Here’s a math question for you. What’s wrong with this statement from GoLocal’s latest (exclusive!) attack on public education?
Rhode Island spends more per student than most other states, ranking in the top ten nationally, but it’s 32nd in the country for student achievement, according to a GoLocalProv analysis of data for all 50 states… In an effort to fairly measure the effectiveness of education spending, GoLocalProv ranked each state by how much it spends per pupil.
Small wonder that’s an “exclusive.” It’s also an incredibly sophomoric method of comparison and reflects a fundamental lack of understand of statistics. None the less, the corporatization crowd jumped right on it as proof of their foregone conclusions:
“This data highlights the stark reality that although we invest heavily in public education in our state, our performance remains unacceptably low,” said Maryellen Butke, Executive Director of RI-CAN, an education reform group.
She added: “People should be asking how we’re spending that money and how much of it is reaching classrooms.”
Well, she’s half right. People should be asking how we’re spending that money and how much of it is reaching classrooms. Those that do, already know the answer to my initial question about the mathematically challenged GoLocal analysis.
If you’re still not with me, ask yourself this: How fair is it to make comparisons on spending as if the cost of living doesn’t vary state to state? One would expect high cost states to have higher per student spending as well. Surely a reputable analysis would attempt to account for that. In fact, of the top ten high cost of living states only California and Hawaii do not also appear in the top ten spenders per pupil… and Hawaii is 11th. What a shock, eh? Turns out you have to pay people more to work in areas where their costs are higher, and schools aren’t magically unaffected by regionally variable expenses like fuel, real estate, etc. The conclusion one would have to draw is that RI spends roughly an average amount per pupil and gets roughly average results. Nothing to crow about, but hardly the crisis these corporate shills would have us believe.
Say I wonder what the average pay is for a journalist in the rural south? I’m guessing there’s “proof” there that Beale is overpaid.
I don’t put much weight in these types of rankings in the first place (“We took 5-10 subjective variables, assigned them largely arbitrary numerical values, then averaged them.”), and that includes both the education performance rankings provided by GoLocal and the cost of living rankings provided by CNBC and referenced by the blog author as a counterclaim (garbage in, garbage out). I have slightly more faith in certain single variable rankings and types of opinion polls.
But let’s assume that both rankings are objectively true for a moment. Regardless of whether cost of education correlates with cost of living (and I suspect that it does), then the real question is: How is it that Massachusetts has essentially the same cost of living as Rhode Island, spends essentially the same on education per student as Rhode Island, and gets vastly better education results?
Putting aside the issue of whether 32/51 is “roughly average,” I don’t think it’s enough to just say “we’re average and thus doing fine” because other states could be performing far below their potential as well. If there is no principled way to distinguish yourself from another state that is doing far more with less, then there is no principled argument to be made against reform. Would you be convinced by a small business owner who, when confronted with serious deficiencies in his business practices, showed you data that suggested his business was performing “roughly average”? Most businesses fail, so of course it wouldn’t be a justification for his poor practices.
“How is it that Massachusetts has essentially the same cost of living as Rhode Island, spends essentially the same on education per student as Rhode Island, and gets vastly better education results?”
Well, don’t keep us in the dark!
Having said that I don’t trust these types of “aggregated” rankings as a great indication of the quality of education in the states, I do think that Massachusetts does a better job than Rhode Island in educating its children, and all of the numbers I’ve seen have reinforced this conclusion. I’ve lived in both states, and I think I’m in well in the vast majority in that opinion.
Obviously there isn’t a single factor to blame, but I do think that there are a number of related factors that contribute to the problem.
According to BLS data, teachers are compensated far more generously in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts. Presumably, that money is being used for other things in Massachusetts, some of which could have a positive effect on the children. A related point is that NEARI is an extremely powerful, radical, and hostile union in Rhode Island, which has done a huge amount of damage to the school work and learning environment and has poisoned the public debate on both sides. The teachers unions in Massachusetts are far less militant and don’t engage in the same kind of outrageous tactics and propaganda campaigns.
Another contributing factor is more general: there is something to the progressive argument that educational success starts in the home, but it is precisely Rhode Island’s pro-dependency, anti-honest-living culture that has changed the nature of the households in Rhode Island relative to other states. Rhode Island has for some time been attracting the “wrong” types of people and driving out the “right” types of people through its political corruption, high taxes, and overly generous welfare system. I’m not solely talking about illegal immigration, but it’s no secret that Providence and Central Falls in particular have become sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, who are far more costly to educate and achieve worse results.
“According to BLS data, teachers are compensated far more generously in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts.”
