University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

(USC Thesis Other)

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT-LEVEL RESOURCES AT A CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL by Timothy P. Scully A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2004 Copyright 2004 Timothy P. Scully Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3155475 Copyright 2004 by Scully, Timothy P. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3155475 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION This is dedicated to my wife, Margaret, for her longstanding support of my efforts. Without her understanding and encouragement, this effort would have been abandoned on many occasions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I acknowledge the faculty of the Rossier School of Education for their kindness and understanding. In particular, Stu Gothold showed me that the door was still there, Dr. Marsh always kept that door open, and Dr. Picus gave unwav ering support and understanding. Dr. Peter Quiros and Frances of the USC-Doheny Eye Clinic gave me back my vision so that I could continue to read and enjoy. Dr. Anthony Stein, Lynn Bonner, and Dr. Rhonda Sherman of City of Hope kept me alive, both physically and spiritually. The International Myeloma Foundation is important to me for its continuing efforts to finding a cure for this “incurable” illness. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............... iii LIST OF TABLES ..... vii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM ....... 1 Background of the Problem .......... 1 The Current Context ....... 2 Equality, Equity, or Adequacy ........ 9 Statement of the Problem ....... 12 Purpose of the Study ..... 14 The Research Questions ..... 15 Importance of the Study ..... 16 Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions.................................... 18 Limitations ..... 18 Delimitations .......................... 20 Assumptions ...... 20 Organization of the Dissertation.......................................... 20 Definitions .............. ....21 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............ 27 School Finance and School Districts ...... 28 Local Control ..... 28 Property Tax Burden: The Shift From Local to State Control ..... ..29 The Search for Equality: Horizontal Equity ..... 33 Brown v. Board of Education .............................. ..33 Serrano v. P riest................... ......35 The Search for Equality: Vertical Equity ..... 36 The Production Function ......... 37 An Analysis T ool ...... ....37 The Coleman Report ..... 38 A Nation at Risk ....... 39 No Child Left Behind ....... 40 Adequacy and Accountability ........ 41 School-Level Data Collection: The Inputs and Output ................... 53 Incentive-Driven Accountability: Rewards and Sanctions.............. 62 The Production Function at the Student Level ................................ 66 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Impact of Litigation .......... 69 The Need for Precise Data ......... ..69 Adequacy Litigation: A Nationwide Dilemma ..... 71 Ohio’s Challenges .............................. 72 Kentucky...................................... 74 South Carolina ......... 75 North Carolina ...... .75 New York ....... 75 California ...... 77 The Role of the State ..... ............79 Overview of Litigation ....................................... ........81 Summary ..... .....82 3. DATABASE CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ..... 84 School Site Demographics and Description .................... ..84 Purpose of the Study ......... .....88 Formal School Governance .................. ..89 Groups of Influence ........................................ 90 School Operations ...... .....91 Database Construction.. .................................. ..91 Student Data .......................................... 92 Unique Funding Issues .................. 93 Class S ize................................ ...94 Free and Reduced-Price Meals ...... 94 Employee Financial Data .......... ...94 Fees and Stipends .......... .95 Unique Financial Package Considerations ..... 95 Site-Level Expenditures ............. 96 Associated Student Body Funds ...................................... 97 UNHS Network at Risk Program ............................. 97 Outside Funding Sources................................ 98 Funding Source and Allocation Limitations ..... 98 Allocations From Three Perspectives ...........................99 Funding Allocation Categories ..... 100 Questions and Queries to Determine Respective Funding Levels ............. 101 Calculations and Procedures ..............................................101 Summary ......... ....102 4. FINDINGS ........ ...103 Review of Research Questions ...... .103 Traditional Funding Sources ......... ....103 Nontraditional Funding Sources ...... 104 Methodology: Findings ....... 104 Determining Enrollment and Applicable Case Studies .........105 Athletic Expenditures and Hybrid Allocations ..... .106 Availability of Precise Data...................... ...........107 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Budgeted Student Enrollment and Actual Student Enrollment................... 109 Funding Allocations: Findings ............. 110 Variance in Student Spending by Periods of Enrollment 114 Distribution by Grade Level ................. ..115 Distribution by Ethnicity ......... 117 Nonresident Students .......... 120 Teacher Financial Package by Period.............. 122 Impact of Teacher Financial Package on Student Expenditure by Ethnicity ..................... 122 Outside Funding ...... 125 Free and Reduced-Price M eals ....... ....127 Associated Student Body Contributions .................. ..129 JROTC Outside Funding ........... 130 Summary: Outside Contributions in Actual Dollars ............131 Outside Funding: Pro Bono and Volunteer Services .......135 Athletics ....... 135 United Nations Network at Risk Program ............................137 Korean Youth Community Counseling Program ............... 138 Parent Volunteer Hours ....... .139 Total Outside Contributions .................. 140 Summary..................... 142 5. RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 144 Continued Research Post Accounting Standardization ............... 144 Production Function as Most Appropriate Measurement Tool ......145 Policy-Driven Programs and Success Measurements................... ..146 Longitudinal Studies ...... 147 Linking Funding to Program Oversight .................. 147 Dates Selected for Data Reporting ...... 148 Making School Managers Aware ...... 149 REFERENCES ............ ....150 APPENDICES ........ 159 A. DEMOGRAPHICS FOR UNITED NATIONS HIGH SCHOOL, 2001-2002 160 B. FACT SHEET, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 ...... 163 C. TEMPLATE TO ASSIGN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS FOR COST ANALYSIS ....... ..165 D. INTERNAL MEMO REGARDING ACCOUNTING STANDARDIZATION MANDATE .......................... 167 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Graduation Requirements at United Nations High School (220 Credits Required) ............... .......86 2. Distribution of Funds per Student: Mean, Median, Range, and Percentile Range................... I ll 3. Mean Allocation 2001-2002: Federal, State, Local, and Actual...............112 4. Allocation Figures for Students by Enrolled Periods Both at an Enrollment Level and the Cumulative Number at That Level or A bove ......................... ...115 5. Grade-Level Distribution of Funds for Students in Four or More Classes ........ 116 6. Distribution of Funds by Ethnicity, Using Grouped Means ............. 118 7. Equity Measures by Gender and Grade.................. 119 8. Horizontal Equity Measure by Ethnicity, Using Trimmed Mean: Coefficient of Variation (CV) ....................... 120 9. Numbers and Percentages of Students Above and Below Mean Teacher Compensation Packages, by Grade ..... 123 10. Numbers and Percentages of Students Above and Below Mean Teacher Compensation Packages, by Ethnicity ...... 124 11. Costs of Free and Reduced-Price Meal Program ..................... 128 12. Associated Student Body (ASB) Operational Expenses ...........- .......129 13. Allocation of Associated Student Body (ASB) Operational Funding, 2001-2002 ............ ....131 14. Description of Allocations of Associated Student Body (ASB) Trust Funds .................. 132 15. Distribution of Associated Student Body (ASB) Funds to Clubs and Programs .......................... ......133 16. Outside Funding of Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), 2001-2002 ........ 134 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17. Volunteer Coaches in All Sports: Pro Bono Dollar Equivalent............... 136 18. Function Hourly Rate Cost for the United Nations High School Area Network (Pro Bono) ................. 137 19. Cost of Korean Y outh Community Counseling (Pro Bono) ........... .....138 20. Parent Volunteer Services in Textbook Distribution (Example of Vital Services) ........ 139 21. Programs Receiving External Funding, With Pro Bono Services Converted to Dollar Amounts ..... ..141 v iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT The quest to understand what constitutes an adequate education for public school children raises a number of questions: What is an adequate education? What should a course of study be to meet each child’s needs? What materials are necessary to bring about adequacy? What constitutes a highly qualified teacher? What will adequacy cost? At the time of this study, one area remained a mystery: how much is spent at the student level on each child. Various figures on per-pupil spending have failed to answer this question, as general overall budgets were divided by student population to arrive at an estimate of per-pupil spending. This study attempted to determine the amount of resources allocated to each student by period of study at a comprehensive high school in California. In cluded was an attempted accounting for “outside” resources (those not allocated to schools through federal and state education funding) to determine the impact of outside resources on student-level funding. Researchers have been dependent upon the candor of district officials, defi nitions and descriptions of budgetary categories, and the accuracy of published data. Findings in the area of funding were enlightening. District policy regarding residency significantly affected allocations between resident and nonresident stu dents. Allocations among ethnic groups determined by teacher financial contribu tion favored the preferred minorities at the school: White and Asian students over Hispanic and African American students. This echoes findings of the same dispar ity reported in other district-level studies. Within the school, this was determined ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by Advanced Placement and Honors course selections taught by higher-paid vet eran teachers. Although precise amounts could not be determined (chiefly due to pro bono services), outside funding constituted approximately 11% of this school’s working budget. Allocations came from volunteer services, fund raising, booster group ac tivities, and corporate donations. These funding sources were required to fund athletic activities. Due to a paucity of similar studies, it was clear that this knowledge base should be enhanced in order to gain a clearer picture on how education dollars are spent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM Background o f the Problem In this time of heightened apprehension about students’ educational pro gress, how have American children fared at the international, national, and local levels? At the international level, large-scale projects such as the Third Inter national Math and Science Study (TIMSS) have demonstrated some very obvious areas of weakness in the academic achievement of American students (Takahira, Gonzales, Frase, & Salganik, 1998). Most notably, eighth-grade students, between 1995 and 1999, fell below the international average in mathematics (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). On the national level over the past 40 years, various studies of American student achievement have criticized American school ing. The Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966), A Nation at Risk (National Com mission on Excellence, 1983), and most recently, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) have chronicled the failures and offered solutions to what has been described as a growing problem of national concern. Across the country, state after state has demanded achievement accountability for the state taxpayer money allocated to school districts. Each district and each school within districts are under the microscope of both the state and the public to show success. What will achieving excellence cost? How will educators and policy makers know whether increased spending will bring about increases in achieve ment? How will educators and policy makers determine whether money spent is spent wisely or inefficiently? This study’s goals are to add to the database of information about funding allocations at the site level, to analyze methods for 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ascertaining funding inputs from source to the actual expenditure level, and to determine variations in funding by identifiable groups as a possible link to varia tions in achievement or outputs. The focus of this study is the United Nations High School (UNHS) in the Fundamentalist Unified School District (FUSD) in southern California.1 UNHS is a school of close to 2,100 students with a diverse ethnic and linguistic population. It is considered an urban school on the border of suburbs. In the past, the school qualified for Title I funding but, by district choice, the funds subsequently were allocated exclusively at the elementary level (see appendix A). UNHS was selected as the site for this study because of ease of access to required data and resources and for its typical nature as a comprehensive and diversely populated high school. The superintendent and assistant superintendent for secondary schools welcomed this study as a means of accessing currently undetermined data and as a method to show the linkage of funding to students. A future study could link funding of programs to achievement levels. The Current Context In 2002, when President George W. Bush signed into law the NCLB, he said, “These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and the character of every child from every background, in every part of America” (NCLB, 2002, n.p.). United Nations High School and Fundamental Unified School District are pseudonyms for the school and district that were the subject of this study. The documents cited in the study as provided by the district or high school were also assigned these pseudonyms in the reference list. 