Hillsdale College comes to NPRI
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Hillsdale College comes to NPRI
I’ve always been a big fan of Hillsdale College.
The school’s core curriculum alone is enough reason to warrant admiration, with its grounding in Western culture and tradition and its focus on the principles of the American founding.
Beyond that, there’s the fact that Hillsdale doesn’t accept a single penny in government funding. Lots of institutions around the country can say the same — including NPRI — but that Hillsdale can say it makes the school unique among American colleges.
And finally, there’s a reason that’s a bit closer to home: Three members of our staff here at NPRI — Victor Joecks, Jared Carl and Tyler Walton — are Hillsdale graduates, and we’ve been well served by all of them.
So it is with great excitement that we will welcome Dr. Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale, as the keynote speaker for NPRI’s 22nd Anniversary Celebration. The event, which serves as our chief annual fundraiser, will be held on Sept. 26 at The Venetian | The Palazzo Las Vegas, and I want to invite you to attend.
We’ve still got room, but the space is filling up fast. For more information on the event or to secure your seat or table, please click here.
I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Arnn give a speech in Henderson last year, and what he offered was an incisive analysis of the challenges our nation is currently facing, as well as an uplifting and optimistic message about how we can, by returning to our founding principles, succeed in meeting them. If you attend — and I hope you will — you’re in for a real treat.
In the meantime, I’d like to suggest you check out a few courses that Hillsdale offers online free of charge. The subjects range from economics to history to the U.S. Constitution, and you can register for them here.
As always, thank you for your support of NPRI and our efforts to make the Silver State a better place to live.
Take care, and I hope to see you on Sept. 26!
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Read moreThe union crack-up continues
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
The union crack-up continues
A bit over a month ago, I used this space to highlight a wonderfully ironic development in the still-unfolding Obamacare saga: the defection of Teamsters chief James Hoffa and other national labor-union leaders from the ranks of the health-care law’s supporters.
At the time, I was careful to temper my enthusiasm. The about-face from Hoffa, et al., was most welcome, but it hardly represented some fundamental ideological shift on the part of Big Labor. It was simply a case of looking out for one’s own.
That said, something peculiar does seem to be going on in Unionland these days.
An Aug. 21 story in the Las Vegas Sun detailed a Nevada State AFL-CIO resolution blasting away at the Affordable Care Act, as Obamacare is more officially known, lamenting that the law would visit destruction upon the health-care plans currently enjoyed by union members. As the Sun’s Andrew Doughman reported:
Union leaders are concerned with a provision of the law that call [sic] for the provision of health insurance for people who work more than 30-hours per week, meaning workers’ hours could be cut so that employers don’t have to provide health insurance.
“The unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40 hour work week, higher taxes and force union members onto more costly plans,” the resolution reads.
Since the Nevada AFL-CIO is essentially echoing the concerns already raised by Hoffa and others, what I wrote in July applies anew: Few things in life are more enjoyable than seeing union leaders describe the harmful consequences of government meddling in the marketplace. I’ll happily take another helping.
But the Nevada AFL-CIO’s sudden beef with leftist policies isn’t limited to Obamacare. A second Doughman story, from this past Wednesday, highlights another development that’s likely to be even more consequential. It seems the Nevada AFL-CIO is starting to fall out of love with another liberal idea. This time, it’s the margin tax.
As Doughman explains, “an early sponsor of the Education Initiative campaign” — that’s the official name for the margin-tax proposal that will appear on the 2014 ballot — “has signaled that it may not sign on to the campaign to pass the tax.”
Danny Thompson, who heads up the Nevada AFL-CIO, told the Sun that “[t]he measure needs to be studied for its impact on our members and its impact on our jobs in our community. No decision will be made until the Nevada State AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE) Convention in April of 2014.”
What’s going on here? To say that the Nevada AFL-CIO had been a supporter of the margin-tax initiative is to understate the situation dramatically. As Doughman reminds us, the state teacher union — which has been and remains at the forefront of the campaign (the ostensible purpose of which is to raise more revenue for education) — “has routinely listed the Nevada State AFL-CIO as its chief partner” in the effort. (Emphasis added.) Now Thompson’s crew is hedging on whether to even support the measure at all?
