Montana State University Billings
""
skip navigation
Resources for Future Students Current Students Faculty & Staff Alumni & Friends
Just for Parents
Home
About the University
Athletics
Campus Map & Parking
Colleges & Departments
Degrees & Programs
Employment
Library
MSUB Foundation
MSUB Outreach
News & Calendars
Online University
""
A-Z Index
Campus Directory
Contact Us
Make a Gift
Search
Student Login
My MSU Portal Login

MSUB logo

""""""""Center for Applied Economic Research  
     
 

Quality Rankings of Education in the Fifty States

Montana Comparisons  

Dennis E. Clayson, Ph.D., Director
Center for Applied Economic Research
MSU-Billings

 This report looks at the quality of Montana's schools through several different methods. Montana has a school system with poor inputs, but with generally good outputs.  This is achieved by a relatively efficient system. The positive outputs of the state education system, however, have not manifested themselves in increased positions that will attract college graduates or in corresponding incomes.

Recently, the Thomas Fordham Foundation released a study to the media ranking the states on the basis of "teacher quality".  Montana ranked dead last out of 49 states.[1]  The report elicited the expected negative reaction from educators within Montana.

There are numerous ways that education quality can be evaluated.  The following table outlines a number of these.

Measures of Educational Quality

Teacher Quality

Education Input

Education Output

Education Social Impact

Education Efficiency

1. Texas

2. Florida

3. Michigan

4. California

5. N Carolina

6. New York

7. Kentucky

8. Mass

9. Colorado

10.NewJersey

11. Georgia

12. Penn

13. S Carolina

14. New Mex

15. Virginia

16. Oklahoma

17. Maryland

18. Missouri

19. NewHamp

20. Delaware

21. Utah

22. Illinois

23. Minnesota

24. West Vir

25. Arizona

26. Conn

27. Mississippi

28. Ohio

29. Louisiana

30. Tennessee

31. Rhode Is

32. Nevada

33. Idaho

34. Wisconsin

35. Arkansas

36. Vermont

37. Wyoming

38. Indiana

39. Wash

40. Iowa

41. N Dakota

42. Nebraska

43. Alaska

44. Hawaii

45. Maine

46. Alabama

47. S Dakota

48. Kansas

49. Montana

 

1.New York

2.California

3. Michigan

4NewJersey

5. Penn

6. Alaska

7. Conn

8. Maryland

9. Florida

10. Mass

11. Delaware

12. Illinois

13. Colorado

14. Arizona

15. Utah

16. Minn

17. Wash

18. Ohio

18. Texas

20. Rhode Is

21. Georgia

22. Nevada

23. Wisc

24. Kentucky

25.NewHamp

26. Indiana

27.NCarolina

28. Hawaii

29. Missouri

30.S Carolina

31. Virginia

32. West Vir

33. Vermont

34. New Mex

35. Idaho

36.Oklahoma

37. Tennessee

38. Wyoming

39. Miss

40. Louisiana

41. Iowa

42. Arkansas

43. Kansas

44. Maine

45. Nebraska

46. Alabama

47. Montana

48. N Dakota

49. S Dakota

 

1. Maine

2. Wisc

3. Conn

4. Iowa

5. Minn

6. N Dak

7. Montana

8. Mass

9. Nebraska

10. Indiana

11. Wash

12. Utah

13. Miss

14. Wyoming

15. Nevada

16. Colorado

17.NewYork

18. Rhode Is

19. Penn

20. Texas

21. Virginia

22. Maryland

23. Arizona

24. West Vir

25.NCarolina

26. Kentucky

27. Delaware

28. Hawaii

29. Florida

30.NewJersey

31. Tenn

32. Georgia

33. Arkansas

34. New Mex

35. Alabama

36. California

37. S Carolina

38. Louisiana

39. Miss

40. Michigan

 

1. Conn

2. Maryland

3. Mass

4.NewJersey

5. Colorado

6.Wash

7.NewHamp

8. NewYork

9. Minnesota

10. Ohio

11. Virginia

12. Illinois

13. Kansas

14. Oregon

15. Vermont

16. Alaska

17. Hawaii

18. Rhode Is

19. Utah

20. Del

21. California

22. Wisc

23. Neb

24. Iowa

25. Indiana

26. Wyoming

27. Missouri

28. Arizona

29. Maine

30. Michigan

31. NDakota

32. Florida

33. Idaho

34. S Dakota

35. Penn

36. New Mex

37. Texas

38. Georgia

39. Nevada

40. Oklahoma

41. N Carolina

42. Montana

43. Tennessee

44. S Carolina

45. Louisiana

46. Alabama

47. Kentucky

48. Arkansas

49. West Vir

50. Miss

1. Utah

2. N Dakota

3.Tenn

4. Iowa

5. Nevada

6. Arkansas

7. Montana

8. Missouri

9. N Car

10. Alab

11. Arizona

12. Minn

13. Colorado

14. Indiana

15. Texas

16. Nebraska

17. Maine

18. New Mex

19. Kentucky

20. Virginia

21. Miss

22. Georgia

23. Wash

24. Wyoming

25. Wisc

26. S Carolina

27. Florida

28. West Vir

29. California

30. Mass

31. Penn

32. Louisiana

33. Rhode Is

 34. Hawaii

35. Conn

36. Maryland

37. Delaware

38. New York

39.NewJersey

States missing data

 

 

 

 

Oregon

Oregon

Alaska

Ill

Ohio

N Hamp

Vermont

Idaho

Okla

Kan

SDak

 

 

Alaska

NHamp

Idaho

Ill

Mich

Okla

Kan

Ohio

Oreg

Vermont

SDak

In the social sciences, a term like "quality" is referred to as a hypothetical construct. "Quality" is not something that can be measured like the length of a table or the weight of a car.  "Quality" must be inferred from other measurements that are related to what people generally mean by "quality".

