1. 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

2. Outline Introduction Prior Studies Model Data and Descriptive Statistics Regression Analysis Conclusion Future Work

3. Introduction Education is Important – Huge Disparities within the country. US is currently Ranked 16 th in Education amongst 26 other OECD Countries. – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – Dropped from 1 st position in 1995

4. 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=23112http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=23112

5. 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).

7. Full Models

8. Reduced Models

9. Data and Descriptive Statistics 1990 VariableCount MeanStDevMinimum Maximum Dropout Rate310510.9015.489051.064 Per capita personal income3105153373585547950230 2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child31054.29721.5666027.7641 2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child31054.6962.9130141.125 Averaged Edu Spending per child31054.44622.0401081.2206 Males per 100 Females310596.5967.49781.055211.806 Percent White, Non Hispanic310582.75520.714-36.44199.845 Percent Black31058.4814.228086.236 Percent Hispanic31054.4911.097097.216 Percent Asian or Pacific31050.70162.5171062.9562 Percent Native American31051.7377.181094.668 Percent Other Race31051.83654.5757044.4335

10. Data and Descriptive Statistics 2000 VariableCountMeanStDevMinimumMaximum Dropout Rate31059.57855.2125057.9785 Per capita personal income3105175454441568565100 2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child31055.16142.2419091.4449 2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child31056.0811.8694027.5714 Averaged Edu Spending per child31055.61281.6245028.4042 Males per 100 Females310598.659.04974.1205.4 Percent White, Non Hispanic310581.41819.012299.6 Percent Black31058.65414.389086.5 Percent Hispanic31053.1387.344085.9 Percent Asian or Pacific31050.88182.3756054.9 Percent Native American31051.8877.497094.2 Percent Other Race31052.57484.8605039.1

11. Data and Descriptive Statistics Panel VariableCountMeanStDevMinimum Maximum Dropout Rate621010.245.393057.979 Per capita personal income6210164414184547965100 2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child62104.72931.9815091.4449 2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child62105.3882.5430141.125 Averaged Edu Spending per child62105.02951.934081.2206 Males per 100 Females621097.6238.37274.1211.806 Percent White, Non Hispanic621082.08719.891-36.44199.845 Percent Black62108.56714.308086.5 Percent Hispanic62103.8149.433097.216 Percent Asian or Pacific62100.79172.4488062.9562 Percent Native American62101.81177.3403094.6677 Percent Other Race62102.20574.7343044.4335

12. Regression Analysis Used Minitab 16 Statistical Software Best Subsets Chose Models for Simplicity and Fit

13. 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 Predictor199020001990-2000 Per capita personal income-0.00019-0.00014-0.00017 (-6.83)*(-6.31)*(-9.7)* 2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child-0.49259-0.06069-0.20237 (-5.93)*(-1.26)(-5.04)* 2yr Lead Edu Spend per Child0.005460.23930-0.01652 (-0.16)(1.7)***(-0.55) Averaged Edu Spending per Child0.03225-0.51980-0.11111 (-0.55)(-2.96)(-2.42)** Males per 100 Females0.019280.043910.03301 (-1.55)(-4.61)*(4.34)* Percent White, Non Hispanic0.029890.083930.12519 (1.76)***(-0.9)(1.69)** Percent Black0.042570.153140.16734 (2.35)**(1.66)***(2.27)* Percent HispanicN/A0.051990.09597 N/A(-0.55)(-1.31) Percent Asian or Pacific Island-0.004560.021600.09289 (-0.11)(-0.17)(-1.04) Percent Native American or Alas0.090550.171120.19866 (4.32)*(1.76)***(2.61)* Present Other Races0.228330.304200.33314 (4.05)*(3.00)*(4.06)* Midwest-1.87930-0.88420-1.33520 (-5.06)*(-2.47)*(-5.16)* South2.447961.584102.07670 (6.32)*(4.22)*(7.7)* West-0.06201-0.28870-0.21880 (-0.14)(-0.7)(-0.74) Year 1990=0, 2000 =1N/A -0.72190 N/A (-4.28)* 199020001990-2000 R-sq23.80%22.50%23.30% R-sq(Adj23.50%22.10%23.10%

14. Regression Analysis (cont.) Predictor19902000Combined Per capita personal income-0.00019-0.00015-0.00017 (-7.18)*(-7.23)*(-10.71)* 2yr Lag Edu Spend per Child-0.45896-0.17685-0.26650 (-7.45)*(-4.65)*(-8.16)* Males per 100 Females0.019380.041150.03197 (-1.56)(4.33)*(4.21)* Percent White, Non Hispanic0.030610.042520.03246 (2.01)**(2.89)*(3.26)* Percent Black0.043260.111010.07418 (2.59)*(7.06)*(6.82)* Percent Native American or Alaskan0.091260.127760.10289 (4.65)*(6.70)*(7.79)* Percent Other Race0.230670.266240.23914 (4.45)*(7.00)*(8.00)* Midwest-1.88659-0.69634-1.25587 (-5.09)*(-1.96)**(-4.88)* South2.437861.860422.18840 (6.31)*(5.08)*(8.21)* West-0.08126-0.22626-0.19888 (-0.19)(-0.55)(-0.67) Year 2000-0.93853 (-7.27)* 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% 199020001990-2000 R-sq23.77%22.07%23.20% R-sq(Adj23.53%21.82%23.07%

15. 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.

16. 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

17. Questions & Comments

18. Thank You!!!