Download - TAH TATE EGISLATURE ENERAL ESSION · OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE FISCAL ANALYST ‐ 3 ‐ FEBRUARY 13, 2017, 9:54 AM WHAT DRIVES STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ACROSS STATES? use beginning in

UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE 2017 GENERAL SESSION

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE F ISCAL ANALYST ‐ 1 ‐ FEBRUARY 13, 2017, 9:54 AM

LFA LEGISLATIVE FISCAL ANALYST

WHAT DRIVES STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ACROSS STATES?

HIGHER EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

STAFF: JESS ESPLIN AND JILL L. CURRY, PH.D.I S SU E BR I E F

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Astrongeducationsystemcanconfermanybenefitsonasociety.OnewaytomeasurethestrengthofaneducationsystemisthroughK‐12studentachievement.Thisstate‐levelanalysisacrosstimefindsthateducationalattainmentofadultshasthelargestandmostconsistentimpactonK‐12studentachievement.Thepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsalsoproducesrelativelyconsistenteffects.Othermeasuressuchasspendingperstudentandstudent‐teacherratiofailtoreachstatisticalorsubstantivesignificanceinthisstudy.Thisstudyandotheracademicworksconsistentlyfindthatspendingalonedoesnotdriveimprovedacademicachievement.FurtherresearchshouldexaminestudentachievementwithinUtahtodeterminewhichinputs,includingareasofspending,producethegreatestimpactonstudentachievementinanintra‐stateanalysis.

THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION

“Inclusive,good‐qualityeducationisafoundationfordynamicandequitablesocieties.”

‐DesmondTutu

Educationisthebedrockofsociety.Societiesthataremoreeducatedtendtoexperienceincreasedprosperityfromamoreproductiveworkforce,1lesscrime,2betteroverallhealth,3andincreasedcivicengagement.4Themostdirectpathtowardaneducatedsocietyisastrongprimaryeducationsystem.Thesimplestwaytoassessthestrengthofaprimaryeducationsystemisbyexaminingstudentachievement.Thus,studentachievementcangiveusinsightintothecoreofasociety.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Despitetheimportanceofstudentachievement,thereisnotunanimousagreementonwhatfactorsdrivestudentsuccess.Manystudiesproduceconflictingresultsandanecdotaldatamuddythewaterevenfurther.Classsizeisoneindicatorthatproducesvaryingresults.UsingdatafromTennessee’sProjectSTAR—arandomizedexperimentinthe1980sthatassignedstudentstoasmallclass(13to17students),aregular‐sizedclass(22to25students),oraregular‐sizedclasswithateacher’saide—Krueger(1999)5findsthatthestudentsinsmallclassesscorehigheronstandardizedteststhanthestudentsinbothregular‐sizedclasses.Incontrast,Hoxby’s(2000)6studyofclasssizeinConnecticutdoesnotfindastatisticallysignificanteffectofclasssizeonstudentachievement.Teachingexperienceisanotherindicatorwithavaryingeffectonstudentachievement.TeacherexperiencesignificantlyaffectedreadingtestscoresinRockoff(2004),7butStaigerandRockoff(2010)8findthatstudentachievementrisesrapidlywithteacherexperience,butonlyforthefirstfewyearsofateacher’scareerbeforetheeffectflattensout.

Spendingoneducationisoneofthemostdebatedpredictorsofstudentachievement.Currently,themostprominentsupportforincreasedspendingisJackson,Johnson,andPersico(2016)9whofindthatsignificantandsustainedincreasesinpubliceducationfunding(intheformofcourt‐mandatedschoolfinancereforms)leadtoincreasededucationalattainmentandincomeinadulthood.Incontrast,Hanushekisoneofthemost‐citedcriticsofthegeneralimpactofschoolspendingonstudentoutcomes(e.g.Hanushek2003).10

Casestudiesproducesimilarlyconflictingresults.AdvocatesforincreasedschoolspendingoftenpointtoMassachusetts.A1993lawtransformedtheMassachusettsschoolfundingsystemtogivemorestatemoneytodistrictswithlargepopulationsoflow‐incomestudents.TheRevereSchoolDistrictalone,comprisedofmostlylow‐incomestudents,sawa20percentincreaseinhighschoolgraduationratesafteradditionalfundingwasspentonhiringmoreteachersandpayingfortraining,newtextbooks,readingcoaches,andatechnologyteam.PaulReville,

FEBRUARY 13, 2017, 9:54 AM ‐ 2 ‐ OFF ICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE F ISCAL ANALYST

WHA T D R I V E S S T U D E N T A C H I E V EM EN T A C R O S S S T A T E S ?

