DeBlasio thinks basing admissions on merit is "segregation" and that random chance is better

[Trausti]

Dear Ruby, the last question you posted to Loren was on funding differences between majority White and Black districts.

Yours wasn't an answer to what I asked Loren. And in any case, I was also going to be interested in the second of his claims.

Your answer might have been relevant to the question, "are there any majority non-white areas that get above average funding". I suggest you keep your answer ready until someone asks that.

OK. Ask Loren. He’ll be ‘round soon.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dear Ruby, the last question you posted to Loren was on funding differences between majority White and Black districts.

Yours wasn't an answer to what I asked Loren. And in any case, I was also going to be interested in the second of his claims.

Your answer might have been relevant to the question, "are there any majority non-white areas that get above average funding". I suggest you keep your answer ready until someone asks that.

OK. Ask Loren. He’ll be ‘round soon.

Well, I did. Twice.

I guess he's busy collating the sort of robust, unflawed evidence he was saying was so important, up until making those claims.

 

[Trausti]

Are there examples of school districts increasing student achievement after increased funding? I’m with you that there are non-instructional costs. I’m unconvinced that funding differences are the cause of achievement gaps.

Yes. There is a large body of evidence that increased spending increases student achievement. In fact here are 4 research papers from just the past 18 months that combined examine effects in dozens of districts across 10 states, employing numerous control measures, such as comparing Bond measures to increase funding that just narrowly passed in some districts to those that just narrowly were defeated in other districts within the same state. And some of the studies show that increased funding has the largest positive impact on lower SES and lower performing districts and schools.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3430766

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272719300623?dgcid=coauthor

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-18.pdf

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

 

[ruby sparks]

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

How hard would it have been just to say, ok, thanks for apparently answering my genuine enquiry in the affirmative?

Instead of trying to weasel out of that?

Do you even have an objective bone in your body?

 

[Trausti]

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

How hard would it have been just to say, ok, thanks for answering my genuine enquiry in the affirmative?

Instead of trying to weasel out of that?

Do you even have an objective bone in your body?

What weasel? It supports my position. Thanks Ron!

 

[ruby sparks]

How hard would it have been just to say, ok, thanks for answering my genuine enquiry in the affirmative?

Instead of trying to weasel out of that?

Do you even have an objective bone in your body?

What weasel? It supports my position.

No it does not.

The answer to your question, does more funding tend to produce better outcomes, appears to be yes it does.

And now you are tying to weasel out of that.

 

[Trausti]

How hard would it have been just to say, ok, thanks for answering my genuine enquiry in the affirmative?

Instead of trying to weasel out of that?

Do you even have an objective bone in your body?

What weasel? It supports my position.

No it does not.

Let me help you.

"On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending"

BTW, in 2018 the average per pupil spending was $12,612.

 

[ruby sparks]

No it does not.

Let me help you.

"On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending"

Yes I read that, but it's weaselling.

Because the general answer to what you actually asked nonetheless appears to be yes, more funding does produce better outcomes.

But you don't like that answer. So now you are trying to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Do you actually have an objective bone in your body?

 

[ronburgundy]

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

That result is "surprising" and logically contradicts conservative arguments that spending is generally too high, irrelevant to learning, and that differential student outcomes are solely the result of innate student ability and not the result of differential spending. According to such notions there should be zero effect of extra spending, even for districts spending below the median. It is the "leftist" (aka rational) theory that quality cost more and quality leads to more learning which predicts that schools that already spend more and thus already have higher achievement would not be expected to gain by more spending.

 

[ronburgundy]

How hard would it have been just to say, ok, thanks for answering my genuine enquiry in the affirmative?

Instead of trying to weasel out of that?

Do you even have an objective bone in your body?

What weasel? It supports my position. Thanks Ron!

No, it directly contradicts your claim that learning isn't a result of spending. That there are limits to gains in schools that already spend alot and thus achieve more supports the opposite of your position.

