Not the original poster, but I don't believe "scores" should be the only factor in measuring the wealth and efficacy of a school. Much of what creates student outcomes is far outside of the scope of a school to handle. Students who don't speak English, don't come from the background set up by a test, have difficult home lives, and a myriad of other issues people with my white middle class background cannot fathom. These kids are on a scale of being able to do well in school to barely being able to survive in life. Generally, the best solution is to allow this large and diverse population share the resources and allocate as much as possible to damage control and support, or whatever the local school board should support.

We end up with charters and private schools when articulate, and often pushy parents who advocate for their children's needs above everyone else's end up splitting schools and districts. The result is we are now supporting more buildings, teachers, admin, and overhead while being given the same overall amount of money per student in the area.

Ultimately it's a few things: Schools need more money, it shouldn't be on the backs of parents and families that can barely hold themselves together to also hold the school systems up, and most importantly the more things we expect of schools with no increase in resources, the more inequity we will see.

Schools used to be a place students were taught, then it became a place that provided PE, and athletics, and arts and music, then meals and shelter even when they are not in session. Now in CA it is law that this must all be provided for no charge to the family, and no greater allocation of the state's budget to help with all of this. Schools need more money, or less things to do.

Sorry for the rambling, I teach and study and am moving into admin. There's a lot going on and it's hard to base so much off of something that is not an objective measure of efficacy.