It is again tempting to wonder: Are unions finally starting to realize the folly of big-government liberalism, and are they ready to embrace free-market policy ideas?
Nice as that would be, I’m still skeptical. In all likelihood, this is, just like the reversals we’ve seen on Obamacare, a case of self-preservation. But the development is still significant, for two reasons.
The first is that, given the usually reliable support unions show for higher taxes and bigger government, the failure to secure that support immediately for such a proposal shows that this proposal is really, really bad. And indeed, while liberal ideas are bad across the board, what we have with the margin tax, as with Obamacare, is a policy proposal that’s much more dangerous than your typical, garden-variety liberal policy prescription. That the Nevada AFL-CIO is waffling only underscores that point, and is a gift to those looking to combat the effort. The margin tax: an idea so bad, even unions don’t like it.
The second reason is that, while the unions may not intend to cede any ideological ground with their changes in position, that’s exactly what they do. And this matters a lot.
If the unions’ opposition to Obamacare and (potentially) the margin tax is based on self-interest, then the natural question that arises is: Why are those policies so bad for the unions? In both cases, it’s because the effects of those policies would be devastating for union workers. But why would those policies be devastating for union workers? It’s because both result in increased government intrusion into the economic process, and the effects of such intrusion are always devastating. Perhaps not always for union workers, but for someone. Economic harm is an inevitable consequence of inappropriate government interference with the economy, because when government gets in the way, the marketplace functions less efficiently. And somebody has to pay the price. Union workers just happen to be among those harmed most severely in these particular cases.
That’s why the unions’ change of heart on these policies matters so much. It’s an acknowledgement, if an unintentional one, that liberal, big-government policies are fundamentally destructive to an economy. While the unions’ opposition to liberal ideas might be limited to these particular cases, the principles on which that opposition rests are not.
My friend, we’re winning the intellectual argument. Now our challenge is to turn that victory into tangible results.
Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Onward
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Onward
I still remember something Joe Becker said to me nearly three years ago. We’d just officially launched the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation here at NPRI and hired Joe as the Center’s director, and he was perfectly frank about what it was we were getting into.
“Beating the government,” Joe told me, “is hard.”
Is it ever.
We got a fresh reminder of that this week in our lawsuit against the Clark County School District. As you know, we’ve sued CCSD for its refusal to provide us with teachers’ government-issued email addresses, as required by Nevada public-records law. On Monday, District Court Judge Douglas Smith employed a tortured interpretation of the Nevada Revised Statutes, and a bizarre re-characterization of our request, to grant the school district’s motion to dismiss our case. (For a point-by-point takedown of Judge Smith’s ruling, I would direct you to Joe’s recent comments, which you can find here.)
Disappointing as the news was, however, it wasn’t altogether surprising. What Joe told me back in 2010 is absolutely right: Beating the government is hard. Government bodies have nearly unlimited resources with which to litigate, and judges are often inclined to give government the benefit of the doubt, no matter how flimsy its arguments. To litigate against government, therefore, is to accept the role of the underdog, plain and simple.
That said, I want to tell you something very important: Now is not the time to feel discouraged. Despite this setback, our fight will continue. And there is plenty of reason for optimism.
As we announced Monday, we have already decided to appeal this decision to the Nevada Supreme Court, which has a history of smacking down district-court judges for misguided rulings on open-government matters. That history — and the overwhelming strength of our case — have us confident we’ll prevail. And perhaps just as important is the fact that public support for our position is coming in from across the ideological spectrum.
Among those to respond to Monday’s news was Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, who told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that “[t]he Nevada Supreme Court has been quite clear that government records are public, with very limited exceptions.” Of the directory of email addresses we’re seeking, he added: “It’s a public record.”
In addition, none other than Steve Sebelius, the liberal RJ columnist with whom I’ve butted heads before, took our side in his Wednesday column, titled “Plenty of grounds to appeal teacher email decision.”
