• World News
  • Politics
  • Stock
  • Investing
  • Editor’s Pick
Time And Sales Reporter
Editor's PickInvesting

Depicting K-12 Productivity, Continued

by April 14, 2025
April 14, 2025

Neal McCluskey

Last month I wrote about creating an updated K‑12 productivity chart. The difficulty of any chart is balancing ease of understanding with accuracy and nuance, and that applies here.

A major concern with the trial chart I produced was complication. It was not intuitive, especially using outcomes of high school seniors surpassing certain performance benchmarks. The goal was to have roughly comparable spending and outcome measures—percentage change in spending versus percentage point change in student performance. The primary source of confusion is that the “main” National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam, which was added to extend the performance trend from 2012 to 2019, has a “proficiency” benchmark, but the long-term trend (LTT) exam does not. 

I used the change in the percent of students scoring “proficient” or above to demonstrate progress on the main NAEP, and passing the middle cut-score on the NAEP reporting table for the LTT. But that score could seem arbitrary (also, it is actually the second-highest cut-score overall). The NAEP does have descriptions of the benchmarks, but those would be difficult to explain on the chart.

A simpler version of that chart can be seen next, still using students surpassing cut scores, but with spending and scores compared to a base year, which varies for each trend because some tests were first administered later or earlier than others.

To remedy the benchmark problem, next is essentially the original productivity chart that ended in 2012, except rather than using inflation-adjusted total funding for a high school senior’s K‑12 career, it plots percentage change in NAEP scale scores against percentage change in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending, and adds main NAEP scores to extend the trend to 2019. 

The problem is that a percentage change in a scale score has indeterminate meaning; a small percentage change could indicate small or large learning increases. That said, as a rule of thumb, a year of learning is equal to about 10 scale score points. This is itself controversial, but using it, the 6‑point scale-score increase from the baseline of 300 on LTT math is a 2 percent rise between the first administration in 1978 and the last in 2012, suggesting 17-year-olds had 3.6 more months’ worth of learning in the last year versus the first, assuming a 180-day school year. 

Was that a good return coinciding with a 76 percent increase in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending—from $8,879 to $15,588? That’s a judgment call.

While the ways of presenting the productivity evidence have meaningful differences, the ultimate story seems to be the same. For high school seniors—essentially our education system’s “final” products”—outcomes in reading have been stagnant or falling. In math, they rose until 2012 but largely stagnated after, while spending has ballooned.

Of course, as bears constant repeating, NAEP—and standardized testing generally—likely does not capture nearly all that people think education should be about. Meanwhile, numerous variables impact NAEP scores beyond spending, which is one reason a version of the chart (see below) includes a line for changing GDP; other things equal, an increase in material well-being should foster an increase in academic outcomes.

In the end, life is complicated, so any chart should be taken as just one piece of evidence in analyzing broad educational outcomes.

previous post
DOJ indicates Trump admin not obligated to return man deported to El Salvador, pushing back on judiciary
next post
New Poll: Americans Want Congress to Pair Tax Cuts with Spending Cuts

Related Posts

LimeWire acquires Fyre Festival, asking ‘What Could Possibly...

September 17, 2025

NVIDIA Facing Weak Demand for New Chip as...

September 17, 2025

Coinbase Expands USDC Rewards to Canada

September 17, 2025

Laramide Identifies Targets for 15,000 Meter Drill Program...

September 17, 2025

Green Technology Metals

September 17, 2025

Newmont Withdraws from Mount Coolon Joint Venture, GBM...

September 17, 2025







    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.




    Recent Posts

    • LimeWire acquires Fyre Festival, asking ‘What Could Possibly Go Wrong?’

      September 17, 2025
    • Bondi ‘hate speech’ remarks spark torrent of criticism from conservatives

      September 17, 2025
    • Hakeem Jeffries’ 4-word answer to why he skipped Charlie Kirk vigil

      September 17, 2025
    • Trump assassination attempt trial continues with more FBI testimony after rifle called ‘prepared to fire’

      September 17, 2025
    • Patel defends FBI pull-up test after Hirono decries it as gender bias in Senate showdown

      September 17, 2025
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 timeandsalesreporter.com | All Rights Reserved

    Time And Sales Reporter
    • World News
    • Politics
    • Stock
    • Investing
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    Strong Leach Recoveries and Low Impurities

    July 9, 2025

    Hochschild Mine Halt in Brazil Triggers Share Price...

    June 11, 2025

    Rare Earths Firm MP Materials to Get US$400...

    July 14, 2025