brownerin.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewthe data collected from the public schools of the 50...
TRANSCRIPT
Erin Brown – Page 1
Running head: EXCEL PROJECT
Excel Project: Public school expenditures and
It’s relationship to academic performance
Erin Brown
Seattle Pacific University
EDU 6976 Interpreting and Applying Educational Research II
Fall Quarter, 2008
Erin Brown – Page 2
Data was collected from public school districts within all 50 of the United States, using
the 1997 Digest of Educational Statistics, an annual publication of the U.S. Department of
Education. This data was then analyzed using numerous statistical measures and the results
and interpretation of this analysis can be read as follows.
Part I Histograms, Box Plots, and Frequency Distributions
The data collected from the public schools of the 50 states includes: current
expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance, the pupil/teacher ratio, the estimated
annual salary of teachers, the percentage of all eligible students taking the SAT, the average
total score on SAT, the average math score on SAT, and the average verbal score on SAT.
We begin by looking at the distributions of the three continuous variables that represent
the treatment of the independent variable. That is, what the money was spent on
(expenditures, teacher ratio, and teacher salary). We can analyze these distributions by
putting the data into histograms and box plots.
Histograms show us the distribution of data. They allow us to view that data in a more
visual way. Let’s take a look at Figure 1 below. This histogram shows us the current
expenditures per pupil. You’ll note that the majority of students in the United States are listed
in the 4 to 6 bin. This means that $4,000 to $6,000 is allotted to the students to be spent on the
students.
<=0 (0, 2] (2, 4] (4, 6] (6, 8] (8, 10]
>100
5
10
15
20
25
30
35Frequency
Figure 1 – Histogram of Expenditures
Erin Brown – Page 3
If we take a look at the box plot for this same expenditure variable (Figure 2), it also
gives us a visual display of the data, with the exception that this time it divides the data into
equal fourths or quartiles. Each quartile is equal to 25% and, therefore, all four quartiles are
equal to 100% of the data.
Lower Whisker
Lower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whisker
3.656 4.88175 5.7675 6.434 7.469
Figure 2 – Box Plot of Expenditures
Figure 2 shows us that the line to the left of the box is slightly longer than the line to the
right of the box. When box plot is not centered within the range, it shows skewness. We can
see that the distribution here is not quite normal. It skews slightly towards the positive or
upper end of the distribution. If we glance back at the histogram, we can see the reason for
this is the extremely high numbers in the fourth quartile.
Figures 3 and 4 give us a picture of the average teacher salary across America. The box
plot (Figure 4) shows that again the distribution is skewed. It’s positively skewed towards the
upper end of the distribution. The skewness is also more prominent this time.
<=10 (10, 20] (20, 30] (30, 40] (40, 50] (50, 60] (60, 70] >7005
101520253035 Frequency
Figure 3 - Histogram of Salary
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Erin Brown – Page 4
Figure 4 – Box Plot of Salary
The histogram (Figure 3) goes a long was to explaining why this skewness occurs.
Whereas, the majority of teachers in the United States are in the 30 to 40 thousand dollar
range, there is one state that throws the distribution off by offering on the average a much
higher pay.
Let us move on to the ratio data which is much more interesting. This information
refers to the average number of pupils (in the public elementary and secondary schools) per
teacher. When looking at the box plot (Figure 5), it looks positively skewed. It’s not that
impressive unless you take a look at the numbers.
Lower Whiske
rLower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whiske
r13.8 15.225 16.6 17.575 20.2
Figure 5 – Box Plot of Ratio
The lower whisker is 13.8 while the upper whisker is 20.2. This means that some states average
13 students per teacher and other states can have an average as high as 20 students per
teacher. Now, anyone who teaches in the classroom can tell you there is a huge difference in
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Erin Brown – Page 5
what can be accomplished with 13 students as opposed to 20 students. Also note that the
median is listed as 16 students.
<=12 (12, 15] (15, 18] (18, 21] (21, 24] (24, 27] (27, 30] >300
5
10
15
20
25
30Frequency
Figure 6 – Histogram of Ratio
If you take a look at the histogram (Figure 6), it gives you an obvious reason for this
skewness. Only 2 out of all 50 states are in the higher classroom ratio bins. These outliers, or
scores that are very high in comparison to others, have a direct effect on the mean. Because
these outliers are in the upper end of the data, they cause the distribution to be skewed
positively.
