Debunking David Brooks on Education

Let's give Jack Ciattarelli a break for a bit and talk about NY Times columnist David Brooks (link to gifted article).

When Democrats are at their best, they are performing one job: reducing inequality and making American life more just. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did with the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson tried to do with the war on poverty. That’s what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did with their education reform policies. Both Clinton and Obama ran as education outsiders and change agents. In between those presidencies, Democrats worked with George W. Bush on the No Child Left Behind Act, which passed with a majority of 384-45 in the House and 91-8 in the Senate. No Child Left Behind was all about bringing accountability to America’s schools.

Because of those reform efforts, student achievement test scores in reading, math and most other academic subjects shot upward between the mid-1990s and about 2013.... [emphasis mine]

OK, stop right there. Even Brooks himself, in this very article, admits that test scores rise and fall due to many factors, including many that are outside of school: "Student outcomes are rarely just about what happens in the schools." So how can he possibly make such a sweeping causal claim about the effects of No Child Left Behind? 

I won't try to write a comprehensive summary of the research on NCLB here; suffice to say there's a good bit of work on the subject, and the conclusions present a complicated picture. Yes, there's some evidence of gains due to NCLB in some subjects, but not in others. And those gains might have to do with "teaching to the test," which is problematic. Schools did seem to change some of their practices in the wake of NCLB, but some of those changes may not be desirable. 

My point here isn't to make a claim about whether NCLB is good or bad; it's to remind us that changes in test scores are not, by themselves, good barometers of whether or not a particular policy was effective. Brooks, however, seems to be uninterested in such cautions:

George W. Bush had earlier warned of the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” but in the age of equity, schools moved to ease rigor and standards for poorer kids. Many schools stopped assigning whole books and started assigning short passages. What the education writer Tim Daly calls the education depression had begun.

Is it true? Did, sometime shortly after 2013, schools and, by extension, states move to lower their standards?

We can test this empirically—again, with some cautions. But let's talk about how accountability works in our schools first.

Under federal law and since NCLB was enacted in 2001, all states have had to test their students in Grades 3 through 8 in math and reading. The tests, however, vary from state to state, so there is no common scale on which to assess average student performance. However, the National Center for Education Statistics "maps" the results of state tests on to the "gold standard" national test: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

In the simplest terms: NCES looks at the percentage of students a state deems "proficient" on their own test. They then look at the NAEP data and determine what that test's score is for the same percentage of students who took the NAEP. That allows us to look at the differences in proficiency between states: which states set the bar at a relatively high NAEP score, and which set the bar lower.

Because NCES does this every time the NAEP is administered, it also allows us to assess how standards have changed over time. I took this data and averaged it across all states for each year of the NAEP (weighted by student enrollment). There are some cautions involved in this: for one, state tests might emphasize different content at different times, so increases in mapped scores might not reflect more "rigor." We're also assuming the NAEP is a consistent measure of student learning across time (a pretty reasonable assumption, IMO). But I'd argue this is our best estimate of whether state standards have, on average, moved higher. Have they?

Over the last two decades, the definition of "proficiency" on state tests has, on average, become more rigorous, not less.

This shouldn't surprise anyone who remembers that decade and the Common Core wars. By 2015, most states had moved to more difficult tests, and proficiency rates, as defined by those state tests, had decreased. It wasn't that the kids were performing worse; it was that the tests were harder because the standards were more challenging.

So, no, Mr. Brooks, states did not move "to ease rigor and standards for poorer kids." If anything, they did exactly the opposite.

I could spend a week rebutting everything in Brooks piece, but I'll confine myself to one more thing:

We’ve now had 12 years of terrible education statistics. You would have thought this would spark a flurry of reform activity. And it has, but in only one type of people: Republicans. When it comes to education policy, Republicans are now kicking Democrats in the butt.

