School spending myth

[Vaclav]

No, it doesn’t. It means there is a 61% chance that the difference can be accounted for by the independent variable.

That is what I said. Is there a reason you are being hostile?

And let me point out that if your Rs were significant, you would be cherrypicking – since two of your Rs are .5 and below = which means a 50% or greater chance of the difference being due to random factors.

Or other variables, to which I completely agree.

And, of course, you have not stratified your samples.

I don’t exactly have the time to produce a full statistical report. Plus, my copy of SPSS is at home.

Any other attacks you’d like to toss in at me?

 

[psalm90]

denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482

The article in the link and the reader comments are interesting. There’s actually some thought going on out in Colorado.

Here in Michigan, education is an state-funded empire, and that’s how it’s run. No surprise, the state-funding comes from the sales tax and personal income tax (very regressive, second worst in nation after California, I’m told).

The Denver Post article makes me think that there’s just no innovation in education. It made me think that there should be larger class sizes of motivated, performing students, and smaller class sizes of students with discipline and learning problems. Admission to the faster classes should be competitive.

Perhaps this idea would require some consolidation between school districts.

I don’t think this would require more money, just commitment and organization and leadership.

 

[bilop]

I’d like to see the data that the Catholic Schools spend only $4000 per student. Remember that tuition may not be their only revenue. They may also get revenue from charitable donations, or from the Church herself.

Out-of-parish tuition at the best Catholic elementary school in one of the richest areas outside NYC is $6000. For inner city schools it is much less, plus they give a lot of scholarships. I doubt they even spend $4000 per student. Remember, a Catholic school teacher w/20 years experiences make like $40k, and teaches 25+ students. (Comparibly in NY, the same teacher in public schools probably makes $85k and teaches 15-20 students). At $4000x25=$100,000, they can get by. Catholic schools have very little overhead.

Yes, inner city schools are struggling and may pay more per student. Part of that is due to the fact that they may incur costs not incurred by many other schools (such as safety and security costs). They may also have to be more cautious about things like illicit drugs and gang symbols. Something a school in Yancey County, North Carolina is just not going to have to worry about.

I’m also talking inner city Catholic schools who should face the same problems/costs, but still send 95% of their kids to college on 25% of the budget of the public schools who barely graduate 50%.
Interesting. I completely disagree.

Tell me this, why is it that if you take the states with the most abysmal scores on the math and reading tests, they are all states who pay much less than the average per student? (with the noted exception of DC).

Surely you don’t believe that all the kids of Louisiana and Mississippi are genetically predisposed to ppor academic performance or have parents that just don’t care?

No, I believe they have a higher percentage of kids from poor, single parent, low education families who are pre-disposed to do poorly academically for a host of reasons (primarily culture, parents education, family instability, and to a smaller extent genetics). Just to be clear, when I cite genetics this is what I mean; very smart people are unlikely to remain poor, so there are very few very smart poor people. Since intelligence is at least partly inherited, the children of the poor will be likely to be less intelligent than the children of the middle and upper-middle class.

 

[Vaclav]

Just to be clear, when I cite genetics this is what I mean; very smart people are unlikely to remain poor, so there are very few very smart poor people. Since intelligence is at least partly inherited, the children of the poor will be likely to be less intelligent than the children of the middle and upper-middle class.

Wow.

You really believe that?

 

[bilop]

Wow.

You really believe that?

On average, sure. Why is that more controversial than saying the children of the short will be shorter than the children of the tall?

It doesn’t mean that some of the children of the poor won’t be very bright, and some of the children of the rich won’t be dumb as rocks. It also doesn’t mean that the children of the poor are uneducatable or have less moral worth. It just means that on average, the children of the rich will be somewhat smarter. Genetics is only part of the reason why; the priority the family gives to intellectual development will also play a huge role.

Do you think intelligence is not at all inherited?

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is what I said.

No, you said that 61% of the difference was accounted for by the independent variable (spending.)

Let me explain it like this:

Suppose I tell you you have won 61% of a prize. That means you have won.

But if I tell you you have a 61% chance of winning, that merely means you may win.

Is there a reason you are being hostile?

How am I being hostile? I simply point out that the figures you present don’t support the hypothesis that there is a significant correlation between spending and student performance.

I don’t exactly have the time to produce a full statistical report. Plus, my copy of SPSS is at home.

But anything less than that will not support your contention.

Any other attacks you’d like to toss in at me?

How is it an attack to point out that the figures you present don’t support the hypothesis that there is a significant correlation between spending and student performance?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am saying that if you plotted the points on a graph, Washington DC would be out of the normal distribution of states.

No. I meant exactly what I said. 61% of the 4th grade reading test data can be accounted for by changes in the spending between states. Where a positive increase in spending resulted in a positive increase in the proficiency on the test results.

It is not a wealth effect. Nowhere is wealth measured! This is strictly state spending per student. You are introducing a variable of “wealth” which has nothing to do with the point in question.

