parados wrote: Their data quits in 1992 and it is at 75% graduation in 1992. You have it below 70% in 1990 when it was 74%. Your chart has very little relation to the numbers in table 19. You selected a few and ignored the rest. From 1963-1992 the graduation rate never went below 70%. Then you changed methodology for 2001. If you stayed with the same methodology the graduation rate would have been about 74% for 2001 based on graduation numbers 2.8 million and number of 17 year olds, 3.75 million.
You are correct. For some reason I missed the 1990 data point. You may not believe me, but it was unintentional. I put the graph together rather quickly and added the graduation rate just before scanning it, and took the time to plot only at each 10 year point, and did also miss the 1990 one. When I get time, I will fine tune the graph and rescan, but I do not think it changes the overall conclusion, that graduation rates had achieved most of the increase before federal education programs, and the trend was upward and would have very likely been similar regardless of federal education spending.
Quote: The conclusion changes dramatically if you use the same methodology and chart the numbers accurately. You tried to show a decline. In reality no such decline existed. You claimed the non existent decline showed Fed spending failed. Your conclusion is based on false data and can't be drawn as you stated.
To be honest, the decline surprised me, but how do you account for the link I provided showing the 68% rate for 2001? I admit it is a different source, but why the difference? Whether it declines or is 70 some percent, the conclusion of my argument is still valid. As I said, I will try to fine tune the chart when I get time, and will factor in all of your valid complaints.
Quote: There is a major problem though. Spending went down not up when the Dept of Education was formed. Your conclusions are contrary to the facts. YOu can't claim the Dept caused higher spending when the opposite occurred. Your statement makes no sense in light of the actual facts. Which makes your original statement untrue. You refuse to admit that.
I admit you have grounds to argue your position, but my explanation looks a little deeper than a kneejerk evaluation. I've already admitted I did not realize spending was as high as it was before 79 and you never acknowledge that. You also never acknowledge the obvious observation that creating a cabinet level department in 79 has elevated the validity of much more federal spending on education. That has certainly happened, perhaps not as obvious when you look at it expressed in percentage, but certainly more obvious when you look at the dollars. And further, the increase may not express itself immediately, and I think the department required a time of organization and assimilation of the existing bureaucracy before more bureaucracy was advanced. The graph shows that, with more bureaucracy now advancing, both in percentage and dollars. I've explained that Reagan and Bush I's policies might have been a factor in a slowdown of spending in the 80's, one reason being Reagan was no fan of more federal spending on education. But now the trend is heading out of sight in terms of dollars and who knows what the percentage will end up.
Quote: Which directly contradicts your claim that eliminating the Dept of Education would save lots of money. The Dept of Education has little to do with spending increases.
I think you are dead wrong about your claim that the department has little to do with spending increases. Where do you think the initiatives might sometimes originate as ideas, and what vehicle do you think the politicians imagine using when they dream up their new spending schemes? The department provides a very attractive vehicle for more spending by the politicians. Without it being in place, it would be slightly more difficult, or at least not so widely accepted as a valid recipient of more and more spending. And the bureaucrats that abound in the department will make their wants, needs, and desires, more compelling by their more visible and numerous requests. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as the old saying goes.
Quote:Some of what you say is true. But it doesn't make your demagogy not be demagogy. Eliminating the Dept of Education won't save billions. The schools were not great before 1979 because they were almost completely funded by local districts. We haven't even established a base line for when you actually think schools were great. You won't give me dates. 1950- graduation rate was 59%.
I disagree. Eliminating the department would save billions in future spending because I have a hard time visualizing the elimination of the department without a downgrade in its function and importance. The two go together, which is part of my main argument all along. As I've said before, the schools were not perfect before 79, but I think they were better, more like back in the 50's would be one baseline if you want a date to attack now, there it is for you.
One thing perhaps we could agree on is the need for a better measure of schools would be something other than graduation rates? I used the figures because that is about all I've been able to find as a comparative measure, but I think there are many societal and technological considerations that affect that figure, beyond the quality of schools. Do you know of test figures or something else that are comparably derived for basic core knowledge and skills over a period of time that would provide a look at the quality of learning that a high school graduate has now vs 50 years ago? We've all watched McDonalds employees look bewildered if they had to figure change in their head, so I think some skills are worse now, but I have no hard data to prove it to you because you don't agree, and obviously at least some students learn about computers and other things now that were unknown 50 years ago. It is my opinion schools were better in the 50's for a number of reasons that cannot be drawn on a graph, which you probably are going to demand because you accept no opinion based on experience. At least that is my take on our past debates on other threads.
I just thought of a data set that we can use as a measure of the quality of education now vs 50 years ago. How about crime rates? I mentioned this once before. We hear all the time that education is the key to reducing crime. Are you a believer of that principle? If education is getting better because of federal standards and spending, help for the special education children and all of that, would it not follow that crime rates would come down? Makes sense to me of the theory holds water. We are spending alot of money based on the theory aren't we? I think I will consider adding the crime rate curve to my graph to see what it shows.
Whats this about the constant charge of demagogy? I don't think it fits here at all.
but since it came out like you illustrated, I didn't post it. I admit my bias 