Schools in blue states like California, Oregon and Washington are languishing, but schools in red states like Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Louisiana, traditional laggards, are suddenly doing remarkably well. Roughly 52 percent of Mississippi’s Black fourth graders read at grade level, compared with only 28 percent in California. Louisiana is the only state where fourth-grade achievement levels have returned to prepandemic levels. An Urban Institute study adjusted for the demographics of the student bodies found that schools in Mississippi are educating their fourth graders more successfully in math and reading than schools in any other state. Other rising stars include Florida, Texas and Georgia.

One of these days I'll get to why those Urban Institute adjusted scores need to be approached with great caution.* But let's focus instead on Brooks's claim about red vs. blue states, and go back to the NAEP scores. Here are Grade 8 reading scores for the seven states Brooks cites.

Remember: Brooks's claim is that, sometime around 2013, Democratic states abandoned accountability and saw their scores "languish," while Republican states resisted and saw their students "do remarkably well."

Well, that's certainly not true for Alabama. The "miracle" state of Mississippi, which pundits claim has shown massive gains due to its use of the "science of reading," actually has a worse score than it had in 2003. California was always a laggard, but has moved up in relative position since 2003. There's no doubt Oregon and Washington have seen declines since 2017, but much of that is post-pandemic: it is quite possible different states were affected in different ways by Covid-19.

Which is the point here: even Brook's cherry-picked example is full of caveats; the data just doesn't support his sweeping statement. And yes, I do mean "cherry-picked." Does it strike you as odd that Brooks chose three Pacific coast examples to represent all blue states? What if, instead, he chose New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts? 

It's quite a different picture now: even with pandemic learning loss, these blue states maintain their relative position. Of course, I'm just looking at one grade and one test... but, again, that's the point. You can't make sweeping generalizations about the efficacy of particular policies by cherry-picking the examples you want. 

Do I think the NAEP has its place in education policy debates? Yes, I do. But what Brooks is doing here is really no better than HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "making the proof" that links Tylenol to autism. Pundits who wade in education policy should do better.

* For now, I'll just say that the definition of "poverty" should change when the cost of living varies so much between states. This is especially true when your poverty measure (free and reduced-price lunch eligibility) is becoming increasingly unreliable. Urban's adjusted scores do not take this into account. It's a problem, admittedly a complex one. More later.

When It Comes To School Finance, Ciattarelli Doesn't Know Jack: Part 2

Can anyone explain Jack Cittarelli's plans for school funding in New Jersey if he becomes the governor? Because he can't.

Take, for example, this from his website:

Jack will reform the state school funding formula, set a statewide standard on per-pupil spending and then allow that money to follow the student, while instructing the State Department of Education to get off the backs of higher-performing districts while concentrating on under-performing districts. [emphasis mine]

What, exactly, does it mean to "set a statewide standard on per-pupil spending"? If we're to believe this story from InsiderNJ, it means, believe it or not, a spending cap:

1. Replace the current school funding formula with one that standardizes and caps per pupil spending and rewards – not punishes – high-performing school districts that have seen funding slashed, schools closed, and extracurricular activities cut under S2.  Also, make the state pick up 100% of the cost of special education.

I've been busting on Ciattarelli for the past few posts, but it's fair to say many politicians and pundits, both in and out of New Jersey and on both sides of the political aisle, have adopted this same framework. In their world, "high-performing" school districts are suffering from slashed budgets while "under-performing" districts spend like bandits but get bad results.

Of course, it just so happens the "high-performing" districts are majority white and Asian, while the "under-performing" districts are majority Black and Latinx/Hispanic. But folks like Ciattarelli will never mention the very well documented history of systemic racism that created the segregation that plagues New Jersey and other states. And they will never admit that this is why communities of color need more state funding for their schools.

These school districts are educating the most disadvantaged children—but they have the smallest property tax bases. So they can't raise adequate local funds without sky-high property tax rates, which is why the state has to step in and provide funding. This is basic stuff, folks: School Finance 101. If you're going to be governor, you've got to understand it.