HarvardprofessorandformerMassachusettsstateeducationsecretary,said,“WhenyoulookatMassachusetts’overallperformancenationally,wehavegonefromthemiddleofthepacktothetopofthepack.”11

CriticsofincreasedschoolspendingoftenpointtothecaseofNewJersey.In1985,theNewJerseySupremeCourt’srulinginAbbottv.Burkeledthestatetoincreasespendinginitspoorestdistricts.TheCamdenSchoolDistrictspentroughly$23,000perstudentinthe2015‐2016schoolyear—about2.5timesthenationalaverage—but“there’snorealevidencethatthey’reclosingtheachievementgaporthatthey’redoingsignificantlybetter,”Hanushekargues.12

Utahspendsat,ornearthebottom,perstudentofallstatesinthecountry.TheU.S.CensusBureaurecentlyreleased2014datathatshowUtahspends$6,500perpupil,incomparisontoNewYork’s$20,610perpupil,thehighestamountnationally.Thenationalaverageforperpupilspendingis$11,009.13Intermsofstudentoutcomes,amongthestatesUtahfaresbetterthanitsperpupilspending.MostrecentlyUtah’sfourthgradersscoredsevenpointsabovethenationalaverageontheNAEP4Sciencetestandthestate’seighthgradersscored13pointsabovethenationalaverageontheNAEP8Sciencetest.Similarly,UtahfourthandeighthgradestudentsperformabovethenationalaverageonNAEPReadingandMathematicstests.

Withsomanyconflictingresultsregardingwhatimpactsstudentachievement,itisdifficulttosaywithconfidencewhatfactorswillproducegainsinstudentoutcomes.Interestingly,despitedifferencesintheirfindings,Jacksonetal.andHanushekdocometosomesimilarconclusions.Jacksonetal.note“increasedschoolfundingalonemaynotguaranteeimprovedoutcomes,butourfindingsindicatethatprovisionofadequatefundingmaybeanecessarycondition.Importantly,wefindthathowthemoneyisspentmaybeimportant”(214).14Likewise,Hanushek(2003)statesthathisstudy“doesnotmeanthatmoneyandresourcesnevermatter”(89).Hefurthernotesthat“nogooddescriptionofwhenandwherethesesituationsoccurisavailable,sothatbroadresourcepoliciessuchasthoselegislatedfromcentralgovernmentsmayhitsomegoodusesbutalsohitbadusesthatgenerallyleadtooffsettingoutcomes”(89).15Thus,despitedifferentresultsregardingtheimpactofschoolfunding,bothstudiesarecarefultonotethatforfundingtohaveanimpactitmustbetargeted.However,duetothemultitudeofstudiesproducingavarietyofresults,thequestionremainsabouthowfundingforpubliceducationshouldbetargeted.Togainfurtherinsightintothisquestion,weconductedananalysisofstudentachievementacrossthestates.

METHODOLOGY

INDICATORS

Thestate‐levelanalysisofstudentachievementisbasedonapaneldatasetwithobservationsforall50statesfrom2003to2013(theDistrictofColumbiaisexcluded).Thedatautilizedintheanalysisincludemeasuresofstudentoutcomesandachievement,spendingonpubliceducation,relevantdemographics,andvariouseducationalinputsforeachstateacrosstime.Thisstudyincludesthreemeasuresofstudentoutcomesand11indicatorspredictedtoimpactthem.ThedescriptivestatisticsandsourcesforeachmeasureareinTableA.1.intheappendix.Eachindicatorisdescribedbelow.

NAEP4Indexisastudentoutcomemeasure.ItistheaverageoftheaggregatedscoresforfourthgradestudentsontheNAEPmathematicsandreadingtests.16TheindexedscorewascreatedforeachstatebyaveragingtheNAEPmathematicsandNAEPreadingscores(bothrangefromzeroto500)forfourthgradestudents.Ifeitherthemathematicsorreadingscorewasmissingthentheavailablescorewasusedfortheindexratherthananaverage.

NAEP8Indexisalsoastudentoutcomemeasure.ItisanindexscorecreatedforeachstatebyaveragingtheaggregatedscoresforeighthgradestudentsontheNAEPmathematicsandreadingtests.17LiketheNAEP4index,boththeNAEPmathematicsandreadingscoresforeighthgradestudentsrangefromzeroto500.Ifeitherthemathematicsorreadingscorewasmissingthentheavailablescorewasusedfortheindexratherthananaverage.

