Comments on: Misinterpretation of Statistics in Student Spending and Test Scores.

By: motownmutt

motownmutt — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:50:27 +0000

The department of education was created around 1980. Do we see anything that might correlate with that? Yes, spending begins to climb at an accelerated rate.

What is the spending on? Average teacher salary is around %50k/yr, while average Dept. of Ed. administrator salary is over $100k/yr.

It’s an interesting graph.

By: Torrey Jaeckle

Torrey Jaeckle — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:09:59 +0000

Yes, I too have thought about the “technology” issue. Certainly there is much more expense to properly outfitting a classroom these days, and in fact those additional expensive gadgets likely will NOT help increase Math or Reading scores (hopefully they will help our children learn the technology and how to use it, and learn history, science, etc. better).

And you are correct – test score data should lag spending. Any improvements from increased spending shouldn’t show up until several years down the road.

But what concerns me is the trend line. Spending was increasing pretty much all throughout the 70′s and 80′s – a time when, well, there just wasn’t a lot of additional expense being incurred to outfit a classroom properly (sans the tiny Apple computer we had in 4th grade in 1982!). Yet test scores were stagnant.

And then when spending levelled off in the early/mid 90′s – a time when the computer age was just getting going – there didn’t appear to be a negative effect on test scores then or a few years down the line.

I’m all for digging into the numbers more – I agree that at a high up view the “truth” can be hidden in the statistics. But I still have my doubts on this one, that our increased spending is paying off unfortunately.

By: Chukwuma

Chukwuma — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:51:22 +0000

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Briefly, there is actually another explanation. Academic achievement is a bell shaped curve. I would not expect it to change in a linear fashion over time. Indeed, if I saw a graph with rising test scores for all students over time I would actually suspect (artificial) grade inflation rather than actual achievement gains.

Per pupil spending IS NOT guided by any bell shaped curve; and even if the cost of living is factored in with constant 2008 dollars, the increase could still be accounted for by new technology and other changes. How many computers were there in classrooms in 1970? How many Powerpoint slide projectors? etc. This (plus the other factors I’ve enumerated) could account for spending increases.

By: Torrey Jaeckle

Torrey Jaeckle — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:42:07 +0000

I see what you are saying – it is true that MANY factors influence test scores. But it is also very true that one of the main solutions clamored for over the past 30 years in order to improve educational outcomes has been increased funding. Given that funding has more than doubled (in constant dollars), and test scores have remained stagnant, that would mean that either (a) increased funding doesn’t improve test scores or (b) there has been some severely negative changes in the other factors that affect test scores and educational outcomes, that more than offset the gains from the increases in funding.

Given that I have not seen any clear data to suggest that (b) is true to such a huge extent as to offset any gains from increased spending, I still rest on the conclusion that increased spending is not yielding sufficiently positive results.

I leave the burden of proof on those who say otherwise, to find out and point to these severely negative changes in the other factors that affect outcomes that they believe are the “true” cause of test score stagnation.

Also the “cost of living” issue you mentioned is already taken into account. The data is presented in constant 2008 dollars, meaning the data is all inflation adjusted. The $5000 data point for 1970 is $5000 in 2008 dollars – which means the actual amount of money spent in 1970, in 1970 dollars, was something much less than $5000.