But if you listen to what Jack Ciattarelli says, it's clear he just doesn't get it. Or maybe he does—but he's too scared of his Republican base to tell them the truth. Instead, he continues to parrot right-wing nonsense like this:

Our property taxes are the highest in the nation, not necessarily because of municipal and county budgets, upon which [a governor has] no real power. Where I could have real influence is the school tax, and that’s because of state aid. So, we need a new school funding formula. The current one is nefarious. It’s arbitrary and violates the equal benefit clause of our state constitution that says no community is supposed to suffer at the expense of another. So, with a more equitable distribution of state aid, we can lower property taxes. The cost per pupil in a place like Newark is $37,000, while the state average is $16,000. No one can justify to me that a particular student needs $21,000 more per year to educate them. That makes a compelling case why the current formula is unfair. Does that mean I will leave a community or student behind if that school district isn’t performing well? No. I believe in a voucher system, like we’ve seen in Arizona, Ohio, and Florida. I also believe in school choice, and charter schools to achieve that objective. 

As I noted last time, the data say Ciattarelli is full of it.

District	Total Current Spending, FY2023	Pct. Poverty, 5-17 yer-olds (2023)	Pct. English Language Learners (2023)
Newark City	$28,631	30.0%	21.6%
All other NJ districts	$25,408	11.2%	8.3%

According to valid federal data, Newark does not spend $21K per pupil more than other NJ districts. But let's take this another step...

Because that figure for "all other NJ districts" is an average. Which means some districts spend less, but some districts spend more. Given Ciattarelli's worry about the "nefarious" school funding formula, it's worth asking this question: Are there any affluent, suburban, majority-white districts that spend more per pupil than Newark?

Yes. Quite a few, in fact.

The table below uses the NJ Taxpayers' Guide To Education Spending. The figures are for the school year 2022-23: this is the latest year of data showing actual, not budgeted, spending.* I use the "budgetary spending" figures, because as NJDOE itself notes: "These costs are considered to be more comparable among districts, and may be useful for budget considerations." 

The districts I compare to Newark are all relatively affluent, as judged by the NJDOE's District Factor Groups (DFGs). I only include those districts in DFGs "GH,""I," or "J," the highest categories of socio-economic status. This also excludes vo-tech and charter schools.

There are 92 affluent New Jersey districts—almost all majority white—that spend more per pupil than Newark. Yet Newark's students are far more likely to be in poverty and to speak a language other than English at home.

I've included some other data (coming from school aid notices I obtain through Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests). The last column shows the total property value for each school district, divided by the number of enrolled resident students. Notice how small that figure is for Newark compared to the suburbs. This is a legacy of racist housing practices that continue to suppress property values in communities of color, making it far more difficult to raise funds for schools.

See, property taxes are based on property values: the taxes are based on some percentage of the value of the property in a school district. When property values are low, it's hard to raise funds; the property tax rate has to be set higher than in district with relatively high property values just to raise the same amount of funds.

Because of systemic racism, communities like Newark have lower property values than majority-white communities. It is, therefore, much more difficult for them to raise money locally for their schools. This is why they MUST have more state aid.

The NJ courts have ruled on this over and over and over again: Communities of color need more help from the state because 1) their tax bases are low, and 2) they serve more children in poverty. The NJ Supreme Court sent the NJ Legislature back to the drawing board three times before it said the state finally had a school funding formula that acknowledged this reality.

And now Jack Ciattarelli wants to blow the whole thing up. He wants much higher taxes for Black and Hispanic/Latinx towns and cities. He wants less help for the schools that enroll the most vulnerable students. And, apparently, Ciattarelli wants to cap school spending for almost 100 relatively affluent districts that spend more per pupil than Newark -- that is, of course, unless he is a screaming hypocrite.

Is he?

In addition, instead of real help, he offers communities of color school "choice." More on why that's such a horrible idea next.