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NCLB is a reauthorization and redirection of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, last reauthorized in 1994. According to the Bush administration, since 1965, more than 130 billion dollars in federal funding has gone to schools to address the neediest students, with very little significant gain evident within that population (NCLB, 2002). NCLB is far reaching. It requires dynamic attention to reading in grades K-3. For students attending failing schools, NCLB advocates mobility and parental choice in school selection to provide better education for their children. It demands better training for and certification of all teachers. It also provides sanctions for schools that do not hire qualified teachers. It gives districts flexibility in using allocated federal funding, a relaxation of prior categorical restrictions. It also demands that researched-based, proven, successful methodologies be used (NCLB, 2002). NCLB also calls for mandatory testing nationwide (NCLB, 2002). The direct focus of this act is that all money from NCLB be allocated to bring about the desired results. This legislation, although expressed in positive terms, is the latest in more than 40 years of education criticism. From its “bully pulpit” position, the executive branch of government demanded results and accountability, which became evident in this bill. In the 1960s, a response to the “bully pulpit” was the Coleman Report, with its biting criticism of schools. This helped to usher in many social programs of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society that not only addressed the educational needs of African Americans specifically but also attempted to address the social structure of African American life. In 1966, the federally commissioned Coleman Report, an extensive production function study (Coleman, 1966), concluded that public 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education had very little impact upon student achievement and that a student’s socioeconomic status (SES) was the determining factor in predicting student success. The report also documented that Black children remained segregated and remained the victims of discrimination. Change was the imperative. Academic improvement was demanded as well as accountability for dollars spent. The Coleman Report arrived with significant controversy. Mandated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the charge was to determine the root causes of minority failure in schools. Coleman surveyed approximately 600,000 students and 60,000 teachers and reviewed 4,000 schools. His basic findings were that (a) schools serving Black pupils were not physically inferior to schools serving White pupils; (b) money spent, class size, laboratories, guidance counseling, teacher salaries, and teacher qualification had no effect on academic achievement; (c) students with parents with high SES had higher scholastic achievement; and (d) students who went to school with students whose parents had high SES had higher scholastic achievement (Coleman, 1966). Scores of studies, grouped as education production functions, have been conducted since the release of the Coleman Report. Their results have been mixed, even conflicting. For example, economist Eric Hanushek used a method of tallying the results of multiple studies to measure the significance of financial inputs on student outcomes. He found no systematic positive relationship between school resources and student performance (Hanushek, 1986, 1997). Over the period of more than 30 years, a consistent body of analysis of the educational processes, including many “reforms” and “infusions” of money, has developed. Hanushek (1997) presented a summary of the effects of resources and student performance over those years. In most cases, his study was an estimate of 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the effect of the production function found in the various research sources. A large number of studies immediately followed the publication of the Coleman Report. More than half of the 377 separate production function estimates were produced after 1985 (Hanushek, 1997). These studies represented all parts of the country; used a variety of measures and outcomes; utilized sources from school districts, counties, states, and classrooms; and spanned kindergarten through grade 12. Hanushek’s (1997) approach was to summarize the combined endeavors. His summary included pupil/teacher relationships, percentage of teachers with master’s degrees, measured years of experience, and expenditures per average daily attendance (ADA). Hanushek admitted that, in such an aggregation, precision would be reduced but the outcomes would not lead to innate bias. Hanushek’s interpretation and findings were blunt and direct: “There is no strong or consistent relationship between school resources and student performance. In other words, there is little reason to be confident that simply adding more resources to schools as currently constituted will yield performance gains among students” (p. 148). In his explanation of his interpretation based upon his computation of data, he indicated that not all teachers and schools were the same. He reported that, in some schools, resources were used effectively, but those whose use of resources was ineffectual balanced these. The problem his study(s) presented from a policy perspective was that, during this specific time period, no one could describe when resources were used effectively and when they would produce just more of the same. Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1994b) took exception to Hanushek’s (1986) study based upon the “vote counting” methodologies utilized. Hanushek had used an accumulation of findings from various studies to draw his conclusions. Greenwald et al. 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recognized that this method was an acceptable method at the time of Hanushek’s study; however, they looked at the same studies and conclusions but utilized a meta-analytic method to test for possible different conclusions. They evaluated the data utilized by Hanushek, broke some of that data into different pieces of informa tion to increase validity, and looked at the influence of single publications as to their influence on the accumulation of the data. Outliers beyond 5% were elimin ated to preclude their influence. Greenwald et al. looked at Hanushek’s analysis of the null hypothesis. Hanushek had accepted a null hypothesis or no effect after an attempt to reject it had failed. Because the vote counting method was considered a weak method of determining inference, the failure to reject the null hypothesis was not persuasive. Hanushek had engaged in an ongoing debate with researchers Green, Hedges, and Laine. This debate centered on data collection and analysis methodo logies. Hanushek used a method of data accumulation from a large number of production function studies. His consistent view was that spending and student achievement did not appear to be linked. Hanushek’s view had been published consistently in his writing since 1986. His basic conclusion was that districts and schools needed to spend what money they had in a more efficient and targeted manner (Hanushek, 1989). Hanushek has cited time and again his studies of accumulated data from various production function studies that do not show a positive relationship between added funding and increased achievement. His many journal articles on this topic have been refuted by Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine, who rejected Hanushek’s data collection and reporting methods. Their research, taking many of 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the same studies that Hanushek had reviewed, found instructional improvement as a result of more funding. Hanushek has agreed that teacher quality and class size have a positive impact upon achievement but does not accept that money given to school systems brings about much change. In fact, he has contended that school funding has sharply increased over the past number of years and achievement levels have at best stayed the same but in many cases had spiraled downward (Hanushek 1996a, 1996b). The second area of concern on the part of Greenwald et al. (1994b) related to certain measures of vote counting percentage interpretation. Hanushek had found that 8% of his studies showed that teacher education and 29% of teacher experience were positive and statistically significant. He had also found that 20% of his studies showed that per-pupil expenditure (PPE) and student outcomes were positively related. Using these percentages, Hanushek had concluded that there was no significant systemic relationship between school expenditures and student outcomes. Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996b) also concluded that, if PPE and educational outcomes were unrelated, half would show a positive position and half would show a negative position. If 5% were to be statistically significant, 2.5% would be positive and 2.5% would be negative. In analyzing Hanushek’s studies, they found that 70% had positive percentages and that a large percentage was statistically significant. From these three examples, one could conclude that the Greenwald et al. (1994b) study using the meta-analysis methodologies contradicted Hanushek’s 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (1997) vote counting findings. Using a number of other techniques, more and more of Hanushek’s findings were contradicted: We are not arguing that the studies used by Hanushek are an adequate basis for resolving the question about the magnitude of the relation between resource inputs and school outcomes. We have serious reservations about the age of the data and the measurement and design of the study.... Even if the conclusions drawn from the studies analyzed in this paper are correct, we would not argue that “throwing money at schools” is the most efficient method of increasing educational achievement. It certainly is not. How ever, the questions whether more resources are needed to produce real improvement in our nation’s schools can no longer be ignored. Relying on these data most often used to deny that educational resources are related to student achievement, we find that money does matter. (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1994a, p. 20) This last statement seems to be steeped in professional politeness, since it wavers in its overall refutation of Hanushek’s research but also goes on to state that money, properly utilized, does matter. On this point, both sides of the debate agree. Hedges concluded that the relationship between resource inputs and student outcomes was consistent and positive and could, in fact, be used to frame educa tional policy (Greenwald et al., 1994a, 1994b). Hedges and his associates expanded their analysis in subsequent studies and reported that school inputs, such as lower class size, teacher experience, and quality of teacher education, are posi tively related to student outcomes. The effects are consistently positive and large enough to be educationally important (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996a; Greenwald et al., 1996b). An experimental study in Tennessee (Achilles, 1999) confirmed findings of a positive relationship between reduced class size and student outcomes. New thinking about resource allocation suggested that resource effective ness depends almost entirely on how resources are used in instruction. What matters is what students and teachers actually do with resources, not merely 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether those resources are present. Following this line of reasoning, researchers point out that instructional improvement will not necessarily occur simply by increasing conventional resources, such as the number of teachers, the salaries of existing teachers, the number of books, or the number of computers. Rather, instructional improvement depends on improving student and teacher skill and knowledge in using additional resources in instruction and learning activities. It also depends on the principal’s knowledge and skill in enhancing the conditions that enable resource use by all members of the school community (L. A. Cohen & Vogel, 2001). Considering the conflicting research, it is easier to understand why finding the direct connection between resources and student learning has proved to be so difficult. E. D. Hirsh (1999), a professor at the University of Virginia, concluded: After the Coleman Report one had a choice of two positions. One could become an advocate of compensatory education to narrow the achievement gap between groups, or one could adopt the determinist view that the schools can do little to rectify the ills of the wider society, (p. Bll) Hirsh’s view is disturbing due to its apparent level of truth. Can school resources, wisely applied to raise student outcomes, trump the affect of low SES? To sum the above analyses, research to date provides support for a qualified “yes.” Comparisons of aggregated expenditure data do not provide evidence of a strong correlation between expenditures and outcomes; however, certain school resources, such as high-quality staff (which obviously require funds) seem linked to student achievement, as do teacher-pupil ratios. Equality, Equity, or Adequacy To achieve equity in school inputs, some researchers have argued that impoverished schools may need more funding than middle-class schools. Poor 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rural areas, for example, must spend more than metropolitan areas to provide equivalent educations. Teachers demand higher salaries to teach less-wealthy, lower-achieving students; thus, impoverished schools, especially in rural areas, may have trouble in attracting expert personnel (Capper, 1990; Levinson, 1988). Analyzing nearly 30 years of research on expenditure differences since the Coleman Report, Hanushek (1989) concluded that the accumulated evidence confirms that there is no systematic relation between school resources (e.g., school administration, facilities, teacher education, teacher-student ratios) and educational outcomes. In 1983, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence, 1983), a subsequent federal production function study detailing the failings of the American education system, projected a grim future for America if the situation were allowed to continue. The United States was not prepared to regain any form of education superiority that was presumed to have existed earlier. The system was deemed to be mediocre from top to bottom. The conclusions of the report were severe and devastating. Change was called for in a loud voice. Greater achievement and far greater accountability were demanded. In 1998, more than a decade after the publishing of A Nation at Risk, various researchers analyzed what changes, if any, had taken place in that period. In the report entitled A Nation Still at Risk (Center for Education Reform, 1998), the conservative public policy organization chronicled the continued shortfalls and failures of the educational system despite significant increases in funding to correct those failures. The report cited a lack of marked gain in achievement and failure to put into place meaningful accountability. 