Noam Chomsky

[Shady]

The U.S. spends more for K-12 education than many other nations:

Great reference. Some people grasp on to their assumptions as facts, when the facts are the complete opposite.

[jacee]

Great reference. Some people grasp on to their assumptions as facts, when the facts are the complete opposite.

Interesting. I guess it's a matter of inequitable distribution then:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/business/a-rich-childs-edge-in-public-education.html?referrer=&_r=0

The bottom line is that the vast majority of O.E.C.D. countries either invest equally into every student or disproportionately more into disadvantaged students. The U.S. is one of the few countries doing the opposite. The inequity of education finance in the United States is a feature of the system,

...

In New York, schools spend an average of $19,000 per student. In Tennessee they spend $8,200. The Alpine school district in Utah spends only $5,321. And funding in some states is even more skewed than in New York.

Edited March 9, 2015 by jacee

[guyser]

You don't know what you're talking about. America pays more per student than any other country in the world.

Ok they do.

How are the results?

[Shady]

Ok they do.

How are the results?

Pretty sub-par. In fact, since the conception of the department of education, test scores have gone down every year.

[guyser]

Thank you for that.

[GostHacked]

Pretty sub-par. In fact, since the conception of the department of education, test scores have gone down every year.

That's even digressed even more with concepts like 'common core' and Socialist's 'discovery' methods.

[Ash74]

That's even digressed even more with concepts like 'common core' and Socialist's 'discovery' methods.

The excuse for that is the argument that not all students learn the same way. Claiming that standardized testing is not a good way to judge education. I get the argument and would agree everybody learns at a different pace but I feel that certain skills should be obtained by a certain point. As an example at the end of grade 3 be able to read at a certain level, math skills at a certain level,etc,etc........

[cybercoma]

Interesting. I guess it's a matter of inequitable distribution then:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/business/a-rich-childs-edge-in-public-education.html?referrer=&_r=0

The bottom line is that the vast majority of O.E.C.D. countries either invest equally into every student or disproportionately more into disadvantaged students. The U.S. is one of the few countries doing the opposite. The inequity of education finance in the United States is a feature of the system,

...

In New York, schools spend an average of $19,000 per student. In Tennessee they spend $8,200. The Alpine school district in Utah spends only $5,321. And funding in some states is even more skewed than in New York.

This is the issue in the US. They do spend more per student than most of the OECD. The problem is the inequality in education in the US. It's perhaps the worst in the OECD. This results in the US having some incredibly poor scores in reading, maths, and science compared to the amount of money they spend. They end up with simultaneously top performing students as well as some of the poorest performing students.

So Shady is absolutely right. The US does spend a lot more on education, but they end up with a worse performing population because the money isn't equitably distributed.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. has never strived for equal education opportunities or outcomes. And it never will.

Noam Chomsky is a product of this approach.

Edited March 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

The U.S. has never strived for equal education opportunities or outcomes. And it never will.

Big deal. You live with the consequences.

[bush_cheney2004]

Big deal. You live with the consequences.

Yes...more Nobel Prizes and patents than Canada. I like those consequences.

[jacee]

Yes...more Nobel Prizes and patents than Canada. I like those consequences.

Per capita?

.

[cybercoma]

Per capita?

.

United States is 15th per capita for Nobel Prizes behind other PISA nations such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Canada is 23rd. Edited March 10, 2015 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...more from the U.S. per capita compared to Canada....for Nobel laureates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

That's because many laureates from around the world do research at U.S. institutions....including (gulp) Canadians.

[cybercoma]

Which is all completely irrelevant to the education quality, since *gulp* the US has to import its talent because its population flounders under its piss poor education system.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which is all completely irrelevant to the education quality, since *gulp* the US has to import its talent because its population flounders under its piss poor education system.

Sure...because there is no emigration to Canada. The U.S. has the most top ranked colleges and universities than any other nation in the world.

[cybercoma]

All still completely irrelevant when your students by every metric are falling way behind, yet you spend way more money on them than anywhere else.