You didn’t provide numbers or a link. This study includes a few other sources besides BLS: www.erdc.wa.gov/faq/pdf/raq003_teacher_salary.pdf
Here, we find BLS, RI: 55k; BLS, MA: 54k. Far more generous?
”NEARI is an extremely powerful, radical, and hostile union in Rhode Island”
The same is said about MA teacher’s unions. Here’s a handy link to a frowning assessment: teacherunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=MA
“In Massachusetts, after 2 years, public school teachers receive what’s commonly called “tenure,” a special employment protection that teachers unions defend.”
Wow! Tenure works!
Anyway, your point is subjective and unsubstantiated.
“it is precisely Rhode Island’s pro-dependency, anti-honest-living culture”
Everyone on the right says the same things about Massachusetts. In fact, the right says these things about MA far more than about RI.
“political corruption, high taxes, and overly generous welfare system”
You’re trying to distinguish Rhode Island from Massachusetts, right? Not show how they’re the same? MA may be less corrupt, by some measures, but it obviously has a more generous welfare system, and it is Taxachusetts, after all.
“Rhode Island has for some time been attracting the “wrong” types of people and driving out the “right” types of people…I’m not solely talking about illegal immigration”
Okay, so, for you, illegal immigrants are the wrong kind of people, which, even scare-quoted, is a despicable sentiment, but, maybe there’s something in the problem of educating illegal immigrants.
According to this: www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita
RI ranks 17th in illegal immigrants per capita; MA…20th. A difference of 0.13 illegal immigrants per 100 people. Hmmmm.
Let’s review. You said:
Something wrong.
Something subjective and not different from subjective things said about MA.
Something subjective and not different from subjective things said about MA.
Something right, but very likely insignificant.
Par for the course, I’d say.
Russ,
You basically made the same point in a one liner on the comment section. I guess the question remains, as we say in Rhode Island, “So what’s your point.” You’re complaining about the simple metrics that were used and yet your metrics are more simplistic. The larger question still remains, “Are RI taxpayers getting their monies worth from the education system.” Your criticism of the story doesn’t even scratch the surface with, “Lets not forget the cost of living.” RTW’s Massachusetts comparison provides more insight in one comment then your entire post.
Well, is Rhode Island getting their monies worth?
DD, I think I’ve been pretty clear that I think we’re spending money on all the wrong things which have been promoted as reforms but are really just a doubling-down on the same bet of high stakes testing. So, no, we’re not getting the results we deserve.
I’ve also made the case (on the old blog platform) that state to state comparisons are not very useful for a small state like Rhode Island, which would be more readily compared to a metro area than to say Alaska.
“Well, is Rhode Island getting their monies worth?”
Clearly not.
“According to BLS data, teachers are compensated far more generously in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts.”
You didn’t provide numbers or a link. This study includes a few other sources besides BLS: www.erdc.wa.gov/faq/pdf/raq003_teacher_salary.pdf
Here, we find BLS, RI: 55k; BLS, MA: 54k. Far more generous?
”NEARI is an extremely powerful, radical, and hostile union in Rhode Island”
The same is said about MA teacher’s unions. Here’s a handy link to a frowning assessment: teacherunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=MA
“In Massachusetts, after 2 years, public school teachers receive what’s commonly called “tenure,” a special employment protection that teachers unions defend.”
Wow! Tenure works!
Anyway, your point is subjective and unsubstantiated.
“it is precisely Rhode Island’s pro-dependency, anti-honest-living culture”
Everyone on the right says the same things about Massachusetts. In fact, the right says these things about MA far more than about RI.
“political corruption, high taxes, and overly generous welfare system”
You’re trying to distinguish Rhode Island from Massachusetts, right? Not show how they’re the same? MA may be less corrupt, by some measures, but it obviously has a more generous welfare system, and it is Taxachusetts, after all.
“Rhode Island has for some time been attracting the “wrong” types of people and driving out the “right” types of people…I’m not solely talking about illegal immigration”
Okay, so, for you, illegal immigrants are the wrong kind of people, which, even scare-quoted, is a despicable sentiment, but, maybe there’s something in the problem of educating illegal immigrants.
According to this: www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita
RI ranks 17th in illegal immigrants per capita; MA…20th. A difference of 0.13 illegal immigrants per 100 people. Hmmmm.
Let’s review. You said:
Something wrong.
Something subjective and not different from subjective things said about MA.
Something subjective and not different from subjective things said about MA.
Something right, but very likely insignificant.
Par for the course, I’d say.
“Here, we find BLS, RI: 55k; BLS, MA: 54k. Far more generous?”
