NAEP Cohort Gains in Scale Points

November 6, 2017

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Quick post just to note that the outlines of the story remains broadly similar whether you measure cohort NAEP gains as percentage increases or simply as scale points gained: AZ statewide still leads the field, AZ charters still beats the field like what Clubber Lang did to Rocky in their first encounter in the ring, Michigan charters still edge Louisiana charters, Maryland still needs to invest in ammo and a fortified island complex in hopes of surviving the nuclear zombie apocalypse. The main storyline here is that like the Credo report finding Detroit and New Orleans neck and neck, NAEP finds a similar result in 2011 to 2015 cohort gains for Louisiana and Michigan charters.

The question of which measure is better seems debatable imo so it is easier to simply present both.


So yeah I made a chart just to annoy Enlow the Barbarian

October 25, 2017

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Not bad Hoosiers, not bad at all. I mean granted you’ll have to pick your game up to keep pace with Arizona students but look at least you aren’t hopelessly behind the pack like most of that blue blob. New NAEP data released in January- bring it on!

P.S. It might help to open some “charter schools” with your “charter school law” eh? If you let ‘er rip long enough you might get some of this:#NAEPgainSMACK

Read ‘Em and Weep Edureactionaries

November 14, 2012

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

There is a great deal of interesting material in the Hanushek, Peterson and Woessmann study on international/American state academic achievement. Below however is the chart from the Ed Next version that I found most interesting:

Focusing on the 4th Grade Mathematics exam between 1992 and 2009, the authors found that increasing spending does not have a strong relationship with improved student learning. Par for the course.

Take a close look at the top of the chart however in terms of the states making large gains and how much additional revenue per pupil they spent to get them.

The states showing the top gains (in order) are Maryland, Florida, Delaware and Massachusetts. MD, FL and DE essentially tie with MA slightly behind.

Notice however that the inflation adjusted spending per pupil increase in Florida between 1992 and 2009 was $1,000. In Delaware it was $3,000. Maryland looks near the midpoint between $4,000 and $5,000 so lets roughly call it $4,500. Massachusetts looks to be $5,000.

So Florida managed first class gains with a much smaller increase in funding. If I were to go and look up the numbers, we would find that Florida’s smaller increase also came from a smaller base- MD, DE and MA were all likely to have been outspending Florida in 1992 and then really outspending them in 2009.

It is also worth noting that Florida faces considerably greater demographic challenges than MD, DE or MA- far more free and reduced lunch eligible children, more ELL kids, and to the extent you want to factor race/ethnicity into the equation it is a far more diverse state with a majority-minority student population.

So conflict-adverse state policymakers with extra billions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket and very wealthy and pale complected students should study MD, DE and MA for clues on how to improve their student outcomes.

If however you live in a state with average or above student diversity, real budgetary constraints on the amount you can spend on K-12 and strong competing demands for any additional revenue you are likely to scrape up, you should study Florida. In fact you should study Florida regardless unless you lack the guts for a good tussel.

P.S. Notice that NY and WY both had gigantic spending increases (an inflation adjusted $6k per student) only to achieve average and below-average gains respectively. At least WY is just wasting money they are pumping out of the ground. NY seems intent to drive their citizens out of state. Taxpayers and especially students are the losers in both cases.