Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Education Week has released its annual “Quality Counts” survey.  This year, it introduces the brand-new “Chance for Success Index,” which seeks to rank states by the likelihood that the children of the state will succeed in life.  Wisconsin came in 8^th overall, but before you get all excited, let’s take a closer look. 

The index grades states on thirteen factors.  This group of selected measurements is as interesting for what is included as for what is not.  Let’s go through them…

Family Income (percent of children from families with incomes at least 200% of poverty level).

Family income is a decent indicator of future success.  Families with a good income tend to be more stable and provide a better learning environment for kids.  I thought that the benchmark used in the index (200% of poverty level) was a bit arbitrary, but it’s hard to come up with a better one. 

What’s missing is the cost of living.  The federal poverty level for a family of four in 2006 was $20,000 per year in the 48 contiguous states.  The problem with using a federal number for measuring between states is that the cost of living varies so much.  $20,000 would go a long way in Mississippi, but would make a family in San Francisco destitute.  Furthermore, the cost of living can vary drastically within the same state.  It costs much more to live in New York City or Chicago than it does to live in rural New York or Illinois. 

Wisconsin ranked 12^th in this metric, but it doesn’t take into account how much of that family income actually makes it into the family’s pockets after taxes or how far those dollars stretch.  For example, Wisconsin has a high tax burden, high fuel costs, and expensive housing, but enjoys lower costs for some food products and manufactured goods.  Who cares if you make $5,000 more than another state if it costs $6,000 more to live in Wisconsin?

In other words, although family income is generally a good indicator, it greatly diminishes the value of using this metric if one looks at it in a vacuum.

Parent Education (percent of children with at least one parent with a postsecondary degree).

This is another good indicator for predicting a child’s success.  Parents with a postsecondary degree tend to encourage their children to also pursue education beyond high school. 

Parental Employment (percent of children with at least one parent working full time and year-round).

Parental employment is another good indicator, but it is also deceptive.  For example, a single parent who works full time and leaves his child a child care provider most of the time provides a vastly different environment than a married couple where one parent works outside of the home and the other parent is devoted to raising the child.  And those environments are different than a married couple where both parents work. 

Linguistic Integration (percent of children whose parents are fluent English-speakers).

America is an English-speaking nation and English is the language of business in America.  This being the case, people who speak English are better positioned to succeed in America. 

I am curious that the creators of this index chose to focus on the English proficiency of the parents instead of the child.  Many first-generation immigrants – especially those who immigrated later in life – struggle to learn and use English, but their children are fluent in English.  Then again, some Immigrant families are increasingly encouraging their children to learn only their native tongue.  It depends on the culture of those immigrating into America. 

For example, many of the immigrants from Asian countries who are moving heavily into the west coast, Northeast, Chicago, etc. strongly encourage their children to learn English.  But many of the Latino immigrants in the border states discourage their children to use English.  Plus, by focusing on the English proficiency of the parents instead of the children, this measurement hurts those states with naturally high populations of first-generation immigrants like the border states and states with major transportation centers. 

So while the statistic used in this measurement is conceptually correct, it is not specific enough to be of any real value. 

Preschool Enrollment (percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool).

Now we get into some dreadfully biased metrics.  There is zero evidence that 3 and 4-year-old preschool actually benefits the vast majority of children in the long term.  None.  Part of this is a lack of data.  3 and 4-year old preschools are still not very common and haven’t been around for a long time.  Because of this, there are no long range studies that show any correlation between preschool attendance and future success. 

What studies there are do show a marginal improvement in some kids for a couple of years, but then they blend in with everyone else.  The reasons for this are not hard to understand.  Preschool does provide a structured educational environment that prepares kids for school.  Many kids already receive this environment at a quality child care facility or (heaven forbid we admit it) at home with a parent, so preschool attendance has a minimal, if any, positive impact on these kids.  Where preschool does really show a positive impact is with kids who come from disadvantaged or abusive homes, because it removes the kids from a negative environment for a few hours a day and provides them a positive environment. 

Furthermore, preschool (especially all day, every day) may have a negative impact on children who have a loving parent to care for them at home.  As good as a teacher is, he or she can’t match the nurturing and love that a parent can provide.  Removing the child from the home during the prime development years can have a long term negative impact on the child. 

This measurement in the index assumes that preschool attendance always improves a child’s chances of success when this is not a proven indicator.  It may be a positive impact for some children, but may have zero or a negative impact on other children.  No relationship at all is proven anywhere, so its inclusion in this index is dubious.