Now that we’ve looked at the data concerning the treatment of independent variable
and how the money was spent, let us now take a look at the outcome or dependent variables.
They are also continuous as they tell us about the eligible students who take the SAT, the
average verbal SAT score, the average math SAT score, and the total SAT score.
First, we’ll look at the data for the average total SAT scores in the United States. Both
the histogram (Figure7) and the box plot (Figure 8) show a slightly skewed distribution towards
the lower end of scores.
Erin Brown – Page 6
<=775 (775, 845]
(845, 915]
(915, 985]
(985, 1055]
(1055, 1125]
(1125, 1195]
>119502468
101214161820
Frequency
Figure 7 – Histogram of Total Average SAT
Lower Whiske
rLower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whiske
r844 897.25 945.5 1032 1107
Figure 8 – Box Plot of Total Average SAT
This positive skew in the distribution could be due to the mode since there are 18 states that
average scores of 845 to 915. To give us more of an understanding, we need to see the
breakdown of data per each portion of the test.
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Erin Brown – Page 7
<=425 (425, 455]
(455, 485]
(485, 515]
(515, 545]
(545, 575]
(575, 605]
>60502468
101214161820
Frequency
Figure 9 - Histogram for Average Math SAT
<=375
(375, 400]
(400, 425]
(425, 450]
(450, 475]
(475, 500]
(500, 525]
(525, 550]
(550, 575]
(575, 600]
>6000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Frequency
Figure 10 – Histogram for Average Verbal SAT
At first glance the histogram for the average math scores (Figure 9) seems to be the
reason, due to the positive skewness. The average verbal scores (Figure 10) may seem a little
inconsistent with low scores in the middle of the range, but overall show more strength than
the math averages. Looking deeper into the box plots of each, math SAT (figure 11) and verbal
SAT (figure 12); we see that verbal seems to be more of a problem.
Erin Brown – Page 8
Figure 11 – Box Plot of Average Math SAT
Lower Whiske
rLower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whiske
r401 427.25 448 490.25 516
Figure 12 – Box Plot of Average Verbal SAT
Though the math box plot is positively skewed, the average scores on the verbal portion
are much lower than the math. The lowest math average score is 443 yet the lowest verbal
average score is 401. This is a good 40 point difference. The same could be said for the higher
scores. The highest math average is 76 points higher than the highest verbal average. Thus,
the lower overall average in the verbal scores has a greater effect on the total SAT average than
the skewness of the math scores.
Some of the most interesting data comes from the histogram (Figure 13) and the box
plot (Figure 14) of the percentage of eligible students that take the SAT. The box plot shows us
that only 0% to 20% of the students in 22 states who are eligible actually take the SAT. Now, is
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Lower Whisker
Lower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whisker
443 474.75 497.5 539.5 592
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Erin Brown – Page 9
this due to the fact that only that many are eligible? Or is it due to the fact that most students
in these states do not plan on extending their education past high school?
<=0 (0, 20] (20, 40]
(40, 60]
(60, 80]
(80, 100]
>1000
5
10
15
20
25Frequency
Figure 13 – Histogram for Eligible Students Taking SAT
Lower Whiske
rLower Hinge Median
Upper Hinge
Upper Whiske
r4 9 28 63 81
Figure 14 – Box Plot for Eligible Students Taking SAT
I suppose that would lead to a completely different research study. What amazes me
about this information is that we can safely assume from this data that at the very least 80% of
the student population in these 22 states do not attend college. And what is even more
incredible when looking at the box plot, is that the lowest percentage in the range is 4% (the
lower whisker). Plainly speaking, 96% of the student population in that particular state has no
intention of officially continuing their education at least in the collegiate world.
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Erin Brown – Page 10
Figure 15 – Bar Graph of Regions
The last variable we need to consider is the categorical variable of the regions (Figure
15). Each of the 50 states is assigned to one of four regions: West (1), Midwest (2), South (3),
and the Northeast (4). Since 50 cannot be divided evenly by 4, it’s safe to predict that the
distributions will not be equal. This is important to keep in mind as this can have an effect on
the next portion of this research paper when we begin to take a closer look on how certain
regions differ in expenditures and the resulting test scores.
