However, the underlying problem is funding (and the associated problems arising from neighborhoods with less educated and poorer parents).
I used to think that funding was the problem, but then I looked at some data and found two surprising things: - Per student funding in the US has steadily increased in real dollars. - Funding has steadily transitioned from being almost entirely local to less than half local. - Funding per student in the US for primary education is either highest or among the highest in the world.
So schools are getting more money than ever and they are being funded less by local taxes than ever, and yet... here we are. I now look in other places for answers, because funding ain't it.
I went to a K-8 with a total of about 80 students and received an excellent education, especially given that it was a public school. That said, the social shock was a bit much when I went to the regional high school.
My kids currently attend a K-4 with perhaps 400 students. I'd say that is about the limit. Sometimes even a little too big, as some grade end up splitting into 4 classes to keep the per-class size low.
You are right about the walking. It's amazing how many of the "walking" parents are involved compared to the bussed students. I think it is because we all see each other every morning so it is easy to recruit each other. Unfortunately it is probably economic as well - the property values are probably higher in the neighborhood around the school, so walking might be kind of an elitist thing.
Well, sort-of. A modular is not necessarily meant to be temporary or portable once in place. Modulars tend to be cheaper than similar in-place construction because they are assembled in a factory and benefit from economies of scale, though then you have to transport them.
At a certain size schools become too big anyway. Plans for expansion probably don't need to go beyond 2000 students or so - at that point you are better off with an additional facility. I've seen papers where the optimal size of a school is somewhere between 600-900 students with a non-linear dropoff in student performance at either end.
He's not talking about "limiting liability" at all - he's talking about getting reimbursed for court costs. Today, if you lose a case that is not deemed frivolous, you are usually out just your own court costs. Under "loser pays", you would be out court costs x 2. It's better than just "loser pays", but it would still pretty much kill off contingency I would think.
Well, again, every school I've been in had additions. It's fine to get the initial size wrong - forecasts can be difficult. It's quite another thing to design a school that can't be expanded.
I've personally never attended a school that did not have additions, but I recognize the possibility that someone could be so stupid as to design one without making expansion possible.
Efficiency has to take a bow to traffic flow and safety (or at least the illusion of safety), though. Slowing on the uphill will cause havoc upstream, especially if the highway is near capacity. This is why jams start at curves, hills, and "gapers". And like it or not, we have a hard upper limit to speed unless you want to get a ticket - and you can't just accelerate down the hill at will anyway since there are people in front of you who have finished descending the hill and now have slowed back down.
I don't think you are paying attention. Things are moving fast - Infinity already sells a car (Q50) which will do a limited amount of self-driving on the highway. It is sneaking up on us, your skepticism notwithstanding.
But the real change won't occur until some of these things get out there on the road and the actuaries find out whether they should cost more or less to insure. I'm betting that they gradually become cheaper to insure and that will be the real driver to adoption. I'm no better at predicting the future than you, but I'd be willing to bet that my children will be faced with self-driving vs non-self-driving as a real option.
It's only absurd if you consider it to be a closed system. If the trailers are portable, then they can be reused at another site once construction is complete. Temporary, reusable trailers can be better for the environment than other alternatives: - Refurbishing an older building for temporary use. - Building non-mobile temporary structure. - Clearing a vacant spot of land for the new structure.
Some of these old school building have inefficient boilers that are over 40 years old... they aren't exactly winning any efficiency awards. Moving students to a temporary location and then rehabilitating or replacing the old facility can be a net environmental gain.
Yes, but if land is at a premium, then sometimes you need to relocate while the new structure is built. My district is replacing every single school in the system one at a time, and so they need to use trailers for the students who are currently having their school rebuilt. No one thinks this is ideal, but no one has suggested a better idea, either.
I've actually written a very limited version of this. My boss likes to prototype algorithms in Excel, but I need to cram them into a machine with instructions written in a scripting language. I first use a VBA tool to tokenize and collect the Excel formulas, then over to Python to do some conversions of a few built in fuctions, then run it through a symbolic algebra toolkit (Sympy). Sympy has a nice feature where it can format its output as c-code. At that point, if I were using C I would be all done, but I have another translation step to do. Still, it beats the heck out of manually running through the stupid spreadsheet.