I don't know about you, but I don't like getting less for my money. But hey, if as a proud American you're fine spending more and getting less, more power to y'all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans spend more money on lots of things, and we get a lot more too. If Canada wants to spend differently, more power to it.

How many Canadians have walked on the Moon ? Doohan and Shatner don't count.....besides they were in the U.S. anyway !!!

Edited March 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Americans spend more money on lots of things, and we get a lot more too.

So what? We're talking about education. We could even talk about healthcare if you want to change the channel. America consistently spends more, but you sure as hell don't get more. That bears out in the international metrics.

[Shady]

Education reform is very necessary, the teachers unions won't like it, but it needs to be done. No more rubber rooms!

[bush_cheney2004]

So what? We're talking about education. We could even talk about healthcare if you want to change the channel. America consistently spends more, but you sure as hell don't get more. That bears out in the international metrics.

The topic is Noam Chomsky...another American for Canadian lefties to worship.

Americans spend more...and get more.

[Bonam]

This is the issue in the US. They do spend more per student than most of the OECD. The problem is the inequality in education in the US. It's perhaps the worst in the OECD. This results in the US having some incredibly poor scores in reading, maths, and science compared to the amount of money they spend. They end up with simultaneously top performing students as well as some of the poorest performing students.

So Shady is absolutely right. The US does spend a lot more on education, but they end up with a worse performing population because the money isn't equitably distributed.

I would argue that an education system that produces the most "top performing students" even while also resulting in many of the "poorest performing students" is a whole lot more beneficial to the nation and to humankind than one that consistently produces a lot of average students and not too many on the extremes. Why? Because the top performers are the ones that innovate, create wealth through visionary new ideas, develop revolutionary new technologies, discover new scientific principles, etc.

Socially, it might feel nice if you spend more on poor performers to help them catch up to the rest of the pack. But economically and in terms of overall progress, spending more on the highest performers to fully unlock their potential brings a greater benefit.

There's a reason the US continues to be the leader in technological, scientific, and medical innovation.

[cybercoma]

I would argue that an education system that produces the most "top performing students" even while also resulting in many of the "poorest performing students" is a whole lot more beneficial to the nation and to humankind than one that consistently produces a lot of average students and not too many on the extremes. Why? Because the top performers are the ones that innovate, create wealth through visionary new ideas, develop revolutionary new technologies, discover new scientific principles, etc.

Socially, it might feel nice if you spend more on poor performers to help them catch up to the rest of the pack. But economically and in terms of overall progress, spending more on the highest performers to fully unlock their potential brings a greater benefit.

There's a reason the US continues to be the leader in technological, scientific, and medical innovation.

Yeah. Let's just completely ignore the effects of inequality.

The society you think is so awesome is one that will eventually roll out the guillotines.

[bush_cheney2004]

Somebody had to invent the guillotine...sure wasn't collectivist mediocrity.

[Ash74]

I would argue that an education system that produces the most "top performing students" even while also resulting in many of the "poorest performing students" is a whole lot more beneficial to the nation and to humankind than one that consistently produces a lot of average students and not too many on the extremes. Why? Because the top performers are the ones that innovate, create wealth through visionary new ideas, develop revolutionary new technologies, discover new scientific principles, etc.

Socially, it might feel nice if you spend more on poor performers to help them catch up to the rest of the pack. But economically and in terms of overall progress, spending more on the highest performers to fully unlock their potential brings a greater benefit.

There's a reason the US continues to be the leader in technological, scientific, and medical innovation.

Wow, what a terribly cruel argument. Survival of the fittest it would seem. Can't argue your logic and I can't say I disagree with your points but the one thing I do have an issue with is the schools in lower income area's are suffering badly and I wonder how many good producers have been tossed aside or overlooked. How much more was spent on keeping these kids in those areas that end up in jail on their incarceration than was spent on their education.

It is sad that criminals get more of the money than the students.