Part II Comparisons Using ANOVA
Breaking down our sample further into the four regions (West, Midwest, South, and
Northeast) may tell us more about their differences. To help us highlight these differences we
use the Analysis of Variance or ANOVA process.
ANOVA assesses whether the means of two or more groups are statistically different
from each other. Though there are other tests designed for this, ANOVA is the best choice for
our study due to its ability to analyze our four regions while controlling for Type I error.
When the expenditures per pupil are broken down into the four regions (Table 1.2), we
can see noticeable differences. The p-value of <.001 indicates that these differences are
Erin Brown – Page 11
significant. When we conduct the Tukey test (Table 1.4), we can see that the differences are
significant between the Northeast and West and the Northeast and Midwest.
Comparing Expenditures by Region
Could this have something to do with the greater number of Northeastern states? After
all, there are more states listed under the Northeastern region than those of the West and
Midwest (Table 1.1). Though we should consider everything in this study, this doesn’t seem to
be the case in this particular situation. The South has fewer states listed within its region than
any of the others, yet no significant difference was determined when comparing it with the
Northeast.
The pupil/teacher ratio (Table 2.2) also indicates significant differences. Its p-value is
lower than the recommended .05. Thus, we again further the process by using the Tukey HSD
test (Table 2.4). This tells us that differences are especially significant between the Midwest
and West as well as the Northeast and West.
Erin Brown – Page 12
Comparing Ratio by Region
If we isolate specific scores (Table 2.1) we can see the Midwest has one extreme score
or outlier that could be affecting the results. Also, and even more important, we can see two
overly inflated numbers among the West that could be the main reason for the differences
among the regions. So far, our analysis has shown more differences in the Western portion of
the country than anywhere else. Let’s continue on and see whether or not this trend continues.
Comparing Salary by Region
Erin Brown – Page 13
The ANOVA table for the average teacher salary (Table 3.2) again indicates a significant
difference through its low p-value. The Tukey test (Table 3.4) pinpoints the exact location of
that difference. The Midwest and Northeast have significant differences among the average
teachers salary. Could this be due to the fact that the cost of living is lower (on average) within
the Midwest? Or could this be due to the fact that the cost of living is higher in the Northeaster
portion of the country? Also, if we take a look at the specific averages listed under these two
regions (Table 3.1), we can see one extreme number or outlier among the Northeastern region.
This inflated number may be the reason for the significant difference shown.
Though significant differences have been shown on all ANOVA tables thus far, several
adjustments could be made by individual states to level the playing field, so to speak. For
example, if California and Utah could make an effort to lower their pupil/teacher ratios to no
more than 20 students per instructor, there would be no significant differences among the four
regions. These two states have the power to equalize the pupil/teacher ratio across America.
We would then be better able to compare the equity in public school expenditures across
America by focusing on the other, more relevant, expenditures.
Now, let’s take a look at the percentage of all eligible students taking the SAT by region
(Table 4.2). Again, the p-value is lower than .05 indicating significant differences. The Tukey
test (Table 4.4) points out differences between the Northeast and both the West and Midwest.
Comparing Students Eligible to take SAT by Region
Erin Brown – Page 14
Since the Northeast seems to be the common factor we look closer at those numbers
(Table 4.1). The Northeast numbers seem to be extreme in several directions. There are two
high percentages (80% and 81%) and two lower numbers (17% and 23%). Though not much can
be done to the high percentages except to make sure they are accurate, the two states with the
lowest percentages, Ohio and West Virginia, need to seriously focus on raising their
percentages.
Comparing Total Average SAT Scores by Region
Last, we look at the total average SAT scores by region (Table 5.2). The p-value is once
more low and points to significant differences. The Tukey test (Table 5.4) shows more
differences within this comparison then all the other previous tables. Differences among the
Midwest and all the other regions (West, South, and Northeast) were significant. Taking a
closer look at the Midwest (Table 5.1)which seems to be the common factor, we see that, with
the exception of one state, their numbers are consistently higher. Are students just smarter in
the Midwestern states?
What’s truly fascinating is when you look at the average total SAT score of the Midwest
region and see that it is 1048.08 (Table 5.3); and then compare it to the low percentage of
eligible students taking the SAT, a mere 12.58% (Table 4.3). Thus, fewer students are eligible to
take the test but those students who do take it are extremely bright (Charts 1 & 2). Why is this?
