Bruce Baker is really ticked about Erik Hanushek’s new video promoting the “education crisis” and asserting that money is definitely not the answer.
Hanushek holds up Florida as a model and points to Wyoming and New York to make his point that money doesn’t matter.
Baker doesn’t agree, and he assembles data to make the following points:
*States with weaker unions (higher number in ranking, meaning lower union strength ranking), have systematically lower state and local revenue per pupil and less competitive teacher wages.
*States with weaker unions have systematically lower average NAEP scores.
*States with higher reformy grade point averages according to Students First, have lower shares of children in the public school system, and have lower average NAEP scores.
*Average NAEP scores are most positively associated with state and local revenue and teacher wage competitiveness.
*Standardized NAEP gains over time are most positively associated with shares of 3 and 4 year olds enrolled in school programs/pre-school.
*Standardized NAEP gains are also positively associated with Students First grade point averages. But, standardized NAEP gains are pretty strongly related to starting point. That is, states showing greater gains are generally those who started lower.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I am interested in the link between teacher salaries and NEAP scores. Is the argument that higher salaries for teachers allow the school district to hire higher quality teachers or is it that higher salaries result in more effective teaching because teachers that are paid more put more effort into teaching? I suppose it might be both.
LikeLike
And a variety of other reasons that have nothing to do with “high quality teachers” or “higher salaries”. Those aren’t the only two factors involved and I would contend that they have minimal effect on student learning and the teaching and learning process.
LikeLike
I did not say they were the only factors, but the were cited as factors in the original post. The original post does state NEAP scores are most closely associated with high state and local revenue and teacher wage competitiveness.
LikeLike
“The original post does state NEAP scores are most closely associated with high state and local revenue and teacher wage competitiveness.”
High state and local revenue generally translates into high teacher salaries. High state and local revenue also translates into a higher socioeconomic community. We already know that there is a strong correlation between scores and socioeconomic background.
I am drawing these conclusions without having read any of the supporting information, so ignore me if I am blowing smoke.
LikeLike
NAEP scores, like all standardized tests, are highly correlated with family income. There may be a correlation too with teacher salaries as the states with less poverty pay higher salaries to teachers.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Dienne,
If it is true that offering competitive teacher salaries do not have causal impact on student learning, shouldn’t we reduce spending there and increase it on something that does have a causal impact on student learning?
LikeLike
It is certainly possible that higher teacher salaries do not cause better education (at least as measured by the NEAP scores). That suggests that some states and localities could shift some spending from salary expenses in K-12 education to other programs like early childhood nutrition or perhaps parenting classes.
LikeLike
Why is it necessary to “shift funding?” Couldn’t funding be increased overall by, say, cutting loopholes for the wealthy and/or major businesses?
LikeLike
If it is true that higher teacher salaries have no causal impact on student learning, but are merely correlated with student learning, we are wasting resources. It is akin to subsidizing bathroom construction in order to improve standardized test scores because having a larger number of bathrooms in a house is correlated with higher scores on standardized tests. Spend the resources on something that does have a causal impact on student learning.
LikeLike
the biggest fly in the ointment is that even when we try to argue against Eric et al. we still fall back on test scores as the metric. they can’t be the enemy and at the same time be used to defend ourselves.
LikeLike
It all depends on what you think the scores are telling you. Just because they should not be used to make high stakes decisions, does not mean we cannot look for correlations between different factors and try to draw some meaningful conclusions from them.
LikeLike
what are the scores telling us? they are being used to make high stakes decisions..the highest stakes in fact…i am looking for different factors and correlations. for example, this study, A 32-Year Longitudinal Study of Child and Adolescent Pathways to Well-Being in Adulthood
(http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Olsson-et-al.-2012.pdf ) discusses factors and correlations that matter, it seems to me, much more than NAEP scores
LikeLike
We totally agree, Tim. My background is as a special education teacher. All testing to me is diagnostic and no one measure in isolation, quantitative or qualitative, tells you much of anything. When we did a diagnostic workup it included multiple measures, quantitative and qualitative.
LikeLike
Education is under attack and standardized test scores are the guns of the attackers. It’s like that classic scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is confronted by a rebel showing off his sword-wielding skills. Jones fires his hand gun and end of conflict. Swords won’t work against guns. We have to use the same weapons.
LikeLike
I hope that NPE and Diane are working on creating youtube videos, too!
LikeLike