A County Level Analysis of
Educational Attainment in the
United States by Social, Economic
and Geographic Variables
BY
Brandon Hallstrand (University of Wisconsin – Stout)
Kunjan Upadhyay (University of Wisconsin - Stout)
2010 Wisconsin Economics Association
Annual Conference
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Prior Studies
Model
Data and Descriptive Statistics
Regression Analysis
Conclusion
Future Work
Introduction
• Education is Important
– Huge Disparities within the country.
• US is currently Ranked 16th in Education
amongst 26 other OECD Countries.
– Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD)
– Dropped from 1st position in 1995
2007 or latest available year
1995
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 1: its “Percentage of Tertiary-Type A Graduates to the Population at the Typical Age of Graduation Measure
for 2010,” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010). http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=23112
Prior Studies
• Racial, gender cohort dropout rates in Chicago
Public Schools (Allensworth & Easton 2001).
• High school Drop outs and graduation rates in
central region (Randel, Moore & Blair 2008).
• Focus on Specific Regions, gender, race
• One Study Points Out Data Problems
– Hidden Crisis in High School Dropout Rate (Sum
et. al 2003).
Full Models
Reduced Models
Data and Descriptive Statistics
1990
Variable
Count
Mean
StDev
Minimum
Maximum
Dropout Rate
3105
10.901
5.489
0
51.064
Per capita personal income
3105
15337
3585
5479
50230
2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child
3105
4.2972
1.5666
0
27.7641
2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child
Averaged Edu Spending per
child
3105
4.696
2.913
0
141.125
3105
4.4462
2.0401
0
81.2206
Males per 100 Females
3105
96.596
7.497
81.055
211.806
Percent White, Non Hispanic
3105
82.755
20.714
-36.441
99.845
Percent Black
3105
8.48
14.228
0
86.236
Percent Hispanic
3105
4.49
11.097
0
97.216
Percent Asian or Pacific
3105
0.7016
2.5171
0
62.9562
Percent Native American
3105
1.737
7.181
0
94.668
Percent Other Race
3105
1.8365
4.5757
0
44.4335
Data and Descriptive Statistics
2000
Variable
Count
Mean
StDev
Dropout Rate
3105
9.5785 5.2125
Per capita personal income
3105
17545
2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child
Minimum Maximum
0
57.9785
4441
5685
65100
3105
5.1614 2.2419
0
91.4449
2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child
3105
6.081 1.8694
0
27.5714
Averaged Edu Spending per child
3105
5.6128 1.6245
0
28.4042
Males per 100 Females
3105
9.049
74.1
205.4
Percent White, Non Hispanic
3105
81.418 19.012
2
99.6
Percent Black
3105
8.654 14.389
0
86.5
Percent Hispanic
3105
3.138
7.344
0
85.9
Percent Asian or Pacific
3105
0.8818 2.3756
0
54.9
Percent Native American
3105
7.497
0
94.2
Percent Other Race
3105
2.5748 4.8605
0
39.1
98.65
1.887
Data and Descriptive Statistics
Panel
Variable
Count
Mean
StDev
Minimum Maximum
Dropout Rate
6210
10.24
5.393
0
57.979
Per capita personal income
6210
16441
4184
5479
65100
2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child
6210
4.7293
1.9815
0
91.4449
2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child
6210
5.388
2.543
0
141.125
Averaged Edu Spending per child
6210
5.0295
1.934
0
81.2206
Males per 100 Females
6210
97.623
8.372
74.1
211.806
Percent White, Non Hispanic
6210
82.087
19.891
-36.441
99.845
Percent Black
6210
8.567
14.308
0
86.5
Percent Hispanic
6210
3.814
9.433
0
97.216
Percent Asian or Pacific
6210
0.7917
2.4488
