Here's an interesting discovery, courtesy of the New York Times:
When local districts spend more money on schools, their students tend to graduate at higher rates, according to a report released on Thursday by an education advocacy group. ..
School districts with a graduation rate of 90 percent spend an average of about $18,500 per student, while districts with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent spend about $13,600, the analysis found.
Let's see if I can get my mind around that--if we spend more money, we might get better results. Could that mean that it's been an error for NYC to spend thirty years dedicating itself to acquiring the cheapest teachers possible by any and all means? Does that mean it was not wise of us to recruit through job fairs, subway and bus ads, gimmicky signing bonuses and intergalactic searches?
Nearby suburban schools do none of those things. Rather, they pay teachers better, receive hundreds of applications for each job, interview and audition potential candidates, dump those who don't work out, and provide quality education for kids. Since they started doing that, and we commenced our more creative approach, they've gotten much better, while we've been gliding downhill.
I'm certainly glad we have the Times to bring us those updates. Too bad they didn't warn us back in 1976.
Posts