Graduationrateisthethirdstudentoutcomemeasure.ThegraduationrateusedinthisstudyistheAveragedFreshmanGraduationRate(AFGR)ortheAdjustedCohortGraduationRate(ACGR)dependingontheyear.TheAFGRisusedfor2003through2010.TheAdjustedCohortGraduationRate(ACGR),whichstateswererequiredto



usebeginningin2011,isusedfromthento2013.18TheACGRisthepercentageofstudentswhograduateinfouryearswitharegularhighschooldiploma.Thismeasureisanadjustedratebecausestudentsareaddedwhosubsequentlytransferintothecohortforthegraduatingclassandstudentsaresubtractedwhotransferoutofthecohort.19

Currentspendingperstudentisthetotalannualspendingonpubliceducation(local,state,andfederal)dividedbythetotalnumberofstudentsenrolledinthepubliceducationsystembystate.

Singleparenthouseholdisameasureofthepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholds.

Medianhouseholdincomeisthemedianhouseholdincomebystatein2015dollarsandmeasuredinthethousands.20

Educationalattainmentisthepercentofthepopulationage25andolderwithabachelor’sdegreeorhigher.

Student‐teacherratioisthenumberofstudentsdividedbythenumberofteachersinpubliceducation.

EnglishlanguagelearnersisameasureofthepercentofpublicschoolstudentsinprogramsforEnglishlanguagelearners.21

Highqualityteachersmeasuresthepercentofcoreacademicclassesinallschoolstaughtbyhighlyqualifiedteachers.HighlyqualifiedisdefinedandusedhereasitisinNoChildLeftBehind.Ingeneral,tobedeemedhighlyqualifiedteachersmusthaveabachelor’sdegree,fullstatecertificationorlicensure,anddemonstratecompetencyineachsubjecttheyteach.22

Teacherexperience23(<4years)isanindicatorofthepercentofteacherswithlessthanfouryears24ofteachingexperience.

Teacherexperience(≥15years)isthepercentofteacherswith15ormoreyears25ofteachingexperience.

CrimerateisthenumberofcrimesasreportedintheUniformCrimeReportsper100,000inthepopulation.

Volunteerhourspercapitameasurestheaveragenumberofvolunteerhourspercapitaperstate.

ANALYSIS

Asdiscussedabove,thisanalysisincludesthreemeasuresofstudentoutcomes:anindexofNAEP4Scores,anindexofNAEP8Scores,andtheGraduationRate.Asaninitialassessment,acomparisonwasdonebetweenallstatesandUtahforallthreeofthesemeasures.First,infigure1isaplotoftheNAEP4Indexscoresovertime.Anychartfeatureinbluerepresentsvaluesforall50stateswhereasthechartfeaturesinorangerepresentvaluesforthestateofUtah.Thebluelines(insidetheblueboxes)representthemedianNAEP4IndexScoresandtheblueX’srepresentthemeanNAEP4IndexScoresforthoseyears.TheorangelinesandorangeX’srepresenttheNAEP4IndexScoresforUtahforthoseyears.Thebluetopandbottomlines(beyondtheblueboxes)arethelocalmaximumandminimum,respectively,andthebluedotsareoutlyingdatapoints.26

InexaminingtheNAEP4IndexScores,thefiguredemonstratesthat,foreachyear,Utah’sscoreisequaltoorhigherthanthemeanscoreforallstatesexceptin2009whereUtahhasaNAEP4IndexScoreof229.76andthemeanscoreforallstatesis230.22(adifferenceof0.46points).Utah’sscoreisequaltoorhigherthanthemedianscoreforallstatesexceptin2007and2009.In2007,Utah’sscoreis230.33andthemedianscoreforallstatesis231.47(adifferenceof1.14points).In2009,themedianscoreforallstatesis231.83whichishigherthanUtah’sscorethatyearby2.07points.



Figure2providesasimilarfigurefortheNAEP8IndexScores.Inanalyzingthesescores,Utah’sscoreisequaltoorhigherthanthemeanscoreforallstatesexceptin2007.In2007,Utah’sscoreis271.66andthemedianscoreforallstatesis273.56(adifferenceof1.90points).

ThegraduationrateforallstatescomparedtoUtahwasalsoexaminedovertime.Figure3indicatesthatthegraduationrateinUtahisequaltoorhigherthanthemeanandmediangraduationrateforallstatesineveryyearanalyzedexcept2008and2011.In2008thegraduationrateforUtahwas74.3percentwhilethemeanandmediangraduationrateforallstateswere76.1and76.4percent,respectively.In2011,Utah’sgraduationratewas76percentwhilethemeangraduationrateforallstateswas78.9percentandthemediangraduationratewas80percent.