I'm suspicious of the Prius simply because they don't offer a non-hybrid version. The aerodynamics shape and narrow tires seem well-suited to fuel economy no matter what the engine. The hybrid Camry is an economic non-starter for my use case.
This story is about European standards which are a bit wacky, but I know they get spot-checked in the US. Hyundai paid out a huge settlement for (apparently honestly) screwing up the testing.
Remember that your competitors are probably testing your cars, too:)
Because nothing flies in NYC except for helicopters, pigeons and the occasional hawk. If your establishment has a bunch of houseflies, you probably are breeding them locally.
Mice and cockroaches (and rats)? I'm not sure it is possible to completely eradicate them in NYC.
There was also overestimation on the Soviet side, and yet our military struggled in Iran and Grenada.
I'm not going to argue the merits of an arms race, but the Air Force was in a tough position - they had a mandate to maintain the capability to drop a bunch of nukes on targets deep within the USSR. The B-52, even with long-range cruise missiles, was quickly becoming inadequate for the job thanks to improved Soviet aircraft and anti-aircraft systems. The B-1B was meant to tide them over, but was just as susceptible to overhead radar detection as the B-52. If they were going to maintain the capability, the needed something like the B-2.
In reality, ICBMs launched from land and submarine were probably sufficient to destroy the world.
Only because the cold war ended. Procurement costs were more like $1 billion. If they had purchased the original complement of over 100, I expect that would have gone down. Still very expensive, but remember that it would have required the Soviets to spend a fortune upgrading their air defense.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the underlying problem is funding (and the associated problems arising from neighborhoods with less educated and poorer parents).
I used to think that funding was the problem, but then I looked at some data and found two surprising things:
- Per student funding in the US has steadily increased in real dollars.
- Funding has steadily transitioned from being almost entirely local to less than half local.
- Funding per student in the US for primary education is either highest or among the highest in the world.
So schools are getting more money than ever and they are being funded less by local taxes than ever, and yet... here we are. I now look in other places for answers, because funding ain't it.
Yes, I believe that study was for high schools.
I went to a K-8 with a total of about 80 students and received an excellent education, especially given that it was a public school. That said, the social shock was a bit much when I went to the regional high school.
My kids currently attend a K-4 with perhaps 400 students. I'd say that is about the limit. Sometimes even a little too big, as some grade end up splitting into 4 classes to keep the per-class size low.
You are right about the walking. It's amazing how many of the "walking" parents are involved compared to the bussed students. I think it is because we all see each other every morning so it is easy to recruit each other. Unfortunately it is probably economic as well - the property values are probably higher in the neighborhood around the school, so walking might be kind of an elitist thing.
Well, sort-of. A modular is not necessarily meant to be temporary or portable once in place. Modulars tend to be cheaper than similar in-place construction because they are assembled in a factory and benefit from economies of scale, though then you have to transport them.
At a certain size schools become too big anyway. Plans for expansion probably don't need to go beyond 2000 students or so - at that point you are better off with an additional facility. I've seen papers where the optimal size of a school is somewhere between 600-900 students with a non-linear dropoff in student performance at either end.
He's not talking about "limiting liability" at all - he's talking about getting reimbursed for court costs. Today, if you lose a case that is not deemed frivolous, you are usually out just your own court costs. Under "loser pays", you would be out court costs x 2. It's better than just "loser pays", but it would still pretty much kill off contingency I would think.
Well, again, every school I've been in had additions. It's fine to get the initial size wrong - forecasts can be difficult. It's quite another thing to design a school that can't be expanded.
I obviously cannot argue that the permanent use of temporary systems is good practice.
I've personally never attended a school that did not have additions, but I recognize the possibility that someone could be so stupid as to design one without making expansion possible.