I hope you took statistics 101, these are incorrect inferences. Nothing shows DC as an outlier, nor a cause and affect relationship between reading and $/student. I think you may want to look at adding that wealth affect to your future studies, it may help some things fall in-line for you. See the cost of land and labor are not random distributions, or outliers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I hope you took statistics 101, these are incorrect inferences. Nothing shows DC as an outlier, nor a cause and affect relationship between reading and $/student. I think you may want to look at adding that wealth affect to your future studies, it may help some things fall in-line for you. See the cost of land and labor are not random distributions, or outliers.

Correct – and one cannot make a case by throwing out the inconvenient data.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Correct – and one cannot make a case by throwing out the inconvenient data.

LOL politicians do it all the time.:whacky:

 

[Vaclav]

Two points.

First, I explained the Pearson’s as it is typically explained in any study. I make no apologies for that.

I hope you took statistics 101, these are incorrect inferences. Nothing shows DC as an outlier, nor a cause and affect relationship between reading and $/student.

I made it to 500 level statistics, thanks

I did not remove DC from my data, but it can be identified as an outlier using different methods (for which it would qualify). For example, if it is enough standard deviations from the normal distribution.

Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 knows that you cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between any two variables, only correlation - correlation is not the same as effect.

Correct – and one cannot make a case by throwing out the inconvenient data.

sigh

And in this case one did not do that. Look, I never claimed my quick review of the data is exhaustive, but it is obvious that states that spend more money on their schools per student do better on standard tests than states that spend far less per student. Sure, you can walk around and cry about Washington DC, but I have many more examples of states with poor scores and low spending per student.

The only alternative hypothesis I’ve heard thus far is that the poor are genetically inclined to be stupid.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Two points.
First, I explained the Pearson’s as it is typically explained in any study. I make no apologies for that.

I think a review of the text may show the Pearson inference is inferring the 2 variables are correlated more than expected for example a correlation of 30 + 10 is significant while 30 + 40 is insignificant. The object is to understand a relationship is highly likely what that relationship is unknown

I made it to 500 level statistics, thanks

I did not remove DC from my data, but it can be identified as an outlier using different methods (for which it would qualify). For example, if it is enough standard deviations from the normal distribution.

Maybe or maybe not, you need to evaluate a couple of things 1) non random variables produce stand deviation by alternative methods not conventional methods so you need to check that, 2) Remember what an outlier real is- it is a point not of the population typically through accidental misreporting but actual populations can not have actual outliers. If the data is atypical when reported accurately then it is a non random population and must be analyzed as such

Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 knows that you cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between any two variables, only correlation - correlation is not the same as effect.

sigh

And in this case one did not do that. Look, I never claimed my quick review of the data is exhaustive, but it is obvious that states that spend more money on their schools per student do better on standard tests than states that spend far less per student. Sure, you can walk around and cry about Washington DC, but I have many more examples of states with poor scores and low spending per student.

The only alternative hypothesis I’ve heard thus far is that the poor are genetically inclined to be stupid.

Wow, why do statistics if you want to jump at wild assertions at the end? BTW other states being similar would that be about 61% of the time? Sorry you dismissed the theory that economically strong areas having certain characteristics as high education levels, high land prices, and high labor costs (commonly known as a wealth affect). This means the high cost would affect school teachers, school land, and school building resulting in more dollars spent per student.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Two points.

First, I explained the Pearson’s as it is typically explained in any study. I make no apologies for that.

Please give us a cite for that.

I did not remove DC from my data, but it can be identified as an outlier using different methods (for which it would qualify). For example, if it is enough standard deviations from the normal distribution.

Anyone who has taken Statistics 101 knows that you cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between any two variables, only correlation - correlation is not the same as effect.

That is why it is incorrect to say an r of 61% means 61% of the difference is caused by the independent variable.

And in this case one did not do that. Look, I never claimed my quick review of the data is exhaustive, but it is obvious that states that spend more money on their schools per student do better on standard tests than states that spend far less per student. Sure, you can walk around and cry about Washington DC, but I have many more examples of states with poor scores and low spending per student.

Whoa! You had four examples, and two of them had an r of 50% or less!

The only alternative hypothesis I’ve heard thus far is that the poor are genetically inclined to be stupid.

Did you mean to call us racists?

 

[Vaclav]

I think a review of the text may show the Pearson inference is inferring the 2 variables are correlated more than expected for example a correlation of 30 + 10 is significant while 30 + 40 is insignificant. The object is to understand a relationship is highly likely what that relationship is unknown

I’ve never seen a Pearson’s of 30, but I’ll assume you mean 30%.