Asmeasuredbythethreestudentoutcomeindicators,theperformanceofstudentsinUtahiseitherequaltoorexceedstheaverageperformanceacrossallstatesinmostyears.However,thefiguresabovedonotshedlightonwhatfactorssignificantlyimpactstudentsuccess.Toanalyzewhatisdrivingstudentachievement,astate‐levelanalysiswasconductedusingarandomeffectspanelregressionwiththepanelcomposedofstatesovertime.Therandomeffectsmodelisusedbecauseweexpectthevariationacrossstatestoberandom.Inotherwords,differencesacrossstatesmayimpactstudentoutcomes.

Alongwiththemeasuresofstudentachievement,wehave11indicatorstheorizedtoaffectstudentachievement.Thesefactors,whicharedefinedabove,includespendingonpubliceducation,relevantdemographics(percentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds;medianhouseholdincome;educationalattainment;Englishlanguagelearners;crimerate;andvolunteerhourspercapita),andvariouseducationalinputs(student‐teacherratio;highqualityteachers;teacherexperience(<4years);andteacherexperience(≥15years))foreachstateacrosstime.Weexpectthatincreasesinthepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,student‐teacherratio,percentofEnglishlanguagelearners,percentofteacherswithfewerthanfouryearsofexperience,andcrimeratewillleadtodecreasedstudentachievement.Concurrently,weexpectincreasesincurrentspendingperstudent,medianhouseholdincome,educationalattainment,thepercentofhighqualityteachers,teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperience,andvolunteerhourspercapitawillleadtoincreasesinstudentachievement.

RESULTS

Table1presentstheresultsofeachofthethreestudentachievementanalyses.Eachcolumnevaluatestheimpactoftheindicatorsononeofthethreestudentachievementmeasures.

4THGRADETESTSCORES

ThefirstcolumnassessestheimpactofourindicatorsonNAEP4IndexScores.Sixoftheindicatorsarenotstatisticallysignificantincludingcurrentspendingperstudent,medianhouseholdincome,student‐teacherratio,percenthighqualityteachers,teacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperience,andcrimerate.Thefiveremainingindicatorsproducestatisticallysignificantresults.Thesemeasuresincludepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,educationalattainment,percentEnglishlanguagelearners,teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperience,andvolunteerhourspercapita.

AsexpectedpercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdsandpercentEnglishlanguagelearnersleadtodecreasedNAEP4IndexScores.Also,asexpected,increasesineducationalattainmentleadtoincreasesinNAEP4IndexScores.



Teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperienceandvolunteerhourspercapitawereexpectedtohaveapositiveimpactonstudentachievement,but,inthisanalysis,theyleadtolowerNAEP4IndexScoresalthoughthemagnitudeoftheirimpactissmall.

IntheanalysisofNAEP4IndexScores,thethreesignificantindicatorswiththegreatestimpactareeducationalattainment,percentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,andEnglishlanguagelearners.Educationalattainmentispositivewithavalueof0.659,meaningthatasthepopulationaged25andolderwithabachelor’sdegreeorhigher(hereafterreferredtoasthecollege‐educatedpopulation)increasesbyonepercent,theNAEP4IndexScoresincreaseby0.7pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,asthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesby10percent,theNAEP4IndexScoreincreasesbyaboutsevenpointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstateswhichisgreaterthanthestandarddeviationofaboutsixfortheNAEP4IndexScore.

TheeffectofeducationalattainmentonNAEP4IndexScoresisillustratedinfigure4whichcontainsthepredictedvaluesofNAEP4IndexScoresaseducationalattainmentincreasesfromabout16percentto40percent.Asthepercentofthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesfrom16to40,theNAEP4IndexScoresincreasefrom222to238.

(1)NAEP4IndexScores

(2)NAEP8IndexScores

(3)GraduationRate

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)‐0.244** ‐0.190** ‐0.125(0.063) (0.062) (0.085)<‐0.001 ‐0.0001** ‐0.0002**(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)0.659** 0.747** 0.612**(0.097) (0.104) (0.135)‐0.227 ‐0.189 ‐0.211(0.121) (0.121) (0.125)‐0.265** ‐0.147 0.120(0.075) 0.078 (0.105)0.023 0.036 0.050(0.020) (0.019) (0.029)‐0.063 ‐0.110** ‐0.145**(0.037) (0.035) (0.050)‐0.058** ‐0.035** ‐0.0020.008 (0.008) (0.011)‐0.001 ‐0.001** ‐0.002**(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)‐0.043* ‐0.011 0.009(0.021) (0.020) (0.023)231.740** 273.364** 81.232**5.087 5.079 6.695

N(observations) 300 300 550N(groups) 50 50 50

TABLE1AssessingStudentAchievementAcrosstheStates,2003‐2013

Volunteerhourspercapita

constant

Notes:**p<0.01;*p<0.05;two‐tailedtests.Coefficientsderivedusingrandomeffectspanelregression.Standarderrorsareinparentheses.

