If increasing spending had almost no impact over time why would cutting spending have an impact?

estearum 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If filling a leaky bucket had almost no impact over time, why would stopping filling the bucket have an impact?

	▲	zaphar 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But filling a leaky bucket does have an impact. You just have to fill it faster than it empties. Which is probably your point. My point is different. Study after study shows that below a specific floor spending has almost no impact on educational outcomes. The correlation is such that you can both determine that there is likely no leak and also that it has no effect. The stuff that does have an impact is much harder to move the needle on though so everyone just scapegoats funding instead. Stuff like building up the nuclear family in an area, increasing income mobility, and holding parents accountable for child outcomes do have a measurable effect but are politically intractable today.

▲

foxyv 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unfortunately there is much more to the story than a number on a line. Just because you increase spending doesn't mean that the spending isn't earmarked for items like digital projectors and virtual textbooks that have minimal impact on learning outcomes.

▲

john_strinlai 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>If increasing spending had almost no impact over time why would cutting spending have an impact?

big if true. we should probably cut 100% of spending in that case.

edit: not sure if people are missing the /s, or if people legitimately believe that cutting spending has no impact.