And Barry Smith, who helped craft Nevada’s Public Records Act, added, “I’m not following the judge’s logic. This is clearly a matter of public record.”
It’s an exceedingly rare occasion when Allen Lichtenstein, Steve Sebelius, Barry Smith and I are all singing the same tune. But if ever there were an issue that should produce such broad consensus, this is indeed it.
That’s because open, accountable government is a sine qua non of a free society. All of us — whether we’re conservatives, liberals or something in between — are threatened when those entrusted with the levers of government decide they no longer have to answer to the citizens they’re hired to serve.
And on that front, the Clark County School District has been among the Silver State’s worst offenders. As Lichtenstein put it, the district’s latest shenanigans are just part of its “seemingly never-ending attempt to whittle away at public records law.”
Enough is enough. It’s time for CCSD to be held accountable. And to that end, our fight goes on.
Take care, and we’ll see you (and CCSD) at the Nevada Supreme Court.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Backlash builds against judge’s decision in CCSD email case
What is one thing that NPRI, the ACLU, Nevada Press Association, liberal columnist Steve Sebelius, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board all agree on?
That District Court Judge Douglas Smith's recent ruling denying NPRI’s request for the government-issued email address of CCSD teachers was a terrible decision.
You never want to lose in court, but the backlash against Judge Smith’s bizarre decision at least provides a chance to highlight the importance of Nevada’s public records law.
And NPRI is going to appeal this decision to the Nevada Supreme Court, which has a history of overturning District-Court decisions that have limited citizen’s access to public records. We’re appealing not just for the records themselves, but to fight the dangerous precedents contained in Judge Smith’s decision.
For now, here’s a round-up of the disagreement with the decision.
ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein:
But the Nevada Policy Research Institute is appealing to the Nevada Supreme Court, and its chances of a reversed ruling are favorable in the opinion of Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
“The Nevada Supreme Court has been quite clear that government records are public, with very limited exceptions,” he said Tuesday, referring to the court’s interpretation of a state law requiring government agencies to “foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with access to inspect and copy public books.” ...
“It’s a public record,” Lichtenstein said. “I don’t know how the (Supreme) Court could view it otherwise.”
Nevada Press Association president Barry Smith:
“I’m not following the judge’s logic,” said Barry Smith, who helped craft Nevada’s public records laws. “This is clearly a matter of public record.”
RJ columnist Steve Sebelius:
Judge Smith then says the database is confidential, based on NRS 239B.040(1)(a), which says “if a person or his or her agent provides the electronic mail address or telephone number of the person to a governmental entity for the purpose of or in the course of communicating with that governmental agency,” then it’s confidential.
But that doesn’t seem to apply here. Clark County teachers didn’t supply their addresses to a governmental agency; they were assigned that address by a governmental agency.
Judge Smith’s decision turned Nevada’s public records law upside down in upholding the school district’s refusal to release teacher email addresses to the Nevada Policy Research Institute. ...
Yet Judge Smith practically mocked NPRI’s argument for being “based on only the general presumption of openness contained in the Nevada Public Records Act.” In other words, for being based on law. Judge Smith, on the other hand, completely misread the law in ruling the email database confidential. ...
NPRI announced it will appeal Judge Smith’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court. Good. This poorly reasoned decision begs to be overturned.
I'm going to jail
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
I'm going to jail
As the president of a non-profit, I know what it’s like to rely on the generosity and support of others to be able to carry out the organization’s mission. And I can’t say enough about how much I appreciate your support for the Nevada Policy Research Institute and our efforts to make the Silver State a freer and better place to live.
As much as I believe in NPRI’s mission, however, I always keep in mind that there are so many other causes that are worthy of support. Of course, not all of them have to do with public policy. But it’s good to remember that there are lots of ways to help strengthen our community that go beyond tax rates and education reforms.
Which brings me to the point of this week’s column. On Tuesday, August 27, I’ll be participating in a charitable event to help raise funds for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. In addition to the fact that its proceeds will go to support a great cause, the MDA uses a fun and creative method to raise money for its efforts.
