Funding School

The following appeared in a speech delivered by a member of the city council:

"Twenty years ago, only half of the students who graduated from Einstein High School went on to attend a college or university. Today, two-thirds of the students who graduate from Einstein do so. Clearly, Einstein has improved its educational effectiveness over the past two decades. This improvement has occurred despite the fact that the school’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20 years ago. Therefore, we do not need to make any substantial increase in the school’s funding at this time."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The city council member argues that Einstein High School does not need any substantial increase in its funding as the schools educational effectiveness has increased over the past two decades. To support his reasoning, the member presents the increase in the proportion of students who graduated from the school and went on to attend a college or university as evidence. The reasoning is flawed and appears insufficient on several counts.

The primary evidence presented may not be a good indicator of the school's effectiveness due to several reasons. Firstly, proportions in themselves do not mean an increase in numbers. It is possible that the number of people attending the school has actually fallen over the years which in turn has led to an increase in the proportion of students who go on to attend a college or a university. Secondly, the statistics has no point of reference to compare with. The school's effectiveness can be better judged if we can compare it with statistics of other schools in the region. Without these two pieces of information, the primary evidence itself is circumspect.

Even if we assume that the number did increase and the school did reasonably well when compared to other schools, it is very much possible that the improvement may not be due to school's efforts. It is possible that the improvement may have been the result of an increased social awareness about benefits of higher education and individual efforts of the students. If this is true, it would put into question any claimed improvement in the school's educational effectiveness. 

Finally, even if school's efforts have led to improvements, the process itself can be arguably made faster with more funding. The goal should be to have most of the students go for higher education rather than only two-third. The argument is also totally quite about the state of infrastructure and school facilities. More funding would also mean more resources and general improvement in the school's infrastructure and facilities.

Concluding, the presented argument is insufficient and potentially flawed. It can be, however, made stronger if the council member states clearly that there has been an increase in the number of students going for higher education and that the improvement is comparable to other schools in the region. He must also come clean whether the improvement was due to the school's effort or due to a general increase in social awareness about benefits of higher education. Finally, the funds not only improve effectiveness, they also improve infrastructure and school facilities. They can also help to speed up the process of increasing effectiveness. So, unless the school has been able to improve them too over time, it definitely needs funds.