Posted on 05/28/2002 9:37:25 AM PDT by First_Salute
Washington, Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- High school students in states that spent the most per pupil last year had some of the lowest scores on the SAT, the most widely used U.S. college entrance exam, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.
Students in New York, for example, which spent $9,757 per pupil, received an average score of 1000 on the SAT exam, when verbal and math scores were combined. Utah, which spent $4,120 per pupil in the 1999-2000 school year, had an average of 1145.
Republicans seized the statistics as evidence that more federal money isn't the answer. "It shows educational spending doesn't lead to improved academic results,'' said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Republican Representative John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Education Committee.
Democrats and other supporters of higher spending said the comparison is useless because in most high scoring states, the SAT is only taken by the very best students. They said the states that spend the most tend to be the urban northeast states, which must work with diverse populations, students who speak English as a second language, and students from low income homes.
"It's a lot more complicated than money,'' said David Griffith, a lobbyist for the National Association of the State Boards of Education. "There are cultural and societal factors and you have to spend money to overcome all the factors, all the strikes against students.''
Debate in Congress
The debate over the relationship between spending and academic performance is central to congressional action on President George W. Bush's plan to improve the public education system. House and Senate negotiators have yet to agree on funding after month-long talks on an education bill based on Bush's plan.
The bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate would provide $41.8 billion for public education programs. The House set aside $22.9 billion, and Bush asked for $19 billion.
Republican Representative Johnny Isakson, who favors the House bill, said the SAT scores are of limited value because only college-bound students take them, and they don't represent the students toward whom federal money is directed.
"These are the poorest, most disadvantaged kids'' who often drop out of high school, the Georgia Republican said.
Education Secretary Rod Paige said the limitations of SAT's ability to measure performance of all students illustrated the need for annual tests that monitor progress in grades three through eight, a cornerstone of Bush's plan.
More Money Urged
Many Democrats, backed by representatives of teachers and school administrators, say more money must be spent to improve public schools. They also say comparing test scores between states doesn't give an accurate reflection of education needs.
"Reform without resources is a waste of time,'' said Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat.
Scores for the 2001 SAT test, which is mostly used by colleges and universities in the eastern half of the U.S., were released today by the College Board Inc., which owns the exam. Bloomberg News compared those scores with the latest spending figures from the Department of Education.
The top 25 states on SAT scores spent an average of $6,059 a pupil and scored 1123. The bottom 25 states spent $7,469 a student and averaged 1014.
Students from Southern states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, which on average spend less than $6,000 a student, scored above 1100.
Other Scores
Scores for students in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and other northeastern states, where average per student spending was more than $7,500, hovered around 1000.
Students in North Dakota, which spent $6,901 on each pupil, scored the highest, averaging 1191. Washington, D.C., finished at the bottom with an average score of 956. The city spent $10,069 a student.
Only Wisconsin and Minnesota bucked the trend in the top 25. Minnesota had an expenditure of $7,700, the 12th highest, and scored 1169, ranking fourth.
Wisconsin spent $7,951, ranking ninth in spending, and had student scores of 1180, the third best.
A look at scores from the ACT, a test used for college admission in the West and South, showed similar results.
"We have spent a lot of money in the past 20 years on education,'' said Andrew LeFevre, director of the education task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that wants to scale back the federal role in education. "We really haven't gotten a return for our money.''
View Questioned
Regional differences are reflected in the scores. Students that take the SAT test in the West and South tend to be gifted students applying to Ivy League and other elite schools.
For example, 4 percent of North Dakota's students took the SAT compared with 81 percent of New Jersey students.
The criticism is echoed by the College Board itself, which warns about making state-by-state comparisons.
A 1996 study by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, found that rankings of states like New York and New Jersey would rise if adjusted for the percentage of students taking the tests.
The spending comparison also glosses over the disadvantages faced by low-income children, such as education level of the parents, Powell said.
The comparison "is not unlike two runners, one of which is carrying 50 pounds,'' Powell said. "We're saying, 'Look, the other one is so much faster.'''
This year's average verbal score of 506 was one point higher than last year. The increase continues a trend of higher verbal scores over the past decade.
The average math score remained at 514, the same result as in 2000. The average for all students was 1020.
Women made up almost 54 percent of the test takers. More than a third of the test group consisted of minority students, who trailed their white counterparts on average in verbal and math scores.
Excuses, nothing but effing excuses for their collossal failures. The liberal education establishment has a leather jack boot on the necks of of those in public "skools"; which are namely minority. There is tons of data which show that spending does not lead to better education, but rather simple values such as discipline, community, curriculum, and family involvement lead to better education.
Excuses, nothing but effing excuses for their collossal failures. The liberal education establishment has a leather jack boot on the necks of of those in public "skools"; which are namely minority. There is tons of data which show that spending does not lead to better education, but rather simple values such as discipline, community, curriculum, and family involvement lead to better education."
There is another much better response to the assertion that the higher score states are helped by an advantage in the quality of students who take the tests--like a number of the things the liberals say, there is no data to support the assertion--from anecdotal evidence available here, I have reached the conclusion that it is simply not so.
Further, again from observation of the facts here in the small southern town in which we live, a number of the students that did not do well in elementary school down here have been helped by higher standards and increased discipline at the high school level; the NA and lower income group students are studying harder and are doing better in school and thus can be expected to do better on the exam.
They have a much higher proportion of intact two-parent families, too.
But the article points out:
Students from Southern states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, which on average spend less than $6,000 a student, scored above 1100.
As a native Southerner, I promise you we have a large minority population.
That'd be unions, as in the National Education Association. Get the NEA out of public education, and you just might see some improvement in the schools.
I know that virtually everyone on FR has hear this from me before, but I'll rehash it one more time for those of you who need ammo in this argument. My wife and I live in a small town in Westchester NY. There are a total of 1500 students in the school system in a middle, and upper middle class town. Minorities make up approximately 5% of the total student body.
Last year we paid $18,600 per student, and this year will were hit with a 9% increase. That makes the new budget $20,300 per student.
For this princely sum, only 67% of the 8th graders are passing the state required standardized tests, and the average SAT score is below 1000. That means that we are the single most expensive, failing public school in the United States. The next time someone asks you how bad the schools will get before the NEA is chucked out, tell them these statistics, and remind them that we have no recourse. Short of burning the school to the ground, there is nothing we taxpayers can do to reign in an administration drunk with funding.
We can vote down the budgets (and have every year for the last 4) but they enact them anyway. We can lobby the school board, but 1 member is a teacher, and two of the others have their wives working in the administrators office so they are bought and paid for, and would never consider lowering a budget, or turning down a request for more funding. We can vote out the school board, but since they rotate their terms, it would take 4 years to affect any change, and my wife and I can't affort to stay while the issue is debated.
We're told that we can expect double digit increases for a minimum of the next 4 years. This year we will vote with our feet, just like 15% of our town is doing right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.