Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (194917)	7/18/2004 11:53:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572561

It isn't logical that schools that can give students access to the latest technology and can retain good teachers would be able to educate their students more effectively than ones which can't? Of course it's logical. . That's the problem. Yes, intuitively, one might conclude that. However, it isn't statistically true. The statistics don't lie. There are other factors involved, but all things being equal, I'd rather have my kid in a school with money than one without There are MANY other factors involved, many of which influence a child's learning more than others. In our locality the districts are ranked as follows, for example: Wealthiest district - moderate academics Poorest district - poorest academics Moderate district - far and away the best academics. There is simply no correlation. As I pointed out, poor school districts in Texas were shown to deliver better educations than wealthy districts as frequently as not. What you're doing here is jumping to conclusions based on invalid assumptions, i.e., that more money translates to better education. It doesn't.