4 ms·

>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 b

by 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.

by kolbe 8y ago

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.