- 63 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Trial Slides

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trial Slides

Michael Podgursky

Department of Economics

University of Missouri – Columbia

- Analysis of Student Level 2006 MAP data

- The vast majority of inequality in student achievement as measured by MAP is within rather than between school districts.
- If all differences in average student achievement between Missouri school districts were eliminated, 85-90 percent of the inequality of student achievement would remain.

Student Achievement InequalityTotal Variation in State MAP Achievement = W + B

W= variation within districts

B= differences in average scores between districts

- The vast majority of the variation in student achievement is within rather than between schools
- If all differences in average student achievement between Missouri schools were eliminated, 80-95 percent of the inequality of student achievement would remain.

- Frequency distributions of student test scores
- Plaintiff and non-plaintiff districts
- High and low spending districts

- Knowing whether the student attended a high or low spending district tells us almost nothing about his test score

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Math MAP Scores in Plaintiff

And Non-Plaintiff Districts

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Communication Arts MAP Scores

in Plaintiff And Non-Plaintiff Districts

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Math MAP Scores in Top 20

And Bottom 20 Percent of Districts by Current Spending per Student

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Communication Arts MAP Scores in Top 20

And Bottom 20 Percent of Districts by Current Spending per Student

- Scattergrams of individual student test scores against district spending per student
- No detectable positive relationship between student achievement and spending per student.

2006 Grade 8 Student Math MAP Scores and Current Spending Per Student

2006 Grade 8 Student Communication Arts MAP Scores

and Current Spending Per Student

2006 Grade 8 Student Math MAP Scores and Current Spending Per Student:

African-American Students Who Are FRL-Eligible

2006 Grade 8 Student Com. Arts MAP Scores and Current Spending Per Student:

African-American Students Who Are FRL-Eligible

2006 Grade 8 Student Math MAP Scores and Current Spending Per Student:

White Students Who Are FRL-Eligible

2006 Grade 8 Student Com. Arts MAP Scores and Current Spending Per Student:

White Students Who Are FRL-Eligible

- 2006 MAP Scores by district and grade
- Grades 3-8, 10 Math
- Grades 3-8, 11 Communication Arts

- Sample restricted to districts/grades with at least 10 test-takers in 2006
- Current spending per student in 2006

2006 Grade 3 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 3 Math Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 4 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 4 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 5 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 5 Math Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 6 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 6 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 7 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 7 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 8 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 8 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

(p = plaintiff district)

2006 Grade 8 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 8 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 11 Communication Arts MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

2006 Grade 10 Math MAP Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending

- A(t) = b0 + b1 S(t)
- A(t) = b0 + b1 S(t) + b2 %FRL(t)
- A(t) = b0 + b1 S(t) + b2 %FRL(t) + b3 A(t-k)
- A(t) = b0 + b1 S(t) + b2 %FRL(t) + b3 A(t-k)
+ b4 %MIN(t)

A(t), A(t-k) = MAP achievement in the district in year t, t-k

S(t) = Current spending per student in the district in year t in

thousands of dollars

FRL(t) = Percent of district students FRL-eligible in year t

MIN(t) = Percent of district students minority

(unweighted OLS estimates)

A(g8, 2006) = b0 + b1 S(2006) + b2 %FRL(2006)

+ b3 A(g3, 2001)

Communication Arts

Achievement, Grade 8,

2006

Communication Arts,

Grade 3, 2001

(same cohort of students,

earliest year MAP available)

Percent Proficient or Advanced:

2006 Grade 8 and High School

4. Value-added + %Min

2. %FRL only

3. Value-added

% FRL only

1. No controls

Value-added

No controls

- Of four pairs of value-added estimates of the marginal effect of spending only one pair is statistically significant.
- In all cases, the point estimates of the marginal effects are small, and sometimes negative.
- All point estimates were less than one percentage point gain in %proficient or advanced per $1000 of additional spending
- Roughly 60 percent of students scored less than proficient in 2006

Predictive Validity of High School MAP Scores

- What does “proficient” mean?
- Variable and subjective measure
- Early and current MAP standards differ
- High school math MAP has challenging questions
- Many students who score less than proficient on HS MAP succeed as freshman in Missouri colleges.

- Expert Panels (~40 members per panel)
- Educators, educated lay public, school board members
- “Bookmark” method
- Math (1997)
- Communication Arts (1998)

(Early MAP)

Grade 10 Math “Proficient”

- Proficient:
- Students communicate mathematical processes
- use formulas to solve problems
- recognize reasonable answers in the context of the problem
- demonstrate use of approximations and estimations
- apply understanding of perimeter, area, volume, angle measure, capacity, weight, and mass
- from given assumptions, deduce properties of and relationships between figures
- solve real-life problems using scale drawings, similarity, congruence relationships, and transformations (reflections, translations, and rotation)
- interpret and summarize data from tables and graphs
- determine simple and conditional probabilities to make predictions
- apply appropriate statistical measures to make a decision in problem-solving situation
- represent and/or solve real-life problems using mathematical expressions, equations, or inequalities
- apply basic algebraic procedures to solve a system of equation
- extend understanding and apply appropriate properties of real numbers and number theory concepts to solve real-life problems
- apply recursion principle to solve application problems
- solve application problems using networks and counting techniques
- use tree and Venn diagrams to analyze and interpret data

