1|Page

A Case Study On

Spending
QT - I
&
Student
Achievement
Submited To : Prof. Mahesh K C

Abhisek (24), Jaynil (09), Ketan(01), Nirav (32) ,

Priyadat (33)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case study data____________________________________________________________________3
Question 1_________________________________________________________________________4
Graph Presentation for spending per Pupil________________________________________4
Graph Presentation for Composite Score__________________________________________5
Numerical Summary______________________________________________________________6
Question 2_________________________________________________________________________7
Simple linear regression:_________________________________________________________8

Course:

Question 3_________________________________________________________________________9
Question 4________________________________________________________________________10
Graph Explanation______________________________________________________________10
Question 5________________________________________________________________________12
Question 6________________________________________________________________________13
Question 6

2|Page

CASE STUDY DATA

State

Spending per Pupil ($)

Composite Score

Louisiana

4,049

581

Mississippi

3,423

582

California

4,917

580

Hawaii

5,532

580

South Carolina

4,304

603

Alabama

3,777

604

Georgia

4,663

611

Florida

4,934

611

New Mexico

4,097

614

Arkansas

4,060

615

Delaware

6,208

615

Tennessee

3,800

618

Arizona

4,041

618

West Virginia

5,247

625

Maryland

6,100

625

Kentucky

5,020

626

Texas

4,520

627

New York

8,162

628

North Carolina

4,521

629

Rhode Island

6,554

638

Washington

5,338

639

Missouri

4,483

641

Colorado

4,772

644

Indiana

5,128

649

Utah

3,280

650

Wyoming

5,515

657

Connecticut

7,629

657

Massachusetts

6,413

658

Nebraska

5,410

660

Minnesota

5,477

661

Iowa

5,060

665

Montana

4,985

667

Wisconsin

6,055

667

North Dakota

4,374

671

Maine

5,561

675

3|Page

QUESTION 1
DEVELOP NUMERICAL GRAPHICAL SUMMARIES OF THE DATA
GRAPH PRESENTATION FOR SPENDING PER PUPIL

GRAPH PRESENTATION FOR COMPOSITE SCORE

NUMERICAL SUMMARY

Name
Mean
Median
Mode
Largest
Smallest
Skewness
4|Page

Value
Spending per
Composite
Pupil ($)
Score
5068.83
631.17
4985
628
N/A
580
8162
675
3280
580
0.93
-0.28

QUESTION 2
USE REGRESSION ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE AMOUNTS SPENT PER PUPIL AND THE COMPOSITE SCORE ON THE NAEP
TEST. DISCUSS YOUR FINDINGS.

Spending

Composite

pre pupil
X
4049
3423
4917
5532
4304
3777
4663
4934
4097
4060
6208
3800
4041
5247
6100
5020
4520
8162
4521
6554
5338
4483
4772
5128
3280
5515
7629
6413
5410
5477
5060
4985
6055
4374
5561
177409

test score
Y
581
582
580
580
603
604
611
611
614
615
615
618
618
625
625
626
627
628
629
638
639
641
644
649
650
657
657
658
660
661
665
667
667
671
675
22091

5|Page

xi - x
-1019.83
-1645.83
-151.83
463.17
-764.83
-1291.83
-405.83
-134.83
-971.83
-1008.83
1139.17
-1268.83
-1027.83
178.17
1031.17
-48.83
-548.83
3093.17
-547.83
1485.17
269.17
-585.83
-296.83
59.17
-1788.83
446.17
2560.17
1344.17
341.17
408.17
-8.83
-83.83
986.17
-694.83
492.17

yi - y
-50.17
-49.17
-51.17
-51.17
-28.17
-27.17
-20.17
-20.17
-17.17
-16.17
-16.17
-13.17
-13.17
-6.17
-6.17
-5.17
-4.17
-3.17
-2.17
6.83
7.83
9.83
12.83
17.83
18.83
25.83
25.83
26.83
28.83
29.83
33.83
35.83
35.83
39.83
43.83

(xi - x)

(xi - x)
*(yi - y)

1040050.32
2708751.69
23051.92
214527.77
584962.74
1668821.06
164696.83
18178.74
944450.77
1017735.09
1297711.54
1609925.94
1056431.57
31745.06
1063314.52
2384.23
301212.80
9567709.49
300116.14
2205734.17
72453.26
343195.12
88107.20
3501.26
3199907.66
199068.94
6554477.74
1806796.83
116397.94
166603.92
77.94
7027.23
972534.09
482786.74
242232.72
40076680.97

51166.26
80927.74
7769.28
-23701.14
21546.31
35100.83
8186.14
2719.68
16687.68
16314.20
-18422.03
16712.28
13537.97
-1099.57
-6363.80
252.51
2289.40
-9809.77
1189.57
10141.60
2107.23
-5757.86
-3807.89
1054.94
-33681.09
11523.97
66125.57
36062.20
9835.48
12175.17
-298.66
-3003.46
35333.11
-27674.03
21571.17
346711.03

yi^

yi^

(yi^ )

(yi - )

622.35
616.93
629.86
635.18
624.55
620.00
627.66
630.01
622.76
622.44
641.03
620.19
622.28
632.71
640.09
630.75
626.42
657.93
626.43
644.02
633.50
626.10
628.60
631.68
615.70
635.03
653.32
642.80
634.12
634.70
631.10
630.45
639.70
625.16
635.43