 Because of the inference of relationships, different measurements of "quality" can be created which reflect a number of different viewpoints, including those that are political. Therefore, it is imperative when judging the results of these studies to know how "quality" was defined in terms of how it was measured.

The rankings in the above table were calculated using the following data.

Teacher Quality

This is the result of the recent Thomas Fordham Foundation study.  Teacher "quality" was measured by how the:

1. States punish or reward teachers and administrators for student achievement,

2. Conducts checks on teachers' backgrounds and college course work, and

3. How much power the state gives for individual schools to hire and fire teachers.

Education Input

Four measurements were standardized and then averaged for this variable:[2]

1. Average teacher salaries,

2. Pupil/teacher ratios,

3. Education cost per student, and

4. The Thomas Fordham results.

Education Output

Output was calculated by using the standardized average of:

1. Percent of 4th graders at or above grade level as measured on NAEP tests on

  1. Reading, and
  2. math

2.Mean ACT score for the state.[3]

Education Social Impact

The measurement is problematic. In this case it was simply measured by using the standardized average of three measures:

1. Per capita income,

2. Percent of population with college degrees, and

3. The average number of books checked out of libraries per capita.

Education Efficiency

This measurement is basically the "bang-per-buck" of education.  It is a measurement that businesses would use if they were measuring efficiency.  It was calculated by using the standardized average of the cost per student per unit measured output.  Three measures were used:

1. The cost per student per percent of reading above or at 4th grade level,

2. The cost per student per percent of math above or at 4th grade level, and

3. The cost [4]

Relationships

The median family income is positively related to all of the measures noted above.  In other words, states that have higher family incomes have better schools on all measures.  This is true even for efficiency, partially dispelling the notion that efficiency is simply a statistical artifact created by the fact that any education program is better than none.

There is, however, no relationship between the educational inputs and educational outputs.  This conclusion is not counterintuitive.  There is, in fact, almost a negative correlation between the amount of money spent historically on education in America and almost any measure of achievement (except perhaps, psychosocial benefits).

Another indicator that there is little relationship between inputs and outputs is found in the relationship between minorities and educational achievement.  States that have a higher minority population percentage have, on average, lower educational outcomes as measured by standardized tests.  In the above data, there is a strong negative relationship between the percentage of minorities in a state and the educational output.  There is, however, no relationship between minority percentage and educational inputs.

There is also no significant relationship between educational efficiency and educational output. This is not unexpected since efficiency is a function of monetary input. There is a strong relationship between education efficiency and education's social impact. This finding is, however, not related to monetary input but to population density.  States with lower population density generally do better with the resources they have.

 It is instructive to compare Montana's ranking with related states.

Rankings of Selected States Compared with Montana  

Factor

Montana

Wyoming

N Dakota

Utah

Iowa

Teacher Quality

49

37

41

21

40

Input

 

47

38

48

15

41

Output

 

7

14

6

12

4

Social Impact

 

42

26

31

19

24

Efficiency

 

7

24

2

1

4

These states were selected for several reasons:

1.      All have relatively small populations; none are over four times as large as Montana in population,

2.      All (with the possible exception of Utah) are considered to be rural states,

3.      North Dakota and Wyoming are Montana neighbors,

4.      Utah has the highest efficiency rating, and

5.      Iowa had the highest combined ACT and SAT scores in the nation the year the data was collected.

Whereas the Thomas Fordham Foundation's study puts Montana dead last, it is basically a measure of the local control of education. Other measures give a mixed picture. In the latest comparative data (generally 1996-97), Montana's educational inputs were not impressive.

Input                                                   Rank

Pupil/teacher ratio                                 28 

Teacher's average salary                       45

Expenditure/student                              28

On the other hand, educational outputs were more positive.  

Outputs                                               Rank

Reading, grade 4                                  6

Math, grade 4                                       8

Mean ACT score                                  7

 The social impacts of education are negative to mixed.

Social Impact                                      Rank

Per capita income                                  47

Per cent with college degrees                 25

Library books in circ/capita                    31

Summary

 In summary, Montana has a school system with poor inputs, but with generally good outputs.  This is achieved by a relatively efficient system and the fact that, fortunately for Montana, there is little relationship between monetary inputs and measurable outputs.  The positive outputs of the state education system, however, have not manifested themselves in increased positions that will attract college graduates or in corresponding incomes.

[1] Data from Oregon was not available.

[2] Data came from the last national survey readily available, which was 1997.

[3] SAT was not used.  Students most likely to go to the most prestigious colleges are more likely to take the SAT.  Consequently, a state that has few students going on to the higher college levels can have higher scores, ironically because they don't produce many higher quality students.  

[4] For example, State A and State B both spend $5000/student/year.  However, the average ACT in State A was 21 and the average ACT in State B was 18.  State A is more efficient.  It costs $238 per student in this state to produce one ACT point.  In State B it costs $278.

Back to Top

  ""    
""
 

Important Links

"" Big Sky Economic Development Authority
"" College of Business
"" Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Lab (CATI lab)
"" The Montana Business Incubator (MBI)
"" Urban Institute at MSU Billings
 
     
Energy Research
 
Regional Economic Research
 
Real Estate Research
 
About Us
 
Contact Us
 
Helpful Links
 
Department Home
   
General Information (406) 657-2011 or 1(800) 565-6782
New Student Services (406) 657-2888 or 1 (800) 565-6782 x2888
 Send comments, corrections to
webmaster@msubillings.edu
 © Montana State University Billings 2007