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From 1966 to the present, improvement and accountability have been called for from the federal level but, since education has traditionally been considered to be a function of individual states, the attempts to install improvement measures and accountability systems have been eclectic at best. The means of measuring student achievement has been inconsistent. Yet, during this same period of time, funding for education has increased more than 200% (Picus, 2000). The public and the politicians still wonder what they are getting for the money that they have spent (Greenwald et al., 1996b; Picus & Wattenberg, 1996). The production function, an applied accountability and efficiency tool used in industry, has evolved more and more as a measurement tool of choice in educa tion (Monk, 1989; Verstegen & King, 1998). The application of production func tion to education has been problematic. Children are not cars or stoves, and the education system is not staffed with business-oriented managers or policy makers. The concept of adequacy to address the quality of the education has taken on greater meaning. Input data at the classroom level have been elusive and virtually nonexistent. Data output to measure student achievement still varies from state to state and district to district. Data outputs have slowly evolved to a point where they can be reported at the school site level and the individual student level; input data have been calcu lated at the district level in only general terms. The need for input data calculated at the site level has evolved, as the need for a more precise calculation has become evident. How can inputs be determined at the individual student level? The critical need for school-level and student-level data has emerged as attempts are made to apply the most precise production function possible and to determine cost effici ency applicable to the site. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Student-level funding has emerged as a tool for researchers to develop the most precise relationship model. Adding to the press to determine how money was being spent during the 1960s and 1970s was a taxpayer revolt that started in 1978 in California with the passage of Proposition 13 (California Constitution Article 13a, Tax Limitation). This revolt continued to spread across the nation as higher property taxes were demanded for the increased costs of schools, with still no solid answers on how the dollars were being spent (Picus & Odden, 2000a). This type of revolt continues to spread even today in Pennsylvania. Passage of school bond issues, formerly considered to be almost a sacred duty, became a thing of the past. Super-majority vote requirements replaced majority vote requirements. In a budget report provided to the public by the FUSD it was noted that, within southern California, only 1 of the 49 most recent school bond measures was successful (Torrance Unified School District, 2001). Conse quently, more and more of the funding function for schools has been transferred from local authority to the state. Statement o f the Problem As litigation and legislation have evolved over the past 50 years, many measures and means have been used to determine equity, adequacy, and accounta bility. The depth of the search for equity has depended on the press for equity. Equity has taken on two definitions: horizontal equity and vertical equity. At the highest level, adequacy has given way to high-level achievement and accountability for all (Odden & Archibald, 2000). Litigation in the form of Brown v. Board of Education o f Topeka (1954) at the federal level and Serrano v. Priest (1971) at the state level established 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. expansions of the meaning of equity. Serrano required equal spending or fiscally neutral funding by the state to school districts within California. The Brown decision marked the beginning of the end of “separate, but equal” schooling, which had been upheld since Plessey v. Ferguson (1898). Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992) established a quasi-measure of equity among schools within the Los Angeles school district. The case was made that the discrepancy in wages paid to certificated staff, determined by seniority, established inequity in favor of preferred schools and preferred areas. Theoretically, students in the preferred schools were receiving a better education because of higher wages paid to the more senior teachers who, through seniority, had migrated to areas that were more affluent. The assumption was that the more experienced and higher-paid teachers provided a superior experience to students. The Consent Decree accompanying Rodriguez (Consent Decree, Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 1992) attempted to remedy this issue through financial incentives to keep experienced teachers at schools in less-preferred areas. Unfortunately for some, it was referred to as “combat pay.” Now, the question became how equity is established between schools within a district. Another question was how equity is established between classrooms and, literally, between students. The accepted method of calculating per-student expenditures was using total gross inputs divided by the total number of students at a site. This produced average dollars allocated to teach each student. However, by looking at programs, departments, activity, and general outcomes, one could easily tell that this method was not telling the story. Generalized spending and accountability by states, by districts, and by schools proved to be inadequate. Refined data collection at the student level for 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. both inputs and outputs was a growing necessity, particularly to determine and assess adequacy. If individual student-level achievement, measured by a quantifi able measurement tool, becomes a part of the production function, then the collec tion of individual student-level funding data was also necessary. Funding, specifically related to individual students, is a new and potentially meaningful direction (Robillard & Picus, 2000). To date, only one study has addressed individual student funding (Robillard, 2001). This study attempted to calculate all inputs as they applied to each student individually at a single urban high school. In order for this type of study to take on more meaning, the database and methods of data collection needed to be expanded. This particular study was the first step in establishing this new direction in school finance research. In the era of testing and accountability related to the individual student, determining the amount of funding per individual student should provide informa tion about adequacy and equity of spending and, when combined with achievement data by future researchers, should provide far more detailed data to establish a clear view of the complete production function. It will also clarify the response to the question of whether money matters (Greenwald et al., 1996b). Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study was to calculate all meaningful inputs from all sources applicable to UNHS, a diverse, multiethnic urban school of 2,071 students in the FUSD. The study was designed to determine the level of funding for each individual student attending UNHS, using data from the 2001-2002 school year. The study was also designed to develop an efficient means of data collection and an efficient means of determining resource allocation, using the 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. available technology. Presently, extremely limited research meets this purpose. In addition, there are significant impediments to determining resource distribution, particularly to the site and classroom levels (Goertz, 1997). The researcher believes that existing impediments to data collection can be overcome. This study establishes a mechanism for collecting all pertinent data related to financial inputs for each individual student at a site. Once the mechanism for data collection was established, the funding for each individual student for each period of the school day was determined. Although this was a demanding task, it demonstrates a method that can be helpful to future researchers. When accountability mechanisms such as those attempted in this study and others like it are synthesized to establish clearer pictures of school spending, future researchers should be able to determine both equity and adequacy levels per student, measured by various methods. With this information, researchers should be able to obtain a precise assessment of the production function when achievement data are introduced. These data should also provide evidence to determine the efficiency of the school organization and programs. The Research Questions The research questions driving this study were as follows: 1. What is the expenditure per student within a school, as determined by the level of funding by class periods provided to each student from all sources? 2. How much variation exists in expenditure per student? 3. What factors contribute to variation in the expenditure per student? The methods used to answer these research questions are described in chapter 3. Robillard paved the way for this type of study, but his was the first and 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. only study to attempt to ferret out precise data. In order for studies such as this to have significance, not only do the findings have to show significance, but also the road to those answers needs to be mapped for future researchers to expand upon the limited research available. Importance o f the Study This study will be an expansion of what is now only very limited data describing precise dollar allocation to the individual student at the classroom level. This study will establish an actual protocol for data collection methods, per student, at the classroom level. There is currently very limited information to establish these unique and specific types of data collection. This study should serve as a significant resource for multiple audiences, particularly when merged with disaggregated student performance data. For the site practitioner, the information will show how each child within a site is funded. This should be of assistance when determining course offerings, course develop ment, program development, and direction. This information may also be of assistance in determining overall scheduling within a school, certificated teacher placement, classified assistant placement, and dollars allocated per program and per classroom. The study will provide data on horizontal and vertical equity and may, when combined with future studies on individual student achievement, generate a significantly more precise look at the production function. These data may also be of assistance in developing a more efficient means of allocation of site resources. The information garnered by this study should provide an answer to the question of 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether schools need more money or need only to allocate existing funds more effectively. The data produced by this study will serve school-site councils in their deliberation and approval processes for site-level budgets. Although the process and the methods are complex, with appropriate capacity building by principals, these calculated data should become significant in the process of determining site- based budgets, resources allocation, and areas of need. This study will be important to policy makers at the state, district, and site levels. Presently, education policy is driven by politics or by litigation focused primarily on equity and accountability, while adequacy remains a nebulous term and a nebulous goal. In the present era of accountability, classroom-, site-, and district-level financial accountability remains elusive, while achievement accountability measures have been narrowed. This study and similar studies, when merged with academic outcome data, should provide a means by which to determine a more precise measure of financial accountability. The results of this accountability process could have significant impact upon establishing efficient resource alloca tion. This study, when combined with similar studies, could influence the current structure of schooling altogether. One outcome might be to force a closer look at the efficiency of the comprehensive high school. Efficient productivity could challenge politically driven resource allocation decisions and potentially challenge tradition-based structures within districts and at individual sites. The conversations and debates among state politicians and state policy experts may well be driven by efficient financial allocation, a more adventuresome level of adequacy, and production functions based on far better 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. data. Based on this and similar and related studies, a new data-driven challenge should be a driving force behind fiscal policy at the state and district levels. Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions Limitations The inputs for this study were limited to actual dollars spent within a school to educate the individual child. Former status and previous success in school were not considered; academic measurement was limited to the SAT9 results for the 2001-2002 school year. Since this study is a snapshot taken at a precise moment and limited to contributions during the year of the study, the outcomes will be of little value in the short run but could serve as a base for a longitudinal study. This study is limited by the access to required data, particularly in the area of distribution of certain types of resource allocation protected by confidentiality issues. Access and denial of access to data cannot be controlled. Because data were collected from only one urban high school, the results are limited to that school. The nature and influence of outside resources are unknown. One such area was that of CalWORKS contributions. No record of which students were covered by this program could be acquired. (CalWORKS is a program that gives cash aid and services to families with eligible needy children who are deprived because of the absence, disability, or death of a parent or unemployment of the principal earner when both parents are in the home. It has a cumulative 60-month time limit on receipt of cash aid and requires recipients to meet strict work participation require ments. Families receiving cash aid are required to obtain immunizations for all pre-school children and all school-age children are required to attend school 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regularly. After 5 years on aid, a safety net provides aid to the children only. Needy caretaker relatives receiving foster care may also receive benefits.) Another limiting area centers on the dollar allocation to the individual student versus dollar allocation to students in general. Every effort was made to allocate dollars to the appropriate recipient. Because of accounting practices and unavailable data, this was not always possible. An example of this type of situation is the assignment of materials cost. In some cases, materials could be specifically allocated to a particular class. Those materials then became part of the allocation to the individual student for that period. In cases in which materials could, at best, be assigned to a department, the cost of those materials was then divided by the number of periods within the department and became part of the cost of operation for that class and, as such, became part of the allocation to each student within the particular period. Every attempt was made to assign materials to the specific class for which they were intended in order to arrive at a more precise value for each class. Another limitation