My understanding of injecting money in education is that it's proven to be extremely ineffective at improving outcomes.
Schools just hire more administrators and build nicer gyms.
Schools just hire more administrators and build nicer gyms.
chop chop... get to it.
1) the single thing you cannot beat is capable teachers. And NOT capable as in able to teach, subject-matter-experts. And that is what everybody wants to avoid at all costs.
Put it like this: an unwashed, abrasive, offensive smelly asshole with a master in math can teach kids math. A super-friendly, nice, beautiful, polite social science major (or not even that) who doesn't know math well cannot. The level of teachers needs to be an order of magnitude above the level expected of kids at the end of the class. Knowledge of the subject needs to take absolute precedence in teacher hiring decisions, to the point that good teachers get rejected if lacking expertise in the subject.
This is not how things work. They only worked that way for a short while due to the crash of 89. I've had a French teacher that couldn't speak more than "some" French. Certainly nowhere near fluent.
2) Money needs to support that. Which means for Math, the money for math teachers needs to be competitive with research departments of banks, and very different for different subjects, which seems offensive to schools and government in general. If teaching positions aren't competing with other professional careers in the subject matter, it will never work. This will, of course, mean that many science teachers make more than a school principal and even a district administrator. Deal with it.
For Math, they are literally not even 25% of that, but even for French it's insufficient.
I believe this to be a heavily US-centric view, Estonia and Finland do not pay more for math teachers than they could get in banks' research departments but still manage to get competent teaching across most school subjects.
Things work outside of the US, the issue is the US does not want to look outside and adapt itself to incorporate what's been learnt from other systems. It's a "do the US way or no way" attitude, and it's slowly eroding to become more a "no way" than any kind of "US way" of doing things.
And I do mean easily beat.
I don't think American society has the appetite nor patience for the actions needed for this kind of change.
Student to teacher ratios have continuously decreased and are about half of what they were in 1960. Data on the results is mixed: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/class-size-what-research-...
A parallel is when I looked into home births versus hospital births when my wife was pregnant. The statistics of home births crushes hospital births in terms of outcomes. But that's because only healthy women who don't have complications are in the home birth category. Hospitals must admit anyone that shows up in labor, and must handle any negative situations.
Schools now handle so many more kids than they used to, and try to meet the challenge. They are failing because the challenge is too great given the funding, not to mention the corruption of the bureaucracy that inflates administrations.
We aren't incentivizing meaningful work, we are incentivizing diplomas.
What's your own theory ?
And, school administrators are the opposite of what's needed in schools: the US needs better teacher pay and more teachers -- the ones who actually teach students.
Short of that however, yes, we get philanthropic failures such as Zuckerberg's attempt in silicon valley, and basically any attempt throughout Africa as examples. Throwing laptops at the problem doesn't work, neither does external donations that get funneled to the wrong places.
Maybe use it to increase outcomes.