The Dangers of Lost Outcomes

One of the biggest fears of a failure to pass the levy is lost outcomes on various achievements.  Both Dr. Hanlon and Citizens 4 Chardon Schools write:

"Chardon's student athletes have the highest scores on the Ohio Graduation Test in the entire Premier Athletic Conference (PAC).

Chardon's premier Science Olympiad and Envirothon programs have consistently qualified teams for state and national competitions.  Excellent State Performance Rating since 1999.

ACT Scores at CHS are the highest EVER.

Chardon's Graduation Rate is 98%. 

These outcomes are in danger of being lost unless new dollars are invested in our schools."

Hanlon goes on to say that:

"We are a high performing academic district in Northeast Ohio, outperforming many comparable districts in OGT, ACT, and graduation rate... Chardon’s expenditure per pupil is lower than the state average, and lower than most other local, educationally comparable districts..."

 Interestingly, however, nobody ever provided any research for the claims that the outcomes would be in danger in a situation of lower funding.  Nor are any estimates given for how much would be lost.  The best data given was this:

 

 

This was given to show that Chardon was doing well despite low funding. 

 

Hold on a second though.  The highest district in terms of expenditure per student (both adjusted and direct) is Newbury and the lowest is Riverside; but on this chart, Riverside is higher than Newbury.

 

This requires a closer look at the data.

 

I went through the Ohio Department of Education Fiscal Benchmark Report and pulled the data from every district.  The results are quite interesting:

 

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report

*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data ($0 In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources)

 

 So, based on the first chart, we would have to spend five thousand dollars more per pupil in order to raise our Performance Index Score by one.  Based on the second, we would actually lose points.  Is it really worth taking from parents (who likely know what is best for their own kid better than the school district) and from the other good members of this community on such dismal numbers?  Taking money from the community does have consequences for children as well.  We do not live in bubble.  Perhaps a second parent will need to get a job to pay for the tax increase, lowering time spent with their children.  Perhaps they will not be able to afford various trips and materials that would help develop the child's mind.  Even those without children, through their daily interactions, would benefit the community and the children indirectly (or some directly).  In any case, we know that this money would have gone to the highest preferred area of each individual community member.

 

Wealth in a district is far more important than most people seem to believe for child success.  When we adjust for the median income in the district, we create this new scatter plot: 

 

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report

*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data ($0 In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources)

 

 Alternatively, if we adjust for property valuation per pupil:
 

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report

*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data ($0 In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources)
 

And, using equivalent pupils:

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report
*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data ( In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources)

This same phenomenon of almost small changes when not correcting for wealth or income and a strong negative correlation under corrected circumstances holds for the other achievements mentioned as well.

ACT Scores:

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report for the expenditure and median income data and the Ohio School Report Cards for the ACT data
*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources).  Put-In-Bay Local and Zanesville City are not included due to a lack of data for expenditures

 

Graduation Rate:

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report for the expenditure and median income data and the Ohio School Report Cards for the graduation rate data
*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources).  Put-In-Bay Local and Zanesville City are not included due to a lack of data for expenditures

A few examples of the percentage of students each district had at or above proficient for OGTs:

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report for the expenditure and median income data and the Ohio School Report Cards for the OGT Data
*Note: Riverdale Local and Union Local are not included due to suspected incorrect data In expenditure per pupil for Riverdale and $2,697 for Union Local, both of which are not supported by other sources).  Put-In-Bay Local and Zanesville City are not included due to a lack of data for expenditures

These findings are not out of the ordinary. Eric Hanushek examined close to 400 studies and found that "there is not a strong or consistent relationship between student performance and school resources, at least after variations in family inputs are taken into account."  While there are certainly scholarly disagreements (generally there are differences in the way the studies are conducted), just assuming one side is correct is odd, to say the least.

Conclusion

To wrap this up, essentially what Dr. Hanlon et al. are saying is:

1) Chardon currently is doing well on various outcomes compared to similarly and higher funded districts.
2) Point (1) is true because Chardon is efficient
3) We can trust the schools with more money because of point (2)
4) If Chardon fails to pass a levy, there is a danger that we will lose our current high outcomes compared to the same districts

But, as we've seen, most of the achievements are higher on average for less funded districts.  Purely using comparisons then (which is all they gave) we would end with the opposite conclusion: we should be spending less.

