While I share the revulsion to the apparent reflex these days to say “fire ‘em if they don’t succeed” the answer is not to decry testing or accountability because that isn’t going away. If anything teachers should welcome some objective measures of performance because the alternative is far, far worse. The IMPACT program is just a way of getting rid of teachers based on the arbitrary evaluations of self-described experts on teaching.
Darling-Hammond seems to have taken up Ravitch’s method of cherry-picking and misrepresenting data to “prove” their point by selecting Finland, Singapore, and Canada as poverty free zones. The Wikipedia entry on world poverty by country is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty
The “Factbook” poverty rates aren’t available for all countries so let’s look at the poverty rates and PISA scores for those that are (Country – Pisa Score – Poverty Rate):
Korea – 539 -15% Poverty
Canada – 524 – 9.4%
Japan – 520 – 15.7%
Netherlands – 508 – 10.5%
Belgium – 506 – 15.2%
Estonia – 501 – 18.7%
Switzerland – 501 – 7.4%
Poland – 500 – 17%
US – 500 – 12%
Germany – 497 – 11%
Ireland – 496 – 5.5%
France – 496 – 6.2%
You can enter this into a spread sheet and run a correlation coefficient but it is equally clear by just eyeballing it that there is no correlation between poverty and PISA scores.
The idea that students in other countries don’t take high stakes standardized tests is a total fabrication – it is just that the high stakes are for the student not the teacher. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Japan
See also my description of the Japanese educational system in my post here:
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/07/20/out-of-frustration-theyll-march/comment-page-1/#comments
Standardized tests are a fact of life – ask anyone who wants to get into college, med school, law school, or the military. The teaching credential test in California is a standardized test. And there is accountability for professionals in terms of job security and salary – ask any lawyer about billable hours, or engineer about job security, or military staff about the jobs available to them based on standardized tests.
The sad fact is that we don’t really know what makes a good teacher so we can’t really evaluate whether what a teacher is doing effective or not except by the results from testing. The value-added method that the LA Times showcased demonstrated that even the most dedicated teachers were not very effective and they were doing everything they could and taking all the advanced certification classes available. It also showed teacher effectiveness was not related to student family income. High poverty areas had great teachers and low-poverty areas had not-so-great ones. What is really needed is determine what makes a good teacher and the highlight on teaching accountability is FINALLY getting ed schools and foundations to actually try to figure that out. Until the ed schools stop awarding tenure based on useless theoretical papers and put their resources to figuring out what actually WORKS in the classroom, no teacher should be fired for anything other than gross dereliction of duty – as is the case now.
I am starting to think of demagogues like Ravitch and now Darling-Hammond as leading a “rhetoric-based community” much like the “faith-based community” that Bush-II used to talk about. Those of us stuck in the real world have to confront data, not just cherry-picked talking points.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Are Californians a bunch of rich tightwads?
People often talk about CA as a rich state when they are referring to GSP (Gross State Product). Looking at just the total GSP when CA has the biggest population is rather odd. On that basis I suppose India is a rich country ($1,729T) and Switzerland ($523T) is a poor country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
GSPs are available at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
which shows California’s at 12th “per capita”. If, after adjusting for COL, being 9th in personal income adjusts to 34th, then being 12th in GSP probably adjusts to about 40th in GSP per capita. (see previous post). You spend it on services “per capita” and collect it in taxes “per capita”. Mostly it is collected on income and on property. CA at 34th “per capita” personal income (adjusted for cost of living) is not really rich. Richer than some, poorer than most. The reason it spends proportionately less on K-12 is because it spends proportionately more on colleges, particularly the UCs. It spends proportionately more on education than most states in unadjusted expenditures. The group that took the biggest hit in this years state budget was social services. This huge hit to social services helped minimize the cuts to education.
I see a state with higher than the national average unemployment at a time when the national average unemployment (including those who stopped looking or are working only a few hours a week and so don’t count in the official figures) is around 18%, college graduates working at $8/hour, (if they can find that) and a lot of laid off people wondering when their unemployment checks will run out. Even the Army and Navy are “laying off” thousands of enlisted and officers because the lousy economy isn’t inducing many to leave voluntarily. There should be a little sympathy for people who feel stretched and are taxing themselves more than most to pay for education, such as teachers salaries.
