"States that have contracts of teachers' unions do better on the ACT tests that states do not allow the contracts of teachers unions."
That is the comment made to me this weekend. I had not thought before and I am interested to learn more.
The first information I was seeking was the state by state ACT test scores
These are the 2010 results for all 50 states, the table is a summary, but you can enter one of the states and get the 30 + full report on the results page of each state.
Data show the% of students in ACT and ACT test results and overall results of their components of English, mathematics, reading and science.
The national average of% of students tested is 47% and the average score is 21.0 ACT. Some of these states, Illinois being one, a law providing that 100% of students are required to pass the test. But the range of% tested ranged from a minimum of 13% in Delaware just 6 states that tested at 100%. So how can meaningful comparisons be made when the student population tested vary so much? Would not that skew the results?
States that have no teachers' collective agreements are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Looking at the 7 statements above, the% of students tested varies from 16% (NC) 96% (MS). Now it is a fairly wide range, I wonder if the evaluation of students 16, 22 or 28% is statistically relevant. What these students are from all corners of the respective state or could they be a part of the state.
ACT average in the non-union states ranges from 18.8 (MS) to 22.3% (VA), 2 of 7 states exceed the national average ACT 21.0and 4 of 7 are in the 20.0 +.
A look at the data suggests to me that there is no correlation between ACT scores and teachers' collective agreements.
0 Comments