And on another cost-related subject, there is a table available showing public school ranking on standard academic tests (i.e., how well they're doing their job) compared to the per-pupil costs. There is no correlation at all. In fact, some of the worst schools (Washington, D.C., for example) are some of the most expensive. Here is is, from a FR post in September of 2000. I don't think I'll be able to format it:
Grades and dollars
Does higher spending on education produce higher test scores? Not necessarily, according to a recently released state-by-state comparison of how students from demographically similar backgrounds performed on standardized tests.
Test Scores Test Scores Spending
1. Texas 5.6 24 $5,650
2. Wisconsin 4.8 9 6,700
3. Iowa 4.1 21 5,940
4. Maine 3.4 3 7,750
5. N. Dakota 2.8 20 5,970
46. Alabama -4.5 42 4,340
47. W. Virginia -4.6 14 6,350
48. Mississippi -4.7 43 4,000
49. Louisiana -5.3 29 5,430
50. California -5.9 38 4,750
*Results of National Assessment of Educational Progress tests from 1990 to 1996, expressed in percentile rankings *Adjusted for cost-of-living differences across states Sources: RAND Corp. and Fortune magazine
Here is your data, formatted into a table.
| Rank | State | Test Scores | Test Scores | Spending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Texas | 5.6 | 24 | $5,650 |
| 2. | Wisconsin | 4.8 | 9 | 6,700 |
| 3. | Iowa | 4.1 | 21 | 5,940 |
| 4. | Maine | 3.4 | 3 | 7,750 |
| 5. | N. Dakota | 2.8 | 20 | 5,970 |
| 46. | Alabama | -4.5 | 42 | 4,340 |
| 47. | W. Virginia | -4.6 | 14 | 6,350 |
| 48. | Mississippi | -4.7 | 43 | 4,000 |
| 49. | Louisiana | -5.3 | 29 | 5,430 |
| 50. | California | -5.9 | 38 | 4,750 |
I have no idea what this means as the
*Results of National Assessment of Educational Progress tests from 1990 to 1996, expressed in percentile rankings *Adjusted for cost-of-living differences across states.isn't attached to anything. It has been, however, an interesting exercise in learning about HTML tables.