Should we be banking on the NEA ranking?

View in your browser

Welcome

Late last week, the National Education Association (NEA) released their annual "Rankings and Estimates" study.  I suspect that you will be hearing a lot about the study in the next few weeks, so this week’s CommenTerry will provide an overview of the report and reasons to approach it with caution.

Bulletin Board

• Attend. A list of upcoming events sponsored by the John Locke Foundation can be found at the bottom of this newsletter, as well as here.  We look forward to seeing you!
• Donate. If you find this newsletter mildly informative or entertaining, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the John Locke Foundation.  The John Locke Foundation is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization that does not accept nor seek government funding. It relies solely on the generous support of individuals, corporations, small businesses, and foundations.
• Share. The North Carolina History Project seeks contributors to the North Carolina History Project Encyclopedia. Please contact Dr. Troy Kickler for additional information.
• Discuss. I would like to invite all readers to submit brief announcements, personal insights, anecdotes, concerns, and observations about the state of education in North Carolina.  I will publish selected submissions in future editions of the newsletter. Requests for anonymity will be honored. For additional information or to send a submission, email Terry at [email protected].
• Revisit. We have archived all research newsletters on our website.  Access the archive here.

CommenTerry

"Rankings and Estimates" is an annual study published by the nation’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA). For many pundits on the Left and the so-called mainstream media, the NEA study is the go-to guide for state-by-state rankings of educational inputs, particularly estimates of public school expenditures for the current school year.

This year’s study, "Rankings of the States 2012 and Estimates of School Statistics 2013," will offer North Carolina’s public school advocacy community a useful, but misleading, talking point.  According to NEA estimates, North Carolina ($8,433) ranks 48^th in total per pupil spending out of 50 states and Washington, D.C.  Only Texas ($7,886), Utah ($7,129), and Arizona ($6,949) spend less per student.  As I pointed out last year, the NEA ranked North Carolina 42^nd in the nation in per pupil expenditures a year ago. 

Year after year, I have discussed my reservations about using unadjusted NEA data to compare states that have significant differences. I have also maintained that per-pupil expenditure rankings provide little information about the relative quality and productivity of public education in these states because the relationship between spending and student performance is weak.

Anyway, I urge policymakers and the media to be mindful of several important points about the "Rankings and Estimates" data.

1. Higher spending does not produce better quality schooling.  There is no discernable relationship between spending and student performance.  Vermont is not the nation’s top-performing education state and Arizona is not the worst.
2. The NC Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) says that our public schools rock.  According to "How do North Carolina Public Schools Measure Up," a January 2013 NC DPI publication, the state’s public schools have
   a.     earned the highest four-year graduation rate in state history (80.4 percent);
   b.     attained a Career and Technical Education completers’ graduation rate of 94 percent; and
   c.     produced the lowest annual dropout rate in state history, 3.01 percent.
3. There is a need for context. NEA researchers warn, "Expenditures for government programs vary across states for many reasons, and state-by-state comparisons should be made while keeping the particular factors for each state in mind — demographic, economic, and political factors are but a few." (p. 44) In other words, they advise readers to contextualize and qualify findings, supplement NEA figures with state and national statistics, and acknowledge structural differences among states.
4. We must acknowledge that these are estimates. We are dealing with estimates, not verifiable data.  If accuracy matters, then the words "estimate," "estimation," and "estimating" should be used whenever anyone references the ranking. 
5. Revisions to the ranking are inevitable.  The NEA will revise initial estimates in subsequent years, which may affect the state-by-state rankings reported this year.
6. Historical data are used to generate estimates.  According to NEA researchers, "The figures submitted by NEA Research are generated using regression analyses, which are standard statistical techniques designed to make predictions for the current year using numerical data from prior years." (p. 64) Although the methodology itself is not objectionable, recent, large-scale political and economic changes may skew estimates.
7. School funding distribution matters. For example, a relatively high percentage of North Carolina’s education funding comes from the state, whereas many states in the northeast rely heavily on local property taxes. Issues like population changes, population density, district size, number of districts, unionization, and state-specific legal, constitutional, and statutory mandates further complicate the process of developing apples-to-apples comparisons.
8. NEA estimates do not disaggregate per student spending by source.  Rather, the estimate includes a total (state, local, and federal) figure.  It does not, and cannot, reflect the relative effort of any one of the three sources.  It may be temping to blame the state legislature for our current ranking, but federal and local dollars also play a role.
9. Cost of living is key.  NEA comparisons do not take into account cost-of-living differences among states. Surely, a dollar spent to educate a child in North Carolina goes much further than a dollar spent in states like California or New Jersey.
10. Per student capital spending and debt service are not included.  In general, states with annual public school enrollment increases spend more on school facilities and incur more capital outlay debt than those with declining school populations.  These additional expenditures are not included in the per student expenditure estimates referenced above.

The most important thing to remember is that the source is the National Education Association.  No amount of money will ever satisfy them.

Facts and Stats

Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13

Education Acronym of the Week

NEA — National Education Association

Quote of the Week

"The data presented in this combined report — Rankings & Estimates — provide facts about the extent to which local, state, and national governments commit resources to public education. As one might expect in a nation as diverse as the United States — with respect to economics, geography, and politics — the level of commitment to education varies on a state-by-state basis. Regardless of these variations, improvements in public education can be measured by summary statistics."

– National Education Association, "Rankings of the States 2012 and Estimates of School Statistics 2013," p. vii.

Click here for the Education Update archive.