12 ms·

There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture, other than 'we just don't think it should count'. And that seems to be the ent

There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture, other than 'we just don't think it should count'. And that seems to be the entire basis of their finding that rankings are riddled with flaws. There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. It's actually funny this article popped up, I legit just read a paper from 2015 called "A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Per-Student Expenditures and Academic Achievement". I genuinely read that this morning. Weird. The authors found that "There was a significant correlation between revenues available per student and ACT scores as one outcome measure of achievement." And just to drive that point home, they replicated the findings from a 2002 study, further solidifying that sentiment. And that's just the most recent one I've read. I'm sure there are more recent. And that is definitely just one in the series of research related to per-pupil expenditures. Also, I'm afraid this piece serves no purpose other than to be self-congratulatory to the 'lower taxes at all costs' group and right-to-work proponents. Why I say this: research pieces probably shouldn't include snide comments like "high-tax, high-spending progressive utopias." "punishing taxes" Maybe that's just me? Am I off base? edit: also, the comment section on that article is awful. Just awful.

kolbe 8y ago
>There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture What do you think would happen to the regression if per-student expense was both an independent and a dependent variable?
- Loughla 8y ago
  My experience with educational research is that researchers find per-pupil expense is directly correlated to improved achievement on standardized academic measures across all areas and for all variables in race/ethnicity, gender, age, and (obviously) socioeconomic status. I don't know what variables the authors are talking about when they say "we ran multiple regression analyses on our data, which included several other variables", so I hesitate to make a claim on what their outcomes could be. There are so many things they could be looking at; it's almost impossible to know what they're really evaluating without being able to look at the data.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    The main goal of this article was to refute such research. So, if you want to show that their methodologies are superior, I think that would be great. Also they were assessing efficiency, and since the cost component of efficiency (performance/cost) is measured as per-pupil spending, then we wouldn't get very useful results if performance=f(per-pupil spending).
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    > My experience with educational research is that researchers find per-pupil expense is directly correlated to improved achievement on standardized academic measures across all areas and for all variables in race/ethnicity, gender, age, and (obviously) socioeconomic status. My experience as a teacher is to struggle to understand how it can't be directly correlated. Of course well-paid, well-benefited teachers are going to work harder, but there's much more to school funding than teacher pay. Quality of the school building, newer textbooks, all of that stuff comes into play with per-pupil funding. It's not hard to imagine that schools with higher per-pupil funding will have better resources and environments conducive to learning.
rayiner 8y ago
> There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. The article's methodology looks at academic achievement directly, so there is no need to use spending as a proxy.
- Balgair 8y ago
  Sort-of. Per my reading of it, they used only one measure, the NAEP. The GP mentions a paper that used the ACT as a guide. In the least, we should resolve the difference between the NAEP and the ACT, if there is any. But, like the SAT or College Acceptance rates, those are just a few measures. Achievement is not easy to define in this context, let alone measure. All the test scores are just proxies for 'achievement' as a general term. Should we measure household income at the 10yr post mark too, College graduation rate, number of pregnancies, marathon runners? It's all just a proxy in the end for trying to determine, in granular detail, if education is worth spending tax money on.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    And the thing about tests is that they can be gamed. Especially ones like the ACT where it's all multiple choice. If a student knows just a little bit of math, some key vocabulary and how to work their way around a calculator, they could easily get a score that's 25% above average (mid 20s; average is 20.7). The same can be done with the other subjects as well. The biggest issue with students taking it is (1) unmotivated people who'll never go to college being forced to take it and (2) not knowing how to game tests. The second one can be taught, though.
    - kolbe 8y ago
      >If a student knows just a little bit of math, some key vocabulary and how to work their way around a calculator, That's the stuff we want them to know. We want people who know more math and vocabulary to score higher. That's not 'gaming.' That's just the basic concept of testing.
darawk 8y ago
> There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture, other than 'we just don't think it should count'. And that seems to be the entire basis of their finding that rankings are riddled with flaws. What? Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. If you hold achievement constant, but spend more, that is objectively worse. Which is the whole point of the article. > There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. It's actually funny this article popped up, I legit just read a paper from 2015 called "A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Per-Student Expenditures and Academic Achievement". I genuinely read that this morning. Weird. The authors found that "There was a significant correlation between revenues available per student and ACT scores as one outcome measure of achievement." And just to drive that point home, they replicated the findings from a 2002 study, further solidifying that sentiment. Yes, but did they adjust for the confounding factors the authors of this article point out? I'll bet they didn't.
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  > Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. Because achievement is hard to measure. > If you hold achievement constant, but spend more, that is objectively worse. Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. Consider e.g., Lakeside's teletype terminal in 1960s. If computer access didn't increase aggregate ACT scores (which, it probably didn't...) was it then "objectively a waste of money"? Having grown up in post-NCLB school system, I'm extremely skeptical of standardized tests as a measure of educational achievement. We're a couple decades into confusing the map for the territory on this one. It's Lockhart's Lament [1] on steroids and in every subject. Funding levels are at least positively correlated with paying people well, which -- in every field I've worked in at least -- is typically correlated with higher quality employees. [1] https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Because achievement is hard to measure. Except that they already are measuring achievement. If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. > Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. No, it does not. It is always worse to spend more for the same level of achievement. If your argument that achievement is mismeasured, that is a completely separate issue.
natalyarostova 8y ago
The intention is to measure post-treatment effects. You can't include a treatment effect as a measure of itself, that defeats the purpose of measuring the benefit.
analogwzrd 8y ago
I'm not 100% sure that you read the whole article. There's absolutely a reason given why per student expense wasn't considered: "intentions to raise performance are not the same as raising performance." That's a good argument for expenditures not to be included regardless of the impact it may have. Why use a questionable proxy when you could find better ways of actually measuring performance? The "high-tax, high-spending progressive utopias" remark was mirroring the Paul Krugman op-ed that was mentioned in the introduction to the article.
- Balgair 8y ago
  To be honest, refuting Paul Krugman's opinion pieces isn't the most difficult thing to do. ;P
rb808 8y ago
It all depends what you want to measure. If you're choosing a state to live in to give the best public education for your children, then the per-student expense really isn't important as you aren't directly paying. If you're a politician to rate states based on the efficiency of education spend, then their ranking is more relevant.
amadeuspagel 8y ago
> There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. Standardized tests are already included in the ranking.

