There is an interesting article over at Carpe Diem, Mark J. Perry’s Blog.
Since 1970, inflation adjusted public school spending has more than doubled. Over the same period, achievement of students at the end of high school has stagnated according to the Department of Education’s own long term National Assessment of Educational Progress (see chart above). Meanwhile, the high school graduation rate has declined by 4 or 5%, according to Nobel laureate economist James Heckman.
Here is an example of compelling data, reasonably presented, and with sources well documented.
Take a look at the source data from the Department of Education. From the Executive Summary of the Department of Education’s study, The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress in Reading and Mathematics 2008:
Executive Summary
- Improvements seen in reading and mathematics
The following evidence is then presented. I question whether the term improvements tells the correct story. I think this is a case where looking at the percentage increase or decrease would show a virtual flat line (see bottom of post). The raw data virtually shows that story.
Improvements seen in reading and mathematics
Reading
In reading, average scores increased at all three ages since 2004. Average scores were 12 points higher than in 1971 for 9-year-olds and 4 points1 higher for 13-year-olds. The average reading score for 17-year-olds was not significantly different from that in 1971.
1The score-point change is based on the difference between unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the figure.
Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.Mathematics
In mathematics, average scores for 9- and 13-year-olds increased since 2004, while the average score for 17-year-olds did not change significantly. Average scores were 24 points higher than in 1973 for 9-year-olds and 15 points higher for 13-year-olds. The average mathematics score for 17-year-olds was not significantly different from that in 1973.
Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students
* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.
Very disturbing information. I think the visualizations are all quite good.
I re-graphed the data showing the percentage growth in expenditures and the growth (non-growth) of academic scores (only the values for 17-year olds). I see a small advantage to placing all the values on the same scale. It accentuates the almost unbelievable consistency of the math and reading scores – no change over 30 years. I would expect more variability than occurred.
The original article concludes: “So the only thing higher public school spending has accomplished is to raise taxes by about $300 billion annually, without improving outcomes.”
I think a more accurate story is that it took more than twice as much money in constant dollars to obtain the same result. If less had been spent would results have declined? If spending had doubled, would results have gone up? We don’t know from this data.
I think another important missing piece here is the lack of target data. What was the expected level of performance increase based on spending? Was there a target? What is the expected economic value of the better performance?
I think to claim an increase in test results, like the Government did, is as inaccurate as to claim that the money was wasted, as the Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom did.
It is important to distinguish between the statistics and the interpretation of those statistics.
We welcome your feedback. Please leave us a comment below. If you haven't already, there is no time like the present to subscribe to the RSS feed.
Category and Tags
This post filed in the following categories:
- Visualization - Visualization is any technique for creating images, diagrams, or animations to communicate a message.
Related Posts
You may be interested in the following related posts:
now that its done i wonder if its good enough to join the list !"
He did one small mistake, unfortunately everyone does mistakes."
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
So is that raw spending in the system as a whole? I wonder if it looks any different when you compare spending per child. Are there 100% more children in the system now than in 1970? I doubt it..
Good question. The raw spending is per student in constant dollars.
There are many rival hypothesis for what is causing more money being spent per child. Perhaps money is spent on items other than math and reading improvement. Perhaps provision of infrastructure more expensive (building codes have changed, computers are provided, or who knows??). There is controversial arguments over the part special education and magnet schools play in the overall cost per child. I’m sure there are others.
This is why having a target measure is important. It provides important context.
What surprises me is that I did not see a discussion about the flat reading and math scores. That said, I didn’t read the whole document.
Looking at the data I wonder if there was an improvement in the running and philosophy of primary schools which has not been matched in secondary schools. That would account for an improvement in the younger children which is then wasted as the get older. We’ve all had the experience of having a good teacher for a subject for a while, doing well and loving it but then moving on and losing interest and momentum.
I think by either saying that performance has improved (based on these numbers) or that money is wasted, distracts from the more important task of figuring out the root cause.
There is a political element to all of this that can’t be ignored. Unless interpretation (and sometimes raw data) comes from a trusted, independent source, as data consumers, we must be careful what we accept.