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.