kolbe 8y ago

>There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture What do you think would happen to the regression if per-student expense was both an independent and a dependent variable?

Loughla 8y ago
My experience with educational research is that researchers find per-pupil expense is directly correlated to improved achievement on standardized academic measures across all areas and for all variables in race/ethnicity, gender, age, and (obviously) socioeconomic status. I don't know what variables the authors are talking about when they say "we ran multiple regression analyses on our data, which included several other variables", so I hesitate to make a claim on what their outcomes could be. There are so many things they could be looking at; it's almost impossible to know what they're really evaluating without being able to look at the data.
- kolbe 8y ago
  The main goal of this article was to refute such research. So, if you want to show that their methodologies are superior, I think that would be great. Also they were assessing efficiency, and since the cost component of efficiency (performance/cost) is measured as per-pupil spending, then we wouldn't get very useful results if performance=f(per-pupil spending).
- dorchadas 8y ago
  > My experience with educational research is that researchers find per-pupil expense is directly correlated to improved achievement on standardized academic measures across all areas and for all variables in race/ethnicity, gender, age, and (obviously) socioeconomic status. My experience as a teacher is to struggle to understand how it can't be directly correlated. Of course well-paid, well-benefited teachers are going to work harder, but there's much more to school funding than teacher pay. Quality of the school building, newer textbooks, all of that stuff comes into play with per-pupil funding. It's not hard to imagine that schools with higher per-pupil funding will have better resources and environments conducive to learning.

rayiner 8y ago

> There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. The article's methodology looks at academic achievement directly, so there is no need to use spending as a proxy.