Suppose CA did raise taxes enough to give everyone below poverty level an extra $20K per year, thereby cutting nominal poverty by a lot – would this automatically turn their kids into good students? Or would they be the same kids only with better shoes? Maybe correlation is not causation as others have so wisely noted. Maybe the reason they are poor is that they and their parents don’t have the life skills to figure out how to get out of poverty. In which case high intensity burn-out-the-teachers but turn (at least some) kids around charter schools might help if the local districts would quit fighting them? Or maybe a lousy economy doesn’t provide much opportunity for anyone these days?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
GSPs are available at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
which shows California’s at 12th “per capita”. If, after adjusting for COL, being 9th in personal income adjusts to 34th, then being 12th in GSP probably adjusts to about 40th in GSP per capita. (see previous post). You spend it on services “per capita” and collect it in taxes “per capita”. Mostly it is collected on income and on property. CA at 34th “per capita” personal income (adjusted for cost of living) is not really rich. Richer than some, poorer than most. The reason it spends proportionately less on K-12 is because it spends proportionately more on colleges, particularly the UCs. It spends proportionately more on education than most states in unadjusted expenditures. The group that took the biggest hit in this years state budget was social services. This huge hit to social services helped minimize the cuts to education.
I see a state with higher than the national average unemployment at a time when the national average unemployment (including those who stopped looking or are working only a few hours a week and so don’t count in the official figures) is around 18%, college graduates working at $8/hour, (if they can find that) and a lot of laid off people wondering when their unemployment checks will run out. Even the Army and Navy are “laying off” thousands of enlisted and officers because the lousy economy isn’t inducing many to leave voluntarily. There should be a little sympathy for people who feel stretched and are taxing themselves more than most to pay for education, such as teachers salaries.
Suppose CA did raise taxes enough to give everyone below poverty level an extra $20K per year, thereby cutting nominal poverty by a lot – would this automatically turn their kids into good students? Or would they be the same kids only with better shoes? Maybe correlation is not causation as others have so wisely noted. Maybe the reason they are poor is that they and their parents don’t have the life skills to figure out how to get out of poverty. In which case high intensity burn-out-the-teachers but turn (at least some) kids around charter schools might help if the local districts would quit fighting them? Or maybe a lousy economy doesn’t provide much opportunity for anyone these days?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The National Education Association rankings report
The National Education Association periodically publishes an interesting rankings report. (Looking at the NEA “Rankings of the States 2009″ downloaded from the NEA web site.)
http://www.nea.org/home/30896.htm
Statistically, it seems CA is behind other states in per capita income though a bit above the average. What I see is a state where taxes per capita or per income are above average, state spending on all education is well above average, and teacher income is at or near the top. Spending per K-12 student is a little above average or a little below average (depending on the year) but hardly the bottom. It is near the top in K-12 capital spending, even though the percentage growth in enrollment is not near the top. It is spending proportionately more on higher education than most states and more than most on education overall.
As for a correlation between NAEP scores and spending, funny you should mention that, I did an analysis myself and found correlation coefficients on the order of 0.2 which is meaningless. Can you provide access to your numbers? A spreadsheet perhaps? What correlation coefficient did you get in which subject populations? What years did you cover? I will try to post mine ASAP and provide access to it.
Out of 50 states and the D. of C.,
CA is #1 in teacher salaries in 2007-2008, #2 in 2008-2009 (C-16, C-18, pg 21)
CA = #5 in growth of teacher’s salaries over the 10 years 1998-2008 in constant dollars.
CA = #9 in per capita personal income (D3, p26)
CA = #5 in per capita state and local tax revenue
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per student ADA 2007-2008 (F-3, p 39)
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per $1,000 of personal income 2007 (F-5, p 40)
CA = #15 in per capita expenditures for all education (H-3, p 52)
CA = #3 in per capita capital spending for public K-12 schools (H-19, p 58)
Let us not forget to throw in cost of living adjustments for states. Those are available only after years of study and self denial in the bowels of the national archives here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Near the bottom of the entry under “Income by state”. California is ranked 9th in personal income before COL and 34th after COL adjustment. Not a rich state.