0
62.9562
Percent Native American
6210
1.8117
7.3403
0
94.6677
Percent Other Race
6210
2.2057
4.7343
0
44.4335
Regression Analysis
• Used Minitab 16 Statistical Software
• Best Subsets
• Chose Models for Simplicity and Fit
Regression Analysis
Predictor
Per capita personal income
1990
-0.00019
(-6.83)*
2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child
-0.49259
(-5.93)*
2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child
0.00546
(-0.16)
Averaged Edu Spending per Child 0.03225
(-0.55)
Males per 100 Females
0.01928
(-1.55)
Percent White, Non Hispanic
0.02989
(1.76)***
Percent Black
0.04257
(2.35)**
Percent Hispanic
N/A
N/A
Percent Asian or Pacific Island
-0.00456
(-0.11)
Percent Native American or Alas
0.09055
(4.32)*
Present Other Races
0.22833
(4.05)*
Midwest
-1.87930
(-5.06)*
South
2.44796
(6.32)*
West
-0.06201
(-0.14)
Year 1990=0, 2000 =1
N/A
N/A
2000
1990-2000
-0.00014
-0.00017
(-6.31)*
(-9.7)*
-0.06069
-0.20237
(-1.26)
(-5.04)*
0.23930
-0.01652
(1.7)***
(-0.55)
-0.51980
-0.11111
(-2.96)
(-2.42)**
0.04391
0.03301
(-4.61)*
(4.34)*
0.08393
0.12519
(-0.9)
(1.69)**
0.15314
0.16734
(1.66)***
(2.27)*
0.05199
0.09597
(-0.55)
(-1.31)
0.02160
0.09289
(-0.17)
(-1.04)
0.17112
0.19866
(1.76)***
(2.61)*
0.30420
0.33314
(3.00)*
(4.06)*
-0.88420
-1.33520
(-2.47)*
(-5.16)*
1.58410
2.07670
(4.22)*
(7.7)*
-0.28870
-0.21880
(-0.7)
(-0.74)
N/A
-0.72190
N/A
(-4.28)*
1990
2000
1990-2000
R-sq
23.80%
22.50%
23.30%
R-sq(Adj
23.50%
22.10%
23.10%
NOTE:
* : denote the variable is statistically
significant at 1%
** : denote the variable is statistically
significant at 5%
*** denote the variable is statistically
significant at 10%
Regression Analysis (cont.)
Predictor
Per capita personal income
2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child
Males per 100 Females
Percent White, Non Hispanic
Percent Black
Percent Native American or
Alaskan
Percent Other Race
Midwest
South
West
Year 2000
1990
2000 Combined
-0.00019 -0.00015
(-7.18)*
(-7.23)*
-0.45896 -0.17685
(-7.45)*
(-4.65)*
0.01938 0.04115
(-1.56)
(4.33)*
0.03061 0.04252
(2.01)**
(2.89)*
0.04326 0.11101
(2.59)*
(7.06)*
-0.00017
(-10.71)*
-0.26650
(-8.16)*
0.03197
(4.21)*
0.03246
(3.26)*
0.07418
(6.82)*
0.09126 0.12776
(4.65)*
(6.70)*
0.23067 0.26624
(4.45)*
(7.00)*
-1.88659 -0.69634
(-5.09)* (-1.96)**
2.43786 1.86042
(6.31)*
(5.08)*
-0.08126 -0.22626
(-0.19)
(-0.55)
0.10289
(7.79)*
0.23914
(8.00)*
-1.25587
(-4.88)*
2.18840
(8.21)*
-0.19888
(-0.67)
-0.93853
(-7.27)*
1990
2000 1990-2000
R-sq
23.77%
22.07%
23.20%
R-sq(Adj
23.53%
21.82%
23.07%
NOTE:
* : denote the variable is statistically
significant at 1%
** : denote the variable is statistically
significant at 5%
*** denote the variable is statistically
significant at 10%
Conclusion
• Local Educational Spending and Per Capita Income
have consistent inverse effects
– Effective way of reducing High School Dropouts
– increase in spending and income from 1990 to 2000
coincides with a substantial decrease in the dropout rates.
• Whites, blacks, Native Americans and others have
positive coefficients
– Relative to areas with high numbers of Hispanics and
Asians; Areas with high numbers of whites, blacks, Native
Americans and or others, have higher dropout rates.
– This Differs from Model to model, area to area.
Future Work
• Better way to manage racial categories
– 1990 Data Set Problem
– Relative Population Size Vs. Exact Sampling
• Change in local spending & lagged spending
• Perhaps Panel Year Value takes away from
Spending value
Questions & Comments
Thank You!!!