> As research indicates, out-of-school factors like family and neighborhood account for roughly 60 percent of the variance in student test scores; teachers, by

> As research indicates, out-of-school factors like family and neighborhood account for roughly 60 percent of the variance in student test scores; teachers, by contrast—the largest in-school influence—account for only about 10 percent. > Current data systems, which consist primarily of standardized-test scores, misrepresent school quality. They say more about family income than they do about schools. The article seems to say that schools are fine, but it's our perceptions that are off. I don't doubt that our perceptions are off at all, when you know more about a situation, there's less fear and random judgement. Especially when it's about your children. On the other hand, implying that out of school factors such as family income aren't related to schooling leaves out what I consider the real crux of the issue: funding. Schools in the US are usually funded by local tax dollars, which is why school funding can vary so much from district to district. If you are trying to control for funding, then sure, I could see where you would say that where you live makes up 60% of your child's education, and only 10% is the difference between teachers. What I take this to mean is that 60% of the results come from actually funding the system. I'm not sure if this controls for the fact that better funded schools have more teachers, which equates to smaller class size, and more time with the teacher, etc. I also think there's a link between having well paid families and parental involvement in childhood activities, especially school. Involved parents also get involved in the school activities as well, like PTA. Let's also not forget about the poorest school districts many of the children get free or reduced lunch programs. Comparing the test scores of children that are struggling with the basics vs those who aren't is a pretty stark difference.