I credit my own Catholic high school education for being able to see what was obviously ailing my wife and she and I both wish she had had access to the same education in high school. It would have saved her a lot of unnecessary inconvenience over having an irregular cycle, and us a lot of grief over having lost those babies. Frankly, our experience of the science taught by the church, turned us from lukewarm Catholics (I had learned a lot of facts but disagreed with the church over its moral teachings) into pretty traditional ones.

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#214
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of local funding for public education varies wildly from state to state. In New Mexico in 2018, only 15% of public school revenue came from local sources. However, during the same year in Nebraska, that number is 53%. So yes, in some states differences in local property tax has a minimal effect on school funding. But in other states, the issue is still a significant issue. Source: https://nces.ed.gov/progr…

And in Nebraska, can you find a strong correlation between funding levels and schools performance? I asked you for examples, can you find any? Importantly, if in many states the school funding is equalized, and yet we still have wide difference in performance between good and bad schools, why would anyone expect that changing funding structure in Nebraska would change school outcomes in a significant way? If school f…

> can you find a strong correlation between funding levels and schools performance

In New Zealand there is a negative correlation.

The performance of schools in New Zealand is very strongly correlated with “the decile” which is how wealthy the area where the school is located (i.e. how well off the parents are correlates with how well their children do academically).

The schools in areas of poverty get more state funding, but the results at those schools are very poor, because the parents are poor, and poor parents often cause poor students (edit: cause is the wrong word here, sorry).

Our government otherwise funds schools per student at a fairly flat per capita rate, so there is not the variation in school funding (ignoring private schools) like that which occurs in the US.

I am just pointing out that in New Zealand the main correlation for average student ability is their home, not their school.

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#215
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what needs to be done, is to give a voucher to every parent to decide where to go. So, we just say 'fuck all the kids who were born in the wrong zip code' and can't overcome the distance gate to go to a better school with the voucher?

Well seeing as how the biggest failing schools are in large metros this argument doesn’t hold much does it? One of the biggest school system is in NYC and the average student graduating high school is reading at a 10 year old level or less. One could also imagine some sort of large vehicle whose sole purpose is to provide rides for students to attend the schools. Let me see if I can do some more research on such a sc…

> Lastly, right now you’re saying:

> “Born in the wrong zip? And the school is failing? Sucks to be you! Not my problem”

No. That's the logical outcome of a voucher system that only rewards the most successful schools instead of fixing the others.

> Or what am I missing?

Everything, apparently.

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#216
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, take a look at how the non-voucher system works in SF. Lottery system and if you end up with a crappy school, you either put your kid in a private school or try and game the system to get them switched. The parents who are poor don’t have the bandwidth or knowledge to do it so they just get stuck with whatever school. So you end up with the same problem. Crappy schools have kids of parents who don’t value edu…

What exactly makes a crappy school? I went to the school dictated by my geography my whole life which online rankings don’t indicate as anything special - is this just a thinly veiled proxy for SES?

Percentage of time teachers spend on crowd control instead of teaching would be one good measurement, along with percentage of children performing at grade level.

In crappy schools, little learning occurs as the classroom resembles a zoo, and many/most students are several grade levels behind.

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#217
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elections? Healthcare? (Continuing to push Medicaid expansion onto states that don’t want it?) Child care? Education?

Honestly the first two should be a federal thing. I just don’t understand how a federal election has 50 different ways of doing and qualifying things and not one way for a position that affects the whole country. If we were to pull up on a Alien planet and see this kind of election style we would ridicule the ridiculousness that is the US election system. Don’t get me started on how it makes any sense that we don’t l…

> I just don’t understand how a federal election has 50 different ways of doing and qualifying things and not one way for a position that affects the whole country.

This is how it works in the EU as well, and per the GGP commenter, the prescription was for the US to be more like the EU, which is how it was set up in the first place anyway per the GP comment.

> Don’t get me started on how it makes any sense that we don’t leverage the power of the government for something as crucial as life. Why in the god damn fuck is giving birth in this country not free?

Except there are several different viable ways of providing universal healthcare. You can have a single payer system like Canada/Denmark/American Medicare, you can have a single provider system like the UK/Veterans Administration, you can have a purely private non-employer funded system like Switzerland or the Netherlands, you can have a public-private mix like Germany, or only universal catastrophic coverage like in Singapore. Each approach has its own trade-offs, and those trade-offs are political in nature, where some States might prefer one set of trade-offs and others may not.

This is exactly how Canada's single payer healthcare came about. Saskatchewan was the first Province to offer single payer in 1947, followed by Alberta in 1951, etc. By 1961, all Provinces had some form of a single payer healthcare system. To this day, Canada's single-payer system is Provincial, not Federal. The Federal government provides supplemental funding, but that only happened after each Province independently developed its own system, and only after all Provinces unanimously agreed to the Federal health transfer. As of 2020, Federal transfer payments in Canada only amount to 22% (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/45/E1408).

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a lot of European countries, a robust social safety net is the great equalizer. You don't get locked up to work in order to afford healthcare, food, etc. - and are thus more free to take chances. That is a great explanation in theory, but simply does not work out in practice. In order to support the safety net, the EU has to impose several regulations that remove the ability of people to 'take chances', such as…

> higher taxes on business Denmark + Norway: 22% Sweden: 21.4% Finland: 20% Germany: 15% Nederlands: 25% France: 25% USA: 21% (but 35% until 2017). So the tax argument does not hold, especially for the period before 2017. Birth rates are also the same: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility... > the EU is not particularly excellent at any Odd that there are so many EU countries at the list of mo…

The main difference is not taxes, but how loose employment and business regulations in the US are vs. EU. In general, it is much easier to fire people in the US (https://smallbusiness.chron.com/compare-us-labor-laws-europe...)

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#219

Two parts: First, I think the ability to DO THINGS is the great equalizer at this point. Being a do-er lifts you out of poverty (or at least out of poverty's worst resting state). Being a do-er expands your network. Being a do-er prolongs your life (people with jobs/daily activities tend to live longer healthier lives). The best part about this is that technology has made it easier to become a do-er. You don't need a…

> chronically underfunding schools In Washington State, for decades there was a big push to "fully fund" the schools. They finally got their way a couple years back, i.e. just about everything they wanted. There has been zero improvement in results. There has been no further mention of "fully funding" the schools in the press since, but the demands for more and more money for the schools have not abated at all. Edit:…

A couple years back is 2019. I'm not sure you know how schools work but suddenly pumping money in doesn't dramatically increase test scores the next fiscal quarter. I think nearly everyone agrees public schools could use more funding, the debates tend to be about "on what and how much."

Re: Is education no longer the ‘great equalizer’?

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your anecdotes not withstanding, it is a myth that most rich people inherited their wealth. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche... Maybe you don't trust this source but there are many others like it. This bizarre push to make everyone think that there's no meritocracy, which I guess goes hand in hand with the fashionableness of being a victim, is cynical poison being driven by people with rad…

Your example is like saying playing NBA basketball makes you taller. His point was that there are plenty of people that don’t become wealthy even though they work hard and have hustle. And there are plenty of wealthy people that didn’t need to work hard to get it. Looking at the self-made wealthy will select for people that “do”, but that does not imply that “do” makes you wealthy.

Im not sure what your point is. Your statement

>>> His point was that there are plenty of people that don’t become wealthy even though they work hard and have hustle. And there are plenty of wealthy people that didn’t need to work hard to get it.

is a trivially correct, banal point. The parent comment was implying with his "I know even more people who are rich and lazy" comment something that, while it may be true for the people he encounters, is not true for society at large.

Post reply on HN