District	Pct. White	Pct. Free or Reduced-Price Lunch	Pct. Multilingual Learner	DIstrict Factor Group	Budgetary Spending per pupil	Equalized Housing Value per pupil
Newark Public School District	7%	74%	29%	A	$20,026	$263,176
Northern Highlands Regional High School District	68%	1%	0%	J	$20,031	$1,642,773
Montclair Public School District	51%	16%	3%	I	$20,043	$1,428,397
Alexandria Township School District	85%	9%	2%	GH	$20,140	$1,273,521
Manasquan School District	83%	13%	2%	GH	$20,159	$3,609,315
Woodcliff Lake School District	76%	1%	2%	J	$20,163	$2,125,023
Lafayette Township School District	74%	6%	1%	GH	$20,172	$1,346,024
Holmdel Township School District	67%	3%	2%	I	$20,265	$1,579,862
Rumson Borough School District	91%	0%	0%	J	$20,378	$3,222,648
Chester Township School District	70%	6%	3%	J	$20,448	$1,524,677
Lenape Regional High School District	68%	17%	1%	GH	$20,471	$986,472
Hillsdale School District	69%	9%	2%	GH	$20,491	$1,240,179
West Morris Regional High School District	75%	1%	1%	I	$20,571	$1,384,446
East Hanover Township School District	66%	3%	2%	GH	$20,638	$2,647,735
Wayne Township Public School District	67%	12%	5%	GH	$20,648	$1,474,833
Somerset Hills Regional School District	64%	19%	9%	I	$20,651	$2,375,537
Clinton-Glen Gardner School District	70%	19%	4%	I	$20,676	$1,012,442
Montville Township School District	56%	3%	4%	I	$20,706	$1,560,431
Freehold Township School District	71%	17%	2%	GH	$20,813	$1,410,221
West Essex Regional School District	78%	4%	1%	I	$20,922	$2,230,018
Rumson-Fair Haven Regional High School District	89%	1%	0%	J	$20,967	$2,406,670
Millstone Township School District	76%	9%	1%	I	$21,042	$1,400,088
Roosevelt Borough Public School District	61%	1%	1%	GH	$21,057	$876,496
Bethlehem Township School District	84%	3%	1%	I	$21,148	$1,218,865
Lebanon Township School District	86%	16%	3%	I	$21,224	$1,290,504
Florham Park School District	68%	1%	3%	I	$21,250	$2,876,537
River Vale Public School District	74%	1%	1%	I	$21,272	$1,484,848
Delaware Township School District	78%	5%	2%	GH	$21,286	$1,846,088
Mendham Borough School District	80%	4%	3%	J	$21,300	$1,952,166
Watchung Hills Regional High School District	52%	3%	2%	I	$21,425	$1,961,343
Fredon Township School District	79%	13%	0%	GH	$21,437	$1,250,363
Rockaway Township School District	54%	20%	4%	I	$21,448	$1,406,942
Readington Township School District	72%	15%	2%	I	$21,534	$1,690,847
Hunterdon Central Regional High School District	67%	19%	5%	I	$21,535	$1,368,175
Upper Saddle River School District	63%	0%	2%	J	$21,601	$1,784,885
Ringwood School District	74%	11%	1%	GH	$21,646	$1,173,707
Essex Fells School District	76%	0%	0%	J	$21,647	$2,297,446
Green Township School District	81%	11%	0%	I	$21,677	$866,980
Union Township School District	74%	6%	2%	GH	$21,760	$1,451,621
Morris Plains School District	67%	13%	4%	I	$21,799	$1,997,659
Paramus Public School District	43%	17%	4%	GH	$21,824	$3,062,844
Lenape Valley Regional High School District	65%	18%	4%	GH	$21,846	$842,850
Oceanport School District	89%	7%	1%	GH	$21,857	$2,100,984
Hanover Township School District	62%	6%	4%	I	$21,863	$2,521,053
Island Heights School District	86%	2%	1%	GH	$21,917	$1,934,654
Delaware Valley Regional High School District	82%	13%	1%	GH	$21,960	$1,232,068
Haworth Public School District	62%	0%	5%	I	$22,033	$1,582,638
East Amwell Township School District	77%	16%	4%	I	$22,044	$1,783,920