Here’s how it works: On August 27, shortly after noon, the MDA is having me arrested. But rather than haul me off to one of Clark County’s government-operated prisons, the officer will take me to Bahama Breeze, where I’ll be thrown in a jail cell until I raise enough “bail” to earn my freedom. The bail money, of course, goes to support the MDA.
By the way, somebody — and I’ve yet to figure out who — volunteered me for participation in this event. And I want you to know that if you’re reading this, you’re a suspect! But of course, I was more than happy to agree to participate.
So with that, I’d like to ask you to consider pitching in and helping me make bail. You’ll be supporting a good cause, as I’ve already said, but if you need another reason, consider this: The sooner I raise the necessary funds, the sooner I can return to the office that day and get back to work fighting to keep more money in your wallet.
My bail is $3,200, and I have a ways to go. How can you contribute? You can either come by Bahama Breeze, on the corner of Paradise and Flamingo, sometime the afternoon of the 27th and make your donation in person (and, while you’re there, take pleasure in mocking me for my predicament), or you can donate ahead of time online, which you may do by clicking here.
If you’re able to help out, I’d appreciate it greatly. Thank you in advance for your generosity. I hope to see you at Bahama Breeze on August 27!
Best regards,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Questions and answers
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Questions and answers
The “more cops” tax debate is back in the news this week. The latest, reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is that the Clark County Commission has opted to postpone its vote on whether to approve an increase in the county’s sales-tax rate, new revenues from which would go to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The issue is before the Commission after the Nevada Legislature — in a constitutionally dubious move — voted to delegate to the commissioners the power to decide whether to implement the tax hike, which would raise the rate from 8.1 percent to 8.25 percent. Under the Nevada Constitution, the power to raise taxes rests with the state legislature (which can only do so with approval from two-thirds of the members of both houses), and so it’s highly questionable whether state lawmakers were within their right to hand this decision off to the locals without approving the tax hike itself. The Legislature used a similar scheme with AB 46, which gives the Washoe County Commission the authority to raise sales and property taxes.
But the question of constitutionality is not what was on commissioners’ minds when they decided this week, in a near-unanimous vote, to delay their decision. (Tom Collins — last seen calling NPRI’s Victor Joecks “Evil! Very Evil!” — cast the only vote against the postponement.) According to the Review-Journal, it was Commissioner Susan Brager who made the move to postpone the vote, and she did so because she “still has unanswered questions,” primarily having to do with Metro’s finances.
Well, as someone who has followed this issue closely, I’d like to take a stab at providing some answers for Commissioner Brager and her colleagues.
The ostensible reason for the proposed sales-tax hike is to allow Metro to hire new police officers, without which, we’re told, the safety of Southern Nevada residents simply cannot be ensured. Check out this video that Metro produced last August, which ominously warns of the dire consequences in store should the department not get its way.
On its face, the argument that more cops would lead to better public safety — although not for everyone — is somewhat intuitive. But Metro has set up a false dichotomy, because the options aren’t limited to raising taxes or having fewer officers.
There’s a third option — using the resources the department already has in a more efficient way. Fortunately, we’re able to gain some insight into Metro’s current level of efficiency in that regard, thanks to a website we at NPRI operate, located at TransparentNevada.com. The site includes all kinds of information on government spending, including public-employee compensation.
And what does one find upon perusing the numbers for Metro employees? For starters, there’s the captain who received more than $585,000 in total compensation in 2012. Then there’s the lieutenant who raked in more than $354,000. And the assistant sheriff who got more than $294,000. Those are just three of the 149 Metro employees who took home more than $200,000 last year in total compensation. And those 149 are among the 2,204 individuals who received more than $125,000 in total compensation.
But just as egregious as those astronomical compensation levels is another gem that Nevada Journal, NPRI’s investigative-reporting arm, unearthed recently. Steve Miller reported that Metro annually spends more than $1.8 million paying people for work they do for their private unions — which provides no service or value to the taxpayers who pay those salaries.
