So Vermont's proficiency advantage is one-out-of-ten.
All states are required to get almost all students to "proficient" by 2014. None is even close and even the Education State has protested that No-Child-Left-Behind Law of 2001 requirement and claims that it just won't be able to do it.
Vermont claims it's an illegal, unfunded federal mandate which the Education State could meet if it wanted to-it just needs a lot more money.
So, we're left with the editor's anti-gravitational opinion-unsupported by facts- that a Vermont education is "quality" and the contrast with the dismal proficiency stats, about the same in all states.
We're also left with his assertion headlined thus "ranking fifth in per pupil spending is good news"; there's no explanation for a spending level twice as large as that of the cheap states producing only a 5 percent difference in reading scores.
A skeptic might well ask whether it's all worth it. And we chuckle with this most curious opinion: "Vermont's challenge is not to reduce spending, but rather to hold the current level..." and so on.
Gloriosky, Zero, I'd have thought that the challenge ought to be one of teaching all the teachable students (a few aren't) how to read and how to master some of the basic skills or facts?
The question which the editor chooses not to address: how can it be that a K-12 system which was the pride of the nation only a few decades ago now isn't? What happened?