Voice For Liberty

Category: Education

  • The nation’s report card and charter schools

    The nation’s report card and charter schools

    • An interactive table of NAEP scores for the states and races, broken down by charter school and traditional public school.
    • Some states have few or no charter schools.
    • In many states, minority students perform better on the NAEP test when in charter schools.

    The U.S. Department of Education, through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), conducts the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every other year. Known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” it is “the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas.”1

    NAEP is useful because the test is created and administered independently of the states: “Since NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the same sets of test booklets across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states and selected urban districts.”2 This is important because studies have shown that states vary widely in the rigor of the tests they create themselves: “The key finding is that the variation among state achievement standards continues to be wide.”3

    The NAEP tests are administered at several grade levels and for a variety of subjects, but the primary focus is on math and reading, at grades four and eight. I’ve gathered test scores from NCES for the 2015 test cycle, for these two subjects and two grade levels, with the results broken down by race and whether the school is a charter school. I gathered the data using the NAEP Data Explorer available at NCES4 and used Tableau Public to present the data. The data includes the scale score for each state, grade, and subject, along with the percentage of students scoring “Below Basic,” “At or above basic,” “At or above proficient,” and “At Advanced.”

    There are two visualization dashboards. Each starts by breaking down the data by state, race, and school type (charter school or not). One visualization shows the data at this level, while a second continues to break down the data by subject and grade. There are many missing values, usually meaning there is no data, or not enough data to be a reliable sample. You may access the visualization here.

    NAEP scores for national public schools. Click for larger.
    NAEP scores for national public schools. Click for larger.
    At the national public school level, when looking at all students, charter schools are outscored by traditional public schools (TPS). Looking at subgroups by race, we find that charter schools score higher than TPS.

    NAEP scores for Colorado. Click for larger.
    NAEP scores for Colorado. Click for larger.
    Colorado is an example of a state where charter schools have broad success. When considering all students, Colorado charter schools have better scores than the traditional public schools. For the subgroups of white and Hispanic students, charter schools have higher scores. The data is not available for black students. Overall, 10.9 percent of Colorado student are in charter schools (2014 data).5

    NAEP scores forIllinois. Click for larger.
    NAEP scores forIllinois. Click for larger.
    Illinois is an example of how it is important to look at subgroups of data instead of simply considering all students in a state. For Illinois, considering all students, traditional public schools score better than charter schools 252 to 243, which is a substantial margin. But considering only black students, charter schools do better than TPS, 240 to 230. For Hispanic students the gap is larger, with charter schools outperforming TPS, 278 to 242.

    The Illinois results are in line with what the oft-cited CREDO study has found: “Looking back to the demographics of the charter school sector in the 27 states, charter school enrollment has expanded among students in poverty, black students, and Hispanic students. These are precisely the students that, on average, find better outcomes in charter schools.”6

    A companion to this visualization is an interactive table showing charter school prevalence and enrollment in the states. Click here to use this visualization.

    —
    Notes

    1. National Assessment of Educational Progress. About. Available at nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/. ↩
    2. ibid. ↩
    3. National Center for Education Statistics. About the NAEP State Mapping Analyses. Available at nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/statemapping/about.aspx. ↩
    4. Available at nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx. ↩
    5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Table 216.90. Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey. 1999-2000 through 2013-14. ↩
    6. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. National Charter School Study 2013. Available at credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html. ↩
  • School spending in the states

    School spending in the states

    School spending in the states, presented in an interactive visualization.

    The Elementary/Secondary Information System (ElSi) is a project of National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). NCES is “the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations. NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.”1 Here is data from ElSi regarding per-pupil revenue and spending in the states.

    Near the end of this article are definitions of each measure. There are measures for total expenditures and total current expenditures. The major difference is that the current expenditures measure does not include the cost of construction of schools and the expense of debt associated with that.

    Of note, the values for “United States” are the average of the values for the states, computed with equal weight without regard for the total spending or number of students in each state.