Your response is equal to claiming smoking doesn't cause cancer and then pointing the people who already had cancer prior to smoking as support, ignoring the experiments showing those without it got it by smoking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately too many teachers teach to the perceived ability of their students. Not their actual ability or their potential ability.

And what evidence do you have that their perceptions are wrong to any substantial degree?

It's Christmas eve and I have a shit ton of stuff to do so I don't have time to google for you but in fact, there have been studies published that demonstrate that teachers tend to treat students according to information or 'information' they've been given about them. Teachers who have been erroneously told that their class was high ability taught their students as though they were exceptional--and the students benefited tremendously. That's one example.

Here's an easy one:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...pectations-can-influence-how-students-perform

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947521930177X

Duh!

It takes time to figure out the information provided is wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

You obviously have not even read the material.

Other times, you read the material, and only try to pick holes in results you don't like, while (a) uncritically accepting results you do like and/or (b) making your own claims without providing any evidence at all.

Shouldn't you be at a forum called TalkShitethought?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What are the results of all that spending? Do DC and NYC outperform lesser funded school districts on the NAEP?

Education funding and educational spending are 2 different categories. For example, my school district spends approximately 25% of its funding on transportation of students to and from public and private (by Mn law) schools. That is clearly not directly tied to educational achievement.

So, any worthwhile comparison would have to carve out such spending and adjust for differences in cost of living.

I grant you that there are costs beyond instruction; a lot wasted on useless administrators and such. I challenge the notion that more money gives better outcomes. I mean, more money is of course good for administrator salaries and pensions. But for student achievement? Probably no relationship.

A big factor that renders the comparisons pretty much moot: Special education. You need to compare regular students against regular students and the numbers presented aren't broken out that way.

(Although New York is obviously a special case--the cost of living there is so high, of course they have to spend more.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

Exactly. Insufficient funding matters, but beyond that you get very little for it.

 

[Toni]

It's Christmas eve and I have a shit ton of stuff to do so I don't have time to google for you but in fact, there have been studies published that demonstrate that teachers tend to treat students according to information or 'information' they've been given about them. Teachers who have been erroneously told that their class was high ability taught their students as though they were exceptional--and the students benefited tremendously. That's one example.

Here's an easy one:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...pectations-can-influence-how-students-perform

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947521930177X

Duh!

It takes time to figure out the information provided is wrong.

Oh, my fucking god.

My old boss was right. You cannot force someone to think, if information they are provided contradicts whatever preconceived notions they already have.

 

[laughing dog]

https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-25.pdf

On the other hand, we find evidence of diminishing returns. Districts that spent above our sample median ($10,893 per pupil) had no achievement or attainment effects to accompany their increases in spending

Woah. What a surprise.

Exactly. Insufficient funding matters, but beyond that you get very little for it.

It is pretty clear that neither Trausti nor LP read the cited paper. The authors repeatedly caution that their small sample makes their results tenuous in nature. They do find that spending matters. And in particular

Unlike several prominent studies, the effects we detect are based purely on operational expenditures—which districts directed toward employee salaries, as opposed to smaller student-teacher ratios. We are unable to determine whether districts raised salaries of existing personnel or replaced them with higher-paid individuals. It is possible that districts realized achievement gains because they were able to employ higher quality teachers or increase teacher effort (e.g., see Biasi, 2018). For example, it could be that low-spending districts that passed referenda suddenly were able to hire more effective full-time teachers, as opposed to relying on temporary options or less qualified individuals. Whatever the precise mechanism, we find suggestive evidence that higher teacher pay yields returns, which is consistent with an accumulating body of research (see Britton and Popper, 2016).

So, that study ignores the effects of using increased funding to reduce class sizes.

All in all, I'd be more interested in seeing that working paper go through a review process because it might change its tenor a bit. The authors are pretty careful about their conclusions and they do identify possible important restrictions, but notice that did not stop the ideologically driven from cherry-picking from the paper.