So schools and states who didn't have to change because they already exceeded NCLB standards aren't given a bonus for their excellence. If it is a pass/fail evaluation of "efficiency", then the numbers fail miserably. How much is 30% of graduates continuing to further education worth versus 5%? That NCLB stats don't reflect graduates who continue on and further their education, just hose that passed the required test - an 8th grade reading level passes the required test. What does htis tell us?

NCLB is a piece of trash drau, dump it.

My point exactly. Using NCLB statistics for your "efficiency" stufy is total bull as it is a pass fail system and doesn't account for schools and states that far exceed its standards or that come close but just miss. A better way to judge is with a kind of gradient scale... How many grads (as a percent) went on to further education and at what level and follow through with those grads results when they left the public school system (did they stay in college or drop out after a year). This gives one a better feel for the effectiveness of the school. That effectiveness can then be placed against dollars spent to find an efficiency factor, although I would argue that efficiency in education is irrelevant until you start hitting numbers where a massive increase in cost per child only results in a slight increase in higher education rates.

*Are* Stressed's stats from NCSB testing? That's part of why I wanted to see the link, when he gets around to it.

*NCLB, not NCSB.

hECKS, i will when I get a chance. The stats came from some State government site, I think Montana, but I have seen the same results on other sites giveor takeone spot.

Drau, i would think that it would be uniform though across the board, the 'efficiency of it;.

Let me get back home later tonight, and I will go dig it up for you guys, but a simple google searchmay reveal it without any help from me.