    As of the date of publication, data was available through the school year ending in 2013.

    Since these data series cover substantial periods of time, I’ve also used the Consumer Price Index2 to adjust the figures for the effects of inflation. Each measure has a companion whose name starts with “i.” This is the value adjusted for inflation, based on the CPI. You may choose to view the values as reported by ElSi, which are in current dollars. These are the values not adjusted for inflation. Or, you may use the “i.” measures, which are in constant dollars.3

    This data is presented in an interactive visualization created using Tableau Public. To access the visualization and its explanatory page, click here.

    School spending in Kansas and the United States. Click for larger.
    School spending in Kansas and the United States. Click for larger.

    Definitions of measures

    Total Revenues (TR) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    Total revenues per student ate the total revenues from all sources (tr) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.

    Total Expenditures (TE11+E4D+E7A1) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    This is the Total Expenditures (Digest) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. The Total Expenditures (Digest) is the subtotal of Direct State Support Expenditures for Private Schools (e4d).

    Total Current Expenditures for Public El-Sec (TE5) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    This is the total current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education (te5) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. The Expenditures for equipment, non-public education, school construction, debt financing and community services are excluded from this data item.

    Local Revenues (STR1+R2) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    Local revenues per student are the total of all local revenue categories (strl and r2) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. Local revenues are raised and allocated by local governments.

    State Revenues (R3) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    State revenues per student are revenues received by the LEAs from the state (r3). divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.

    Federal Revenues (STR4) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
    Federal revenues per student are federal revenues (str4) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.

    —
    Notes

    1. National Center for Education Statistics. About us. nces.ed.gov/about/. ↩
    2. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. www.bls.gov/cpi/. ↩
    3. The U.S. Census Bureau explains: ” Constant-dollar values represent an effort to remove the effects of price changes from statistical series reported in dollar terms. The result is a series as it would presumably exist if prices were the same throughout as they were in the base year-in other words, as if the dollar had constant purchasing power.” Current versus Constant (or Real) Dollars. www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income/guidance/current-vs-constant-dollars.html. ↩
  • School staffing and students

    School staffing and students

    Trends for the nation and each state in teachers, administrators, and students, presented in an interactive visualization.

    Each year states report data to the National Center for Education Statistics. While NCES provides methods for extracting data, it isn’t an easy process, and opportunities to produce charts are limited. Here I present trends in teachers, administrators, and students for each state from 1998 to the school year ending in summer 2014, the most recent year of data that is available.

    For each state, the charts show the growth in teachers, administrators, and students. For both teachers and students, the value used is full-time equivalency. A table also shows pupil/teacher ratio and pupil/administrator ratio.

    There are some obvious mistakes in the data. An example is the number of administrators reported for Kansas for years 2007 through 2009. Figures obtained directly from Kansas State Department of Education show no sudden drop and increase in the count of administrators. Nonetheless, I have presented the data as retrieved from NCES.

    Sorting on columns.
    Sorting on columns.
    For the nation as a whole, the count of students has increased 8.5 percent since 1998. The count of teachers (full-time equivalent) rose by 13.4 percent, and the number of administrators by 19.4 percent. Individual states vary widely, with many having increased administrators at a far faster pace than either students or teachers. Some states, however, have reduced the number of administrators, or the rate has grown slower than students and teachers.

    Click here to open and use the visualization.

    Data is from the Elementary/Secondary Information System (ElSi) at National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. The number of administrators is calculated as the sum of “LEA Administrators” and “LEA Administrative Support Staff.” LEA Administrators is defined by NCES as “The count of Local education agency superintendents, deputy and assistant superintendents, and other persons with district-wide responsibilities such as business managers and administrative assistants. Excludes supervisors of instructional or student support staff.” LEA Administrative Support Staff is defined as “The count of Staff members who provide direct support to LEA administrators, including secretarial and other clerical staff.”

    Using the visualization. Click for larger.