Erin Brown – Page 15
West25%
Midwest27%
South25%
N-East23%
Chart 1 – Pie Chart of Total SAT Scores by Region
West22%
Midwest9%
South22%
N-East47%
Chart 2 – Pie Chart of Students Eligible to take SAT by Region
All these ANOVA tables have pointed to statistical significant differences within each
continuous variable in comparison of the four assigned regions. But what of the practical
significance?
In order to answer these questions we need to find the effect size. This is done by
calculating eta squared which is equal to the Sum of Squares Between Groups (SSb) divided by
Erin Brown – Page 16
the Total Sum of Squares (SSt).
η2 = SSb / SSt
This is the simplest way of measuring the proportion of variance explained within an
ANOVA. If the effect size is small (.01), we will know that although the statistical difference may
be significant, the practical difference is rather small. Likewise, if the effect size is medium (.06)
or large (.14) this also explains the practical difference as opposed to the statistical (p-value)
difference (Table 6).
SSb SSt η 2 Practical diff.Expenditures 33.3015 91.0048 .42 largeRatio 107.355 251.682 .43 largeSalary 551.678 1729.63 .32 largeEligibility for SAT 17914.1 35095.1 .51 largeTotal SAT 129849 274308 .47 large
Table 6 – Effect Size
Table 6 shows a practical significant difference within all variables. It tells us that this
significance is extremely large.
There are a few assumptions to keep in mind when interpreting ANOVA data. First, we
use interval data. This is true in our study. Second, samples should be randomly sampled. I
think it’s safe to say our data came from a reputable source, the U.S. Department of Education.
Third, the samples must be independent of one another. In our study what effects one group
will not affect the others. Lastly, the Analysis of Variance must be of normal distribution. As
we’ve discussed early in Part I of this paper, several of our distributions are slightly skewed and
a few are most predominantly or significantly skewed. We need to keep this in mind when
dissecting ANOVA data.
Erin Brown – Page 17
Part III Scatterplots and Linear Regression
Whereas correlation allows for “better than chance” predictions, regression takes this a
step further. Simple linear regression is a method for making such predictions. It can
sometimes point us to a possible cause.
To accomplish this we use scatterplots and regression equations. Scatter plots are used
to find confidence intervals. The slope and intercept of the regression line help us with the
regression equation.
Figure 16 – Scatterplot of expenditures and SAT scores
In Figure 16 we show the visual correlation between expenditures per pupil and the
average total SAT score. The scatterplot lets us see the relationship of these two variables in
the form of a line. This line passes through the scatterplot in a way that the average distance
from the line for each point in minimized.
Erin Brown – Page 18
Table 7 – Expenditures and SAT scores
In Figure 16 we can see the elliptical cluster of corresponding points and the regression
line are at a negative angle but only slightly so. Table 7.1 lists the slope at negative 20.907 and
Table 7.2 tells us the intercept is 1089.41. These numbers are used to calculate the regression
equation.
Y = -20.907X + 1089.4
We can use this formula to find the possible SAT score given a certain amount of
expenditures. Unfortunately, there is no reason to make these calculations due to the
coefficient of determination (Table 7.3). Since this is 0.1448, this tells us that only 14%
variability in y can be explained by x. This seems to be an extremely weak relationship and not
worth our time to explore further.
When correlating the pupil/teacher ratio with the total SAT scores, we see zero
correlation as represented by the Pearson r in Table 8.3. This means that as one variable
changes, there is no related change to the other variable. In other words, as the pupil/teacher
ratio changes, the average SAT scores have no related change. It is important to note that
we’ve rounded our figures to 0%, even though there is a very slight change.
Table 8 – Ratio and SAT scores
Erin Brown – Page 19
Again, the regression equation (Figure 17) is not much use to us. The correlation is just
too slight to be of any help.
Figure 17 – Scatterplot of ratio and SAT scores
This next set of data was the most interesting of all the simple linear regressions done in
this study. The average teacher’s salary and the current expenditures per pupil were charted
onto a scatterplot (Figure 18). We can clearly see the visual relationship in the form of a
positive elliptical slope. With the exception of one noticeable outlier, the points are clustered
closely on either side of the slope.