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that Chardon Schools would be in danger of losing any achievement outcomes assuming the levy fails, based off what Dr. Hanlon and Citizens 4 Chardon Schools have provided.

Citizens 4 Chardon Schools on Benefits

I have questioned Citizens for Chardon Schools on whether they researched or considered the possibility that when including benefits, Chardon is actually above the state average:

 

Perhaps their most interesting statement in response was: "I completely understand your question and I'm quite certain that even with benefits included, we are NOT over the state average" (emphasis mine).

 

Of course, those who have read my previous post are well aware that they are quite certainly wrong.  My research (conducted with the help of the good Roger Williams) has concluded that Chardon teachers actually are compensated above the state average, as can be seen in this chart I created:

 

 

Also, it is interesting that they said they "completely understood [my] question," as my point was that they were misleading their readers.  Perhaps after researching they will edit their document.

 

Participation Fees and the Levy

Last levy season we were warned that pay-to-participate would increase if the levy was not passed.  Much of the support for the levy was based on this.  Many are supporting the levy this time as well because of this.

 

However, a researcher at Chardon 4 Liberty has made a stunning discovery.  A "uniform across the board reduction" if the levy passes is "unlikely" (emphasis mine).

 

Even any reduction at all is only "likely"; and what these "likely" reductions will be are to be evaluated after the levy.

This means that if the levy passes Chardon will not only get revenue from the levy, but will also receive the additional revenue from pay-to-participate fees. 

There is of course another solution.  A large percentage of the participation fees exist because of the paying of coaches.  There are barriers to entry; one must be a teacher to be a coach.  And yet, teachers are no more qualified to be a coach than an average citizen.  Why not allow volunteers to do the coaching job?  There may be some costs that will increase under this method, but as a whole they will decrease considerably.  Coaching salaries currently reach a stunning $300,000 per year, certainly not an effective use of resources when P2P costs are skyrocketing.  Either leaving the job totally to volunteers or allowing competition in the field would push down costs considerably.
 

Dr. Hanlon's Presentation

 

Chardon School District Superintendent Michael Hanlon has created a presentation on the upcoming levy.  Citizens for Chardon Schools has posted similar information before, and this is likely where Hanlon received much of his material from.

 

Teacher Compensation Myth

  

Why this matters

One outcome of a levy passing will be a raise in teacher salaries.  Citizens for Chardon Schools has said:

 

"Contract negotiations with our certified and classified staff are currently underway. It is important that we maintain a competitive salary to secure the best and most highly-qualified personnel to work with our students and in our school buildings each day. Our Five-Year Forecast projects modest increases in compensation over the next five years to ensure that we do not lose the strong personnel base that contributes to high student achievement."

So, a "modest" increase in compensation will occur.  It's important to get the correct information then, so voters can decide based off what is actually happening.

 

The Claims of Hanlon

Hanlon has been adamant about teacher salaries being lower than average, claiming that "Chardon’s teacher’s salaries are significantly lower than comparable districts and the state average" (emphasis ours).  Citizens for Chardon Schools says "NO" to the "frequently asked question" of whether teachers are overpaid.

Their claims are based on the following chart:

 

 

Hold On, Doctor

 

It is first clear that it's a big stretch to say that Chardon teacher salaries are "significantly lower" than the state average or comparable districts.  But, another interesting point is that this doesn't answer the question on whether Chardon teachers are overpaid, even relative to other districts.  Citizens for Chardon Schools are conflating salaries and compensation.  Compensation includes benefits, which are both expensive for the taxpayer and will increase the money teachers will be able to use elsewhere.  If benefits are not important, and should not be counted when looking at compensation, perhaps they should be cut.

 

So the question that naturally arises is: Why do Hanlon and Citizens for Chardon Schools not add benefits in, or at least display the numbers somewhere? And how do benefits compare to surrounding districts?

 

The truth is that the numbers do not point in their favor, so they just ignore them.  The numbers, which come directly from the same source they used (making it clear that they didn't just "miss" it) can be seen in this chart:

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report

Calculating total compensation based off these two series of numbers gives us:

So, teacher compensation is actually higher in Chardon than the state average.  It is certainly not "significantly lower."

