It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
On the basis of international comparisons, including comparisons with a country outside the United States I have lived in for two three-year stays, I don't think K-12 schooling in the United States offers good value added or good value for the price paid by taxpayers.
Many of the comparisons of United States population subgroups to populations of other countries ignore the serious issue of underperformance of United States schools in serving students from the most advantaged subgroups. The least advantaged subgroups of United States students can't be used as an excuse for lousy performance of the whole national non-system when that non-system also underperforms for the children of college graduates and for children of "white" families and children in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
This makes no sense.
As for your links, they provide the same data my links provide, but with less granularity. Why do you feel it is proper to ignore the ethnicity data? Simply because this gives you a conclusion you want?
Saying something is Overpriced (especially rediculously so) implies that it likely does not add enough value for the cost charged. Therefore, the more true your first statement is, the less likely your second statement is true.
Comments
It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
On the basis of international comparisons, including comparisons with a country outside the United States I have lived in for two three-year stays, I don't think K-12 schooling in the United States offers good value added or good value for the price paid by taxpayers.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
After edit:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-19_Hanushe...
Many of the comparisons of United States population subgroups to populations of other countries ignore the serious issue of underperformance of United States schools in serving students from the most advantaged subgroups. The least advantaged subgroups of United States students can't be used as an excuse for lousy performance of the whole national non-system when that non-system also underperforms for the children of college graduates and for children of "white" families and children in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
This makes no sense.
As for your links, they provide the same data my links provide, but with less granularity. Why do you feel it is proper to ignore the ethnicity data? Simply because this gives you a conclusion you want?
Saying something is Overpriced (especially rediculously so) implies that it likely does not add enough value for the cost charged. Therefore, the more true your first statement is, the less likely your second statement is true.
You are confusing the term "value added" with "value for money" (or "a good value").
Value added = quality of students after education - quality of students before education.
The amount of money put in does not affect this.
Value for money = value added / money spent.