Using that worn out argument, I would guess that Free State teachers make more than LHS teachers then, right?

And since the Free State composite is the highest since 2009, where is the pay correlation to scores?

But yet, the private high schools regularly score higher than comparable public schools, despite teachers salaries being less.

Explain that.

They've compared private and public schools, and when you correct for factors like socioeconomic status, private schools do no better than public.

Furthermore, when you compare the richest public schools in the USA to the richest students in the entire rest of the world, you'll find that we even out perform Finland. It's not the NEA. It's not the administrators. It's not the politically correct curriculum.

Like what?

Are you suggesting that public schools simply refuse to accept any number of students because they come from underprivileged backgrounds? Runs kind of counter to the idea of "public" education, doesn't it?

Also, of course, there's a cyclical effect there - as more parents of well off kids take those kids out of public schools, the quality declines, and more parents take their kids out,....

Let me tell you something my child told me when I did have him enrolled in a public school. One day, I asked him how a certain class went that day and he told me things went very slow, because they were always going at the pace of the slowest student. WOW. That's an observation I would expect from a trained observer, or at the very least a concerned parent. If it's obvious to him, at that age, in grade school, then it must be obvious.

Public schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Segregating kids out because they have issues is simply not in their best interests. However, mainstreaming them is not in the best interests of the kids without issues. Public schools are in a no win situation. Because of that, I would never fault them when they fail. I also believe that the overwhelming majority of the problems that are brought into schools originate in the home. Again, another reason to not fault schools.

Because of the problems in public schools, private schools have in many case decided to go in another direction, or to develop another model. If public schools are apples, then private schools are oranges. Chootspa's relentless attempts to "correct for socioeconomic factors ... " is an attempt to say that if apples tasted like oranges and oranges tasted like apples, then all would be good.

Let me tell you one more story, Jafs. You said you grew up in a very large city, with I presume to be a very large public school system. So did I, though it was many years ago, and frankly, much has changed in the years since I attended. We have five classes in each grade in school, each labeled from 1-5. So if you were in the second grade, the five classes were labeled 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5. All the smart kids were in 2-1 and the slower kids were 2-5. Teachers didn't say it, but we all knew. That was a system that doomed the slower kids from the beginning and we rightfully moved away from that type of system. However, mainstreaming problem children leads to situations like those that I found myself in with my child. Yes, public schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place. However well intentioned mainstreaming was, at some point, it may be time to admit it has failed and that it's time to go back to the former system, even while admitting that system has it's flaws as well.

So, what's your suggestion for improving public education?

If you're just saying we should segregate lower performing students from higher ones, how will that improve the education of slower performing students?

The whole idea of public education is that each child, regardless of background, money, etc. gets an adequate education - if we're not doing that, then we should figure out how to do it.

The problem is that I don't have the answer and neither do they. There are no good answers.

This is what I believe. We've made great efforts to mainstream some children, children with significant issues, hoping to enhance their educational experience. But it's been at the expense of children without issues. We're providing something to one group at the expense of the other.

Children who have disruptive behavior should be removed from mainstream classes. Children who are unprepared should be removed from mainstream classes. Children who cannot keep up should be removed. However, it would be cruel to simply throw these children away, if for no reason other than what I've said before that their problems begin at home and are probably the result of what is going on in dysfunctional homes. How can schools balance the needs of these children with the rights of children without these problems? For these children, I would provide classes in public schools, but away from other children. Yes, they would have recess at other times, lunch at other times, but as compensation, more individual instruction. In fact, it would be a lot more individual instruction. Hopefully, at some future time, they could join their peers. All this individual instruction would cost more money. I've said many times I support more money for schools and I continue to hold that position.

It's true that higher pay helps attract the best teachers. But that's not the only thing. It's also about working conditions. Olathe draws from Lawrence (and vice-versa, by the way), but they've also been recruiting teachers out of KCK and KCMO. The supt. of KCK testified at the school finance trial last summer that they've had teachers recruited out from under them to go to Johnson County in the middle of a contract year, even though the teachers have to pay liquidated damages for breaking their contract.

Some have argued that the highest pay really ought to go to teachers who are willing to work in the poorest, most troubled schools where test scores are persistently low and where students need them the most. But there has never been a concerted, statewide or nationwide effort to make that happen because (a) it's very expensive, and (b) money isn't the only thing that attracts the best teachers.

The education establishment is full of excuses for why there cant be comparisons among and between teachers, schools and districts. This one is free lunches. If it wasnt that, it would be experience of teachers or quality of the the physical building or anything else to avoid comparing. Lawrence is a small city. Comparing FS and LHS is not like comparing an urban school to a suburban school in Wichita.

It is the school districts that prevent the Ks Department of Education from releasing scores on a statewide basis, though they obviously have the data. They want no comparison, because one group will look worse than another. And that is not allowed.

Interestingly, soon the feds will begin comparing health care entities, such as hospitals, or insurance companies, based on outcomes. The patient demographics in the comparison will not matter.

SamCrow, the free lunch status is used as an indicator of poverty level, since that is the only available data that schools have to make such a determination. It has been amply demonstrated that students from poorer homes do not fare as well in testing as those in richer homes. This is due to many factors such as less parental engagement (not because parents don't care, but because they may be working two jobs to feed their kids) less access to technology, etc. Many poorer students also work themselves, giving them less time for study. These are not excuses, but valid reasons from a purely statistical standpoint, of why it is hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison between schools, classrooms, states, etc.

Your comment about healthcare outcomes is interesting. While there are disparities in health related to poverty as well, it is likely far easier to compare two patients who are both overweight and smoke and have heart attacks as it is to compare two very different students taking the same standardized test.