  • Teachers unions vs. students

    From PragerU:

    There is a dilemma in American education. On the one hand, teachers are essential to student achievement. On the other, teachers unions promote self-interests of their members which are antithetical to the interests of students. So, how do we fix this problem? In five minutes, Terry Moe, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, delineates this quandary and offers solutions.

    View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

  • ACT Scores and State Rankings, 2015

    Here are ACT scores and rankings for the states in an interactive spreadsheet. Use the spreadsheet below, or click here to open in a new window, which will probably work best.

  • College environmentalists use public records laws

    Washington Free Beacon:

    College environmentalists are using public records laws to investigate the circumstances surrounding the hiring of an economist at the University of Kansas (KU) who has spoken out against wind subsidies, according to his attorney.

    Dr. Art Hall, executive director of the Center for Applied Economics at the university, found himself at the center of an environmentalist campaign after testifying to the state legislature that Kansas should do away with green energy quotas in the spring of 2014. Shortly after his testimony, Schuyler Kraus, a KU student and environmentalist, submitted a public records request demanding all of his email correspondence dating back to 2004.

    Continue reading at Washington Free Beacon, Environmentalists Use Records Law to Investigate KU Economist.

    For more on this topic, see KU records request seen as political attack and Art Hall: My decision to fight for academic freedom.

  • Academic freedom under fire at Kansas: Will the AAUP be consistent?

    Writing at National Review’s The Corner, David French wonders “Will the AAUP and other national academic organizations defend academic freedom at Kansas with the same zeal they defended it at UVA and Wisconsin?” For more on this issue, see KU records request seen as political attack and Art Hall: My decision to fight for academic freedom.

    Academic Freedom Under Fire at Kansas: Will the AAUP Be Consistent?
    By David French

    When it comes to threatening core liberty interests, activists can be nothing if not industrious — sometimes using even well-intentioned laws as sledgehammers against disfavored views and disfavored speakers.

    Witness the emerging use of state open-records laws to harass dissenting professors. The tactics are simple: Take advantage of the fact that most major research universities are public institutions to engage in wide-ranging fishing expeditions of individual scholars’ e-mail accounts and other records — including of personal e-mails — in the hopes of finding something, anything to shame or embarrass the scholar into silence. The threat to academic freedom is obvious: Scholars often engage colleagues, interested members of the public, and others to test ideas and theories before they’re ready for prime time, and the thought that every written thought can now be splashed across the Internet will lead to timidity and self-censorship. High-quality research depends on a free-wheeling exchange of ideas. Compelled disclosure of all communications will inevitably suppress academic discourse.

    This is particularly true for minority viewpoints on campus. Or for those engaged in controversial speech. If you think conservative professors have enough challenges on campus, imagine a world where they navigate the minefield of hiring committees only to enter a world where their every email — no matter how tenuously it relates to their work as a “public official” — is read by a gang of hostile, angry third parties who are ready to twist every utterance to shame and humiliate them. How many people would want to work in that environment? How many people would find that environment conducive to scholarship and research?

    Continue reading at Academic Freedom Under Fire at Kansas: Will the AAUP Be Consistent?

  • Art Hall: My decision to fight for academic freedom

    Art Hall: My decision to fight for academic freedom

    My decision to fight for academic freedom
    By Art Hall

    For more than 25 years, I have dedicated myself to teaching economics and generating original economic research focused on public policy issues. Like all scholars nationwide, I have operated under the bedrock principle of academic freedom.

    Academic freedom is the unfettered ability to research and teach, and a natural extension of rights protected under the First Amendment — without the fear of interference or persecution.

    Dr. Art Hall
    Dr. Art Hall
    Since 2004, I have had the esteemed privilege of directing the Center for Applied Economics at the KU School of Business. (I also teach economics classes.) The Center’s purpose is to offer economic analysis and economic education relevant for policy makers, community leaders, and other interested citizens. This purpose often involves providing legislative testimony and conducting public policy research on subjects that may be controversial but are nonetheless important.

