Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

It's less because the majority of costs are personnel and those costs are less in Appalachia. As for their money, it's all ready being sent here by the bucket load.

These poorer districts have more problems and issues, primarily expensive issues, they need more counsling services, more resource officers, more aides, more special education and special needs programs.

And you want to make schools better, improve parenting!

Again, you dismiss the number one factor in education and that is the parental support! And I'm willing to bet those poorer schools are closing the gap much better than the other schools you want to compare them to. To look at this situation believing that all schools, communities and student population is equal is misguided at best.

And "one districts accounting practices", how many districts are there? Coloring all the rural schools as being mismanagers of funds is akin to calling all cops corrupt because one broke the law and is in prison. I'm sure we could find one person in your field or one business in your field that's poorly managed or has a corrupt employee. Hell, look at our President.

Not everyone agrees with you that Abbott districts have been a failure. From a forum at Columbia University:

"David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center in Newark, said New Jersey has made progress toward more equitable funding for low-income districts. The Abbott districts also have produced high quality preschools that are models for the nation; instituted supplemental programs for at-risk children in grades K-through-12; and assisted in the building or renovation of 200 inner-city schools.

Sciarra, whose organization serves as a legal watchdog for the Abbott districts, said the gap in state math test scores between fourth graders in Abbott districts and non-Abbott districts narrowed from 31 points in 1999 to 19 points in 2007, and on state reading tests from 22 points in 2001 to 15 points in 2007. Success in eighth grade was more modest, narrowing from 30 points in 2000 for math in 2000 to 26 points in 2007, and staying at 20 points for reading during the same years. The achievement gap has not narrowed in high schools, but New Jersey has the highest high school graduation rates in the nation for African American males, Sciarra said.

“The truth is, we have started to make some real progress,” Sciarra said. “When people ask, ‘what did Abbott do,’ I say, we still have a long way to go, but the answer is, a heck of a lot.”

I personally agree that no amount of money in the world is going to bring every poor kid in line with the academic achievement of their wealthier peers. That's an impossible goal. But equal funding is an obvious first step toward helping to close the gap. Time and time again it has been proven to provide a benefit to low-income students.

A few points:

1.Mr. Sciarra is the director of the "Legal Watchdog" for Abbott Districts.
On its face,that would appear to make him less then objective.

2.Giving him the benefit of the doubt,the scores he referenced go back to 2007.
What has happened since then ?

3.Mr. Sciarra admits that the "achievement gap" has not narrowed in high schools.
Abbott goes back to 1985.
That's a long time to show no improvement on the high school level.

4.Mr.Sciarra talks about high school graduation rates.
I don't know when this presentation was made,but the state's alternate path for students who can't graduate based on academic standards is/was more or less coming up with a presentation on "what I did on my summer vacation".
You could be almost illiterate and unable to add and subtract and still qualify to graduate using the alternate path.

4.Both republicans and democrats agree that the school funding system in N.J., which includes funding the Abbot districts, isn't working.
The question is,how to come up with some type of equitable system to distribute state money.

From what's been on the radio the past few days,it will be some type of "hybrid" solution.Most likely a per student amount based on enrollment each year,with a "kicker" of extra money for the poor (performance and economic) Abbott districts.

My question is,what standard do you use to measure "quality" ?

I also think that what is lacking in education,1-8 and high school anyway,is "responsibility".
With tenure,a teacher,unlike pretty much any other profession,is not responsible for their "work product".
Whether students show any improvement or not,the teacher stays.

In engineering,our programs have to be accredited by an independent group (ABET) every X number of years.
The number is based on how you did in your previous evaluation.

Do you know if NAEYC does the same thing by sending out people to their accredited facilities on a "regular" basis to "grade" them on meeting their requirements.

From reading the article it sounds like once you get the accreditation,you keep it.

There's an article in the Op-ed section of today's (2/21) The Record on Preschool (Preschool provides a boost,but benefits can fade fast).
Its written by Drew Bailey,Greg Duncan and Candice Odgers of the Wshington Post.

As I said,I'm a dinosaur,so I couldn't get it to link.

It talks about the benefits of preschool,but also points out that the gains it provides,can fade quickly.

I never said good preschools don't have a benefit.

What the article points out is that the benefits don't seem to be long term.
It also seems that kids who don't attend preschool catch up to those who did quickly.

I think the most important issue raised in the article is,are the long term results worth the programs' costs ?

Absolutely. For ever dollar spent on preschool eight dollars are saved later.

http://equitablegrowth.org/report/the-benefits-and-costs-... /

Are you actually presenting this as though it is a politically neutral organization?