What you’re missing is that that data is from 10 years ago. Here is the BLS data as of 2009: RI: 67.1k MA: 59.6k. Yes, that’s far more generous. Benefits are better too.
www.teachersalaryinfo.com/average-teacher-salary-rhode-island.html
You accuse me of being “subjective” and then you link to a bunch of random individual websites to prove what “the right” collectively says about RI and MA? I’m sure you could find a website expressing pretty much any point of view that you set out to find.
MA does not have a more generous welfare system than RI. I don’t know where you heard that. It also has a lower tax burden than RI.
“Yes, that’s far more generous”
No, it isn’t.
RI ranks #2, MA ranks #7. It’s just not that big a difference.
“Benefits are better too.”
Are they? How much better?
“You accuse me of being “subjective” and then you link ”
Yes. You didn’t even link to anything. You simply made generalizations and skipped town.
“MA does not have a more generous welfare system than RI.”
Of course it does. Or do you think universal health care doesn’t count?
“It also has a lower tax burden than RI.”
Really? Your good buddies at the Tax Foundation seem to disagree. State & Local burden per capita.
MA: $5300, rank 4; RI: $4600, rank 8. They’re 11 and 5, respectively as a percentage of state income.
At any rate, you’ve got two states with higher-than-average teacher compensation, higher-than-average taxes and welfare, and very strong teacher’s unions.
What would your recommendations be, even if the differences you emphasize were important? That RI should lower teacher compensation a bit, but still keep it well above the national average? Institute universal health coverage? Have a slightly lower tax burden, but still relatively high taxes? Have very strong teacher’s unions, but somewhat more polite ones?
You’re not making any headway here. Massachusetts is a strongly progressive state that’s run a little better than Rhode Island. You’d have to get into the fine points of education policy to begin to see big differences.
Although, it is true that RI does serve more Latino students than does MA, as a percentage of population–about five points more. That difference in population may make the job of RI teachers significantly more difficult.
However, there’s really no need to get you started calling Latino kids the wrong kind of people.
“RI ranks #2, MA ranks #7. It’s just not that big a difference.”
Rankings aren’t relevant, the numbers themselves are. It’s a 12.6% difference in average pay. That’s enormous.
“Yes. You didn’t even link to anything. You simply made generalizations and skipped town.”
The last time I linked to sources you accused me of regurgitating data and talking points. You’ll attack me no matter what I do, so what difference does it make?
The issue has nothing to do with Latino students. I don’t care what ethnicity they are. The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants are far more difficult and costly to educate than children from legal families. You should listen to the unions on this one – they’ve been blaming poor achievement on kids who don’t speak English for the past decade, and they have a valid point.
It’s not a coincidence that all of the social democratic countries of Europe that progressives trot out as education and healthcare models tightly control illegal immigration. Even legal immigration is far more restrictive in those countries. They know damn well you can’t just run a free welfare system and let anyone who can sneak onto your soil use it as much as they want – the entire world will abuse your generosity and the country will go broke in no time. Progressives want to have it both ways, but it’s simply unsustainable. There are probably more illegal residents than legal residents in Central Falls by this point, and look at what happened to that city.
“It’s a 12.6% difference in average pay. That’s enormous.”
And yet MA pays 20% over the national average. Is that enormous? Does that mean MA should be seeing below-average results?
“You’ll attack me no matter what I do”
How is it attacking you to point out that you’re simply making stuff up? Look: you wanted to say a bunch of mean things about unions and Rhode Island. Saying those things might make you feel good, but they don’t count as evidence, especially when everybody says the same things about Massachusetts.
“they’ve been blaming poor achievement on kids who don’t speak English for the past decade”
And? How does it help you to angrily agree with me? I just got done saying that it’s a harder job to teach immigrants, legal and illegal.
Again, you’re left with no point: RI and MA pay teachers a lot, tax their residents a lot, dispense a lot of welfare, and enjoy powerful teacher’s unions. None of the distinctions you offered are real distinctions. The difference in success comes from other factors.
Great article, Russ, thanks for this!
As far as Mass, yeah, it’s strange that the state with much stronger welfare and social services than we have, that the state that provides its students and families with far more and better healthcare, etc. would be doing better than us. Weird, how that works.
Bruce Baker points to inequitable distribution of funding within states to explain some of these gaps:
schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/real-reform-versus-fake-reformy-distractions-more-implications-from-nj-ma-for-ct/
It is a pretty straightforward argument, really. If you want to increase the number of students scoring proficient on NAEP, you’d want to invest more money in the districts that are likely to fall short (due to concentration of poverty, etc.).
I think the data overall points to RI underperforming particularly in math, but that should be solvable by math-specific — not systemic — solutions (and there is some indication that’s happening already).