    A student group at KU that disagreed with testimony I delivered on a specific piece of legislation used the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) to request copies of my private e-mail correspondence for the past 10 years. This is a misuse of open-records law, a type of misuse that seems to be spreading nationwide. The policy intent of open-records laws is to aid the transparency of government operations and deliberations, not to suppress debate and free academic inquiry.

    The students’ misuse of KORA explains why I recently took legal action against KU; not out of hostility or secrecy, but to take a stand for the principle of academic freedom. While my attorney and I believe that the private records the students asked for are exempt from release under certain provisions of the KORA, KU planned to comply with the students’ request. My legal action will allow a judge to adjudicate the different interpretations of KU’s legal obligations under the KORA.

    If my private, personal communications are released, I will not be the only one whose academic freedom is jeopardized. The issue is much larger, and could ultimately jeopardize the academic freedom of any scholar at a public institution of higher education.

    My views about academic freedom in this matter are consistent with those advocated by the nation’s premier organization for higher education faculty: the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has stated that a crucial component of academic freedom is the ability of faculty to engage with a variety of experts as they pursue their research. With the odd exception of the Kansas chapter (which reportedly provided funding to the student group seeking my private documents), the AAUP has consistently stood by professors and researchers in shielding their private correspondence from over-reaching records requests, acknowledging the threat that this kind of activity poses to academic freedom.

    Both the Kansas Board of Regents and the University of Kansas Faculty Council strongly support the principle of academic freedom. In a unanimously passed resolution, the Faculty Council wrote, “academic freedom … is essential to the mission of the University: to educate students and to engage in scholarly inquiry.”

    Furthermore, there is an emerging body of legal precedent that allows researchers the latitude they require to correspond broadly with experts with diverse viewpoints without fearing their thoughts will be misconstrued, published and used against them in order to silence them.

    The Supreme Court has written that “scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust.” In the Sweezy decision, the majority wrote, “merely to summon a witness and compel him, against his will, to disclose the nature of his past expressions and associations is a measure of governmental interference in [academic] matters.”

    In this landmark academic freedom case, the Court ultimately ruled that “these are rights which are safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    For anyone questioning why I would take legal action against KU, let me be clear. I am taking legal action for my students, for the University, for Kansas, and to preserve the integrity of all forms of academic and scholarly research for my peers.

    When I decided to take legal action, I knew it would create controversy and suspicion. But my commitment to academic freedom compelled me to do it.

    Art Hall directs the Center for Applied Economics at the KU School of Business, where he is also a lecturer in economics.

  • KU records request seen as political attack

    KU records request seen as political attack

    A request for correspondence belonging to a Kansas University faculty member is a blatant attempt to squelch academic freedom and free speech.

    When conservative groups seek records of correspondence of liberal university professors, the American Association of University Professors defends its withholding based on academic freedom. That is, until the subject of a records request is a Kansas University professor who believes in free markets and receives funding from the Left’s favorite target, Charles and David Koch. Then, the local chapter of AAUP flips its position. It will even contribute money against the ideal of academic freedom.

    In 2011 Republicans in Wisconsin requested the correspondence of a professor who was critical of American Legislative Exchange Council, a free market advocacy group. AAUP argued against releasing the records, writing:

    We believe that disclosure of Professor Cronon’s e-mail correspondence will inevitably produce a chilling effect not only on Professor Cronon’s academic freedom but also on the academic freedom of his faculty colleagues and of faculty members throughout the University of Wisconsin system, with potentially deleterious effects on the quality of research and teaching. We urge you to do what you can to resist complying with this outrageous request. (source here)

    In defense of a professor at the University of Virginia whose correspondence was sought by a conservative group, AAUP also defended academic freedom:

    The AAUP and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed a joint amicus brief in support of UVA and Professor Mann, urging that “in evaluating disclosure under FOIA, the public’s right to know must be balanced against the significant risk of chilling academic freedom that FOIA requests may pose.” ATI’s request, the brief stated, “strikes at the heart of academic freedom and debate.” … The AAUPUCS brief argued, however, that “in the FOIA context, the public’s right to information is not absolute and courts can and do employ a balancing test to weigh the interest of the public’s right to know against the equally important interests of academic freedom.” (source here)

    When a student group requested correspondence of a Kansas University professor, the local chapter of AAUP flipped its stance regarding academic freedom. It even contributed money towards the costs of the records request.

