Comparing NAEP Achievement Data and State Spending

Yesterday, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in reading. This biennial test attempts to measure how the nation’s students are performing on a uniform set of standards. This test is completely separate from the reading standards defined by each state under No Child Left Behind. Much has been said about the nation’s stagnating 4^th grade reading scores since the results were released (no growth in scores was demonstrated from 2007 to 2009). But little has been mentioned about how state NAEP proficiency levels in both reading and math relate to other state information like per pupil expenditures. While it is impossible to draw a clear connection between student test scores and per pupil expenditures, the recent NAEP data reveals some interesting patterns.

We used Federal Education Budget Project data on state poverty levels and per pupil expenditure and merged it with 2009 NAEP data for the percent of 4^th and 8^th graders scoring proficient or above in reading and math. These data suggest that in some cases, high per pupil expenditures are connected to high student performance. For example, more 4^th and 8^th graders score proficient or above on both math and reading in Massachusetts than in any other state. Massachusetts had the 8^th highest per pupil expenditure in the country in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have data) – $12,857. Similarly, New Jersey, the state with the highest per pupil expenditure, has high student achievement scores relative to other states. It ranks in the top five on each 4^th and 8^th grade test.

But not all high spending states demonstrate high achievement levels. The District of Columbia (though not technically a state) spends the third most per pupil in the country – $15,511 in 2007 – but has the worst student achievement. Seventeen percent or fewer of DC’s 4^th and 8^th graders score proficient or above in reading and math. Only Louisiana and Mississippi come close to such low achievement levels. It should be noted that these two states and DC have the highest student poverty rates in the country.

Some states that spend relatively less on a per-pupil basis do, however, demonstrate impressive NAEP results. Idaho, with the second lowest per pupil expenditure in the country at $6,648 (less than half of what New Jersey spends), still displays reasonable achievement levels, particularly in 8^th grade. Thirty-eight percent of Idaho’s 8^th graders scored proficient or above in math, the 16^th highest in the nation. South Dakota’s students also perform well given the state’s low per pupil expenditure (42^nd in the country at $8,064). Their 8^th grade math performance levels rank 8^th in the country and their 8^th grade reading levels rank 9^th.

Clearly, how much a state spends per pupil matters far less than how that state spends that money on education services. Unfortunately, these spending methods probably aren’t standardized either. Hence, good outcomes are far more expensive in New Jersey or Massachusetts than they are in Idaho or South Dakota. But one conclusion should stand out above all others – proficiency levels in even the most impressive states never break 60 percent. In fact, national averages on all four tests hover in the mid-30 percent range. That means that far more than half of the nation’s 4^th and 8^th graders are still scoring below proficient on both math and reading. Given that finding, it seems like every state needs to start rethinking how they spend their education dollars.

These data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia can be downloaded here.