Student‐teacherratio

Currentspendingperstudent

%childreninsingleparenthouseholds

Medianhouseholdincome

Educationalattainment

Englishlanguagelearners

Highqualityteachers

Teacherexperience(<4years)

Teacherexperience(≥15years)

Crimerate



Thepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdsisalsosignificantwithavalueof‐0.244.Thus,asthepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsincreasesbyonepercent,theNAEP4IndexScoresdecreaseby0.24pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,a10percentincreaseinthepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsleadstoadecreaseinNAEP4IndexScoresofabout2.5pointsonaverage.TheeffectofthisindicatoronNAEP4IndexScoresisillustratedinfigure5.Asthepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdsincreasesfrom17to49,theNAEP4IndexScoresdecreasefrom233to225.

TheeffectofEnglishlanguagelearnersissimilartosingleparenthouseholds.ThevalueforEnglishlanguagelearnersis‐0.26soasthepercentofEnglishlanguagelearnersincreasesbyonepercent,theNAEP4IndexScoresdecreaseby0.26pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,a10percentincreaseinthepercentofEnglishlanguagelearnersleadstoadecreaseinNAEP4IndexScoresofabout2.6pointsonaverage.



8THGRADETESTSCORES

ThesecondanalysisusesNAEP8IndexScoresandfindsthatfiveoftheindicatorsarenotstatisticallysignificant(currentspendingperstudent,student‐teacherratio,Englishlanguagelearners,percenthighqualityteachers,andvolunteerhourspercapita).Sixofthemeasuresproducestatisticallysignificantresults.Thesemeasuresincludepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,medianhouseholdincome,educationalattainment,teacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperience,teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperience,andcrimerate(seetable1).

Asexpectedpercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,teacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperience,andcrimerateleadtodecreasedNAEP8IndexScores.Also,asexpected,increasesineducationalattainmentleadtoanincreaseinNAEP8IndexScores.Teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperienceandmedianhouseholdincomewereexpectedtohaveapositiveimpactonstudentachievement,but,inthisanalysis,theyleadtolowerNAEP8IndexScoresalthoughthemagnitudeoftheirimpactissmall.

Theeffectofeducationalattainmentispositivewithavalueof0.747,meaningthatasthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesbyonepercent,theNAEP8IndexScoreincreasesby0.75pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,asthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesby10percent,theNAEP8IndexScoresincreasebyabout7.5pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstateswhichisgreaterthanthestandarddeviationofabout6.7fortheNAEP8IndexScore.TheimpactofeducationalattainmentonNAEP8IndexScoresisillustratedinfigure6whichshowsthatasthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesfrom16to40percent,theNAEP8IndexScoresincreasefrom264to282.

Thepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdsisalsosignificantwithavalueof‐0.190.Thus,asthepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsincreasesbyonepercent,theNAEP8IndexScoredecreasesby0.19pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,a10percentincreaseinthepercentofchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsleadstoadecreaseinNAEP8IndexScoresofabouttwopointsonaverage.TheeffectofthisindicatoronNAEP8IndexScoresisillustratedinfigure7.Asthepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdsincreasesfrom17to49,theNAEP8IndexScoredecreasesfrom275to269.

Theeffectofteacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceissimilartosingleparenthouseholds.Thevalueforinexperiencedteachersis‐0.11soasthepercentofteacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceincreasesbyonepercent,theNAEP8IndexScoredecreasesby0.11pointsonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,a10percentincreaseinthepercentofinexperiencedteachersleadstoadecreaseinNAEP8IndexScoresof



aboutonepointonaverage.

HIGHSCHOOLGRADUATION

Thethirdanalysisusesgraduationrateandfindsthatsevenoftheindicatorsarenotstatisticallysignificant(currentspendingperstudent,percentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholds,student‐teacherratio,Englishlanguagelearners,percenthighqualityteachers,teacherswith15ormoreyearsofexperience,andvolunteerhourspercapita).Fourofthemeasuresproducestatisticallysignificantresults.Thesemeasuresincludemedianhouseholdincome,educationalattainment,teacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperience,andcrimerate(seetable1).

Asexpected,teacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceandcrimerateleadtodecreasedgraduationrates.Also,asexpected,increasesineducationalattainmentleadtoanincreaseingraduationrates.Medianhouseholdincomewasexpectedtohaveapositiveimpactonstudentachievement,but,inthisanalysis,itleadstolowergraduationratesalthoughthemagnitudeofitsimpactissmallalongwiththeeffect‐sizeforcrimerate.

