[ludflu]

> Cost is orthogonal to educational quality.

I've heard this (anecodotal) argument alot. Is there any empirical backing for it, and within what parameters does it hold true? My mother taught at a very expensive private school, which enabled me to switch from a lousy public school . The difference in the quality of teaching was dramatic. Private school teachers don't get paid alot more than public school teachers, and often less, although they are compensated with fringe benefits like I enjoyed, and prestige. In any case, elite private schools certainly get better results, which is why rich people pay alot of money to send their children to elite private schools. (Lots of this is attributable to the selection process, which is part of what parents are paying for.)

In contrast, public inner city schools can't choose their student population, and lack basic things like, books, paper, and air conditioning in the middle of the summer. I'm sure that proper and equitable funding of public education wouldn't solve all the problems in US public schools, but starving them of much needed resources certainly exacerbates the problems they do have.

[jacktoole1]

The countries that perform well on international standardized tests generally spend much less money per student, but a teaching job is much more prestigious than it is in the U.S.

I personally think that explanation fits both the "cost is orthogonal to education quality" argument of the parent, and your point that elite private schools have significantly better education quality, though I do not know offhand of studies about this.