Updated Fall 2012

We evaluate data at the school district level because teacher staffing and salaries for each school is generally controlled and funded at the school district level. School district boards can change school boundaries and shift funding between schools to address potential funding or student-teacher ratio "inequalities" between schools.

The following data ranks school districts based on a composite score. The composite score is comprised of the following two factors -- student/teacher ratios and average teacher salaries. Lower composite scores indicate districts that offer a combination of better teacher salaries and student-teacher ratios compared to other school districts. Thus, school districts with both low student teacher ratios and high teacher salaries--relative to other school districts--are more likely to attract and retain talented teachers and provide more one-on-one instruction to students. (Remember, this is just one of many factors you should consider when evaluating the quality of educational services provided by a school district.)

District combined scores are calculated as follows:

• School districts are first sorted by their student-teacher ratios from lowest ratio (best) to highest ratio (worst) and assigned a relative ranking. The school district with the lowest (i.e. best) student teacher ratio is assigned a ranking of "1", the district with the second lowest student teacher ratio is assigned a ranking of "2", and so on.

• School districts are then sorted in descending order by average teacher salary. The school district with the highest average teacher salary is assigned a ranking of "1", the district with the second highest salary is assigned a "2" and so on.

• The combined score for each school district is calculated as the simple average of its student-teacher ranking and its average teacher salary ranking.

Why rank school districts based on this composite score? Because school districts operate on a fixed operating budget each year, a direct, inverse relationship exists between teacher salaries and student-teacher ratios. School districts who expand the number of teachers in their districts (and consequently improve the district's student-teacher ratio) will, in many cases, be required to reduce the average salary paid to each teacher. Conversely, school districts may cut a certain number of teacher positions in an effort to raise teacher salaries and reduce teacher turnover. Unfortunately, such a move increases (i.e. worsens) the school district's student-teacher ratio. So, a trade-off exists between teacher salaries and student-teacher ratios.

So what causes school districts with higher combined scores to be set apart from other school districts? The biggest driving factor that sets school districts apart from each other in the combined rankings is funding. Better funded school districts can afford to raise teacher salaries and improve student-teacher ratios.

A few notes on the rankings listed below:

Note 1: The composition of funding sources (e.g. Federal State and local property taxes) for school districts is different between school districts located in metropolitan areas versus school districts located in rural areas. (For now, we won't get into discussing the reasons why these differences exist but we will again point out that school district funding has a significant impact on each school district's combined score.)

Note 2: School districts with composite rankings that are approximately 20% or more better than and 20% or more worse than the average composite score of the entire group are shaded in green and red, respectively.

Abbreviations: FTE = "Full-time equivalent" (For example, two part-time teachers = one FTE teacher.); S/T = Student/Teacher