Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
darnit. I read all 19 pages - except for the formula page 12-17 - and never found anything like that.
It could readily be argued that the study shows the supplement is wrong, since the only finding they actually claimed that positively affected student performance (which presumably is what this is all about) was middle school teachers with masters degrees had students who didn't miss as many days of school. If the majority of post-hire masters degrees are issued in administration, that's not positively affecting student performance.
What if we gave every teacher $500 at the elementary level, $1,000 at the middle school level, and $2,000 at the high school level for materials? Maybe a higher figure.
I look forward to reading the part of the study that asserts this, because I sure don't even understand what it means...
unless you're trying to say that teachers teach because that's what they were able to get educated to do, since they couldn't qualify for that elusive "Investment Banking Scholarship at Harvard". Which is absurd.
Well maybe that's because those teachers went to one of the crappier, lower-performing NC public schools, where becoming a teacher was a "step-up" in status, as opposed to someone from a very wealthy school district, where becoming a teacher is looked at as one step above being a cleaning lady or garbageman or cop.
As for the study from NC saying that students of Master's Degree teachers have lower absenteeism rates ...well that one leaves me scratching my head as well!
I'd much rather see a teacher get a degree in their major (Chemistry or History etc) as well as taking the methods courses that are necessary for teaching. This might make them more equivalent to a National Board Certified Teacher and if requiring a fifth year in college (like Pharmacy, for example) might be cheaper in the long run than a Master's.
NC has been atrocious on everything and anything education for decades, it's ridiculous. The country in general isn't much better and we as a nation are falling farther behind other competitive nations every year, we are not even in the top 10 countries, pathetic. Our politicians, both NC and US Senate and Congress are more concerned with pandering to their respective bases, engaging in petty pissing matches and making themselves rich than they are in improving education programs. Both parties need a complete purge.
Union County overall, isn't too bad. But move a couple of counties east and the K-12 education quality sinks like a stone!
Based upon your posts, it sounds like you do not have children in schools. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's just a question to explore your direct interest in the topic.
I would be in favor of the state providing resources at different levels. I'd be fine with the feds doing the same, though at the base of it, the feds should be spending LESS on Education, and taking less money from the states. It's perfectly proper for us to have some basic national/federal standards for the K-12 system overall - ie, what they turn out in the way of students.
It makes perfectly good economic sense for "wealthy" counties like Wake & Union to get less from the state, so the poorer counties can overall get higher funding. Wake County has a median income 2x that of Columbus County, and a 9% poverty rate vs 23%. We cannot expect Columbus to do more with less, and there's nowhere near the tax base in Columbus County. However, money doesn't cure everything, and education definitely falls in there!
There are even schools within counties that are "wealthier" than others - PTA's and other organizations that raise additional funds to boost their individual schools.
Good luck getting enough people to agree with my position though!
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,675,688 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
Based upon your posts, it sounds like you do not have children in schools. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's just a question to explore your direct interest in the topic.
I would be in favor of the state providing resources at different levels. I'd be fine with the feds doing the same, though at the base of it, the feds should be spending LESS on Education, and taking less money from the states. It's perfectly proper for us to have some basic national/federal standards for the K-12 system overall - ie, what they turn out in the way of students.
It makes perfectly good economic sense for "wealthy" counties like Wake & Union to get less from the state, so the poorer counties can overall get higher funding. Wake County has a median income 2x that of Columbus County, and a 9% poverty rate vs 23%. We cannot expect Columbus to do more with less, and there's nowhere near the tax base in Columbus County. However, money doesn't cure everything, and education definitely falls in there!
There are even schools within counties that are "wealthier" than others - PTA's and other organizations that raise additional funds to boost their individual schools.
Good luck getting enough people to agree with my position though!
Read up on the Abbott districts in NJ concerning funding. Really, it's relevant.
having skimmed through the first googled link which lays out the timeline for all the suing that occurred for 19 or more rounds, how are the urban school systems in NJ?
and, since it seems you're more well-read on the topic - how were the urban schools not funded as well as the suburban schools? Their individual districts/taxation options didn't provide as much money? Or NJ itself was giving the suburban schools more money per capita than the urban schools?
this is an interesting conclusion at the end of the Wiki:
Quote:
A 2012 study by the New Jersey Department of Education, however, determined that score gains in the Abbotts were no higher than in those in high-poverty districts that did not participate in the Abbott lawsuit and therefore received much less state money.
and NJ spends 21K/student on the Abbott Schools, 17K on the others.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,675,688 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
having skimmed through the first googled link which lays out the timeline for all the suing that occurred for 19 or more rounds, how are the urban school systems in NJ?
and, since it seems you're more well-read on the topic - how were the urban schools not funded as well as the suburban schools? Their individual districts/taxation options didn't provide as much money? Or NJ itself was giving the suburban schools more money per capita than the urban schools?
this is an interesting conclusion at the end of the Wiki:
and NJ spends 21K/student on the Abbott Schools, 17K on the others.
Keep in mind, most municipalities in NJ are school districts. My property taxes doubled in 5 years as the state withheld more & more money for education to pay the Abbott districts.
When you see warnings from former NJ residents, take heed. Don't assume that we're trying to play politics. We speak from experience.
Well, my recollection is we don't spend even $10K a student in NC. I wonder if all the links from page 1 that started this poorly-titled thread will provide any insight into NJ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
