Its probably a lot, but I'll bet an even bigger difference is pensions. Pensions are going to kill NYS
A you don’t have to worry about IDEA b/c you don’t give a chit.
Oh yes it does. Alabama public schools are in the gutter (outside of Huntsville). Great place to move if you don’t value education.
LOL if true and NY State was involved this thread would be 1000 posts deep by now. Hmmmm April Fool's idea...
I'm not arguing the point that Alabama (and most of the SEC area) public schools stink, but I think high school success is based more on the kids than it is the schools. Look at inner-city syracuse...and probably some poor rural areas in ny and I bet the success rates of the kids isnt great.
This is not a simple subject, and would be better left to the OTB board. But it's not building exteriors that tell the tale. It's mostly about the qualifications of the teacher, curriculum standards and socio-economic status of the students. Alabama is an extremely poor state, so that is a big factor in academic performance.
alabama has been landing some major jobs lately. don't mistake alabama with mississippi. just a side note --law school rankings alabama 27th syracuse 88th---maybe we need some of that state money
It's easy to show positive trends when A) you've looked terrible for several hundred years, and B) your state is being subsidized by the other states (against whom you're benchmarked).
Just because they're "landing major jobs" doesn't mean the state should be subsidizing a terrible football program's stadium.
NYC public schools prove that money doesn't work.
NY doesn't follow federal law. Andrew only follows laws he likes and which he this will get him elected.
It's certainly not the only factor in student performance. There are others. But there is a strong association between educational spending and student performance.
The links I cited were national, this is only one state (Michigan) for a limited period, and the comparison variable seems narrow (test scores, not college entrance rates, employment, etc). That said, there is one point worth considering from your link: it depends on how effectively you spend the money. Many research studies and books (Smartest Kids in the World, eg) point to socio-economic status as a prominent factor in student performance - a difficult hurdle to overcome no matter how much is spent. But teacher quality and commensurate pay standards also stand out as significant factors. Teaching credentials are set by state law, but not all states are willing to raise standards. NY is and has, but if you go district by district you will find that teachers (with Masters degrees) are underpaid compared to their private sector peers, and district-level administrators are grossly overcompensated and make contributions that are difficult to tie to student performance. Yes, you can make $100k teaching but you'll be worn out by the time you get there. That's chump change for many administrators at the district level. They are not only making the rules, many are making a killing. In the Rochester area, we have one (small) district in which the superintendent is making $300k+. It's unbelievable that a school board would agree to that ... the governor of the state doesn't even make $200k. So I agree some reforms are in order, and adequate funding remains a necessary piece of the puzzle. But the money has to reach the teaching core to be effective.
