Jim, I don't mean to embarrass you, but 7.2 million x's 500,000 is 3.5 Trillion dollars, not billion.

Start over and try again.

Well, i see you deleted your comment that 7.2 million x's 500,000 was 3.5 billion, but but we all make mistakes.

Anyway, there are many ways to quantify a good teacher and if you have to pay them something, especially taxpayers dollars, you better be able to quantify it financially when you can.

Keep in mind, this is a much more nuanced argument that you seem to recognize. What we are talking about here are highly effective teachers in the classroom. The difference between a highly effective teacher and an ineffective teacher can be as much as two grade levels and since education is additive and cumulative from year to year, that loss most often is never made up.

So, you can quantify it educationally and fiscally.

The point is that highly effective teachers are important and they need to paid well. I have argued in the past that our best teachers should be paid as high as $100,000 and believe that now more than ever. The profession overall should be one where our best and brightest would be willing to do so without taking a massive hit to their economic interests, resulting in them choosing other professions.

It is a fact that 50-60 years ago, few professions existed for women outside of the classroom or nursing. We often got the best and brightest, albeit for a manufacturing/farming society. Now women can do anything, thankfully, and the market is flooded with ineffective teacher candidates.

Jim, as you can see above, I added a document of a PowerPoint presentation that I converted to PDF for you. Dr. Katy Haycock spoke at a Cooperating School Districts conference I attended titled raising achievement and closing the gaps.

Since we share the belief that teachers are important, I believe you will find some enlightening information in this document. Just click on the picture and have a good read!

Also, I know that you are hung up on Google, but Wolfram Alpha is also a great source for data-driven information. For instance, it has many ways to look at 7,000,000 x's 500,000.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7%2C000%2C000+x+500%2C000

Can you help me where you get the $500,000 in current GDP number. The abstract says this:

"Most analyses of teacher quality end without any assessment of the economic value of altered teacher quality. This paper combines information about teacher effectiveness with the economic impact of higher achievement. It begins with an overview of what is known about the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement. This provides the basis for consideration of the derived demand for teachers that comes from their impact on economic outcomes. Alternative valuation methods are based on the impact of increased achievement on individual earnings and on the impact of low teacher effectiveness on economic growth through aggregate achievement. A teacher one standard deviation above the mean effectiveness annually generates marginal gains of over $400,000 in present value of student future earnings with a class size of 20 and proportionately higher with larger class sizes. Alternatively, replacing the bottom 5-8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings with a present value of $100 trillion."

Here is where I first came across the original study.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/25/133215055/the-tuesday-podcast-how-much-is-a-good-teacher-worth

"Hanushek says a good teacher's contribution to the economy could be as much as a half a million dollars per year."

"Hanushek says a good teacher's contribution to the economy could be as much as a half a million dollars per year."

That's an opinion, Mr. Frank, we all have one, most just have enough sense and humility to not proffer our opinion as fact.

While I can not attest to any additions Mehlville teachers may have made to U.S. GDP, I have witnessed first-hand, the inability of more than a few of them to teach the facts of their curriculum objectively, sans liberal bias.

Marten, its not an opinion. It's based on data acquired through an economic study on the matter. The study is linked above in the first line of the story. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

As far as liberal bias that you witnessed, please elaborate...even though that's a different topic for a different thread. This strictly about financial contributions of effective teachers to to overall gross national product, (as well as the costs of poor teachers.)

For the sake of argument, even if only half that much, A 1/4 million a year is still significant. And the Dr. Katy Haycock presentation is not an opinion at all. It's full of empirical data on the differences between highly effective teachers and ineffective teachers.