was that student transience from the start of the school year until the closing date for data collection meant that different populations were used for budgeting, allocations, and student enrollment. These numbers were fluid throughout the course of the study. It became necessary to use multiple data sets for data analysis to get the clearest picture of the classroom-level funding. A significant limitation on the overall study was a general attitude of limited ownership over budgetary information. This was made manifest in a memorandum to all department heads, specifically deriding the adoption of the standardized accountancy measures imposed by the state. The tone of the Business Office in this memorandum is clear; it stands as a reason that access to certain 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aspects of the budget was denied or made difficult. It also can account for rather hostile answers to particular questions, particularly those questions that targeted specific allocations such as legal fees, costs of substitute teachers, capital outlay, maintenance, and so forth. In most cases, only gross numbers were given, rather than specific dollars amounts. In some cases, questions went unanswered. Delimitations A significant delimitation was that study involved only one high school, including the allocations and expenditures to that school. This study cannot be generalized to all high schools. It might be generalized to four other high schools within the chosen district regarding collection methods. Assumptions All financial data were assumed to be correct as of June 31, 2002. It was assumed that the teaching staff as of that date had been the teaching staff for the entire year. Another set of assumptions centers on the definitions of equity and adequacy as they are used in this study and by the cited authors. Equity means that equal resources are provided to each student, adjusted for need. Adequacy means that enough resources are provided to assure that all or almost all meet the state’s proficiency standards. The reader may apply a personal definition of equity and adequacy to this study, knowing that both terms are used in the sense of doing what is right for students. Organization o f the Dissertation Chapter 1 presents an overview of the study, the statement of the problem, and the purpose o f the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of the significant 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. literature regarding school-level inputs. Chapter 3 describes the methods utilized for data collection and the particular software and technologies that were applied. Chapter 4 presents and reviews the findings of the study. Chapter 5 analyzes the results of the study and presents the implications for future research. Definitions Adequacy for school finance. Providing sufficient funds for the average district/school to teach the average child to maintain state standards, plus sufficient additional revenues for students with special needs to allow them to meet perform ance standards as well. Many school finance court cases have shifted from challenging fiscal disparities to challenging the adequacy of the funding system. Assessed valuation per pupil. The adjusted or equalized assessed valuation per pupil is the adjusted assessed valuation for a school district divided by the district’s total average daily attendance or average daily membership. Average daily attendance (ADA). The number of students present or excused from attendance for specific reasons (outlined in the state education code) on each school day throughout the year. ADA is based upon three date samples and approximates 95% of the average enrollment statewide. A school district’s revenue limit income is based on its ADA. Average daily membership (ADM). Average number of students enrolled when school is in session for any given year. Capital outlay. Expenditure for new equipment, major renovation, reconstruction, or a new school. Categorical aid. Funds from the state or federal government granted to qualifying school districts for children with special needs, such as educationally 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. handicapped; for special programs, such as the School Improvement Program; or for special purposes, such as Economic Impact Aid or transportation. Expenditure of most categorical aid is restricted to its particular purpose. Central district support. Expenditures for central district support services, such as governing board, personnel commission, central administrators, legal costs, accounting/payroll, purchasing, data processing, printing, audits and reporting mandates, safety and hazardous materials management, warehouse/courier, risk management, staff development, contracted services, assessments and fees from federal and state and local levels, insurance, and so forth. Compensatory education. Educational programs intended to make up for experiences lacked by disadvantaged children; they are supported, in most cases, by supplemental funding. Correlation. A statistical term indicating the relationship between two variables. Two variables are said to be positively correlated when one increases while the other decreases or negatively correlated when one increases while the other decreases. Cost-benefit analysis uses the same approach as cost-effectiveness analysis, with the exception that both the costs and benefits are measured in dollar values. Both the costs and benefits associated with reaching higher standards are unders tood and measured. For example, a new program to improve reading achievement may be dramatically successful. However, if the program is 50% more successful than and twice as expensive as a related program, policymakers will deliberate very carefully before they allocate resources to the more costly program. Economists have developed cost analysis tools for exploring ways to allocate resources 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. efficiently or to get the greatest results from given resource levels. These include resource cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis analyzes costs with like outcomes of different educational interventions or alternatives to select the most efficient way to produce a desired goal or outcome. Generally, two or more interventions or alternatives for meeting a particular performance goal are studied in this approach. Current operating expenditures. Expenditures for the daily operation of the school program, such as the expenditures for administration, instruction, attendance and health services, transportation, operation and maintenance of plant, and fixed charges. Direct instructional support. Expenditures made for direct services to children in the classroom, such as teachers, aides, supplies, textbooks, and equipment. Expenditure uniformity. Part of the horizontal equity standard in school finance requiring equal expenditure per pupil or per weighted pupil for all students in the state. Fiscal capacity. The ability of the local governmental entity, such as a school district, to raise tax revenues. It is usually measured by the size of the local tax base, usually property wealth per pupil in education. Fiscal neutrality. A court-defined equity standard in school finance. It is a negative standard, stating that current operating expenditures per pupil, or some object, cannot be related to a school district’s adjusted assessed valuation per pupil or some fiscal capacity measure. It simply means that differences in expenditures per pupil cannot be related to local school district wealth. 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Horizontal equity. The principle that students who are alike should be treated alike. Horizontal equity demands that all students receive an equal share of the education experience, including state and local funding and an equal share of the education provided by a school. Indirect support. A charge for routine services that are not performed for a specific program but benefit many programs. These costs are allocated to the programs that benefit from them. Input data. Based on several things, input data are made up of a student’s external environment and points of reference (i.e., characteristics of the school), such as expenditures, teacher experience, and class size. The term also refers to a student’s internal environment, which form his individual characteristics (e.g., family income level, mother’s education, and race). Input data include the student’s previous school performance. Instructional support. Expenditures for services that directly support the educational process, such as counselors, nurses, bus drivers, librarians, principals, curriculum specialists, maintenance, and utilities at school sites. Mandated costs. School district expenditures made as a result of federal or state law, court decisions, administrative regulations, or initiative measures. Output data. Data measuring a student’s success while in school and after graduation. These output data include test scores, attendance record, graduation rate, and education after high school (e.g., community college, university, trade school, military). Outside resources. Resources that come from state, federal, or local welfare and assistance programs, of which the student is the beneficiary. Outside resources include private corporate donations, parent/teacher/school associations, clubs, and 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. educational foundations. Further sources might be faith-based programs and other minority school-related programs, such as those provided by the YMCA, Salvation Army, and nonsectarian church groups. Counseling groups such as the Korean Counseling Center for Youth (KYCC), 100 Black Scholars, and other private groups also provide resources. Production function. Educational production functions are mathematical descriptions of how inputs (independent variables) contribute to outcomes (depend ent variables). The production function is most often expressed in the form of a linear equation that relates student outcomes (test scores) to inputs and characteris tics of schools (expenditures, teacher experience, class size), individual student characteristics (family income level, mother’s education, race), and previous student performance. Resource cost analysis. Use of average input prices that are aggregated and adjusted by a regional price or cost index. This method of aggregating and adjust ing costs can result in a base funding (or foundation) level to guide decision makers in determining funding for programs and initiatives Special education resource students. Special education students assigned to regular classes by their advocates or counselors and closely monitored by a Special Education Resource Teacher, who consults regularly with the regular education teacher works individually with students in need of specific assistance. A resource student may be close to transition to full regular education status. Special education special day students. Students who cannot function well within the regular classroom setting and are assigned to special education teachers to deliver instruction in the core subject areas. The curriculum in these classes addresses the essential core content standards. The class sizes for each subject are 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quite small and instructional assistants are present to assist each student to com plete class assignments. Vertical equity. The unequal treatment of equal within a school system (Picus & Odden, 2000a). This refers to the differences between children and their need for more educational services to assist them in learning. 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review the most salient literature address ing the utility of production functions at the student level. The literature review explores the current level of school funding, guiding principles, and the efficacy of the funding currently in place to serve students. It investigates the methodologies involved in determining student funding at the school site level. The chapter also documents the need for student-level funding data to calculate a more accurate production function outcome. The American system of education has been one of slow evolution marked by significant legislation and litigation expressing the basic changes in the philo sophy of its people. The basic challenge has been how best to produce an educated citizenry at an acceptable cost. These questions seek to determine who should attend, where to establish school boundaries, what should be taught, how schools should be financed, and what the citizenry should expect for the money invested. The past 50 years have been a time of constant searching for ways to ensure equity and access, defining and describing adequacy of the education process, debating many measures of adequacy and success, and presently responding to the demand for high achievement and measured accountability to determine whether America’s investment in education is too low or spent in an inefficient manner. From Mr. Brown’s dream for equity for his daughter in 1951 to NCLB, the focus has evolved from equity, both horizontal and vertical, to adequacy of the process for each child served in public schools, and finally to the present-day question of the cost of high-level achievement. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. School Finance and School Districts Local Control In 1647 in Massachusetts, the Old Deluder Satan Act established a rough formula for the establishment of both elementary and secondary schools and how these schools should be funded. The town fathers saw that a teacher was hired, supervised the construction of a facility, set the attendance requirements, and then determined how much each family in the area had to pay. This was the start of the concept of a district based on boundaries and population. It also established one of the first systems for financing schools (Picus & Odden, 2000b). In 1648, local property taxes were established in Durham, Massachusetts. A tax was placed upon each land parcel owned. Property tax then became the source of school funding. During the same period, local control was a firmly held concept, whether it was religious or secular. The individual locality financed the schools, set policy and, for the most part, reaped the benefits of an educated local citizenry and the school’s program. Within a short period, local communities established their common schools and became school districts unto themselves. Large cities did the same. Each local area took responsibility for the direction and funding of its own system. At this time, states had no control of community schools. By the mid- 1970s, states began to rewrite their constitutions to include varying levels of responsibility for schools. However, local control was still held somewhat sacred. But the states and the federal government slowly established funding systems for local schools and showed concern for education’s direction to more broadly meet the education needs of the citizens (Picus et al., 2000b). 