Boonton Township School District	77%	2%	0%	I	$22,060	$1,659,659
Mendham Township School District	83%	0%	0%	J	$22,088	$1,748,643
Oakland Public School District	76%	9%	3%	I	$22,133	$1,426,568
Wall Township Public School District	83%	12%	2%	GH	$22,135	$2,271,707
Princeton Public School District	45%	14%	4%	I	$22,331	$2,378,670
Monmouth Beach School District	91%	0%	0%	I	$22,460	$6,720,665
Morris Hills Regional School District	49%	22%	5%	GH	$22,509	$1,245,248
Teaneck School District	11%	46%	5%	GH	$22,606	$1,696,591
Branchburg Township School District	62%	12%	2%	I	$22,618	$2,107,581
West Orange Public Schools	18%	39%	7%	GH	$22,741	$992,920
Clinton Township School District	72%	13%	3%	I	$22,746	$1,367,529
Mahwah Township Public School District	60%	14%	3%	I	$22,813	$2,400,283
High Bridge Borough School District	70%	22%	2%	GH	$22,897	$857,159
Hopewell Valley Regional School District	68%	6%	2%	I	$23,092	$1,539,715
Franklin Township School District	74%	18%	5%	I	$23,141	$1,442,577
Mount Arlington Public School District	43%	25%	8%	GH	$23,735	$1,776,232
Ramsey School District	76%	7%	3%	I	$23,898	$1,560,248
Colts Neck Township School District	87%	3%	1%	I	$23,955	$2,322,403
Midland Park School District	71%	8%	2%	GH	$24,440	$1,569,577
Park Ridge School District	70%	9%	2%	I	$24,472	$1,581,949
North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District	82%	5%	0%	I	$24,544	$1,426,421
Bloomsbury Borough School District	69%	23%	0%	GH	$24,580	$870,182
Tewksbury Township School District	77%	4%	1%	J	$24,584	$2,434,475
Bedminster Township Public School District	53%	13%	6%	I	$24,593	$3,638,079
Mountain Lakes Public School District	67%	2%	1%	J	$24,681	$1,258,570
Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District	81%	2%	1%	I	$24,826	$1,894,171
Bay Head Borough School District	90%	0%	0%	I	$24,912	$27,834,838
South Hunterdon Regional School District	64%	30%	8%	I	$24,980	$1,936,377
Hanover Park Regional High School District	72%	4%	3%	GH	$25,378	$2,668,784
Shore Regional High School District	82%	15%	2%	GH	$25,576	$3,267,537
Warren Township School District	53%	9%	4%	I	$25,577	$2,086,300
Cranbury Township School District	50%	10%	5%	J	$25,711	$2,890,144
Monmouth Regional High School	46%	35%	6%	GH	$25,995	$2,205,552
Lebanon Borough School District	76%	16%	0%	I	$26,020	$1,748,372
Northern Valley Regional High School District	51%	1%	2%	I	$26,406	$1,546,869
Franklin Lakes School District	76%	3%	1%	I	$26,548	$2,774,823
Califon Borough School District	76%	0%	0%	I	$26,616	$1,419,963
Avon Boro School District	88%	14%	4%	I	$26,624	$11,656,592
Pascack Valley Regional High School District	68%	2%	1%	I	$27,574	$1,603,043
Englewood Cliffs School District	26%	0%	9%	I	$28,747	$8,177,879
Harding Township School District	83%	3%	1%	J	$29,506	$5,917,159
Sea Girt Borough School District	80%	0%	0%	I	$29,592	$21,036,642
Alpine Public School District	56%	0%	4%	I	$30,229	$9,597,392
Spring Lake Borough	95%	4%	0%	I	$32,099	$28,190,916
Saddle River School District	64%	0%	0%	J	$43,763	$8,091,611

* Yes, this matters. I have been working with this data for some time, and I will tell you there are always significant difference between what districts budget to spend in a year, and what they actually spend. I always use the latest "actual" spending figures, and not the "budgeted" figures, because the actual figures are audited and represent real, and not projected, spending.