Thanks for this analysis. I must confess I immediately looked for Mississippi because of the so-called "Mississippi Miracle," and I was surprised to see it was ranked so low. Then I doubled back to the "Mississippi Can't Possibly Have Good Schools" article and realized that Mississippi is highly ranked not in the raw NAEP scores, but in the Urban Institute's adjusted scores for demographics, which include poverty status. Since Mississippi has a high poverty rate, its adjusted scores are top 4 in the country, but in the unadjusted NAEP scores, as you illustrate, Mississippi is just middle-at-best. Still, it's remarkable that they used to be dead last and are managing to improve student outcomes with so few resources.
Very interesting analysis. I wonder, in their current positions, what the incremental costs would be for these states to increase their average score in either category to the next point. Spending at an inflection point would provide the most results for each additional dollar of spending, but at what point does a state board of education, or more realistically, an individual school district, determine that the dollar cost for the next additional point is no longer worth it? This is more of a hypothetical, as I don't think there are any public school districts in the country with such an excess of funding where "whether or not to spend the next dollar" would even be a consideration.
Additionally, I wonder how these results compare to individual private schools. Are private schools able to produce better average test scores per dollar spent on a student? Are public schools more efficient due to economies of scale?
This is a great question: At what point does a state board of education, or more realistically, an individual school district, determine that the dollar cost for the next additional point is no longer worth it?
Schools should really ask this question, but I believe the prevailing mindset is to spend as much money as possible. More is better, always, right?
I disagree with this: I don't think there are any public school districts in the country with such an excess of funding.
I don't think the schools themselves think they have an excess of funding, but I do think there are schools that have more money than they can usefully use.
Good question about private schools. I don't have an answer at this time.
“That’s not a typo; the best states don’t have more than about 35% of 8th graders considered proficient in math.” That’s an astonishing fact.
Thanks for this analysis. I must confess I immediately looked for Mississippi because of the so-called "Mississippi Miracle," and I was surprised to see it was ranked so low. Then I doubled back to the "Mississippi Can't Possibly Have Good Schools" article and realized that Mississippi is highly ranked not in the raw NAEP scores, but in the Urban Institute's adjusted scores for demographics, which include poverty status. Since Mississippi has a high poverty rate, its adjusted scores are top 4 in the country, but in the unadjusted NAEP scores, as you illustrate, Mississippi is just middle-at-best. Still, it's remarkable that they used to be dead last and are managing to improve student outcomes with so few resources.
Julio. Thank you for the tip about the adjusted scores. I'll do another post in a couple of weeks using the adjusted scores for comparison.
Very interesting analysis. I wonder, in their current positions, what the incremental costs would be for these states to increase their average score in either category to the next point. Spending at an inflection point would provide the most results for each additional dollar of spending, but at what point does a state board of education, or more realistically, an individual school district, determine that the dollar cost for the next additional point is no longer worth it? This is more of a hypothetical, as I don't think there are any public school districts in the country with such an excess of funding where "whether or not to spend the next dollar" would even be a consideration.
Additionally, I wonder how these results compare to individual private schools. Are private schools able to produce better average test scores per dollar spent on a student? Are public schools more efficient due to economies of scale?
This is a great question: At what point does a state board of education, or more realistically, an individual school district, determine that the dollar cost for the next additional point is no longer worth it?
Schools should really ask this question, but I believe the prevailing mindset is to spend as much money as possible. More is better, always, right?
I disagree with this: I don't think there are any public school districts in the country with such an excess of funding.
I don't think the schools themselves think they have an excess of funding, but I do think there are schools that have more money than they can usefully use.
Good question about private schools. I don't have an answer at this time.