As I said, this was not exhaustive. I had a little spare time here and tossed it together. A real study would take months to prepare and I don’t see anyone here offering to pay me for the services

Maybe or maybe not, you need to evaluate a couple of things 1) non random variables produce stand deviation by alternative methods not conventional methods so you need to check that, 2) Remember what an outlier real is- it is a point not of the population typically through accidental misreporting but actual populations can not have actual outliers. If the data is atypical when reported accurately then it is a non random population and must be analyzed as such

Actually, there are quite a few reasons to consider Washington DC to be atypical without looking at the statistics.

1. It is not a state and is not run in the same manner.
2. It represents only one strata of population (very dense and urban) as opposed to the multiple strata that other states represent.
3. An unusually high amount of students attend Charter Schools (26%).

And there are many other reasons. Again, I did not remove them, but one could easily make the case for doing so.

Wow, why do statistics if you want to jump at wild assertions at the end? BTW other states being similar would that be about 61% of the time? Sorry you dismissed the theory that economically strong areas having certain characteristics as high education levels, high land prices, and high labor costs (commonly known as a wealth affect). This means the high cost would affect school teachers, school land, and school building resulting in more dollars spent per student.

Yet, why do you all so quickly dismiss the point that public spending on schools does make a difference in the education students receive?

We could use the same logic that Arthur Laffer used for his economics curve (though logic and Laffer are rarely associated with one another). If spending were reduced to $0, would the education received in Connecticut and New York schools still be amongst the best in the nation?

 

[Vaclav]

Did you mean to call us racists?

Where did I say that? I don’t recall mentioning race at all Vern.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where did I say that? I don’t recall mentioning race at all Vern.

It is one alternative explanation for you posting this:

Originally Posted by Vaclav
The only alternative hypothesis I’ve heard thus far is that the poor are genetically inclined to be stupid.

May I point out that Human Learning Theory is not so limited.

Those who do not accept – in the lack of any evidence – that poor school performance is related to dollars spent do not claim it is related to genetics.

In fact, Human Learning Theory holds that any human within the normal range can master any subject.

 

[Vaclav]

It is one alternative explanation for you posting this:

May I point out that Human Learning Theory is not so limited.

Those who do not accept – in the lack of any evidence – that poor school performance is related to dollars spent do not claim it is related to genetics.

In fact, Human Learning Theory holds that any human within the normal range can master any subject.

My inference was a direct response to Bilop’s post, which included this:

Just to be clear, when I cite genetics this is what I mean; very smart people are unlikely to remain poor, so there are very few very smart poor people. Since intelligence is at least partly inherited, the children of the poor will be likely to be less intelligent than the children of the middle and upper-middle class.

I made no reference to race, nor did I label anyone a racist. That is just poor debating on your part Vern.

In fairness, Texas Roofer did not offer an alternative hypothesis, but did offer an alternative variable and I should have mentioned that as well.

There are likely many alternative variables in any such study. My point (or hypothesis) is that public spending is likely to have some effect. It certainly seems to be the case with the data available. And even in certain school districts within my state.

I don’t claim to be an expert on learning theories or education, so I cannot speak to what you say. My field of expertise is economics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My inference was a direct response to Bilop’s post, which included this:

But you were not responding to Bilop’s post. You were tarring us all with that brush.

I made no reference to race, nor did I label anyone a racist. That is just poor debating on your part Vern.

Then why did you smear all of us with this:

Originally Posted by Vaclav
The only alternative hypothesis I’ve heard thus far is that the poor are genetically inclined to be stupid.

In fairness, Texas Roofer did not offer an alternative hypothesis, but did offer an alternative variable and I should have mentioned that as well.

That would certainly have been better.

There are likely many alternative variables in any such study. My point (or hypothesis) is that public spending is likely to have some effect. It certainly seems to be the case with the data available. And even in certain school districts within my state.

Which statement destroys any pretense about statistical correlation – since it breaks down, rather than sums up the target of the study. That, as you will acknowledge, renders invalid any transference of results.

 

[Vaclav]

But you were not responding to Bilop’s post. You were tarring us all with that brush.

I said it was the only alternative hypothesis offered to that point. Was that incorrect?

Then why did you smear all of us with this:

Was it a smear? I thought you agreed with Bilop.

That would certainly have been better.

Thanks, but I don’t really need your value judgement on my post Vern.

Which statement destroys any pretense about statistical correlation – since it breaks down, rather than sums up the target of the study. That, as you will acknowledge, renders invalid any transference of results.

Where’s my eyeroll smilie?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I said it was the only alternative hypothesis offered to that point. Was that incorrect?

It was a sly attempt to smear all who disagree with you.

Was it a smear? I thought you agreed with Bilop.

And that’s another smear.

Thanks, but I don’t really need your value judgement on my post Vern.

Nor do the rest of us need your value judgements.

 

[KathleenElsie]

When discussing stats with anyone I have found through experience that going to the point of argument is useless. And yes I have had the advanced courses required in grad school. Both of my business and educational degrees required stats classes beyond the basic. One thing that I remember being clearly stated is any stat can be segued toward what you want to say by placing the emphases on differing things and outing information that does not support your theory.