We earlier saw that larger expenditures per student did not correlate with better division average SOL pass rates. The 2016 data for all students support the same conclusion. For example, reading:

The data here are 2016 division pass rates and per student expenditures for operations. Richmond is the gold square; from the left the red diamonds are Hampton, Newport News, and Norfolk; the green diamond is Charles City; the blue diamond is Lynchburg.

Let’s drill down to see how the division scores of disabled students vary with expenditures.

Here the fitted line shows the pass rate increasing with expenditure (0.7% per $1,000) but the 1.8% R-squared is only a hint at a correlation.

Let’s produce the same plot for the economically disadvantaged students and students with limited English proficiency.

The LEP analysis is complicated by the several divisions (Charles City among them) with fewer then ten LEP students, which leaves their data concealed from us by VDOE’s suppression rules. Those divisions are absent from this graph.

Last, we come to those students who are not disabled, ED. or LEP, and not members of the much smaller groups not portrayed above, migrant or homeless. Those students perform quite well, for the most part.

The nearest approach to a correlation here is the 1.8% R-squared for the disabled group. This lack of correlation tells us that, absent some unrecognized and perverse other factor, division average performance for each of these groups is unrelated to the division expenditure per student.

The math data tell much the same story.

Here the R-squared rises to 5% for the LEP group and 2% for the ED but the correlation, such as it is, is __negative__: More money associated with worse performance.

Data are posted here.

And here in Richmond: As we saw earlier, by each measure RPS is spending a lot of money and getting poor results.