Efficiency has to take a bow to traffic flow and safety (or at least the illusion of safety), though. Slowing on the uphill will cause havoc upstream, especially if the highway is near capacity. This is why jams start at curves, hills, and "gapers". And like it or not, we have a hard upper limit to speed unless you want to get a ticket - and you can't just accelerate down the hill at will anyway since there are people in front of you who have finished descending the hill and now have slowed back down.
I don't think you are paying attention. Things are moving fast - Infinity already sells a car (Q50) which will do a limited amount of self-driving on the highway. It is sneaking up on us, your skepticism notwithstanding.
But the real change won't occur until some of these things get out there on the road and the actuaries find out whether they should cost more or less to insure. I'm betting that they gradually become cheaper to insure and that will be the real driver to adoption. I'm no better at predicting the future than you, but I'd be willing to bet that my children will be faced with self-driving vs non-self-driving as a real option.
It's only absurd if you consider it to be a closed system. If the trailers are portable, then they can be reused at another site once construction is complete. Temporary, reusable trailers can be better for the environment than other alternatives:
- Refurbishing an older building for temporary use.
- Building non-mobile temporary structure.
- Clearing a vacant spot of land for the new structure.
Some of these old school building have inefficient boilers that are over 40 years old... they aren't exactly winning any efficiency awards. Moving students to a temporary location and then rehabilitating or replacing the old facility can be a net environmental gain.
Yes, but if land is at a premium, then sometimes you need to relocate while the new structure is built. My district is replacing every single school in the system one at a time, and so they need to use trailers for the students who are currently having their school rebuilt. No one thinks this is ideal, but no one has suggested a better idea, either.
I know that I have chosen to throw $25k down the toilet each year in the hopes that my kids will someday become a Slashdot troll.
His proposal would double your court costs in case of a loss.
I've actually written a very limited version of this. My boss likes to prototype algorithms in Excel, but I need to cram them into a machine with instructions written in a scripting language. I first use a VBA tool to tokenize and collect the Excel formulas, then over to Python to do some conversions of a few built in fuctions, then run it through a symbolic algebra toolkit (Sympy). Sympy has a nice feature where it can format its output as c-code. At that point, if I were using C I would be all done, but I have another translation step to do. Still, it beats the heck out of manually running through the stupid spreadsheet.
Before we go completely autonomous with cars, it should be safe to have autonomous lawnmowers.
Behold! The future!
That's a tough correlation to make. Cars and roads are also safer now, and lifesaving techniques have improved.
I'm suspicious of the Prius simply because they don't offer a non-hybrid version. The aerodynamics shape and narrow tires seem well-suited to fuel economy no matter what the engine. The hybrid Camry is an economic non-starter for my use case.
This story is about European standards which are a bit wacky, but I know they get spot-checked in the US. Hyundai paid out a huge settlement for (apparently honestly) screwing up the testing.
Remember that your competitors are probably testing your cars, too :)
Lived in NYC. Lots of rats. The playgrounds at dusk are particularly creepy.
Because nothing flies in NYC except for helicopters, pigeons and the occasional hawk. If your establishment has a bunch of houseflies, you probably are breeding them locally.
Mice and cockroaches (and rats)? I'm not sure it is possible to completely eradicate them in NYC.
There was also overestimation on the Soviet side, and yet our military struggled in Iran and Grenada.
I'm not going to argue the merits of an arms race, but the Air Force was in a tough position - they had a mandate to maintain the capability to drop a bunch of nukes on targets deep within the USSR. The B-52, even with long-range cruise missiles, was quickly becoming inadequate for the job thanks to improved Soviet aircraft and anti-aircraft systems. The B-1B was meant to tide them over, but was just as susceptible to overhead radar detection as the B-52. If they were going to maintain the capability, the needed something like the B-2.
In reality, ICBMs launched from land and submarine were probably sufficient to destroy the world.
Now when Autism starts affecting 25% of the population
Let's talk when that happens.
Vermin in NYC? Surely not!
Only because the cold war ended. Procurement costs were more like $1 billion. If they had purchased the original complement of over 100, I expect that would have gone down. Still very expensive, but remember that it would have required the Soviets to spend a fortune upgrading their air defense.