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Property Tax Burden: The Shift From Local to State Control The locally controlled form of financing and school control changed to a form of state control when local property tax rates were challenged and school funding became the state’s responsibility. The shift from local funding to state funding for education took place somewhat slowly between the mid-1960s and the major tax reforms at the federal level in the mid-1980s. The baby boom era pro duced a significant demand on local jurisdictions to build new schools to handle a significantly increasing child population (Picus et al., 2000a). In order to respond to this demand, local boards were forced to ratify higher and higher property taxes to build new schools for the growing school-age population. Property taxes became increasingly unpopular as rates increased. Realizing the burden placed on property owners to fund schools, the states intervened in order to lessen the pressure placed on those property owners. Low-income property owners were hit the hardest because they faced tax burdens that were far beyond their means. In the 1970s, due to extreme inflation and major growth in property tax assessments, the majority of states adopted some form of tax restructuring, which moved the burden from property owners to the state level. This not only shifted financing but also shifted control from the local level to the state level. The most significant tax initiative at the time was California’s enactment of Proposition 13 in 1978. With a failing educational system, based on the various highly publicized national education reports, and with property taxes increasing, based upon property value assessment increases through inflation, the time was ripe for taxpayers to have their voices heard through their ballots. Tax burdens had risen significantly especially for those people who lived on fixed incomes, and whose incomes did not 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rise with the cost of living or inflation. The 1978 passage of Proposition 13 in California started a taxpayer revolt that is still moving across the nation, state by state. The revolt in the form of Proposition 13 rolled back assessment to 1976 levels with formulas that limited tax increases for the future. The assessment could change only to reflect actual assessed evaluation once the property had been sold (California Taxpayer’s Association, 1993). This evolving tax shift and reform changed the long-held tradition of local control of schools to one of state control. More and more states and the federal government have exercised their influence over all schools across the country (Picus & Odden, 2000a). School boards have remained the local governing body, but more and more of their authority has been yielded to or assumed by the state. Curriculum, text book selection, and teacher credentialing have become state responsibilities. School boards have responsibility over the management of the local district to ensure compliance and have control over part of the local budget, but no longer can they claim total control of their schools. By 1997,43 of the 50 states utilized property taxes as a means of support (Hansford & Stallman, 1997). In order to overcome some of the reductions in funding caused by the passage of Proposition 13, districts sought means to get around the proposition and its imposed supermajority vote for any property tax increase. In some districts, education foundations were formed by citizens and business leaders within school districts to supplement school district budgets. Some California districts, such as Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, and Manhattan Beach, all in southern California, raised over a million dollars per year to donate to the districts to cover expenses. 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many other districts had local foundations, but the amounts raised were not of great significance. Another source of funding came from an unintended source. After the 1972 Sylmar earthquake, California enacted legislation that allowed local community legislative entities to establish special maintenance assessment districts (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). The original intent was to assist local authorities to respond to damage done by the earthquake. The language of the legislation pro vided a loophole in Proposition 13. No community vote was needed to establish special assessment districts; only the vote of a legislative body within the com munity was needed. Boards of education qualified as legislative bodies; therefore, boards could levy an assessment to the properties in a particular district/community for a specific purpose and for a specified length of time. The usual length was 5 years. When utilizing this particular legislation, the funds had to be spent for lighting and landscaping. This loophole was used up and down the state to supple ment district funds for athletic facilities used by the public in an outdoor setting and landscaping and lighting that was visible from the streets surrounding schools. An assessment to each parcel of land usually varied between $15 and $25 per parcel per year. In some locales, the amount paid was determined by distances from the location of the improvements, the theory being that property value closest to the improvements increased in value because of the improvements. When used in the Fundamental district at UNHS, the assessment restored the football field, built two softball fields, replaced all floral landscapes seen from the street, and installed an irrigation system and lights that generally improved all landscaping that fronted the streets surrounding the school. Funds were assigned to 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. schools by an ad hoc committee, based upon the school’s need. The assessment was added to the property tax payment. Pursuant to Section 2 of the statute, if the assessment needed to be renewed, this was done by a legislative body vote unless written protests were received from 50% of the property owners. If an assessment district has been formed by the . . . district pursuant to this part, prior to the levy of the next annual assessment or annual installment the legislative body . . . shall submit to the voters of the assessment district a proposition for approval to continue levying those assessments. (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972,22648) Because no public vote was required to renew assessment, districts meetings to reauthorize the Maintenance Assessment District (MAD) became acrimonious and contentious as affronts to the spirit of Proposition 13. Most of the MAD funding was not renewed, even though the cost per year was quite small. The Jarvis Taxpayers Association, so named for the person who initiated Proposition 13, sought to eliminate this type of legislation. Their first change to the 1972 legislation came in the form of an adopted amendment to the act that stated: The legislative body of a school district or a community college district shall not adopt a resolution ordering the formation of an assessment district . . . unless a proposition for the formation of the district has first been submitted to the voters of the proposed assessment district and approved by not less than two-thirds of the voters. (Landscape and Lighting act of 1972, f 225494.3) In 2001, spirited by the Taxpayers Association, California voters passed Proposition 218, which abolished the authority of local agencies to establish special assessment districts. The only types that could be established henceforth were for emergency services and water related issues. These events demonstrate the lengths to which school districts had to go in their quest of “adequate” funding. There was still no method in place to determine 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether the existing money was spent in an efficient manner to achieve the academic goals of districts. The Search for Equality: Horizontal Equity The history of schools and school taxation was quiet until after the Civil War. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which challenged the commonly held policy of segregated schools, momentarily interrupted the silence. In Plessy the Supreme Court upheld segregation and established the “separate, but equal” doctrine that schools could be segregated as long as they provided equal education. However, “equal” was ill defined. Again, the school front fell silent for more than 50 years. Brown v. Board o f Education In 1951, the playing field of education started to rumble and change. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) challenged the equality of segregated schools. Other states soon followed. Brown was joined by cases from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. The Brown decision, filed in 1951, argued in December 1952, and decided in May 1954, focused on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the equal protection clause. In 1954 Brown struck down segregation in schools. With Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding, the Supreme Court addressed the equal protection clause as it applied to schools and race by unanimously overthrowing the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896. The court spoke directly to the detrimental effect of segregation, particularly to people of “color.” The court found that the state had created a “suspect classification” of individuals identified by race. The court found in favor of Brown and effectively overturned all state laws that treated people differently solely on the basis of race (Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, 1954). The 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Honorable Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, “Education is perhaps the most important function of the state and local governments. Schools are the principle instrument. . . in preparing him [the child] for later professional training” (as cited in NAACP, 1954, p. 3). The Brown decision brought an end to de jure (by law) segregation in public places. The enduring influence of this decision continues to impact America even today. However, the Brown decision did not end de facto (actual) segregation across the country. Since 1954, equity, adequacy, and accountability have dominated the education landscape. The connotation of equity has been at the center of debate, politics, and litigation. The meaning of equity has been defined on two levels: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal equity attempts to address equity at the district level and at the state level. Horizontal equity addresses equity by trying to assure that all students are funded equally. This attempt at impartiality turns a blind eye to the great differences and diversity among districts within a state. A reasonable question would be: Does “equal” spending between districts from poverty areas and high wealth areas actually achieve equity? San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez (1973) centered on financial equity within a school district. A U.S. federal court in Texas found that education was a fundamental right and that the Texas property tax system was unfairly biased in favor the wealthy. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed all cases involving state taxes and inequality. The Court rejected the arguments that education was a fundamental interest under the Constitution or that the rights of “suspect classes” were being denied. The court ruled that, if a state’s school finance method followed a 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reasonable process, even if viewed unfair and unequal, it would be constitutional as a state’s right to exercise its responsibility regarding education (Guthrie, 2001). Brown abolished inequities based on the 14th Amendment at the federal level. Rodriguez was a different matter. Here, the federal court found that the Constitution was silent in the establishment of education policy in the states. The fight for horizontal equity now would have to be fought on the individual state level. The struggle for equity had just become a great deal more difficult. Serrano v. Priest The decision in Serrano v. Priest (1976) in California addressed horizontal equity. In 1966, John Serrano spoke with the principal of the school that his son attended. He questioned the quality of the school based on what he had observed through travel in the greater Los Angeles area. He wanted to know what could be done to make the school better. The principal responded in frustration that Mr. Serrano should move. There was nothing that he or the superintendent could do because the system had been “set in stone.” The differences in levels of spending among school districts were pronounced. In 1968-1969, each student in the Baldwin Park Unified School District was allocated $577.49, each student in the Pasadena Unified School District was allocated $840.19, and each student in the Beverly Hills Unified School District was allocated $1,231.72. With no hope to make changes at the local level, Mr. Serrano filed suit based on unequal treatment of students. The financial facts in the original Serrano case were very blunt. Baldwin Park Unified School District spent half as much per pupil as Beverly Hills {Serrano v. Priest I, 1976). During the proceedings, taxation and education finance experts 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. gave detailed testimony on comparisons that were very similar. At that time, there were over 1,100 school districts in the state. California had a foundation tax rate that, through state subsidies, would balance local revenues. However, because property in wealthy areas could generate more revenue at lower tax rates, wealthy districts had the benefit of both lower taxes and greater spending per pupil. No matter how one shuffled the situation, the poor remained poor and the wealthy had great advantages. The court’s decision favored Mr. Serrano, and equalization of funding per district was demanded. Although the action was mandated, two more Serrano cases were required to achieve the desired outcomes {Serrano v. Priest I, 1976; Serrano v. Priest II, 1982; Serrano v. Priest III, 1985). As the Serrano case evolved in the mid-1970s, the California legislature was required to reduce dis parities in general purpose funding to a range not to exceed $100 per student, referred to as the “Serrano band.” The Serrano band was based on revenue limits or general purpose funding allocated to schools. Categorical aid was not taken into account. The court accepted six types of schools with different bands for each considering the type of school in the band. As inflation adjustments were made, the Serrano band broadened to about $350 per student. The impact of Serrano was significant. It served as a model, not only in California but in other states, in the quest for horizontal equity. Although differences remained after Serrano, the basic revenue gap per child was closing. The Search for Equality: Vertical Equity Achieving vertical equity soon became the challenge for policy makers. The concept of vertical equity refers to treating different types of students 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. differently in order to equalize educational opportunity. The debate now centered on finding the correct interpretation of adequacy. Should it mean funding at a basic proficiency level or funding to reach a high level of achievement? The search for adequacy in programs and funding was now a major policy issue. Litigation and legislation became the two means of addressing vertical