Dose of Doublespeak
In an Education Week article regarding McCain and Obama's likely different approaches to education funding, I came across these quotes regarding federal spending on education, which induced a moderate degree of mental constipation. I believe the quoted individuals are referring to the same federal government, and the same educational system, so I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling the two. I'll bold the source of my confusion.
- "Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, based in Washington, said that federal education spending has risen by more than 40 percent since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law more than six years ago, and that the boost hasn’t led to a significant increase in student achievement."
- "Mr. Kealy of the Committee for Education Funding said, though, that Sen. Obama’s proposal could represent a 'turning point for education funding, which has seen only modest increases in recent years.' "
Isn't there a philosophical law of non-contradiction that states something along the lines that a statement cannot be both true and false? So, either "modest" is one of those words I always thought I knew, but turned out to have an entirely different definition, or one of these fools is lying (or shamelessly, shamelessly manipulating, and when someone can't talk straight, I just so happen to get a little nervous, and a little offended. I'm nervously offended). I always thought modest meant, you know, modest. Apparently, I need to recontextualize.
- Bodybuilder increases lean mass by 40%. (a modest gain).
- Patient loses 40% of blood (a modest flesh wound).
- Diet increases risk of heart attack by 40% (modest risk).
- School suffers from 40% dropout rate (a modest lack of success).
- Man spends 40% of salary on gambling (a modest lapse in judgment. Wife should not be upset).
Now maybe I should go back and give it a second read.
Comments
A teacher at my son's school was telling me the other day that in her summer class at Central Michigan Univ. basically the professor told them that education needs change and Obama means change so that's who they should vote for. I wanted to bang my head on the table. I am not even taking sides for one or the other but just the concept of someone voting for "change" in general instead of "positive change" makes me want to vomit. It just seems such a ludicrous, superficial means of deciding who to support and taking someone's recommendation like that instead of researching the issues yourself....well - don't get me started on that.
You know, 40% is less than half, so... maybe in terms of spending it's considered a modest increase? I don't really know. I know I'd like a 40% increase in my salary!
But (just playing Devil's Advocate here), maybe it's a modest gain in per student spending?
That's the funny thing about statistics. If you leave out the right metrics (or put the right ones in), you can make numbers tell any story. And who's to say they're wrong? Numbers don't lie. (But statisticians can!)
I live in a county that is zoned for more vacation homes than true single-family homes. This means I have low property taxes, but it also means we have terrible public schools at our disposal. Since I really like my house and my neighborhood, I already have it in my head to send my son to private schools (they worked for me, after all). The thing with private school, I've discovered, is that because parents are spending ridiculous sums of money on their child's education, they tend to be more involved in the child's achievements. I think that's the case most of the time, anyway. Lord knows I went to school with a bunch of kids whose parents really didn't care either way. But maybe that's what needs to happen in public schools. If parents are given, say, a modest tax refund each year (like 40%) for their kid's good grades, maybe they'd be more involved and the burden of education wouldn't rest solely on the shoulders of the teachers and school administrators.
Oh, but that's just crazy talk!