Harvard Study: spending $$$ does not improve Education

[Melensdad]

Liberal leaning Atlantic magazine is running a story about a Harvard professor who is claiming that spending more money on education may actually lower student test scores. At least that seems to be so if the spending is not related to a positive learning culture. But lower budget schools can get high test scores and achievement if they have a positive learning culture that raises expectations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ing-you-know-about-education-is-wrong/249722/

I encourage you to follow the link above. Below is only part of the story, the graphs and indicators can be found at the link above.

Everything You Know About Education Is Wrong


. . . His findings could add some new fire to the debate about what makes a good school. Fryer found that class size, per-pupil spending, and the number of teachers with certifications or advanced degrees had nothing to do with student test scores in language and math.

In fact, schools that poured in more resources actually got worse results.

What did make a difference? The study measures correlation, not causation, so there are no clear answers. But there is a clear pattern. Schools that focused on teacher development, data-driven instruction, creating a culture focused on student achievement, and setting high academic expectations consistently fared better. The results were consistent whether the charter's program was geared towards the creative arts or hard-core behavioral discipline.

IT'S THE CULTURE, STUPID

If small classes, credentialed teachers, and plush budgets aren't adding up to successful students, then what is? Fryer measured school culture in a way no academic before him had. He looked at the number of times teachers got feedback. The number of days students got tutored in small groups. The number of assessments for students. The number of hours students actually spent at their desks. Each correlated with higher student scores.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, schools that claimed a "relentless focus on academic goals" also tended to produce better test scores. Schools that focused on self esteem and emotional health? Not as much. (Sorry Gen Y.) . . .
​

 

[FrancSevin]

OMG?
We actually needed a Harvard Professor to tell us this?

Does that make it true?

Or was the fact of it obvious and true before the High end acedemic finaly admitted what any laymen could have surmized from just reading the papers.
Or an employer hiring the product of our public education system for the last 40 years.

A piece of sheepskin from a University doesn't mean you are smart. It means you are educated.

There is a difference and the separation of the two is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

But I am encouraged to hear the acedemics are finally coming around. I would be more encouraged if anyone in Washington will accept the premise of this article.

 

[Melensdad]

OMG?
We actually needed a Harvard Professor to tell us this?
. . .

No. But its amazing that an ultra liberal college would publish such common sense information, and more amazing that its published in a liberal magazine. That is what I found so enlightening.

My wife is a public H.S. school teacher and I volunteer my time at a private H.S. with some of their athletics 4+ days a week. I get to see both sides, the underachieving public school and the uber-achieving private. The public school is nicer, has better funding, and horrid graduation rates and college entrance rates. The private school has about 30% of their kids from the inner city/impoverished areas around Chicago's south side. Graduation rate and college admission rates are over 97%.

 

[bczoom]

I just like your title.

"Harvard Study: spending $$$ does not improve Education"

One of the most expensive Universities saying that your dollars don't get you a better education is pretty funny.