equity. Vertical equity legislation and litigation became necessary tools to inspire redistribution of resources. Lau v. Nichols (1974) addressed the needs of Limited English Proficient students; Phyler v. Doe (1982) addressed the rights of immigrant students to obtain a public education. The Higher Education Act’s Title VI, originally passed in 1964, extended the issues of equity to include equalization of resources and services based on gender (Guthrie, 2001). Perhaps the most far- reaching legislation began in 1975 through Public Law 94-142 (1975). This law, enacted by the 94th Congress, was passed to allow equity for disabled students in public schools. These decisions and directives expanded both the rights for and funding of special education students. These laws and others established the principle of fiscal neutrality (Ritter, 2002), indicating that the link between local or household wealth and the quality of a child’s schooling was unacceptable. The formation of this concept enabled the drive for education finance and equal protection to proceed. The Production Function An Analysis Tool As student achievement measures moved from generalized state and district scores and reports and began to focus on the individual site and the individual student, questions emerged about production functions and funding. How are 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. students funded, and what is the product of this funding? In other words, what is the production function? When testing became non-anonymous and traceable to individual students, individual production functions could be run to determine what funding for that child brought about the reported end or score. The production function theoretically became easier to determine. The Coleman Report In 1966 the federally commissioned Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966) challenged the adequacy of America’s school systems. It also called for accounta bility in providing the education necessary for an educated citizenry. The Coleman Report arrived with significant controversy. Mandated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the report was intended to identify the root causes of minority failure in schools. Coleman surveyed approximately 600,000 students and 60,000 teachers, and reviewed 4,000 schools. His basic findings were as follows: (a) Schools serving Black pupils were not inferior to schools serving White pupils; (b) money spent, class size, laborator ies, guidance counseling, teacher salaries, and teacher qualification had no effect on academic achievement; (c) students with parents with high SES had higher scholas tic achievement; and (d) students who went to school with students whose parents had high SES had higher scholastic achievement. The Coleman Report bluntly stated that what schools were doing was having little, if any, effect on achievement (Hirsch, 1996). It also determined that segregation, de facto or otherwise, was still prevalent in society and that the African American communities were still the ones who least benefited from the education system (Coleman, 1966). 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A Nation at Risk A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) repeated the findings of the Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966) but in far more ominous terms vis-a-vis the United States’ position within the global setting. It claimed that mediocrity marked the status of American education, that curriculum was shallow and instruction was weak, and that education lacked direction, focus, and standards. Secretary of Education Bell and the Commission demanded adequacy and accountability (Bell, 1993). Adequacy of education had come to the forefront with varied interpretations. For some, it meant basic skills; to others, it meant functioning as a citizen; and to still others, it meant achieving high standards in an ever more challenging world. Regardless of whether the education finance issue is “equity,” “adequacy,” or pupil performance incentives, overreaching policy questions remain the same. (1) How is the policy objective specified? (2) How can revenue generation and distribution be rearranged to facilitate it? (3) How can one measure the degree to which the policy’s purposes have been achieved? Despite the uniformity of these analytic queries, the capacity to respond varies dramatically, depending upon the specifics of a policy’s purpose. Available knowledge across these three issue areas is not equal. While by no means fully achieved, conventionally defined “revenue” or “distributional” equity is well framed conceptually, routinely addressed by reputable scholars and philosophers, rooted in a long standing body of western law, widely accepted as a policy goal, practically possible, even if sometimes politically difficult to implement, and susceptible to accurate measurement. Conversely, the education finance objective of “revenue adequacy” is in its infancy conceptually, only beginning to be understood by the courts, primitive in terms of social science support, still awkward to implement. (Guthrie, 2001, p. 1) The most recent challenge for educators and finance experts is to construct the links between legislated targets for academic achievement and available financial resources. The experts are challenged to identify means by which revenue 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distribution can be tailored as incentives to induce yet higher levels of school, teacher, and pupil performance. “Resources must be ‘adequate’ to accomplish some purpose” (Guthrie, 2001, p. 1). If selected schools receive performance bonuses, are students at less favored schools disadvantaged as a consequence? Can a state have two levels of acceptable academic performance? One set would be claimed to be “adequate,” while the higher performance, and reward eligible arrangements would be centered on “super adequate” (Guthrie, 2001). No Child Left Behind In 2001 NCLB (2002) set high standards for teacher quality, as determined by education, certification, student achievement, and overall school performance, measured both at the site and at the district level. According to NCLB, failure to perform and comply in a timely manner is to be met with significant sanctions. As incentives flowed to high-performing schools and sanctions were applied to low- performing schools, equity and adequacy seemed to go by the wayside. Adequacy and accountability dominate NCLB as themes. However, what constitutes adequacy and high quality is nebulous (e.g., will high performance in California be the same as high performance in Arkansas? {White House Fact Sheet, 2002; appendix B.) Despite the infusion of new federal dollars and the loosening of federal restrictions on categorical funds, can states adequately respond when variations in individual state funding per student are radically different? An example is the $6,118 difference in spending per pupil range between New Jersey at $9,774 and Utah at $3,656 (Parrish, Matsumoto, & Fowler, 1995). Again, equity in spending 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and adequacy in education is set in an arbitrary environment, depending on where the educational standard is set. Adequacy and Accountability In the 1970s, adequacy and accountability had supplanted equity as the focus of public scrutiny. The public, through their political representatives and their individual votes, began to demand to know what they were getting for the dollars that they invested in education. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in California in 1978, California taxpayers and legislators alike have demanded a testing system that would report on the condition of California education that would be easily understood by the average citizen. Just prior to the passage of Proposition 13, California mandated that each student demonstrate proficiency in math and writing prior to graduation (California Taxpayer’s Association, 1993). Districts were given significant free dom in how to determine the vehicle to use and what constituted proficiency. AB 65 was geared to determine the most basic level of proficiency and required basic proficiency skills in English and mathematics. This was followed by the California Assessment Program (CAP), which was sabotaged by the targeted testing popula tion (see following Section regarding CAP). In 1995, the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) was established. It was established at high cost because it had to be scored by actual test readers. Because various segments of the population deemed the test questions to be invasive to students’ privacy, this form of testing was abandoned. The Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) was authorized by SB 376 of the California legislature in October 1997. The SAT9 was the testing 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vehicle for STAR (AB 125,1999; High School Graduation Examination Program, 1999, as described in California Education Code, 2003). However, in 2003, this testing vehicle was phased out and replaced by CAT6. Each of these various approaches to measure accountability in schools was mandated by the legislature. The shift from one test to another has made comparisons difficult and tracking student development nearly impossible. In 2002, California established the standard for the mandated California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). After it was determined that too many students failed the first trial administration of the CAHSEE, a second standard was established. As of May 2, 2003, the President of the California State Board of Education recommended postponing the tests implementation for up to 3 years due to the continued projection of high failure rates (Hayasaki, 2003; Helfand, 2003). The implementation of these tests has been postponed until at least 2006. Educational studies in the past have centered on how well a state system was performing within its fiscal limitations. A second group of data centered on districts to determine how well they were doing educationally within their own fiscal boundaries. Soon, these studies shifted to individual sites, without taking into account inherent demographic and socioeconomic differences; this approach engendered competition between schools. Districts began to use “cookie cutter” approaches to allot funds and to measure achievement as a means to address horizontal equity. In this system the affluent students did well but the less affluent students and the immigrants did poorly. The facets of developmental improvement remained hidden. As schools continued to have difficultly in responding to their critics regarding achievement and dollars spent, the critics and those who sought vouchers 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. continued to take the high ground. One need look no farther than the subtitles of NCLB. The language is obvious: If the school does not produce as has been formulated, the children can go elsewhere (NCLB, 2002). Various research studies have attempted to determine what is adequate and how dollars are spent. Although a seemingly simple task, these determinations have been elusive. Through production functions based at the student level, a plan of fiscal accountability and spending potentially can be designed. Since production studies have been utilized with a varying degree of success over the past 20 years, certain variables have emerged as new directions for future researchers. In order for a micro-level study at the student level to be pro ductive and meaningful, a number of new variables should be included. These variables include specific dollar amounts spent on students at the classroom level, district and central office specific contributions to individual schools, other sources of funds attributable to each site, and outcomes that could be reasonably attribut able to the inputs. A production function used as a measurement tool has its critics. Hodas (1993) suggested that a production function formulation is inherently imbued with authoritarian (in this case, authoritarian means “top-down” decisions) effects on education decision making. A counter to the above belief comes from Monk (1993): This is nonsense. A production function is quite simply a summary of whatever regularities can be associated with a production process. It is nothing more and nothing less. Production functions do not prescribe regularities; rather, they describe them. The fundamental empirical question that most production function analyses attempt to answer is focused around the nature and extent of the regularities that can be discerned. 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. He [Hodas] seems to think of the education production function as an immutable set of relationships that is handed down from a great external power. Again, this is nonsense. Production functions themselves are the outcomes of production processes. How we go about transforming resources into educational outcomes is not fixed. Students can be taught how to learn in different ways. (pp. 1-2) Picus (Odden et al., 1995) also questioned the overall direction of education finance in general: “On the surface, it would seem that the expenditure of more money for education would lead to improved student outcomes” (p. 1). Picus found that this seemingly logical premise could not be proven. As the debate over funding continued, a number of researchers, notably Picus and Cooper, have looked closely at how school districts and school sites use the dollars that they actually receive (Cooper, 1994; Picus, Hertert, & Tetreault, 1994). The most interesting conclusion from this work was the consistency in the pattern with which schools spent funds regardless of need or perceived level of achievement. Across the United States in the early 1990s, schools spent approxi mately 60% of their budgets in the same way (Hertert, 1993; Nakib, 1994). Other researchers have confirmed this pattern, most notably Cooper (1993, 1994). Because of this spending pattern, Picus (1995) commented: This figure holds true regardless of how much is spent per pupil, and seems to be consistent across grade levels. These figures suggest that the effec tiveness of new money on student achievement may be limited by the fact that these new resources are used in the same way as existing resources, limiting the potential effectiveness of those new dollars, (p. 2) The question remaining is whether or not a systematic link between resources and student outcomes, no matter how well defined, can be found (Picus, 1995; Odden et al., 1995). Regarding production functions, Picus stated: What is important to this process is how the inputs are translated into those outcomes, and finding the most efficient way of doing so. The difficulty with identifying production functions in education results from the com plexity of the schooling process and the number of inputs that can impact Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the outcome. In addition, it is often difficult to reach agreement as to the desired outcomes of the educational system. (1995, p. 6) “If additional education revenues are spent in the same way as current education revenues, student performance increases are unlikely to emerge” (Picus & Odden, 2000b, p. 281). Picus strongly suggested that students’ SES may be more important in determining how