The National Education Association periodically publishes an interesting rankings report. (Looking at the NEA “Rankings of the States 2009″ downloaded from the NEA web site.)
http://www.nea.org/home/30896.htm
Statistically, it seems CA is behind other states in per capita income though a bit above the average. What I see is a state where taxes per capita or per income are above average, state spending on all education is well above average, and teacher income is at or near the top. Spending per K-12 student is a little above average or a little below average (depending on the year) but hardly the bottom. It is near the top in K-12 capital spending, even though the percentage growth in enrollment is not near the top. It is spending proportionately more on higher education than most states and more than most on education overall.
As for a correlation between NAEP scores and spending, funny you should mention that, I did an analysis myself and found correlation coefficients on the order of 0.2 which is meaningless. Can you provide access to your numbers? A spreadsheet perhaps? What correlation coefficient did you get in which subject populations? What years did you cover? I will try to post mine ASAP and provide access to it.
Out of 50 states and the D. of C.,
CA is #1 in teacher salaries in 2007-2008, #2 in 2008-2009 (C-16, C-18, pg 21)
CA = #5 in growth of teacher’s salaries over the 10 years 1998-2008 in constant dollars.
CA = #9 in per capita personal income (D3, p26)
CA = #5 in per capita state and local tax revenue
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per student ADA 2007-2008 (F-3, p 39)
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per $1,000 of personal income 2007 (F-5, p 40)
CA = #15 in per capita expenditures for all education (H-3, p 52)
CA = #3 in per capita capital spending for public K-12 schools (H-19, p 58)
Let us not forget to throw in cost of living adjustments for states. Those are available only after years of study and self denial in the bowels of the national archives here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Near the bottom of the entry under “Income by state”. California is ranked 9th in personal income before COL and 34th after COL adjustment. Not a rich state.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
New Tax $ for Ed??? Lousy economy says not a "slam dunk".
You can't get blood from a turnip or new taxes from people who are unemployed and/or looking at losing their home. I will vote for governor Brown's upcoming (in February?) extension of an $8 billion emergency tax to avoid cuts to schools but it is not a slam dunk. People reading about Bell city salaries and government employees with pensions they can only dream about may be less than willing to vote for an extension. If schools want more money they need to show some willingness to rein in some of the higher salaries. For example, Cupertino Union SD's $277K and Fremont Union HSD's $272K for their superintendents might not look all that great to people staring foreclosure in the face. Only one superintendent in Santa Clara county got a housing allowance so salaries are pretty much it. By comparison, LA Unified's super makes $300K, the CA governor makes $212K. Districts might consider a rollback on salaries above $100K or something as a gesture if they are asking for millions from taxpayers.
Unemployment is officially over 9% but add in all those who aren't counted because they gave up looking or are working only part time and you are at 17%. Add in the under-employed (engineers working at Macy's) and we are looking at depression levels of jobless.
According to the December economic letter from the Dallas federal reserve ( http://dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2010/el1014.html ) 20% of mortgages are "underwater" and another 5% are borderline. Since the same letter projects another 23% decline in the housing prices then we are looking at even more foreclosures when they have already been increasing rapidly for 3 years. Counting houses that are close to default there is really about a 2 year supply of housing compared to official 10 month supply and the "normal" of about 4-6 month supply. The Case-Schilling housing price index needs to get back to levels last seen in 1995 to be "normal". In the SF Bay area it is down to 2003 levels so has another few years of decline, just like the country as a whole. More than you want to know about the housing market is Gary Schilling's (ominous) view:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-shilling-house-prices?slop=1#slideshow-start
The lousy economy is depressing new household formation - meaning that new grads can't get jobs so they stay with mom and dad. They aren't about to get married and start a family. This in turn depresses the new home-building part of the economy which in turn depresses sales of new items still made in the US such as furniture and appliances. This further depresses the economy, in a vicious cycle.