Theeffectofeducationalattainmentispositivewithavalueof0.612,meaningthatasthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesbyonepercent,thegraduationrateincreasesby0.61percentonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,asthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesby10percent,thegraduationrateincreasesbyabout6percentonaverage.Theimpactofeducationalattainmentonthegraduationrateshowninfigure8demonstratesthatasthecollege‐educatedpopulationincreasesfrom16to40percent,thegraduationrateincreasesfrom70to85percent.

Theeffectofteacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceis‐0.15soasthepercentofteacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceincreasesbyonepercent,thegraduationratedecreasesby0.15percentonaverageacrosstimeandbetweenstates.Inotherwords,a10percentincreaseinthepercentofinexperiencedteachersleadstoadecreaseinthegraduationrateofabout1.5percentonaverage.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Afterconductingouranalysis,wefindthatsomemeasuresaffectstudentachievement.Acrossallthreeanalyses,educationalattainment—thepercentofcollege‐educatedadults—maintainsasignificantandsubstantiveimpactonstudentachievement.ThisfindingsuggeststhattheeducationalattainmentofadultsimpactsoutcomesforK‐12students.ThepercentofchildreninsingleparenthouseholdshasasignificantimpactonstudentachievementasmeasuredbytheNAEP4andNAEP8IndexScores.Itisnotasignificantpredictorofgraduationrate.

ThepercentofteacherswithlessthanfouryearsofexperienceproducessignificantresultsforNAEP8IndexScoresandthegraduationrate.ThisfindingsupportstheworkofStaigerandRockoff(2010)27whofindthatteacherexperiencemattersmostinthefirstfewyearsofteaching.Twomeasuresthatdonotproduceanystatisticallysignificantresultsarecurrentspendingperstudentandstudent‐teacherratio.Inthisstudy,theseindicatorsdonothaveasignificantimpactonstudentachievement.Theremainingmeasuressometimeshaveasignificantimpactonstudentachievementand,forsomeofthese,theirimpactissmallinmagnitude.

Oneobjectiveinconductingthisanalysiswastoilluminatehoweducationfundingshouldbetargeted.Thisstudysuggeststhatfundingtoincreasethecollege‐educatedpopulationcouldproducesignificantgainsinK‐12studentachievement.Theresultsalsoindicatethatincreasingsupportforchildrenlivinginsingleparenthouseholdsmightsignificantlyimpactstudentachievement.

Thisstudyislimitedinscopeandmagnitude.Wecouldnotincludemeasuresoflong‐termeducationaloutcomes,suchasstudents’totaleducationalattainmentandtheirincomeinadulthood.Thiswouldprovidemoreinformationonhowspendingaffectslong‐termoutcomesofstudentsuccess,beyondtestscoresandhighschoolgraduation.Weacknowledgetheinadequacyoftheteacherqualityandexperiencevariablesincludedinthismodel.Weusedthebestdataavailabletousforthisstudyandnotethattherearenolarge‐scaledataavailableonteacherpracticeswithintheclassroom,assuggestedinsomestudies28tobethemostinfluentialfactorsonstudentachievement.Futureresearchshouldtakethisneedintoaccountanddevelopmorereliableandaccuratemeasuresofteachereffectiveness.

Ourstate‐levelstudyhasotherlimitationsaswell.Ourresearchassessesoverallacademicproficiency,asmeasuredbyNAEPscoresandhighschoolgraduationrates,generalizingresultsfortheentirepublicschoolstudentpopulationintheU.S.Therefore,thisstudycannotmeasureachievementgapsamongdifferentpopulationsofpublicschool



students.Theexaminationofdisparitiesinachievementamonggroupsofstudentsispartofabroaderexaminationineducationresearchofeducationalequality,butthisstudyisnotdesignedtoaddressit.

AdditionalresearchisneededtocomprehensivelyanswerthecompellingquestionthathascapturednationalattentionandattentioninUtah—howdoweimproveeducationaloutcomes?Asabroadstate‐levelanalysis,thisstudyfindsthatastatewideincreaseinpubliceducationfundingwouldnotguaranteebetteroutcomesregardlessofsocioeconomicconditions.Ourfindingsdosuggestthatthepolicyinitiativesthatwilllikelyimprovestudentachievementwillrequireadditionalspending.Thesepolicyinitiativesincludeincreasingthenumberofcollege‐educatedadultsandprovidingadditionalsupporttostudentswholiveinsingleparenthouseholds.However,asaconsequenceofitsbroadanalysis,theresultsofthisstudylikelyconcealnuanceineducationalinputsanddemographicdifferencesbetweenstates.AcloseranalysisattheschooldistrictlevelwithinUtahmayprovideamoredetailedprescriptionforfundingUtah’spubliceducationsystem,tailoredtoitsdemographiccharacteristicsandsocioeconomicneeds.Anintra‐stateanalysisofdifferentialfundingneedsbetweenschooldistrictsisnecessarytodeterminewhethertargetedfundingincreaseswouldhaveasignificanteffectoneducationaloutcomes.