    The political motivation of AAUP and the student group that filed the request cannot be overlooked. The primary subject of the request for correspondence is Dr. Arthur P. Hall. He is a lecturer in the KU School of Business and Director of its Center for Applied Economics. He believes in free markets and economic freedom. He won an award for his teaching of MBA students this year. He testifies to the Kansas Legislature against rent-seeking and crony capitalism. Hall and the Center also receive funding from the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation.

    It’s the latter that probably stirs up suspicion and opposition. It doesn’t matter that around the world we’ve found that free markets and economic freedom create better living conditions for everyone. It doesn’t matter that disclosure of e-mail correspondence “will inevitably produce a chilling effect” on academic freedom. As long as a political attack on Koch Industries can be advanced, anything is fair game. Principles no longer apply.

    A political attack

    The request for Hall’s correspondence was made by Schuyler Kraus, who is president of the student group Students for a Sustainable Future. Members of SSF have ties to groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and PowerShift. SSF advertises that members will have networking opportunities with these groups and “Forecast the Future, Kansas Interfaith Power & Light, etc.” These groups have mounted political attacks on Charles and David Koch for years.

    SFF also listed as an advisor Manny Abarca, who is Recycling Operations Coordinator for KU as well as Community Affairs Liaison for Emanuel Cleaver, the Democratic Congressman from Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to that he worked for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill.

    On August 3, the Kansas chapter of AAUP contributed $1,000 to SFF.
    On August 3, the Kansas chapter of AAUP contributed $1,000 to SFF. Click for larger version.
    When KU said the request for Hall’s records would cost $1,800, SFF was able to raise that amount quickly, aided by $1,000 from the Kansas chapter of AAUP. That’s the local chapter of the national group that opposes release of the correspondence of liberal professors. (For a student group, SSF seems to have access to funds, offering to pay students $12.50 per hour for political work.)

    Students for a Sustainable Future Facebook post. Click for larger version.
    Students for a Sustainable Future Facebook post. Click for larger version.
    Why would the Kansas chapter of AAUP attack academic freedom in the case of Hall’s correspondence, while at the national level AAUP defends academic freedom? As Hall wrote in an op-ed, “With the odd exception of the Kansas chapter (which reportedly provided funding to the student group seeking my private documents), the AAUP has consistently stood by professors and researchers in shielding their private correspondence from over-reaching records requests, acknowledging the threat that this kind of activity poses to academic freedom.”

    This episode shows that the Left views “academic freedom” much like it does “free speech.” The Left will defend free speech and academic freedom at any cost — as long as they agree with what is being said and taught. The Left can’t tolerate the marketplace of ideas that Charles and David Koch support, even when it’s just one faculty member of a large university school.

    That, quite simply, is the reason for the requests made to KU for Hall’s correspondence. By harassing certain faculty and the university, the Left thinks it can shut down speech. While promoting free speech and open scientific and economic inquiry, the Left mounts attacks like this on those who don’t conform to the liberal orthodoxy present at most universities.

    In a message to fellow School of Business faculty, Hall explained that he has nothing to hide regarding his correspondence. He expressed concern, however, that political opponents might “cherry-pick language from hundreds of emails to weave a story.” That sword cuts both ways. The university should not acquiesce quietly to this attempt to silence one of its faculty. It should not set a precedent that conservatives might justifiably cite when requesting correspondence of liberal faculty members.