-8.82
-14.24
-1.31
4.01
-6.62
-11.18
-3.51
-1.17
-8.41
-8.73
9.86
-10.98
-8.89
1.54
8.92
-0.42
-4.75
26.76
-4.74
12.85
2.33
-5.07
-2.57
0.51
-15.48
3.86
22.15
11.63
2.95
3.53
-0.08
-0.73
8.53
-6.01
4.26

77.84
202.73
1.73
16.06
43.78
124.90
12.33
1.36
70.69
76.17
97.12
120.49
79.07
2.38
79.58
0.18
22.54
716.08
22.46
165.08
5.42
25.69
6.59
0.26
239.49
14.90
490.56
135.23
8.71
12.47
0.01
0.53
72.79
36.13
18.13
2999.46

2517.17
2417.83
2618.52
2618.52
793.63
738.29
406.89
406.89
294.86
261.52
261.52
173.49
173.49
38.09
38.09
26.74
17.40
10.06
4.72
46.63
61.29
96.60
164.57
317.86
354.52
667.12
667.12
719.77
831.09
889.74
1144.37
1283.69
1283.69
1586.32
1920.94
25852.97

6|Page

SIMPLE LINEAR REGRESSION:

AMOUNT SPENT PER PUPIL AND COMPOSITE TEST SCORE. Y^= 587.32 +
0.008651 X
WHERE, Y^ = ESTIMATED OR PREDICTED VALUE FOR COMPOSITE TEST
SCORE XI = VALUE OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLE SPENDING PER PUPIL

35

5068.828571

631.1714286

b1

0.008651191

b0

587.3200236

Y^

587.32 + 0.008651 x

SSR

2999.463389

SST

25852.97143

0.116020064

0.34061718

About 66% of the variation in amount spending per pupil is

explained by Composite Test Score.

The Standard Error of the Estimate is a quite significant

portion of the possible predicted values within the range: it
is about 20% of the mode, and 40% of the minimum. This
indicates that the error in the prediction using this
regression equation may not be comparative, and we would
consider this model as not acceptable.

As well as the r2 is less than 0.50 that shows that there

exists highly negative correlation between to data sets.
7|Page

QUESTION 3
DO YOU THINK THAT THE ESTIMATED REGRESSION EQUATION DEVELOPED
FOR THESE DATA COULD BE USED TO ESTIMATE THE COMPOSITE TEST
SCORES FOR THE STATES THAT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NAEP
PROGRAM?

Its a mathematical measure of the average relationship

between two or more variables. It is a technique which
helps in establishing the functional relationship between
two variables and thus one can predict or estimate the
unknown value of one variable for a known value of the
other variable in regression analysis, the variable whose
value is to be predicted is called regressed or explained
variable and the variable which influences the values or is
used for prediction is called predictor. So, the estimated
regression equation developed for these data could be used
to estimate the composite test scores for the states that did
not participate in the NAEP program

8|Page

QUESTION 4
SUPPOSE THAT YOU ONLY CONSIDERED STATES THAT SPEND AT LEAST $4000
PER PUPIL BUT NOT MORE THAN $6000 PER PUPIL. FOR THESE STATES, DOES
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO VARIABLES APPEAR TO BE ANY
DIFFERENT THAN FOR THE COMPLETED DATA SET? DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF
YOUR FINDINGS AND WHETHER YOU THINK DELETING STATES WITH
SPENDING LESS THAN $4000 PER YEAR AND MORE THAN $6000 PER PUPIL IS
APPROPRIATE.
GRAPH EXPLANATION

9|Page

With regression line of the whole data and of the data only
for spending between $4000 and $6000, the difference in
the values of their coefficient determination is just about
0.4
The value of the r2 for the whole data is 0.116 and that for
the selected range is 0.156, thus in any case r2 remains less
than 0.5 and hence the regression model is a poor fit in
both the cases
Thus deleting states with spending less than $4000 per
year and more than $6000 per pupil does not make any
difference
Also if talk about the correlation coefficient r, r = 0.34 for
the whole data and r = 0.39 for the selected data
We know that if r = 0.25 then there exist highly negative
correlation
In both the cases, r is very near to 0.25 and thus we can
conclude that the two data are highly negatively correlated

10 | P a g e

QUESTION 5
DEVELOP ESTIMATES OF THE COMPOSITE TEST SCORES FOR THE STATES
THAT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NAEP PROGRAM.

State

Spending per
pupil

estimates of y^

Idaho

3602

618.48

South Dakota

4067

622.50

Oklahoma

4265

624.22

Nevada

4658

627.62

Kansas

5164

631.99

Illinois

5297

633.15

New
Hampshire

5387

633.92

Ohio

5438

634.37

Oregon

5588

635.66

Vermont

6269

641.55

Michigan

6391

642.61

Pennsylvania

6579

644.24

Alaska

7890

655.58

Estimates or y^ are calculated as: y^ = bo + b1 * x where, b1:0.008651191 &

b0:587.3200236

11 | P a g e

QUESTION 6
BASED UPON YOUR ANALYSES DO YOU THINK THAT THE EDUCATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL OF STUDENTS IS RELATED TO HOW MUCH THE
STATE SPENDS ON EDUCATION?

Since r2 < 0.5, this regression model is poor fit with the
data. Also since our r = 0.34 (is more near to 0.25 and
lesser to 1) we can say that the two data are highly
negatively correlate. We also found that, since the data are
positive, as the value of X (spending per pupil) increases,
y^ also increases. Thus, based upon our analysis, we can
conclude that the educational achievement of the students
is not related to how much the state in which they reside
spends on education

12 | P a g e