Indicators MeanStandardDeviation Minimum Maximum N Years

NAEP4IndexScores1 229.55 5.97 212.85 245.09 300 2003,2005,2007,2009,2011,&2013NAEP8IndexScores1 272.60 6.67 256.49 288.79 300 2003,2005,2007,2009,2011,&2013GraduationRate(percent)2 77.26 7.36 51.30 91.40 550 2003–2013Currentspendingperstudent3 9,822.21 2,722.66 4,876.88 19,463.97 550 2003–2013%childreninsingleparenthouseholds4 32.21 5.30 17.00 49.00 550 2003–2013MedianhouseholdIncome(inthousands)5 55,243.28 8,480.67 37,825.00 80,007.00 550 2003–2013Educationalattainment(percent)6 27.13 4.79 16.30 40.29 550 2003–2013Student‐teacherratio7 15.62 2.77 10.69 30.02 550 2003–2013Englishlanguagelearners(percent)8 6.24 4.79 0.53 25.49 550 2003–2013Highqualityteachers(percent)9 93.65 8.02 34.30 100.00 550 2003–2013Teacherexperience(<4years)(percent)10 16.31 4.27 6.00 28.30 550 2003–2013Teacherexperience(≥15years)(percent)10 55.42 21.39 29.50 89.80 550 2003–2013Crimerate(per100,000)11 3,473.22 851.72 1,788.43 6,224.14 550 2003–2013Volunteerhourspercapita12 36.99 10.41 14.12 100.13 550 2003–2013Sources:

10NationalCenterforEducationStatistics;https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables_list.asp11U.S.FederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI):UniformCrimeReports;U.S.CensusBureau(BOC);Moody'sAnalyticsCalculated12CorporationforNationalandCommunityService;VolunteeringandCivicLifeinAmerica

5U.S.CensusBureau,CurrentPopulationSurvey,AnnualSocialandEconomicSupplements.Accessedathttp://www.census.gov/data/tables/time‐series/demo/income‐poverty/historical‐income‐households.html.6U.S.CensusBureau(BOC):AmericanCommunitySurvey,CurrentPopulationSurvey,andPopulationEstimates,Projections;Moody'sAnalyticsEstimated7U.S.DepartmentofEducation:NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics(NCES)‐CommonCoreofData(CCD)‐PublicElementary/SecondarySchoolUniverseSurvey;Moody'sAnalyticsCalculated8U.S.DepartmentofEducation,NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,CommonCoreofData(CCD),"LocalEducationAgencyUniverseSurvey,"2003‐04through2013‐14.9EDFacts/ConsolidatedStatePerformanceReport,2004‐05:http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

TABLEA.1DescriptiveStatisticsandSourcesofMeasures

1NationalCenterforEducationStatistics;http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/2NationalCenterforEducationStatistics;CommonCoreofData3Moody'sAnalytics4U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,KidsCountDataCenter(AnnieE.CaseyFoundation)



1EricA.Hanushek,EricA.,JensRuhose,andLudgerWoessmann,“Itpaystoimproveschoolquality,”EducationNext,16,no.3(Summer2016):52‐60.

2DanChirasandDominicCrea,“TheEffectofEducationonCrime:EvidencefromPrisonInmates,Arrests,andSelf‐Reports,”TheAmericanEconomicReview,94,no.1(March2004):155‐189.

3DavidCutlerandAdrianaLleras‐Muney,“EducationandHealth:EvaluatingTheoriesandEvidence,”inMakingAmericansHealthier:SocialandEconomicPolicyasHealthPolicy,ed.RobertF.Schoeni,JamesS.House,GeorgeA.Kaplan,andHaroldPollack(NewYork:RussellSageFoundation,2008),29‐60.

4StevenJ.RosenstoneandJohnMarkHansen,Mobilization,Participation,andDemocracyinAmerica(NewYork:Longman,2002).

5AlanB.Krueger,“ExperimentalEstimatesofEducationProductionFunctions,”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,114,no.2(May1999):497‐532.

6CarolineM.Hoxby,“TheEffectsofClassSizeonStudentAchievement:NewEvidencefromPopulationVariation,”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,115,no.4(November2000):1239‐1285.

7JonahE.Rockoff,“TheImpactofIndividualTeachersonStudentAchievement:EvidencefromPanelData,”AmericanEconomicReview,94,no.2(May2004):247‐252.

