[Kramer_AL]

I was looking over your source of data (seeing Alabama's education system in such a good light is not very common) and I noticed something you might want to check out. You are comparing state's only on their SAT scores, which for the most part are taken only on a volunteer basis, mainly to get into college. I'm not sure how you interpreted the "Percent of Graduates taking SAT 1999-2000" column (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt137.asp), but it looked to me as it though it meant that, for instance, 9 percent of Alabama's graduating seniors took the test and consequently their average score is based on that 9 percent of Alabama's student body. But if you look at D.C.'s data you'll see that 89 percent of their graduating seniors took the SAT. This is an assumption but I believe it to be true: Alabama's brightest and top nine percent of students took the test, while almost all of the students in D.C. took the test, therefore D.C.'s average is "polluted" with all the morons, and Alabama's average contains mostly the smarter students. I hope I didn't misinterpret the meaning of "Percent of Graduates taking SAT 1999-2000," else I shall look fairly ridiculous.

I agree the last thing public education needs is more money, but I thought I might mention the above to you so that you could build a more airtight statistical argument.

[Jaysun]

I hope I didn't misinterpret the meaning of "Percent of Graduates taking SAT 1999-2000," else I shall look fairly ridiculous. I agree the last thing public education needs is more money, but I thought I might mention the above to you so that you could build a more airtight statistical argument.

Thanks for your thoughtful observations. You are correct in your interpretation of the "Percent of Graduates taking SAT 1999-2000." I chose SAT as an example because it was quick, easy, and most people are familiar with it. Perhaps SAT scores wasn't the best choice. However, I done a lot of research on this and stand by my claim that there is absolutely no correlation between funding and student performance. Please allow me to give you another quick example by comparing the results:

We'll look at the spending per student and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results for 2000. Mathematics proficiency of 8th-graders in public schools - percentage below basic skills.

BIGGEST SPENDERS (top 5)
DC $11,935.00 (77% below basic)
New York $10,957.00 (32% below basic)
Connecticut $10,122.00 (28% below basic)
Rhode Island $9,646.00 (36% below basic)
Massachusetts $9,317.00 (24% below basic)

LOWEST SPENDERS (top 5)
Idaho $5,644.00 (29% below basic)
Arkansas $5,628.00 (48% below basic)
Arizona $5,444.00 (38% below basic)
Mississippi $5,356.00 (59% below basic)
Utah $4,692.00 (32% below basic)

As you can see, our good friends in DC managed to spend the most per student. They also won the prize for poor performance in that 8 out 10 of their 8th graders lacked BASIC math skills. The folks in Utah spent the least and had 32% of 8th graders who lacked basic math skills. To further prove how erratic the spending to performance relationship is, you can observe the average of the top spenders and their scores with those who spent the least.

Average top 5 spending: $10,395
Average of students lacking basic skills: 39.4%
Average lowest 5 spending: $5,353
Average of students lacking basic skills: 41.2%

Yippie! On average, this actually shows an improvement! We spent about 98% more and gained nearly 2 kids per hundred in the area of basic math! If that trend were to hold true, we could match Utah's results in DC by simply increasing the spending in DC to $115,394 per child while leaving Utah's at $4,692! See what I mean?

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt127.asp