well students do in school than many of the kinds of inputs that go into various production function studies. Picus (1995) posed a question that echoed the findings of the Coleman Report in addressing equity and adequacy: “What [would] the impact on student performance . . . be if schools or school districts were to dramatically change the way they spend the resources available to them?” (p. 6). Picus suggested that one should look to answer the question of how money was used rather than how much money was used. Hanushek and other researchers have utilized production function as a common tool for school finance analysis. In Hanushek’s case, it was used to prove that money was not related to achievement (Hanushek, 1986). Hanushek found that variations in school expenditures are not systematically related to variations in student performance (Hanushek, 1995). He pointed out that schools are operated inefficiently. On this point Hanushek and Picus are very close to agreement. Fortune and Hanushek agreed on the position that a traditional and multi variate version of production function was inadequate to link inputs to education outcomes because the multiple level of demands of schools were too complex to be attributed to just one outcome (Hanushek, 1981). Fortune cited that many researchers attempted to use the production function utilizing the multiple regression approach to address single output variables (Fortune, 1993). Neither Fortune nor the authors whom he cited had looked at student-level financial data; 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. instead, they had focused only at the district level, and at the level of one district compared to other districts. The issue of one score as an output linked to multiple input resources might be too narrow in its targeting. Refined statistical tests will certainly make this issue more clear in the future. Berne and Stiefel (1995) advocated that resources be determined at the student level because the student level is the targeted unit of analysis. Because most data were obtained from the administrative level, they suggested a significant shift and a completely new method of data collection. Commenting on the administrative level’s usual source of data, they said, Either the data were collected for another purpose resulting in an incorrect unit of analysis, or these data lacked sufficient detail. Data were most commonly available at the district level on a per pupil basis. However, these data were averaged over a great variety of students and programs and, as a result; they provide very imprecise measures of resources construed by any particular student in a district. In addition, student-level data were often incomplete. There may be measures of average total expenditures or average experience of teachers, but seldom is there a relatively complete account of all the relevant resources received by an individual student, (p. 1) Berne and Stiefel (1995) concluded with recommendations for the student- level resource measurement. They stated that student-level resource measures should be developed to assess the effectiveness of resource use requiring the linking of student resources to student outcomes. They argued that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) should proceed to develop a student-level resource measurement method. Further, they asserted that a student-based system (product costing) would be required. They also urged NCES to collect full costs, direct versus indirect costs, and costs from different educational programs at the student level. The measurement should include the sources of funding, such as local, state, and federal. Finally, for those costs that must be allocated, guidelines 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. should be developed for the basis and method of allocation. This student-level resource measurement, obtained from a sample of students (like many existing NCES student-level data sets) would permit NCES to begin to make progress on answering the question of the most effective uses of resources in education. Determining student-level resources as they apply to student-level outputs was the methodology goal of the present study in order to address Hirsch’s previous research questions (Hirsch, 1996). What resources to consider and how to view them is an important function of the researcher. A review of recent school-level studies was more frustrating than enlighten ing. Nyhan attempted to address whether money affected student outcomes in “The Impact of School Resources on Student Achievement Test Scores” (Nyhan & Alkadry, 1999). As an argument for a Palm Beach County, Florida, referendum and with South Florida as Alkadry’s area of study, their first premise was that class size reduction leads to better student achievement. Given this retargeting of tax funds at the facility level (if adopted), the refinancing would reduce teacher/student ratios. This claim was questionable, since the literature was unclear as to whether increased school funding and/or smaller classes led to better achievement. According to Nyhan and Alkadry (1999), there was a strong public percep tion shared by public officials that raising student achievement scores could be resolved at the school district level. If what they meant was a more enlightened means of allocating resources and a better use of available resources, then public perception might be true. This position was alluded to by Picus (1995), who suggested that perhaps the best question to ask would address how money is spent. In the many studies reviewed there seemed to be no consensus on whether the impact of expenditures per student raised achievement scores. More recent 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. research results have tended to support the position that there were some statistic ally significant relationships between expenditures per student and student achieve ment (Nyhan & Alkadry, 1999). These two statements were confounding. It appeared that Nyhan came to politically neutral findings (Nyhan & Alkadry, 1999). The study looked at four research positions: (a) As class size decreases, student achievement scores increase; (b) as expenditures per student increase, student achievement scores increase; (c) as the percentage of students at the poverty level increases, student achievement scores decrease; and (d) as the percentage of minority students increases, student achievement scores decrease. They used various statistical methods to determine the results and used individual schools as the unit of analysis. Class size was significant at the elementary level and at the high school level but had no impact at the middle school level. With regard to the issue of race impact ing achievement scores, they cited Anick, Carpenter, and Smith (1981), who had reported that White students did better than Black students in mathematics. They also cited a publication by Milner (1983) that concluded that race, when linked to poverty, is a formula for underachievement. At all levels (elementary, middle, and secondary), poverty was significant as a factor in decreased achievement. These findings affirmed that SES was a determining factor behind lack o f achievement. Regarding increased funding, the findings of Nyhan and Alkadry (1999) were mixed. For elementary schools there was a slight increase in scores, for middle schools no relationship was found, and at the high school level there was no marked achievement. The researchers concluded, “This study is important because it reinforces the literature research findings that increases in direct classroom funding expenditure have little impact on student achievement scores” (p. 217). 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Continuing, Nyhan and Alkadry: “It should not be concluded from this study that money does not matter. This study purposefully, for scope reasons, did not include an exhaustive list of inputs and outputs” (1999, p. 217). The findings and perspectives of this study were enlightening. First, they showed that more definitive research is definitely needed in this area. Second, the researchers admitted the limitations of their work, indicating that an exhaustive list of inputs and outputs did not take place and, therefore, far more data regarding both inputs and outputs were needed (Nyhan & Alkadry, 1999). Third, the researchers concluded that, despite methodologies, readings, and statistical analysis, some studies leads are inconclusive. Fourth was a recommendation to target the research rather than confound the study with too many targets. In his article, “Student Level Finance Data: Wave of the Future?” Picus (2000) focused his research on how educational resources were allocated and used and how funding levels were linked to student outcomes. He cited a growing demand for data on accountability for student performance. He speculated that student-level data would suffer from the same lack of specificity that had plagued the use of district-level expenditure variables in prior research. In a rather harsh but unfortunately true assertion, Picus stated: Many districts cannot tell us how much is spent per pupil for elementary versus secondary instruction, much less answer questions such as, what are per pupil costs for mathematics instruction at the high school. Or, how much is spent on individual students at the elementary level? (p. 1) Citing Berne, Stiefel, and Moser in their 1997 article, “The Coming of Age of School-Level Financial Data,” Picus concluded that “they argued that student level resources could answer three types of questions: Those having to do with resource effectiveness, equity and resource intent. 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As outlined in chapter 1, Hanushek wrote prolifically on the utility of production functions to determine whether, through the production function process, one could determine whether schools needed more money or needed to spend what they had more efficiently in order to raise student achievement. Over 30 years, consistent bodies of analysis of the educational processes were developed, including many “reforms” and “infusions” of money. Hanushek’s study was a summary of the effects of resources and student performance over those years (Hanushek, 1997). In most cases, his study was an estimate of the effect of the production function found in various literature sources. A large number of studies immediately followed the publication of the Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966). More than half of the 377 separate production function estimates were produced after 1985. These studies represented all parts of the country, used a variety of measures of outcomes, school districts, counties, states and classroom sources, and spanned Kto 12. Hanushek’s approach was to summarize the combined endeavors (Hanushek, 1997). Hanushek summary included pupil/teacher relationships, percentage of teachers with master’s degrees, measured years of experience, and expenditures per ADA. Hanushek admitted that, in such an aggregation, precision would be reduced but the outcomes would not lead to bias. Hanushek’s findings and interpretation were blunt and direct: “There is no strong or consistent relationship between school resources and student performance. In other words, there is little reason to be confident that simply adding more resources to schools as currently constituted will yield performance gains among students” (p. 148). In his explanation ofhis interpretation based upon his computation of data, he indicated that not all teachers and schools were the same. In some schools, resources were used efficiently, but these were balanced by 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. those schools whose use of funding was ineffectual. The problem that his studies encountered was that no one could describe when resources would be used effect ively and when those funds would be used to fund more of the same. It presented a significant difficulty for a researcher investigating the effects of policy on funding and performance. Hanushek’s data collection method was to aggregate data from various production function studies over time and to determine whether the study showed a positive relationship between money spent and student outcomes for the particular production function. He then used addition and subtraction to place the study in either the positive result area or the no-effect result area (Hanushek, 1986,1989). Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine, among other, took exception to Hanushek’s overall findings, based upon his rather simplistic method of data accumulation. Using their method of meta-analysis, they determined that money did make a difference (Greenwald et al., 1994a, 1996a). Hanushek (1994) argued that the evidence still strongly indicates that there is no systematic relationship between how much money is spent and how well students perform. He asked: If money matters but class size and teacher character istics are not as important, what factors do, in fact, matter? Since teachers’ salaries and class size are the two largest determinants of spending, the suggest that, if they are unimportant, other components of spending must be more effective in improv ing student performance. He suggested that few would agree with the position that administration, another major component of school expenditure, is responsible for improving student performance. Greenwald et al. (1994a, 1994b) disagreed with Hanushek’s findings based upon the statistical methods that he had used. They concluded that using other 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. statistical methods would show a clear link between spending and achievement. Picus and Odden (2000b) stated, “Berne and Stiefel (1997) argue that studies . .. could be done with much more accuracy if there were student level resource measures that were defined to be inclusive and to differentiate between kinds of programs” (p. 2). [Berne and Stiefel (Berne et al., 1997)] suggest that a “well defined” set of student resource variables would improve equity studies at the school level including studies that use administrative data, particularly if those variables are capable of serving as models for other data sets. (Picus, 2000, p. 2) Another important component of resource availability to students consists of the services that they and their families receive from other government and nonprofit agencies. In 1997, McCroskey and Meezan presented a paper at the Child Welfare League of America in Washington, DC, entitled “Family Preserva tion and Family Functioning.” In their presentation they showed a high correlation between parent self-reports on social services received and social worker reports on the same information. This would have implications for data collection. However, the accuracy of such a collection for this study could not be determined or con trolled and was not used as an input in this study. Hertert (1996) demonstrated that, even in a state with relatively equal per- pupil spending, such as California, there were substantial differences in per-pupil spending within districts and among schools across districts. Hertert indicated that this was an area of important concern for school finance researchers. Picus indicated that there are wide ranges of resources within individual classrooms that are clearly visible, particularly