These unemployed new grads aren't just poetry majors from East Podunk State. A friend of mine's son just got a BS in Chem. Engineering from UC-Santa Barbara and can't get a job anywhere in the USA so he is going for a master's hoping that might help. A neighbor from India with a Ph.D. in Chem. Eng said every last Chem E. job went to India or China so he got out of the field entirely. There are too many stories like that.
Government employees, elected or not, need to show a little sympathy for the average taxpayer struggling to stay afloat. Police and teachers cannot expect salaries and benefits to keep on increasing when it isn't for very many paying their salaries.
More people are working than aren't and if 25% are underwater or close on their mortgages, then 75% are not so I suspect all the new tax measures will pass. This time.
Unemployment is officially over 9% but add in all those who aren't counted because they gave up looking or are working only part time and you are at 17%. Add in the under-employed (engineers working at Macy's) and we are looking at depression levels of jobless.
According to the December economic letter from the Dallas federal reserve ( http://dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2010/el1014.html ) 20% of mortgages are "underwater" and another 5% are borderline. Since the same letter projects another 23% decline in the housing prices then we are looking at even more foreclosures when they have already been increasing rapidly for 3 years. Counting houses that are close to default there is really about a 2 year supply of housing compared to official 10 month supply and the "normal" of about 4-6 month supply. The Case-Schilling housing price index needs to get back to levels last seen in 1995 to be "normal". In the SF Bay area it is down to 2003 levels so has another few years of decline, just like the country as a whole. More than you want to know about the housing market is Gary Schilling's (ominous) view:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-shilling-house-prices?slop=1#slideshow-start
The lousy economy is depressing new household formation - meaning that new grads can't get jobs so they stay with mom and dad. They aren't about to get married and start a family. This in turn depresses the new home-building part of the economy which in turn depresses sales of new items still made in the US such as furniture and appliances. This further depresses the economy, in a vicious cycle.
These unemployed new grads aren't just poetry majors from East Podunk State. A friend of mine's son just got a BS in Chem. Engineering from UC-Santa Barbara and can't get a job anywhere in the USA so he is going for a master's hoping that might help. A neighbor from India with a Ph.D. in Chem. Eng said every last Chem E. job went to India or China so he got out of the field entirely. There are too many stories like that.
Government employees, elected or not, need to show a little sympathy for the average taxpayer struggling to stay afloat. Police and teachers cannot expect salaries and benefits to keep on increasing when it isn't for very many paying their salaries.
More people are working than aren't and if 25% are underwater or close on their mortgages, then 75% are not so I suspect all the new tax measures will pass. This time.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Education Expenditures 1919 - 2006
The NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) has a table showing "Total and current expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2006-07" in inflation-adjusted dollars. It shows that the amount spent on education has gone up from roughly $600/pupil (inflation adjusted 2007 $) in 1919 to about $10.7K in 2006. Over those 88 years it looks like a fairly even rate - no big jumps or swings after a sizable increase from 1919 to 1929.
Link:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_182.asp
Link:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_182.asp
Monday, December 13, 2010
Ed Spending as % of GDP
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) has some data showing how education spending has changed as a percent of GDP from 1970 to 2007.
Link: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/tables/tab_gdp.asp
Key points:
It has been hovering in a range of 3.2% to 4.1% and was at its highest in 2007-2008. The last year covered.
There appears no trend. It was 3.9% to 4.0% in 1970's, gradually dropped to 3.2% in mid 1980's and slowly climbed back up to 4.0% by 2001 where it has pretty much stayed.
Link: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/tables/tab_gdp.asp
Key points:
It has been hovering in a range of 3.2% to 4.1% and was at its highest in 2007-2008. The last year covered.
There appears no trend. It was 3.9% to 4.0% in 1970's, gradually dropped to 3.2% in mid 1980's and slowly climbed back up to 4.0% by 2001 where it has pretty much stayed.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Education funding in US over the last 50 years
How has education funding in the US done in the last 50 years. Gone up, gone down, stayed the same? It turns out that it has gone up by 3.6 times in inflation adjusted dollars. Inflation adjusted. 3.6 times. That is a lot.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)