This practice — known as “union leave time” — would be outrageous under any circumstances. But it’s particularly maddening in light of the department’s current cries that it’s underfunded.
If Metro really is facing a shortage of police officers, wouldn’t ending union leave time and reining in exorbitant employee pay levels be a good way to make money for new cops available?
Public safety is important, and working to ensure it is a legitimate and vital function of government. But amid calls to raise taxes to that end — and let’s not forget that raising the sales tax won’t come without negative economic effects, either — Nevada taxpayers should insist that those tasked with that job can be trusted to spend public resources responsibly.
Metro’s track record provides plenty of reason for skepticism.
Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Milton 101
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Milton 101
This past Wednesday, renowned economist Milton Friedman would have been 101 years old, and NPRI joined more than one hundred organizations around the country in celebrating Friedman’s birthday and legacy. We did so by hosting education reformer Dr. Ben Chavis for a policy luncheon, and he gave a hilarious yet enlightening talk about his experience turning a failing charter school into the most challenging high school in America, as ranked by the Washington Post.
In honor of Milton Friedman and the legacy he left, I want to share with you three of my favorite video clips of Friedman challenging liberals, and doing so in his charming and understated — but intellectually devastating — way.
Let me know which clip you like best, or if there’s a video you like even more.
Milton Friedman on greed:
Friedman exposes the “unholy coalition” behind minimum-wage laws:
Friedman sets a liberal straight on the idea of “too many millionaires”:
Until next time,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Liberal County Commissioner: NPRI employee is 'Evil ! Very Evil !'
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Liberal County Commissioner: NPRI employee is 'Evil ! Very Evil !'
Want to know when you’re making a difference? When politicians, like liberal Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins, start attacking you with tweets like this:
The Victor “Jokes” he’s referring to is NPRI’s communications director, Victor Joecks, and the article he’s referencing detailed NPRI’s campaign to let Nevada teachers know they could opt out of the teachers union.
It is outrageous and pathetic that a powerful politician would personally attack an NPRI employee as “Evil ! Very Evil !” — but we won’t be backing down in the face of Collins’ intimidation tactics.
Will you chip in $5 to help us fight back?
It’s also pretty embarrassing that “Evil ! Very Evil !” is the best argument that Collins could spit out. I think that’s quite telling.
In the mind of a far-left politician, empowering teachers by letting them know they can opt out of union membership is “Evil ! Very Evil !”
Apparently, Collins would prefer that teachers keep sending union bosses over $750 a year so they can take home more than $625,000 a year, like a former CCEA official did. Or that teachers give $750 a year to an organization that may directly oppose their political or religious values.
We think teachers should be able to make the decision that’s best for them.
Will you chip in $5 or more to help us keep reaching teachers?
We aren’t backing down, and chipping in $5 right now will help us keep standing strong.
Take care,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
P.S. Commissioner Collins has attacked NPRI — in a personal and pathetic way. And nothing would make that liberal politician more upset than you contributing $5 right now to help NPRI continue our “Evil ! Very Evil !” campaign.
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
If you've lost James Hoffa...
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
If you've lost James Hoffa...
In the run-up to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Congress did, of course, pass the bill. President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. And, as Pelosi promised, we are indeed finding out what’s in it.
Then again, even before the bill was passed, “what’s in it” — or at least, the most important elements of “what’s in it” — was already painfully obvious to those who opposed the bill or warned that it constituted disastrous health-care policy. While many of the dirty details had not yet come to light, it was clear that the bill increased intrusion by the federal government into the health-care market, with the predictable consequences including new taxes on businesses, higher premiums for individuals and further strains on federal and state budgets.
Again, to many of us, this was obvious at the time. But now, it appears that even the bill’s most ardent supporters are finally beginning to figure out “what’s in it” and what that means to them.
In an open-letter to Democratic congressional leaders, the heads of three powerful, national labor unions have voiced strong concerns over the increasingly hard-to-ignore ill-effects of Obamacare. The letter, whose authors include Teamsters chief James Hoffa, warns that the law will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”
When did James Hoffa join the Tea Party?