4 = proficient

5 = advanced

4 = proficient

5 = advanced

M. Ehlert and M. Podgursky. (2004) Table 6, p. 22.

MO Public HE

Institutions

MU

Proficient

M. Ehlert and M. Podgursky. (2004) Fig. 6, p. 33.

MU

Proficient

M. Ehlert and M. Podgursky. (2004) Fig. 5, p. 33.

2006 MAP Achievement Level Descriptors

Source: http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/Released_Items/current/ma2006/10maRIs06MO.pdf

(516 High Schools with N ≥ 10 Test-takers)

- South Nodaway High
- Lutie High
- Metro High
- North Harrison High
- Adair High
- Bunceton High
- Stanberry High
- Hale High
- Southland High
- Leopold High

Measures of Horizontal and Vertical Equity

Vertical Equity

Which system is “fairest?”

A

B

Horizontalequity

There is a Tradeoff Between Horizontal and Vertical Equity

All spending is calibrated to student need

Identical spending per student

Source: Podgursky and Springer (2006, Figure 7)

Source: Podgursky and Springer (2006, Figure 8)

Correlation Between Percent Minority and Current Spending Per Student:

Missouri and Surrounding States: 1990-2000

The Adequacy of Missouri Teacher Pay

- Are the revenues available to Missouri public schools adequate to staff schools with qualified teachers?

- Inflation-adjusted spending per student grew faster in Missouri than the US over the last fifteen years.
- Missouri school districts choose to spend part of this increase in lowering student teacher ratios rather than raising relative teacher pay. Missouri student-teacher ratios are low compared to national averages and to most neighboring states.
- National and state data show that teacher labor markets are local and regional, not national
- Data on relative teacher pay within Missouri metropolitan areas and between Missouri and neighboring states suggest that teacher pay is competitive.
- Labor market data suggest both plaintiff and non-plaintiff Missouri districts fill the vast majority of their vacancies with appropriately certified teachers. Applicant pools seem adequate in most teaching fields.
- On net, teachers are not leaving MO for neighboring states. In fact, the reverse is true.

- Inflation-Adjusted Spending Per Student has risen faster in Missouri than the US over the last 15 years

Growth in Real Expenditure Per Student:

MO and US 1989-90 to 2004-05

15 years

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Expenditures deflated by Jan. CPI and express in Jan 2006 dollars

Growth in Real Expenditure Per Student:

MO and US 1999-00 to 2004-05

Five years

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Expenditures deflated by Jan. CPI and express in Jan 2006 dollars

- Over the last 20 years Missouri public school districts have “purchased” low student-teacher ratios

Student Teacher Ratios in Missouri and Neighboring States: Fall 2003

Potential Gains in Teacher Pay By Increasing the Student Teacher Ratio

- How competitive is Missouri teacher pay?

National Education

Association.

Rankings and Estimates.

(2004)

AFT Survey

and Analysis of

Teacher Salary

Trends 2002

- Relative pay comparisons should be local and regional as well
- Ballou and Podgursky (1997)
- Boyd, Donald, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, James Wyckoff. (2003).
- DESE (2001)

- U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Compensation Survey (NCS)
- NCS is the flagship employer survey on relative pay and benefits
- Available for major metropolitan areas
- St. Louis
- Kansas City
- Springfield

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: Kansas City, MO-KS

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: St. Louis, MO-IL

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: Springfield, MO

Relative Weekly Pay of Public School Teacher in Kansas City, MO-KS

and U.S. Average, 2006

Relative Weekly Pay of Public School Teacher in St. Louis, MO-IL

and U.S. Average, 2006

Relative Weekly Pay of Public School Teacher in Springfield

and U.S. Average, 2006

- 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Surveys
- Stratified random sample of roughly 43,000 public school teachers (NCES)
- Sample: full time teachers in MO and eight surrounding states

- Dependent variable
- Base pay (school year)
- Base pay + all supplements (school year)

- BP = b0 + b1 X + b2 MO
- TP = b0 + b1 X + b2 MO
- ln (BP) = b0 + b1 X + b2 MO
- ln (BP) = b0 + b1 X + b2 MO
BP = base pay, TP = total pay,

X = yrs FT experience, education, metro, rural

MO = 1 if MO teacher, 0 otherwise

- After controlling for teacher experience, education, and geographic locale there is no significant difference in pay between Missouri teachers and teachers in neighboring states.

- Certification rates
- Qualified applicants per vacancy in selected fields
- Net migration of teachers in or out of MO

Percent of Teachers With Regular Certification: 2006

Median Ratio of Appropriately Certified Applicants Per Vacancy

By Teaching Field: Missouri Public Schools, 2005

Average Teacher Experience Versus Percent FRL Eligible:

Missouri Public Elementary Schools, 2006

(n=1250 schools)

- Is the state meeting the 25% education spending standard?

Section 3(b). In event the public school fund provided and set apart by law

for the support of free public schools, shall be insufficient to sustain free

schools at least eight months in every year in each school district of the state,

the general assembly may provide for such deficiency; but in no case shall

there be set apart less than twenty-five percent of the state revenue, exclusive

of interest and sinking fund, to be applied annually to the support of the free

public schools.

Source: University of Missouri- Columbia. Economic Policy Analysis Research Center