Figure 18 – Scatterplot of salary and expenditures
Erin Brown – Page 20
Table 9.1 tells us the slope is 3.79. Table 9.2 points out a 12.44 intercept. But what
fascinates me the most is the coefficient of correlation (0.87) and the coefficient of
determination (.76) shown in Table 9.3. This correlation, according to Guilford’s interpretations
for values of r (Sprinthall, 2007), is strong and suggests a marked relationship. The coefficient
of correlation tells us that 87% of the variability in teacher’s salaries can be explained by
expenditures per pupil.
Table 9 – Expenditures and salary
This is where the regression equation (Figure 18) becomes extremely helpful. We can
take this equation and can use it to predict what a teacher’s salary is most likely to be based on
the amount of money spent per student (Table 9.4).
Table 9.4
Expenditures Equation Salary
X 3.792(X) + 12.436 Y
2.000 3.792(2) + 12.436 20.020
3.000 3.792(3) + 12.436 23.812
4.000 3.792(4) + 12.436 27.604
5.000 3.792(5) + 12.436 31.396
6.000 3.792(6) + 12.436 35.188
7.000 3.792(7) + 12.436 38.980
8.000 3.792(8) + 12.436 42.772
Erin Brown – Page 21
9.000 3.792(9) + 12.436 46.564
10.000 3.792(10) + 12.436 50.356
According to our table, if a state were to spend on average two thousand dollars per
student, the average teacher salary in that state would be $20,020. Likewise, if a state were to
spend on average ten thousand dollars per student, the average teacher’s salary would be
$50,356. Though this doesn’t answer our original concern about whether or not school
spending and academic performance are statistically related, it would be helpful to any
teachers interested in relocating to another state or college students interested in teaching as a
possible career choice. But, of course, they need to keep in mind that though 87% of the
variability can be explained by the expenditures, there is another 13% that cannot be explained
by this.
Figure 19 – Scatterplot of ratio and salary
The last bivariate scatterplot between pupil/teacher ratio and average teacher salary
(Figure 19) is a great example of zero correlation. The regression line is parallel to the x axis.
With the exception of a few outliers, the points are scattered further apart and in a more
circular shape.
Erin Brown – Page 22
Table 10 – Ratio and salary
The slope (Table 10.1) is -.003, the coefficient correlation (Table 10.3) is -0.00, and the
coefficient of determination is 0.00. Basically, this tells us that there is little to no relationship
between these two variables.
The only linear regression that showed a statistical significance in the relationships of
the variables was salary and expenditures. And, though this can be useful in many situations, I
don’t see how this can help us prove or disprove that school spending and academic
performance are statistically unrelated. I believe the fact that we didn’t find significant
correlations in the other scatterplots tells us much more.
Conclusions
None of the findings in this research study have done anything to alter the media’s claim
that school spending and academic performance are statistically unrelated. The histograms
brought to light several other concerns, such as low verbal SAT scores across the U.S and the
alarmingly low number of students taking the SAT in the Midwest. But these concerns cannot
be blamed on low expenditures. The ANOVA analysis showed statistically and practically
significant differences regionally, yet wouldn’t that be expected in a country so large and with
so many blended cultures? The linear regression data showed no correlations concerning
academic achievement (SAT scoring).
If this research was to be done a second time I would suggest that the 50 states be
broken into 5 regions evenly. This would cancel out any concerns regarding disproportion. I’d
also suggest a different form of testing. One standardized test to be used across the country
and to be mandatory for all high school seniors. This would give a true picture of how much is
Erin Brown – Page 23
being learned. The SAT is only taken by those pupils wishing to attend college and that
excludes a large portion of the student body across America. If an alternate test cannot be
found, another possibility is to make the SAT mandatory to all high school seniors and wave the
fee charged for taking it the first time around.
Although several suggestions have been made regarding this cross-country research, I
would be more interested in this study being done exclusively statewide. The Washington state
WASL test could give us a wonderful standard per grade level and the state could be broken
down by regions. All students are already required to take this test so no extra testing would
be required. All the other information, ratio, salary, etc., is already on file due to the fact that it
had already been collected for the nationwide study. I believe focusing this research on a
smaller scale to one individual state would be much more effective and worthwhile.
Bibliography
National Center for Education Statistics (1997). Digest of Education Statistics. U.S. Department
of Education, 1997. Retrieved from http://nces01.ed.gov/pubs/digest97/index.html
Sprinthall, R.C. (2007). Basic Statistical Analysis (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.,
2007.