Given that these unions, during the debate over the bill, were among Obamacare’s most spirited cheerleaders, the temptation for schadenfreude here is strong. And it’s particularly so when I read excerpts like this from the letter:
[T]he law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.
Seriously: Is there anything better than watching union leaders explain the unintended consequences of government interference with markets? Given that so many unions nowadays agitate aggressively for such government meddling — minimum-wage laws, anyone? — what we have here is a spectacle that nearly redefines irony. Not so fun when it’s your members who are suffering and getting angry, is it, Mr. Hoffa?
Still, I’m doing my best to get my I-told-you-sos out of my system quickly — and hope you’ll do the same — because of the need to recognize the most important facet of this about-face. It’s not the egg on the faces of Hoffa, et al. It’s that Obamacare remains a disaster, and now, more and more people are starting to figure that out. Those of us who were right from the beginning should welcome these late-comers to the club with open arms.
Winning the intellectual battles over public policy requires changing minds. I’m not nearly delusional enough to believe that James Hoffa has suddenly transformed into Friedrich Hayek, but at least he’s acknowledging some of the problems with Obamacare. And that’s how you build the coalitions that make political change possible.
There are many out there who will be swayed by our arguments. And we must do all we can to make sure they hear them. We must continue to point out, as my NPRI colleagues and I have done repeatedly, that what plagues our nation’s health-care system is not a lack of government involvement, but the precise opposite. Truly freeing up the health-care market, rolling back government mandates and regulations, and putting medical decisions back in the hands of patients and doctors, rather than bureaucrats, remains the only way to increase access to affordable, quality care.
Obamacare ignores these essential truths. It tries to use government to solve problems that government created to begin with. And as even James Hoffa is starting to realize, the results — unless action is taken to remove this law from the books — will be disastrous for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Let’s keep up the fight.
Until next time,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Analysis: Correlation between education spending and graduation rates is ... .006 percent
Yet another piece of evidence that there’s little to no correlation between spending and student achievement — let alone causation — and the source of this evidence comes from an unlikely place ... the Las Vegas Sun.
A little background is in order.
Yesterday, the Sun had a story by Paul Takahashi with this headline, “Analysis finds correlation between high education spending, high graduation rates.”
In his opening paragraphs, Takahashi wrote:
The Sun analyzed federal education data on school expenditures and high school graduation rates and found the majority of states see a correlation between high education spending and high student performance.
But as the story progressed, the evidence Takahashi cited to support the Sun “analysis” actually hinted (more like screamed) that there wasn’t much of a correlation between spending and graduation rates.
Statements like:
Of the bottom half of states that spend the least on education, 14 states — or 56 percent — are also among the bottom half of states with the lowest graduation rates.
If there the relationship between the two items was random, you’d expect that percentage to be 50 percent. And then there was this.
The following nine states spent the most on education but have among the lowest graduation rates nationally: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and West Virginia.
That’s a lot of exceptions for a small sample size.
So instead of cherry-picking data, and I called Takahashi and got the source of his per-pupil-spending data and graduation-rate data. Both are federal government reports for the school/fiscal year 2010-11. Here are the results:
Assuming a 95 percent confidence level, this chart yields a R2 value of 0.00006. Also called the coefficient of determination, R2 is one of the best means for evaluating the strength of a relationship.
In these cases, the correlation between per-pupil spending and graduation rates is, at best, only .006 percent. This virtually non-existent relationship is graphically demonstrated by the fact that the data points are not closely grouped along the regression trend line, but are literally all over the chart.
“.006 percent” is not a typo. For some perspective on how microscope that correlation is, consider that .006 percent of $1,000 is six pennies. And again, correlation is worlds away from causation.
Just another reason — to add on top of 50 years of history — that spending more won’t increase student achievement or graduation rates.
* The chart only includes 47 states because the federal report did not include graduation-rate data for Idaho, Kentucky and Oklahoma.
