No; private schools do better as they kick out kids that do not do well. They also do not have to bus kids, take handicap kids, etc... When you stack the deck from day 1 you should not be surprised at the results.
I just said that they have the better students. My point is that school performance is determined mainly by the students. Other evidence pointing to this is how useless seniority is with teaching. It's not uncommon to see a teacher starting out or with only a few years teaching more effectively.
Got data backing that up? See the chart below to see what data look likes. You see when fewer people go into the profession, there are fewer people that teach. If these trends continue, teacher compensation is going to skyrocket until the compensation reaches a level that attracts more people into the profession.
I would be hesitant to do class size increase in early grades, but it's asinine to think it matters in middle and high school. No teacher teaches one on one. Students hardly ever ask questions, especially the ones who would actually need to, etc. Increasing class size also raises the quality of teachers as less mediocrity is let in and then they get to take even more students.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...class-size-matter-research-reveals-surprises/
"But despite more than four decades of research in the U.S. and abroad, the effects of this simple idea about how to raise student achievement have been hard to isolate and measure, leading to academic squabbles over its value.
Researchers generally agree that lower class sizes, at least in the earliest grades, are linked to positive educational benefits such as better test scores, fewer dropouts and higher graduation rates, especially for disadvantaged children."
At age 25, teachers make 89% of the earnings of non-teachers of similar age and education, ranking the state eighth in the nation. The picture isn’t as bright for older educators: At age 45, the figure is 77%, though Wisconsin still ranks 10th.
Studies suggesting this are frankly retarded. They act like an engineering or chemistry degree is on the same level as an education degree when that is one of the least challenging degrees universities offer. There is also less sheepskin effect because everyone knows less rigorous degrees makes students put in less effort as effort isn't necessary to get a good grade.
The study also must not be including fringe benefits (e.g. the subsidized health benefits) and the back end.
Edit:
A sampling of occupations with median wages higher than those of teachers: lawyers, actuaries, undertakers, insurance underwriters, college political science professors, tile setters, funeral service managers, art directors, loan officers, web developers and train engineers.
Edit: GOOD GRIEF!!!! They are! Comparing to lawyers and actuaries is completely asinine. Especially actuaries, since the actuarial tests are like getting a Ph.D. in rigorous material. Even pure math majors can't necessarily hack it.And obviously many of the rest don't have a back end and fringe benefits near the level of the teacher.
Let's not forget to take into account how teachers spend out of pocket to support their own classrooms.
LOL Complete bull