Kindergarten Enrollment – (percent of eligible children enrolled in kindergarten programs).

Much of the same arguments that I used in the preschool section above also apply for kindergarten.  The difference is that Kindergarten attendance is more common and has been around for a longer period.  As such, there are more studies with more reliable data.  But even in those studies, the net positive impact of attending Kindergarten on a child’s long term success is very questionable. 

What both the preschool and kindergarten metrics indicate is the education establishment’s predilection to extending formal education further back into each child’s life.  This is great for the education industry.  Every time we add another class to schools, it requires more teachers, more supplies, more administration, and, of course, more money.  But is it really best for kids?  For the kids who have destructive family lives, it undoubtedly is best.  But for the vast swath of America kids who come from stable, supportive, loving homes, is it really better to rip them from home and thrust them into the classroom at the age of 3 or even earlier?  I think not.  In fact, I would argue that it is best for those kids to leave them at home so that they can mature and develop into the great people who they will become before they ar

e cast into the pressures and stress of formal education.  There was a time in American history when we recognized the important role that parents played in educating and raising their children, but more and more the education establishment sees parents as little more than a womb and a paycheck.  But I digress…

Elementary Reading (percent of 4^th grade public school students “proficient” on NAEP) & Middle School Mathematics (percent of 8^th grade public school students “proficient” on NAEP).

I lumped these two measurements together because they are basically the same.  They are both statistical measurements of student proficiency in a specific subject.  They are both decent indicators because they measure both the actual proficiency of the children, as well as the general quality of the public school system.  Yes, states where cheating is rampant will skew this statistic, but that is the exception. 

High School Graduation (percent of public high school students who graduate with a diploma).

This is another good indicator, but given the increasing grade inflation and decreasing value of the diploma, it is an indicator that is less and less relevant.  But for nothing else, a high school diploma is the key to higher education and much of the working world. 

Postsecondary Participation (percent of young adults (18-24) enrolled in postsecondary education or with a degree).

While the importance of a high school diploma may be declining, the importance of a postsecondary degree is increasing.

Adult Education Attainment (percent of adults (25-64) with a 2- or 4-year postsecondary degree).

This is probably a better indicator than the previous one because it measures people who have actually received a degree and doesn’t.

Annual Income (percent of adults (25-64) with income at or above the national median).

Just like the “Family Income” metric, this is a sound measurement in concept, but it is too incomplete to be of any real use.  In general, the more affluent an area is, the more likely is that the children of that area will succeed.  More money tends to mean that more of the people are educated, the neighborhoods have little crime, and the entire area is generally stable.  But again, without putting this number in context with the cost of living for the area, it is meaningless except at the extremes of wealth or poverty. 

For example, only 49.8% of the folks in Wisconsin earn more than the national average, but Wisconsin’s cost of living is higher than the national average.  Meanwhile, 62.6% of the folks in Maryland have incomes above the national median and their cost of living is lower than the national average. 

Steady Employment (percent of adults (25-64) in labor force working full time and year-round).

This seems like a decent measurement, but only marginally so.  Generally, high levels of employment tend to lead to more stable communities.

As I said in the beginning, what is very interesting – and telling – are the measurements that the index chose to exclude.  For example, study after study shows that children whose parents are married and live in the same home have a greater chance at success in life.  Arguably, the marital status of a child’s parents is much more important than preschool enrollment or linguistic integration. 

Also missing is any measurement of church attendance.  Studies also show that families who regularly attend a church, synagogue, or mosque have a greater likelihood of succeeding in life.  And as I mentioned a couple of times, there isn’t any reference whatsoever to the cost of living.  Could it be because cost of living is directly impacted by the tax level imposed by public education?  Hmmmm….

This index is interesting, but be sure to read it in context.  It is put out by a magazine run by education establishment folks for the benefit of education establishment folks.  The vast majority of them consider public education to be something akin to a religion of which they are the high priests.  In their minds, the more areas of our lives they can control and the earlier they can get a hold of our kids, the better. 

Expect this report to be used as a club with which the educrats of every state – especially Wisconsin – bludgeon taxpayers and elected officials into expanding the scope and expense of public education. 

Owen B. Robinson is a conservative blogger and columnist who resides in West Bend, Wisconsin.  He and his wife have four school-aged children.