Teacher salary also has context.  Just because other districts pay more is not a reason to follow them.  There are also many factors that could impact the numbers in a positive or negative direction.  For example, the average teacher has 12.9 years of service in Chardon, but 14 years for the county and 14.2 years for the state.  A teacher working for 14.2 years will naturally have a higher salary than a teacher working for 12.9 years (on average) - if they were being paid the same amount, all else being equal, the teacher with less experience would be overpaid relative to the more experienced teacher.

 

Administration is Cheap?

 

Levy proponents are gleeful at a new chart supposedly showing that Chardon has low administration costs.  Hanlon and Citizens for Chardon Schools have both displayed this chart:

 

 

Unfortunately, the chart is slightly misleading.  When talking about the levy, the number of administrators is not really as important as the cost of the administrators.  Administrators are not all paid the same amount; some districts pay much higher than others.

 



*Note: This does not include benefits.
*Source: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/Finance-Related-Data/District-Profile-Reports/FY2012-District-Profile-Report

So, Chardon administrators are indeed paid higher than average.

Another thing to note is that the number of administrators and their salaries do not capture the whole story of administrative costs, although they are certainly the main portion.  When looking at administration costs, Chardon does not remain the lowest, and is in fact only slightly lower than the state average.

 

*Source: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/Finance-Related-Data/District-Profile-Reports/FY2012-District-Profile-Report

Furthermore, looking at what the Ohio Department of Education call "Similar Districts" to Chardon, Chardon is actually higher for administrative expenditure per pupil (with "Similar Districts" at $1,087 per pupil and Chardon at $1,195 per pupil).

At the very least, administrative cuts should not be dismissed before looking closer at the situation.  The assistant superintendent was a "last likely addition" if the last levy passed, and was hired regardless.  Citizens for Chardon Schools now claims that he was partially hired "due to the overwhelming demands required of our staff following the February 27, 2012 tragedy."  If someone was necessary for a short time period afterward then someone should have been hired part time.  Keeping a permanent assistant superintendent at the expense of almost $90,000 a year not including benefits, when other cuts are being made, is not a wise use of resources.

 



Low Expenditures per Pupil?

 

Another popular chart being spread around deals with expenditures per pupil.  Hanlon claims that expenditures per pupil are "lower than the state average," and it definitely looks like it at first glance:

 

 

It turns out that, while true that a rough calculation of just dividing pupils by total spending concludes with this chart, the chart is extremely misleading.  For example, students with disabilities will cost more than students without disabilities.  When some districts have more students with disabilities than others, the total cost of educating students will rise.  When such a simple method is used to find expenditure per pupil, this will not be accounted for.

Citizens for Chardon Schools certainly realizes that this is the case.  As they write:

 

"The average cost to educate students without special needs is $10,024. Currently, we support 452 special education students (including students in the non-public programs) in the district. On average, 60 of these students have severe handicaps which require high levels of support. Our costs for educating students with disabilities that are considered a 'catastrophic' expense have increased over the last few years."

 

Keeping that in mind, when the Ohio Department of Education posted the information on disabilities directly under the information on expenditures per pupil, one would assume Hanlon and Citizens for Chardon Schools would pay attention.  The numbers for each district and the state average are:

 

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report

So Chardon's disability problem is actually lower than average.
 

Fortunately, the Ohio Department of Education also calculates for "equivalent pupils," adjusting for students with disabilities, low English proficiency, etc.

*Source: ODE FY 2012 Fiscal Benchmark Report 

So Chardon actually is above the state average when comparing similar students.

Hanlon points out that Chardon has a very high achievement compared to other districts.  This is true.  But, claims that if Chardon is not "adequately funded" it cannot be "sound" are unfounded and no evidence is provided to back up this claim.

 Interestingly, looking at districts with similar Local Report Cards, Chardon actually spends more per pupil than average:

	Chardon	LRC Similar District
Expenditure per Pupil	$10,237	$9,315
Expenditure per Equivalent Pupil	$9,255	$8,147

Chardon clearly then has room to cut and still have high achievement.  This is not to say that cuts are good, but warnings of the schools "dismantling" or that a failure to pass the levy will "erode the core of our school system" are simply not true.