Here is some interesting information, just to stir the pot a little bit.
Mehlville's adjusted tax rate for last year was $3.63, which last year ranked Mehlville 310 statewide in tax rate--meaning there were 309 districts with a LOWER tax rate. This year, Mehlville ranks 457, meaning there are 456 districts (out of 520) with a lower tax rate than Mehlville--over 87% of Missouri districts have a lower rate. In the St. Louis area, there were 4 districts who had lower rates than Mehlville last year--Bayless, Clayton, Ladue, and Parkway. Of those, 3 districts (Parkway, Ladue, Clayton) had higher student achievement. Mehlville's neighbor Lindbergh had the top MAP scores in the county last year in Communication arts and Math, and Mehlville had the 9th best Communication arts and the 11th best Math, and only paid 6 cents less in taxes----to me, that means that Lindbergh is getting the best bang for the buck, especially considering that Lindbergh's achievement has been consistently higher than Mehlville's over the past years, and that Lindbergh previously had a tax rate around $3 last year. And yes, some districts have a higher assessed valuation and so the lower rate is possible.
Jason brings up a good point--what is Mehlville spending money on that others aren't? Mehlville does have one of the highest pay differences between teachers and administrators--maybe that is a great place to start when examining budget.

And I do agree with Karl---teachers are not paid enough. If teaching had a higher salary, there would be more in place to ensure that quality standards are met for entrance into the career, more high achieving people would enter the field (instead of possibly attorney or business, etc.) and there would be more incentive to have longer school years. Other professions aren't like teaching----no lawyer sees 25 clients at the same time, all with differing abilities and backgrounds. No doctor has 25 patients in the room all at once. Some parents complain about their 1 child who is a complete handful---imagine 24 more of them AND you have to teach them AND meet state standards. No, teachers are not paid enough

I'll explain tomorrow why the tax rate doesn't explain anything. As you can probably imagine, it's very complicated, but makes sense after you know some things about it. I'm sweating just thinking about it. You can start by looking up what a hold harmless district is in Missouri.

Hold harmless districts are those whose state funding has been frozen at the levels it was when the most recent state funding formula went into effect. Mehlville is one of those districts. However, local tax rates and assessed valuation can still increase, especially if the local district votes to increase. This allows districts like Kirkwood to spend more per pupil than most districts, because of increased valuation and a higher blended tax rate. Each district also has a voter approved tax rate ceiling that they cannot go over with the tax levy, and in fact must roll back their tax rate if the current rate would create higher funding than the year previous. The only time revenue can increase is when assessed valuation increases with new construction or increased property values. I think I know some things about how the tax rate works. And what does it explain? At least in my mind, Lindbergh is doing something right that Mehlville isn't. Lindbergh has an assessed valuation at roughly $1,167,000,000 and a tax rate 6 cents higher per $100. Mehlville has an assessed valuation at roughly $1,752,000,000, and unless my calculations are wrong Mehlville gets $20 million more in local revenue. Both are hold harmless, both in south county, both with diverse populations, yet Lindbergh has the highest scores in St Louis County. I agree with the thought that Mehlville voters need to increase school spending, but the budget needs reviewed for unneeded spending.

And perhaps change starts with eliminating the district's use of a Balanced Literacy approach that requires teachers to create everything they use for literacy, including writing centers and reading centers...this leads to a lack of continuity between teachers in the same grade level on standards. Get rid of the Everyday Math program the district uses---a quick cursory search will reveal that Everyday Math (also called Chicago Math) gets some of the worst reviews in academic studies and scientific studies, showing the least amount of growth for students and in some respects actually loss of skills. Maybe district money needs to be used to look for new programs that are effective and research-based, and maybe the Board of Education needs to be asking questions about curriculum instead of an unnecessary tennis court or extra duty pay....the lesson plans in class are what will help students succeed and help define the success of the district far more than a nice looking tennis court or auditorium

Actually, Mehlville isn't a hold harmless district anymore.

Besides the Hancock Amendment that forces you to roll back your tax rate when property values go up, there is another law that states that the minimum tax rate a district can charge is $2.75. Lindbergh's tax rate is at it's minimum so it can not legally lower the rate anymore. Therefore, when their property values go up, they also receive additional tax benefits.

You compared Mehlville's tax rate to all of the rural school districts who receive most of their money from the state. Mehlville receives only 15% of it's money from the state and 80% of its funds from local property taxes. 5% from other sources. So, it's only a fair comparison when you compare tax rates based on how much funding they receive from the state, as well as whether or not they are already at their mandated minimum.

Mehlville's Per Pupil spending is $7,436, Lindbergh's is $8848. For Mehlville, that additional $1400 per student would equal roughly $14,000,000 more for operations...exactly what Prop C was trying to attain.

