Comments on Mr. Lennhoff’s Defense of Raising Taxes

1. Comments on Mr. Lennhoff’s Defense of Raising Taxes Charles Ormsby April 16, 2007

2. Summary of Rebuttal • Mr. Lennhoff doesn’t rebut my suggestion that we should look for areas of over-spending so we can focus our resources on employing additional teachers. I guess I was right about that. • He likes to note that we spend ~$2,000 less per pupil than the state average but didn’t note that the areas I identified were areas that we spend more per pupil than the state average … thus they deserve scrutiny … nothing more, just scrutiny • His analysis routinely excuses our higher spending in the identified categories as plausibly justified. Maybe it is, but why presume it? If he shared my desire to focus more resources on teaching staff, wouldn’t he stop presuming and, instead, not only try to find savings -- in these categories or elsewhere -- but sincerely hope that we find some? • Mr. Lennhoff presents a lot of charts to confuse one simple fact: If Reading, North Reading and Westford spend the same per pupil as North Andover in total, BUT spend $500 more per student on teaching staff, THEY MUST SPEND A NET $500 less per student somewhere else. • Isn’t it worth trying to determine how they do this, so we can support a larger teaching staff for our children? Why does this suggestion upset those who want to raise taxes much?

3. The Real Issue: Does Spending Improve Academic Outcomes • Mr. Lennhoff didn’t note that the three towns being compared (North Reading, Reading, and Westford) also spend ~$2,000 less than the state average … But they have better MCAS results!! How is this possible? • While the state-wide average spending per pupil is higher than North Andover, the state average MCAS score is well below our MCAS results. Maybe the rest of the state should follow our lead and spend less. • Oh, I know, the state is made up of communities that are different than North Andover! So, clearly, you can’t compare us to them! Oh, really? So why compare our spending to theirs in the first place? • So let’s compare our spending and academic results to those of similar communities (exactly why I suggested looking at the spending patterns of SIMILAR communities) to see if increased spending is the magic ingredient that will ensures better academic outcomes.

4. The $64,000 QuestionIs Academic Performance Correlated With Per Pupil Spending? • Mr. Lennhoff’s argument presupposes that spending more matters and that it will lead to better educational outcomes for our children. Can we assume this? • If there is no correlation between greater spending and better academic results … doesn’t the entire campaign to raise taxes and increase spending fall apart at the seams? • The remaining charts examines the big spender’s core assumption that spending more improves academics • It starts with a quick illustration of what correlated data and uncorrelated data looks like and then examines if spending more will help raise academic outcomes

5. Correlation • Is Per Pupil Spending Correlated with Academic Outcomes? • What Does “Correlated” data look like? • An example: A students Math vs. their Verbal SAT Scores • What does “Uncorrelated” data look like? • An example: Your SAT score vs. your Soc Sec number • Picking similar towns (no cherry picking) • Finally: Education Spending vs. Academic Outcomes … You decide

6. SAT Verbal vs. SAT Math Scores CORRELATED DATA SAT Verbal Score SAT Math Score

7. SAT Score vs. Soc Sec # UNCORRELATED DATA Middle Two Digits of Soc Sec Number

8. Picking Similar Towns • Combined metric: • * Population • * Per Capita Income • Closest 25 communities chosen

9. Here It Is – The Answer To the $64,000 QuestionIs Academic Performance Correlated With Increased Per Pupil Spending?And the answer is ….

10. NO Westford Andover North Andover Burlington Dedham Stoughton Saugus Watertown All data: 2004/05

11. Need More Proof?Let’s Look at the Fifty States • Do states that spend more have better academic results? • The next chart shows the Combined SAT scores for all states with 49% participation or higher plotted with their per-pupil spending* • What little correlation there is, is negative driven primarily by the District of Columbia. (Without DC, the data is almost exactly uncorrelated.) • Note: The conclusion using all states is unchanged but, since SAT scores can be affected by participation rates and some states (like Utah) • have very low participation rates, only high-participation rate states were included. A cutoff of 49% instead of 50% was used to include • California (the only state below 50% included). As can be seen from the plot, including CA had no effect on the conclusion. SAT data is • from the College Board for 2004 and per-pupil spending is from the NEA for 2004.

12. WA OR NH MA CT VA CA NY DE FL GA DC

13. Conclusion • Shouldn’t spending advocates start focusing on what matters, and stop trying to raise your taxes in a FUTILE attempt to buy academic achievement? • Until our schools seriously focus on raising standards and expectations, eliminating education fads, encouraging greater parental involvement, controlling spiraling labor costs, and prioritizing our available resources in the classroom (where it matters most), tax increases should not even be considered