Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="reedny, post: 2563897, member: 1423"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?