tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618709929318397424.post7135455225855731722..comments2023-10-31T07:43:37.520-04:00Comments on NJ Left Behind: Sunday LeftoversNJ Left Behindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16739701636089453850noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8618709929318397424.post-7786658443771218962016-08-14T14:05:52.916-04:002016-08-14T14:05:52.916-04:00The Baker/Weber study is not very compelling for t...The Baker/Weber study is not very compelling for two reasons:<br /><br />Baker and Weber define "Efficiency" as _improvement_ based on spending and demographics, not overall performance. Since their definition of "Efficiency" is change in performance, and not performance relative to a set threshold like a state average, it means that a low-scoring district that makes a slight improvement is considered more "efficient" than a middle or high scoring district whose scores are flat.<br /><br />Baker & Weber use a very narrow window for looking at improvement too, 2011-12 to 2013-14. If a district did all its improvement prior to 2011, it doesn't get any credit for that. Hence districts that significantly outperform their demographics, like Dover and Union City, don't look particularly efficient. Baker and Weber themselves say that Union City is only average based on their definition of efficiency. They seem surprised by that, but they shouldn't be since when a district is already doing so well compared to its demographics, improvement is even harder. <br /><br />The second problem is that Baker & Taylor use Total Budgetary Cost Per Pupil as their measure of district spending. <br /><br />Using Total Budgetary Cost Per Pupil is legitimate - I use it all the time too - but Total Budgetary Cost Per Pupil excludes Pre-K and construction spending and thus leaves out a huge portion of the Abbott financial advantage. <br /><br />I don't know how you would factor in Pre-K spending to give a per pupil spending amount, but Pre-K spending has to at least be acknowledged as part of the Abbott financial advantage since kids in the Abbotts have two extra years of school compared to kids in high-FRL non-Abbotts.<br /><br />Re: Avalon<br /><br />As for Avalon.... Avalon spends $44,401 per pupil. That's seriously, seriously in excess of what any district needs to spend. Since Avalon's score improvement is nothing special despite spending that massive money, it looks incredibly inefficient.<br /><br />Ok, Avalon is wasting money, but it's its own taxes its spending, not state money, so Avalon's "inefficiency" is of no concern to me or really anyone who doesn't live in Avalon. <br /><br />Since Asbury Park gets over $55 million for 2300 K-12 students, it's a completely different story from the state POV. StateAidGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346914457455404884noreply@blogger.com