Balgair 8y ago
Sort-of. Per my reading of it, they used only one measure, the NAEP. The GP mentions a paper that used the ACT as a guide. In the least, we should resolve the difference between the NAEP and the ACT, if there is any. But, like the SAT or College Acceptance rates, those are just a few measures. Achievement is not easy to define in this context, let alone measure. All the test scores are just proxies for 'achievement' as a general term. Should we measure household income at the 10yr post mark too, College graduation rate, number of pregnancies, marathon runners? It's all just a proxy in the end for trying to determine, in granular detail, if education is worth spending tax money on.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  And the thing about tests is that they can be gamed. Especially ones like the ACT where it's all multiple choice. If a student knows just a little bit of math, some key vocabulary and how to work their way around a calculator, they could easily get a score that's 25% above average (mid 20s; average is 20.7). The same can be done with the other subjects as well. The biggest issue with students taking it is (1) unmotivated people who'll never go to college being forced to take it and (2) not knowing how to game tests. The second one can be taught, though.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    >If a student knows just a little bit of math, some key vocabulary and how to work their way around a calculator, That's the stuff we want them to know. We want people who know more math and vocabulary to score higher. That's not 'gaming.' That's just the basic concept of testing.

darawk 8y ago

> There is no reason given to why they take per-student expense out of the picture, other than 'we just don't think it should count'. And that seems to be the entire basis of their finding that rankings are riddled with flaws. What? Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. If you hold achievement constant, but spend more, that is objectively worse. Which is the whole point of the article. > There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. It's actually funny this article popped up, I legit just read a paper from 2015 called "A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Per-Student Expenditures and Academic Achievement". I genuinely read that this morning. Weird. The authors found that "There was a significant correlation between revenues available per student and ACT scores as one outcome measure of achievement." And just to drive that point home, they replicated the findings from a 2002 study, further solidifying that sentiment. Yes, but did they adjust for the confounding factors the authors of this article point out? I'll bet they didn't.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago
> Why should you count expenditure as a positive? The only thing that ought to matter is achievement. Because achievement is hard to measure. > If you hold achievement constant, but spend more, that is objectively worse. Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. Consider e.g., Lakeside's teletype terminal in 1960s. If computer access didn't increase aggregate ACT scores (which, it probably didn't...) was it then "objectively a waste of money"? Having grown up in post-NCLB school system, I'm extremely skeptical of standardized tests as a measure of educational achievement. We're a couple decades into confusing the map for the territory on this one. It's Lockhart's Lament [1] on steroids and in every subject. Funding levels are at least positively correlated with paying people well, which -- in every field I've worked in at least -- is typically correlated with higher quality employees. [1] https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....
- darawk 8y ago
  > Because achievement is hard to measure. Except that they already are measuring achievement. If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good. > Which again depends on what you mean by achievement. No, it does not. It is always worse to spend more for the same level of achievement. If your argument that achievement is mismeasured, that is a completely separate issue.

natalyarostova 8y ago

The intention is to measure post-treatment effects. You can't include a treatment effect as a measure of itself, that defeats the purpose of measuring the benefit.

analogwzrd 8y ago

I'm not 100% sure that you read the whole article. There's absolutely a reason given why per student expense wasn't considered: "intentions to raise performance are not the same as raising performance." That's a good argument for expenditures not to be included regardless of the impact it may have. Why use a questionable proxy when you could find better ways of actually measuring performance? The "high-tax, high-spending progressive utopias" remark was mirroring the Paul Krugman op-ed that was mentioned in the introduction to the article.

Balgair 8y ago
To be honest, refuting Paul Krugman's opinion pieces isn't the most difficult thing to do. ;P

rb808 8y ago

It all depends what you want to measure. If you're choosing a state to live in to give the best public education for your children, then the per-student expense really isn't important as you aren't directly paying. If you're a politician to rate states based on the efficiency of education spend, then their ranking is more relevant.

amadeuspagel 8y ago

> There is much research (once you sort through the partisan fluff from research institutions with obvious bias) that supports the positive impact of revenue per student on academic achievement on standardized tests. Standardized tests are already included in the ranking.