One issue is that schools in disadvantaged areas tend to already have bad performance, and if you tie spending to performance results they will in turn receive even less funds, which will cause them to fall even more behind and then get even worse results, and so on the cycle goes. It’s a negative feedback loop.

I got corrected, I mean educated, on this previously but even though the outcome isn't desired, it's still a positive feedback loop. A negative feedback loop is self correcting in a sine-wave type homeostasis.

You can adjust for historical school performance (even across multiple schools w/ comparable demographics). That still rewards teachers who perform better than average.

Maybe. A good teacher can only do so much without resources.

A good teacher can do a great deal with just a blackboard and chalk.

Most of the classes at Caltech were just that - blackboard and chalk. Often there wasn't even a textbook.

So, one of the world's most prestigious school employs the brightest scholars, with private offices and regular international travel on the employer's dime to attend conferences, and they are essentially paid to spend their waking hours thinking of really difficult problems they'd love to solve.

They're never expected to worry about year-end donation drive to manage the school band's budget, finding out who vandalized all the bathrooms, or how to talk to Sally's parents after she missed school for three days. And they get to teach some of the best, brightest, most motivated students America produces.

Yeah, all they needed was a blackboard and chalk. Who needs more resources?

The point remains. A teacher and a blackboard are all that is really necessary to educate. Building a palace to house the classrooms does not help.

C’mon Walter. You can’t really compare a class at Caltech, of all places, to an inner city classroom.

I don't buy that there's any evidence that a school with "resources" does a better job educating than a motivated teacher with a blackboard.

Heck, hands-down the best calculus lesson I ever had was a one-on-one with a prof and a blackboard.

I suppose it's like running. No technology can make you a better runner than a good coach and a desire to run.

P.S. note that colleges compete on "resources" all the time. But that simply isn't what matters. It's the prof, the blackboard, and the student. Facilities don't matter. Sports programs don't matter. Landscaping doesn't matter. Luxury dorms don't matter.

How many homeless students did you have in your Caltech class? Were they going to bed hungry? Were Caltech professors in danger of being physically attacked? Did they have to buy their own chalk? Did they receive decent compensation for their work?

If you can’t see or understand the incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus with a world class professor then you are extremely privileged.

Are you really arguing that the lower quintile in income in America are all homeless and hungry and attacked?

Secondly, there is a federal school lunch program for all the students that need it. This program is not underfunded, and is not what I am talking about when discussing educational "resources".

> Buy their own chalk.

Oh please.

> incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech

There were many opportunities to join research activities. This was not necessary for the education, though. I didn't partake of that, as research did not interest me.

> so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus

Sorry, but that does not require incredible infrastructure. It just doesn't.

> world class professor

Being a researcher is not the same thing as being an effective teacher, not at all. They weren't hired for their teaching ability. I doubt any had any training whatsoever as teachers.

I'm amazed at the notion that teaching with a blackboard and chalk requires incredible infrastructure.

I forgot to mention - freshman and sophomore Calculus was taught by grad students, not professors. Grad students have no training in teaching, are very poorly paid, and do it only because that's part of the aid package they received.

Freshman physics was taught by Prof Goodstein, who is a world class physicist. I had no personal interaction with him at all. The homework was graded and administered and coached by grad students (in "recitation" sessions). A couple years after I graduated, his lectures were recorded and made available as "The Mechanical Universe" series of videos. Lots of fancy animations and stuff were added, but in my not-so-humble opinion added entertainment but little value.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5...

Tying education spending to performance is very difficult because student performance is primarily due to socioeconomic factors, and not the school.

In the worst case, teachers at inner city schools who have the hardest jobs get paid the least since their students do the worst.

That's a good point. So the performance part of their pay can be set to be relative to that of other teachers in the same school.

The idea is great - but the measure implemented to do that will inevitably fall flat and create the wrong incentives.

It will be a system that has to work across the board everywhere and easy to administer. So no looking intelligently at the individual cases, instead there will be some numeric targets - and as usual the "searching under the lantern" a.k.a. streetlight effect appears, meaning the system will measure what can be measured instead of what would be needed (which likely cannot even be measured).

Next, a lot of intelligent and at the beginning motivated people will be measured by an unfeeling bureaucracy against insane targets. The system will also fail to do what it is supposed to do and remove the "bad" teachers. Case in point: Measuring all kinds of "performance" has already been happening in education for a long time. What did it achieve apart from increasing frustration? Are teachers in the US doing "free form", whatever they like, right now? They already follow strict protocol.

The link is kind of random, soooo many articles have been written about this in a lot of countries all facing similar issues, so I don't really think I can find some "definitive" source to link to.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/to-fix-...

.

> That's how markets work, and they work well.

Uh... I don't really want to go there right now.

> The idea is great - but the measure implemented to do that will inevitably fall flat and create the wrong incentives.

Not if the parents decide how well they're doing. After all, if the parents buy the kid guitar lessons, and the kid fails to learn, are they going to continue paying that teacher? Nope.

Even having the "wrong" incentives is likely better than having none at all. It doesn't take much alignment if your goal is simply addressing the most dysfunctional cases and leaving the rest of the system broadly unaffected.

> I don't really want to go there right now.

Markets fail when they are government by bureaucratic rules instead of free choice.

I well know that the notion that teachers could be affected by performance based pay is an anathema to the school industry.

But it would be inexpensive to try a simple experiment. Pick a school, any school. Offer teachers a fat bonus for every student they bring up to grade-level reading.

I bet a miracle will be observed.

> That's how markets work, and they work well.

You haven't been paying much attention to markets lately, then.

Also, there are things that shouldn't be treated as a market. Education is one of them, unless the goal is to exacerbate inequality.

The general mediocrity of the public school system suggests otherwise. It exhibits all the classic problems with centralized government control. The current attempt by it to achieve equality by eliminating testing and gifted programs is mind-boggling.