8DouglasO.StaigerandJonahERockoff,“SearchingforEffectiveTeacherswithImperfectInformation,”JournalofEconomicPerspectives,24,no.3(Summer2010):97‐118.

9C.KiraboJackson,RuckerC.Johnson,andClaudiaPersico,“TheEffectsofSchoolSpendingonEducationalandEconomicOutcomes:EvidencefromSchoolFinanceReforms,”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,131,no.1(February2016):157‐218.

10EricA.Hanushek,“TheFailureofInput‐BasedSchoolingPolicies,”TheEconomicJournal,113,no.485(February2003):64‐98.

11CoryTurner,KevinMcCorry,LisaWorf,SarahGonzalez,KirkCarapezza,andClaireMcInerny."CanMoreMoneyFixAmerica'sSchools?"AllThingsConsidered,NationalPublicRadio,April25,2016.

12SarahGonzalez,"WhatHappenedWhenOneofNewJersey'sPoorestSchoolDistrictsIncreasedSpending."WNYCNews,April24,2016.

13EducationalFinanceBranch.EconomicReimbursableSurveysDivision.PublicEducationFinances:2014.Washington,DC:U.S.CensusBureau,June2016.

14Jacksonetal.,2016.

15Hanushek,2003.

16TheNAEP4Sciencescoresareexcludedbecausethetestswereonlyadministeredin2009,2011(2011scoresarenotavailable),and2015andtheNAEPSciencescalerangesfromzeroto300ratherthanzeroto500liketheNAEPmathematicsandreadingscales.

17TheNAEP8Sciencescoresareexcludedbecausethetestswereonlyadministeredin2009,2011,and2015andtheNAEPSciencescalerangesfromzeroto300ratherthanzeroto500liketheNAEPmathematicsandreadingscales.

18Inthefollowinginstances,theACGRisnotavailablesotheAFGRisused:Idaho(2011,2012,2013);Kentucky(2011,2012);andOklahoma(2011,2012).

19TheAFGRisnotadjustedtoaccountforstudentsenteringorexitingthecohortduringhighschoolsoifthereisout‐migrationtheAFGRwillunderstatethegraduationratecomparedtotheACGR(in‐migrationwilloverstatethegraduationrate).Also,thediplomacountintheAFGRmayincludestudentswhotookmorethanorlessthanfouryearstograduatewhichwilloverstatethegraduationratecomparedtotheACGR.Ingeneral,theACGRmeasureprovidesmorecomparabilityacrossstates.Forany



statesmissingadatapoint,theaverageofthestate’sgraduationratefromtheprioryearandthefollowingyearwasused.Thisimputationwasonlyusedtoderivefivedatapointsoutof600totaldatapoints.

20Medianhouseholdincomeismeasuredin2015ConsumerPriceIndexforAllUrbanConsumersResearchSeries(CPI‐U‐RS)adjusteddollarstomeasurehouseholdincomeconsistentlyovertime.

21For2003through2004,2003‐2004valueswereused.For2005through2007,theaverageofthe2003‐2004and2008‐2009figureswasused.For2008and2009,the2008‐2009figureswereused.Theremainingyearshavedatacorrespondingtotheyear.

22Thevaluesfor2005areusedfor2003and2004aswellbecausedataforthoseyearsarenotavailable.

23AllteacherexperiencedataarefromtheSchoolandStaffingSurvey(SASS).Thesurveywasadministeredforthe2003‐2004,2007‐2008,and2011‐2012schoolyears.The2003‐2004percentagesareusedfor2003through2006;the2007‐2008percentagesareusedfor2007through2010,andthe2011‐2012percentagesareusedfor2011through2013.TheNationalTeacherandPrincipalSurvey(NTPS)hasnowreplacedtheSASSandthe2015‐2016dataarenotyetavailable.

24For2003‐2004,thedataavailablearepercentofteacherswiththreeorfeweryearsofexperience.

25For2003‐2004,thedataavailableareteacherswithfourormoreyearsofexperience.

26Datapointsareoutlyingiftheyfallbeyond1.5timestheinterquartilerange(IQR)whichisthedifferencebetweenthe75thand25thpercentilesofthedata.Utahdoesnothaveabox,maximumorminimum,oroutlyingpointsbecauseitsscoreisonlyonedatapointsothesevaluescannotbecalculated.

27StaigerandRockoff,2010.

28EricA.Hanushek,"EducationandtheNation'sFuture."InBlueprintforAmerica,ed.GeorgeP.Shultz,(Stanford,CA:HooverInstitutionPress,2016),89‐108.AnyaKamenetz,“5BigIdeasThatDon’tWorkInEducation.”NationalPublicRadio,2015.