Trial slides
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 108

Trial Slides PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Trial Slides . Michael Podgursky Department of Economics University of Missouri – Columbia. Analysis of Student Level 2006 MAP data. Inequality of student achievement. The vast majority of inequality in student achievement as measured by MAP is within rather than between school districts.

Download Presentation

Trial Slides

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Trial slides

Trial Slides

Michael Podgursky

Department of Economics

University of Missouri – Columbia


Trial slides

  • Analysis of Student Level 2006 MAP data


Inequality of student achievement

Inequality of student achievement

  • 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 inequality total variation in state map achievement w b

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

W= variation within districts

B= differences in average scores between districts


Trial slides

  • 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.


Trial slides

  • 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


Trial slides

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Math MAP Scores in Plaintiff

And Non-Plaintiff Districts


Trial slides

Distribution of 2006 8th Grade Communication Arts MAP Scores

in Plaintiff And Non-Plaintiff Districts


Trial slides

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

And Bottom 20 Percent of Districts by Current Spending per Student


Trial slides

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

And Bottom 20 Percent of Districts by Current Spending per Student


Trial slides

  • Scattergrams of individual student test scores against district spending per student

  • No detectable positive relationship between student achievement and spending per student.


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

2006 Grade 8 Student Communication Arts MAP Scores

and Current Spending Per Student


Trial slides

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

African-American Students Who Are FRL-Eligible


Trial slides

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

African-American Students Who Are FRL-Eligible


Trial slides

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

White Students Who Are FRL-Eligible


Trial slides

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

White Students Who Are FRL-Eligible


District average scores and per student spending

District Average Scores and Per Student Spending


Sample selection

Sample Selection

  • 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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

2006 Grade 3 Math Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

2006 Grade 5 Math Index Score and Per Pupil Current Spending


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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

(p = plaintiff district)


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Multivariate regression models

Multivariate Regression Models

  • 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)


Example of value added model

Example of Value-Added Model

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)


Trial slides

Percent Proficient or Advanced:

2006 Grade 8 and High School


Trial slides

4. Value-added + %Min

2. %FRL only

3. Value-added

% FRL only

1. No controls

Value-added

No controls


Trial slides

  • 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

Predictive Validity of High School MAP Scores


Trial slides

  • 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.


How map performance level cut scores were set early map

How MAP Performance-Level Cut Scores Were Set(early MAP)

  • Expert Panels (~40 members per panel)

  • Educators, educated lay public, school board members

  • “Bookmark” method

  • Math (1997)

  • Communication Arts (1998)


Trial slides

(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


Trial slides

4 = proficient

5 = advanced


Trial slides

4 = proficient

5 = advanced


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

MO Public HE

Institutions

MU

Proficient

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


Trial slides

MU

Proficient

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


Trial slides

2006 MAP Achievement Level Descriptors


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

(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

Measures of Horizontal and Vertical Equity


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

Source: Podgursky and Springer (2006, Figure 7)


Trial slides

Source: Podgursky and Springer (2006, Figure 8)


Trial slides

Correlation Between Percent Minority and Current Spending Per Student:

Missouri and Surrounding States: 1990-2000


The adequacy of missouri teacher pay

The Adequacy of Missouri Teacher Pay


Trial slides

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


Summary of findings

Summary of Findings

  • 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.


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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


The trade off between staffing and teacher pay

The Trade-off Between Staffing and Teacher Pay

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


Falling student teacher ratios u s and missouri 1987 2004

Falling Student-Teacher RatiosU.S. and Missouri, 1987-2004


Trial slides

Student Teacher Ratios in Missouri and Neighboring States: Fall 2003


Trial slides

Potential Gains in Teacher Pay By Increasing the Student Teacher Ratio


Ratio of students to school staff missouri public schools 2002 2003

Ratio of Students to School Staff: Missouri Public Schools 2002-2003


Trial slides

  • How competitive is Missouri teacher pay?


Trial slides

National Education

Association.

Rankings and Estimates.

(2004)


Trial slides

AFT Survey

and Analysis of

Teacher Salary

Trends 2002


Teacher labor markets are local and regional not national

Teacher labor markets are local and regional not national

  • 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)


Establishment data on relative teacher pay

Establishment Data on Relative Teacher Pay

  • 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


Trial slides

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: Kansas City, MO-KS


Trial slides

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: St. Louis, MO-IL


Trial slides

Weekly Earnings of Public School Teachers and Other White-Collar

and Professional Workers: Springfield, MO


Trial slides

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

and U.S. Average, 2006


Trial slides

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

and U.S. Average, 2006


Trial slides

Relative Weekly Pay of Public School Teacher in Springfield

and U.S. Average, 2006


Interstate comparisons of teacher pay

Interstate Comparisons of Teacher Pay

  • 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)


Trial slides

Controlling for teacher experience and rural or urban residence, is the pay of Missouri teachers higher of lower than surrounding states?

  • 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


Findings

Findings

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


Estimates of b2

Estimates of b2


Labor market indicators

Labor Market Indicators

  • Certification rates

  • Qualified applicants per vacancy in selected fields

  • Net migration of teachers in or out of MO


Trial slides

Percent of Teachers With Regular Certification: 2006


Trial slides

Median Ratio of Appropriately Certified Applicants Per Vacancy

By Teaching Field: Missouri Public Schools, 2005


Trial slides

Average Teacher Experience Versus Percent FRL Eligible:

Missouri Public Elementary Schools, 2006

(n=1250 schools)


Trial slides

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


Trial slides

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.


Trial slides

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


  • Login