To: i-node who wrote (700611 ) 2/24/2013 6:34:32 PM From: tejek Respond to of 1579368 >> Huh? That makes no sense. There are bad educations handed out in some areas with high cost of living and some with low cost of living. Frankly, I doubt there is a meaningful level of correlation at all. Overall, where education is given the necessary resources whether it be in a high cost or low cost area, a good product results..........meaning most are well educated students. >> From what I understand, Rhee ruffled feathers big time. When you ruffle feathers, people react illogically. I suspect blame can be found on both sides.Sure. She made the mistake of being up-front about wanting to make things better, and the unions came in and took her down. As you well know, there are number of ways to skin a cat.......a wrong way or a right way. Unfortunately, Rhee's approach was the wrong way. Its not enough to have talent; you have to be political as well. >> Unions are set up to protect their members, including bad teachers, Exactly. You see that so clearly but you don't see it with your party. Interesting. >> The problem is the poor schools are not getting the resources they need. The "need" for resources is inexhaustible. Quality managements understand they have to do an excellent job with however much money is available. And they do it. BS. How can you make such a comment when you have never been a teacher? Colorado (2009) spends $9,155 per student (bottom 10 in spending). Ranks 9th in education quality. Wyoming ranks 29th in quality, yet spent more than any other state at $18k/student. TX spends among the least per pupil and yet, is ranked squarely in the middle of the pack in terms of education quality. I am not sure where you are getting your stats but Education Week 's Quality Counts ranks CO at 32nd, WY at 23rd and TX at 14th: edweek.org