Academia, Media, Politics, Society

Eighty-Three Percent Of D.C. Students Score Below “Proficient” In Reading and 81 Percent Are Below “Proficient” In Math

SchoolClassroomThe public schools in Washington, D.C. continue to set a record for per pupil costs in the nation. The District has long been the most expensive system in the country and reportedly spends roughly $30,000 per student in a system that continues to produce appalling results in national studies. The latest such study is by the respected National Center for Education Statistics which has found that in 2013 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not “proficient” in reading and 81 percent were not “proficient” in math.

The only improvement is marginal at best. The percentage of students who performed at or above the NAEP Basic level was 57 percent in 2013. This percentage was greater than that in 2011 (51 percent) and in 1998 (44 percent). However, this is an extremely low level of performance and 43 percent are below even that level.

What is equally distressing is that this study went with virtually no mention in Washington. Indeed, the Washington Post gave more attention to the discarding of trash bins than this most recent educational data.

D.C. eighth graders scored an average of 248 out of 500 in reading. Mississippi finished next to last with an average of 253.

DC spends more than twice as other large cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas, though figures vary between studies and reports. The figure is derived from dividing total expenditures in Table 1 by enrollment in Table 15 of the Census Bureau statistics. The Census Bureau’s Table 11 puts the per capital costs for elementary schools at over $27,000 up to 2010. (note that this is a different calculation than Table 8 on per capita spending levels).

New York spends $5,353 less per student.

By the way, of that money, only $10,584 per pupil is spent on “instruction” and $1,613 on “instructional staff.”

Whatever the cost, the D.C. schools continue to fail and thousands of students are facing a dim future without basic skills to succeed. Many will be left to a cycle poverty where they lack the necessary skills to succeed in a new and more demanding job market. It is a chilling statistic that is measured in real terms in the lives of thousands of students.

These statistics are truly frightening. D.C. has a long reputation for wasteful and poorly managed systems. This low level of performance is even more striking when it is between two of the most successful school systems in the country: Montgomery (MD) and Fairfax Counties (VA). Clearly D.C. deals with a large number of impoverished students, but that does not explain this continuing failure of this system at such a high cost. Other cities have such impoverished areas and do far better with far less. The city seems to be continuing to discard thousands of students with the same level of care as its recent trash bin scandal. Yet, there remains no serious backlash against the city’s elected officials or demands for a fundamental change in the school system after decades of such poor performance.

588 thoughts on “Eighty-Three Percent Of D.C. Students Score Below “Proficient” In Reading and 81 Percent Are Below “Proficient” In Math”

  3. Karen

    Here is the repost of my dig into the NEA report (5/23 @ 10:18)

    There is something odd about Prof. Turley’s post that states DC spends almost $30K per student. That is a Cato finding. A Cato blogger found some info in the census reporting that made the figure jump from around $18.6K to that $30K figure. Cato. Who is no friend of public schools. Who is very partisan.

    The Washington Examiner, (a right wing newspaper) says the figure is $18,667 for the previous report. Cato says it is now $30K. Something seems wrong. Google it. You will find lots of hits that say the figure is $30K. They are all picking up the Cato report. The $30K is not in line with other years or other states.

    Here is the link to the NEA report that politfact used:
    http://www.nea.org/assets/img/content/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates-2013_%282%29.pdf Politifact reported that DC spent $14K per student. I figure it is almost $19K. I think they left out some cost. I used all costs.

    Using NEA stats I find the cost per student is $18,791 for 2012-2013 estimates.
    Use Table K for cost.= $1.428,450
    Used Summary Table B Page 87 for # of students = 76,017

    I’m no statistician, but I think I may be close judging by the Washington Examiner figure and the politifact figure. Plus my numbers resemble previous years. The $30K is pretty weird

  4. Get all that Karen??? How’s the question quota lookin’ to you now?

  5. Karen

    I have never suggested you, or anyone, should join the Moonies. Ever. If you maintain that I have, please repost that comment and I will be happy to apologize.

    I have linked to Table 15, page 34. It does not provide any enrollment figures. The figures were all for Expenditures and Indebtedness. You will have to provide more directions as to where the 43,866 is to be found.

    I hate to make it any more complicated, but as you point out Table 15 is reporting 2010 data. The reading failures are from 2013. The NEA study was for 2012 / 2013 estimates. Why should we use 2010 data?

    Even so, I believe 43,866 is in error. It is very unlikely that enrollments would show those kinds of increases. As you know, my figure is something more like 70,000.

    I request one promise – you will stick around as we sort this out.

    So send me directions or something that will get me straight to 43,866.

    In the meantime, read my Wapo link @ 2:43 that reports the enrollment for 2013 and 2012 if you do a little arithmetic and tell me why you dispute their figures. Also look at the NEA report (i’ll find my comment upthread so you will have good directions)

    1. Couple of things to consider, the Census Bureau is under investigation for fudging numbers and the NEA is a teachers’ union with an axe to grind. Let’s really consider the sources here.

  8. Karen,

    I think it’s the Washington Times–not the Washington Post–that has connections to the Moonies.

  9. I thought the Moonies owned the Washington TIMES, they own WaPo too?

  10. Feynman:

    I am surprised that you linked to a WashPo article, as every time I do it you say I should join the Moonies.

  11. Feynman:

    If you looked at the Table I linked to, enrollment was broken down by elementary, etc. If you have a question about the data, just look it up.

  12. Elaine

    I can’t help supposing that many debates here must take you right back to the classroom when you were working with 10 year olds.

  14. Paul,

    I didn’t make the claim about the NEA establishing a charter school in Arizona. You did. When asked to furnish proof of such, you refuse. It’s not my job to prove that your claim is a fact. If you can’t provide proof, I’ll assume it’s not a fact.

    1. Elaine – assume away. You know what happens when you assume.

  15. Well, when one won’t back up assertions, one opens oneself up to doubts of their credibility. If that isn’t important to one then I suppose one simply comments to assert things and it may appear they shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    1. I have said before that Elaine is a competent researcher. If she wants to know then she can look for it. 🙂

  17. Feynman, take heart, those qualities are still valued by many here.

  18. Annie

    I used to think credibility. honesty, good faith argument, admitting errors, and supporting links were valued.

    Sadly, I think that is no longer true here.

  19. Feynman,

    You bring up a good point. SAT participation rates need to be taken into consideration when looking at/comparing state scores.

  20. Whoa Els,
    Your comment is long gone. Yup more than two links will do it as well as any random thing Worpress wants to eat that particular day.

Comments are closed.