So, as you can see, school finance is much more complicated that a district's tax rate.

As far as reading and math programs, that's another topic for another day. All of the schools basically have to teach to what's on the high stakes test. Educators would do a lot of things differently if they weren't forced to teach to a specific test.

So, in other words Mehlville has significantly more students than Lindbergh, and the extra total valuation doesn't make up for it because significantly more students in the MSD are on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Is that about it?

That frankly doesn't seem so complicated, but it also doesn't change my original questions on this topic. Do we as citizens pay more or less in local taxes to comparable districts/communities in the metro area? Of those local taxes, what percent is going to education and how does it compare (that one was answered)? If we're paying less in local taxes overall, is it because of socioeconomic pressures (sorry slipped a new one in there)? If we're paying more in local taxes overall, what are we paying for that other districts (for education) and communities (for the rest of the local taxes) aren't?

For example, we don't have a public pool/rec center here, while others do. Are those money makers for the community or not? I understand we will have one soon, so hopefully they're money makers. Are we paying more for police and firefighters, do we have more in parks, etc, and etc? The point is, more money for education has to come from somewhere. Either Mehlville/Oakville really is a cheapskate community, or we're prioritizing other items on a community level that perhaps might need to be changed (or perhaps not). I still haven't heard a compelling argument using the whole picture for either way.

I know your opinion is that the community is stingy. That's pretty obvious :). I'm also neither arguing nor agreeing with you.

Obviously there's less money per student. The still unanswered question is, why? For example, I would assume the median income is significantly higher in Kirkwood and even in Lindbergh than in Mehlville. Like it or not, that's relevant, and perhaps it ought to be accounted for somehow.

I'll do some digging myself and report back what I find.

I agree with you that you can't judge teachers based on test scores. That's basically what I said. My 30% number is completely subjective based on personal experience with the teacher. My statement that the vast majority of teachers that have been at Mehlville at least five years are ate least effective is because I know how the evaluation process works at Mehlville and know how poor teachers are evaluated out of the system. Again, it is a subjective statement based on an educated guess.

Hence the problem with merit pay for teachers. Not saying I'm opposed to it. I am for it on a certain level. I also agree that teachers should be paid based on experience. If they still have a job with Mehlville year to year, they should be paid a minimum rate. Merit pay would be bonus based and similar to what they do in Tennessee.

Private sector employee evaluation isn't the same as public school evaluation. The private sector is trying to turn a profit. Schools are trying to turn out exceptional students to enter adulthood, hopefully as productive individuals in their own way. Most importantly for the 21st Century is educating children how to think critically.

With the amount of information to know in the world doubling every 9-18 months, rote memorization like memorizing the periodic table is no longer enough. Children have to learn how to think critically about the information they are faced with. How do you rate a teacher's ability to teach a child to think critically?

Now, if you have a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise, let's have see it. I haven't been able to find one...not that one doesn't exist, I just haven't seen one.

None of Mehlvilles schools can qualify for blue ribbon, I don't believe, because none of them have performed badly enough in the past to improve enough. Again, once you account for socioeconomic status, I would put the mehlville school district up against any private school in St. Louis besides maybe John Burroughs...maybe.

Thank you Karl for the information. I think the bottom line is that the community needs to support and believe in the educational system, regardless of if they have children in the public schools. People move to communities with good schools, driving up property values, increasing businesses due to more customers, and generally making the community better. Mehlville voters seem to be OK with status quo, with being "cheapskate," and this is reflected in the lack of increase in operational revenue, the assault on teacher retirements, and the overall focus, even of some board members, of getting taxes as low as possible and providing a minimum amount of service. If anything, I think that communities who are willing to support schools with higher operational levies reap the benefits of better school systems, better teachers, and better communities overall. Normandy, Riveriew Gardens, St Louis City are all districts that have struggling schools, and let's face it--we don't hear of too many people who are wanting to move into those communities or too many businesses who want to expand into those communities

Agreed Mike. Jim, Let me know in two or three sentences what I don't understand. From what I can gather, we agree on most things.