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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (8420)	6/7/2011 12:14:56 PM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Not probably, certainly. Such things are almost never certain. There are always many factors. Still it does seem likely. And since the correlation between teacher quality and results is very strong You would probably get better results, if everything else was equal. Of course if you paid teachers that much other factors in or related to education might be shortchanged, or even if it was pure addition, the change is unlikely to be cost effective. Marginally better results (since everything else about the system is left constant) for a lot more money. A better way to go would be to reward good teachers with high pay, fire the worst teachers, and inject more competition in to the system, rather than having most K-12 education be from a socialized monopoly, that gives poor people little choice as to where and how their kids will be educated. What I'm prepared to sacrifice for an improved end result, is the interests and favored policies of the teachers unions, and the control of the education bureaucrats who don't have to respond to students, and only are influenced by the parents very indirectly and weakly through the political process, rather than strongly and more immediately through market forces.