[scott_s]

I disagree that the article you link to supports your conclusion. See "Why Poor Schools Can't Win at Standardized Testing": http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor...

Anecdotally, I know several teachers. Their salaries, for their education level (Master's degree) and cost of living (NYC area, often teaching in the city), are very low. One particular example I know is a NYC public school teacher with a Master's in education and several years experience making $45k.

Many members of this community are fine with the notion that paying programmers more will tend to attract better programmers. I see no reason why we can't extend that to public school teachers.

[crusso]

The article you linked to mentions that the standardized testing organizations have such a lock on testing that schools have to buy their specific expensive study materials or else the students will do worse on the standardized tests.

I don't even know if I would agree that giving more money to all schools would solve this problem. What's to keep those standardization study materials companies from raising their prices to increase their profitability?

How about if we instead take apart the centralized institutions that allow testing companies to maintain monopolies on testing and standardized testing study materials?

Once again, this isn't a problem rooted in money for education. This is a problem of entrenched power structures that prioritize maintaining their power over educating children.