in special education classrooms. Picus also pointed out that recent litigation has focused upon the responsibility of 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the state to provide adequate resource levels to ensure a satisfactory education (Picus, 2000). According to Clune (1995), adequacy shifts the focus of school finance reform from inputs to high minimum outputs. This would be somewhat contra dictory to Nyhan’s look at the current direction of adequacy funding litigation (Nyhan & Alkadry, 1999). It would seem that, once all of these data were gathered, one look at this situation might be through the process of backward mapping on an individual child basis. This approach would be reserved for future researchers to determine. Picus maintained that student-level data collection is now the demand. He also suggested that a standard level of this type of data collection would also be the most cost effective method (Picus, 2000). Our current inability to link total resources to student outcomes is the result of a lack of detailed financial data. Not having school-level data gives only a partial picture of the solution. Picus persisted that it would be most cost effective for the federal government (via NCES) to support the collection of data at the student level. Picus concluded that school- level data were attractive because of the relative ease of collection. He also maintained that student-level data have the greatest potential for improving the understanding of student learning. School-Level Data Collection: The Inputs and Output Goertz (1997) addressed issues that are problematic to school-level data collection. She indicated that researchers can glean data from school-level studies to determine horizontal and vertical equity at various levels. She also noted that, when looking at equity, one might find equal funding but also find unequal 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. allocations of personnel due to the numbers of teachers hired at different levels of experience. An allocation of equal numbers of personnel might provide a completely different level of funding. This is a question to be explored by the researcher when determining what constitutes equity between schools and between individual classrooms. Goertz (1997) also reasoned that the researcher could look at adequacy in a school’s programs to determine whether the resource level assigned to a school or to a specific program is adequate to meet the needs or outcomes of the particular populations. Goertz chronicled many types of data that, theoretically, can be collected at the school level, such as the number of students, number of students in specified categories, cost of maintenance, corporate donations, equipment pur chases, and many more. This litany of categories of resources and expenditures would contribute to determining the accurate levels of classroom expenditures. It also leads to the conclusion that individual student-level data would be the most accurate level to investigate, since each student could be funded differently and student outcomes could be unique to the individual student. Goertz (1997) sought to determine what issues would complicate the collection of data at the school level. The first issue would be to determine whether districts track allocations and expenditures at the school level. Some states and many districts do not do so. If a district tracks allocations to the school level, does the school site have a system in place to track allocations and expenditures? In many cases, the language and designations of spending and reporting change from state to district and district to site. Another question is whether sites track funding of categorical programs. Sometimes this is done at the site, at other times it is collected by a central office. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Presently, it is a district responsibility to report expenditures to the funding agency. Other problems could arise in tracking staff-related data. The school site would have the most accurate listing of personnel but might not have data on levels of experience and salary. These data pieces might be kept in two separate areas. Experience would likely be kept in the human resources area, and salary and expenditures could be kept in the accounting area (Goertz, 1997). Regarding equipment allocations, the district could track a gross amount to the individual site. The site makes individual purchases, separate from the district. Determining what was purchased and who benefited from the purchase could pre sent a problem. Would the site have categories and subcategories through which to track spending issues? If not, would purchase orders be kept at the site so the money could be followed? This would be an enormous task involving many hours and could be inaccurate due to misplaced or lost files or due to a sloppy filing system. If the site does not keep these types of records, then one would have to resort to the district level of accounting to follow expenditures. Given the con siderable amount of district accounting operations, the task of tracking individual purchases would be daunting (Goertz, 1997). Some figures would be readily available if districts were required to account for spending in response to policy program’s outcome mandates. Spending could be related to activities and materials and then to some measurable outcome indicat ing dollars for student gain. Others outside of these types of expenditures might not be tracked as carefully or tracked at all. The researcher must determine what types of data were of importance to the state, to the district, and to the site. In addition, for the purpose of the study, what were these data for each classroom and for the individual child (Goertz, 1997)? 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These are the same data that other researchers are seeking to collect in order to determine studentOlevel funding. The ability to collect such important data varies from district to district and site to site. It also differs due to variations in computer and accounting systems established by districts and followed at each school. Presently, some have adequate systems, but most do not. Goertz addressed the needs of researchers to collect data at the school level and chronicled the many and varied obstacles that could make data collection difficult at best and impossible at worst (Goertz, 1997). In an attempt to expand the literature on school level financing, Clarke studied school financing systems at eight school districts in Texas. Texas was a promising state to study because it had adopted standardized accounting practices (state level to district levels). Texas had been working on this system to refine it for clarity (Clarke, 1998). Clarke’s (1998) study looked at three separate data collections. The first set consisted of data indicating the cost of operating schools at the site level. The second set focused on school site operational costs. The third set looked for evidence that resources were allocated to the school sites where the greatest needs were evident. The second aspect of Clarke’s study focused directly on district allocations to sites. Clarke traced district money as it moved to the individual site and to the individual classroom. Although standardization had been adopted for accounting purposes from the state to the districts, that was where standardization ended. In some districts, established allocation formulas based upon student attendance, square footage of instructional space, and other standards of measurement determined district allocation to the sites. Other districts allocated funds based upon attendance and 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. enrollment. Teachers were allocated according to attendance and class size requirements. At no time were the needs of the school or student taken into consideration in the allocation format (Clarke, 1998). Clarke determined the cost of teacher resources by calculating the total cost of every teacher’s salary at each school divided by the number of teachers at the site. Dividing this total by the total number of students would give the allocation per pupil, not the average teacher’s salary. By running similar statistical methods, Clarke found no significance in a teacher’s years of experience but found that the pupil/teacher ratio was significant at all school levels. The traditional teacher salary system of columns representing educational experience and rows indicating hands-on experience showed significant variance between districts, which would account for two schools with similar enrollment having a vastly different number of resources (Clarke, 1998). The problems that Clarke encountered in tracing funding from the district to the site and from the site to the classroom included the different definitions of data and various collection periods. Database format differences from the district to the school became extremely frustrating, since standard accounting practices had not been adopted by many counties or districts. Clarke concluded that the varying results achieved by comparing multiple districts’ data were less than enlightening. She determined that using school-level data from a single district could lend itself to a better connection between school resources and school achievement. This would provide a better look at production functions (Clarke, 1998). M. C. Cohen, the Director of Policy Research and Analysis for the Depart ment of Education in Ohio, warned that, before one can make decisions about large-scale issues based on education data, one must look very carefully at the parts 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that contribute to any database. Cohen stated, “Allocation patterns, measures of system ‘health’ and indicators of good education practices are the types of informa tion that can contribute to the decision making process when state and local management information systems (MIS) and evaluation systems are properly designed” (M. C. Cohen, 1997, p. 255). In Ohio, three questions were central to their data collection system: (a) How many teachers? (b) how many students? and (c) how much do the teachers make? Because these three questions were central to school funding, the estimate was that the sites and districts reported them correctly. In a bit of cynicism, Cohen related that pupil counts used for funding were based on each school’s enrollment; the fact that the enrollment rarely matched the actual pupil number was of little concern. In other words, the reliability of these reported data, although seemingly simple, was questionable (M. C. Cohen, 1997). In the 1980s, Ohio redesigned its data system to be able to answer more questions about finances. An oversight that lessened the value of this new system was that it was designed without policy considerations. Therefore, data driven by policy and policy funding could not be tracked to outcomes. At the end of the day, the effect of a policy’s production function could not be determined. The system was limited from the time it was implemented. It served only as a reporting instru ment from the state level to the district level (M. C. Cohen, 1997). As time passed and education systems were expected to respond to results- oriented reporting, data needs were far more complex, which required a far more complex data collection and analysis system. The expense of such a system was high. The complexity of data available, particularly from the site level, is enormous. Cohen used an example of a French Club at a particular school that 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. needed to be categorized as to its function and assigned a code number so money in and out could be tracked. Today’s schools, depending upon their size, could have a range from just a few such clubs to a number approaching 100. Each club would have a different purpose and function. The membership of each club could have only unique members but, in reality, most clubs have members that belong to multiple clubs. The membership list at any given time would be at best an estimate (M. C. Cohen, 1997). Another example that involved the categorizing of functions of different positions at a site was the category assignment for the athletic director at each school. The athletic director was reported under different codes at different schools, mainly because each school tried to match the best job description to the district allocation descriptions that would align with state code numbers and descriptions (M. C. Cohen, 1997). Cohen listed other problems potentially hindering the collection and reporting of school-level data. High-speed data transmission was available only in certain districts, some networks were first-generation networks, and some schools had no networking systems at all. Cohen posed the question: How willing were people to undertake the expense to ensure that these data could be reported using the most appropriate technology so that the picture of school functions and funding becomes clearer? This remains a question to be answered (M. C. Cohen, 1997). Monk added to this discussion, noting that policymakers assume that, as new definitions of equity emerge, data collection systems can easily respond with complex data and complex answers to equity questions. He specifically noted that one problem that continues to emerge is the input provided by sources outside of the government structures. He noted that the Consortium for Policy and Research 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in Education (CPRE) initiated a project using New York State Education Depart ment data. Through this project insight about the collection and reporting pro cesses, these data will lead to the next steps in collection and reporting models. Similar research is being conducted at the University of Missouri and a few other universities (Monk & Roelke, 1995). Although the topics being reviewed seem straightforward on the surface, the hidden complexities are confounding. One topic was determining the origin of site funds. Funds originating from governmental sources to local districts can be determined through the efforts ofNCES. Perhaps the most perplexing set of data were data relating to those funds originating from outside sources, such as local education foundations, various targeted and nontargeted booster clubs, and other types of user fees, and whether these are collected at the site or by the district. In some cases, schools received sizeable donations from corporations, parent groups and anonymous donors. The origins of these funds are often difficult to determine. For example, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Education Foundation (PVPEF) donates more than $1,000,000 in cash to the Palos Verdes Unified School District. This grant, allocated per school enrollment, provides for the elementary schools (Grades K-5), library staff, music (15 weeks per class), two readers who read and grade the student’s work known as the technology lab staff, and instructional sup port. For intermediate schools in Palos Verdes (Grades 6-8) this funding provides sixth- and seventh-grade counselors, library staff, technology lab staff, and writing lab staff. For this district’s secondary schools (Grades 9-12) the foundation pro vides for seventh-grade academic counselors, college and career centers, zero period math tutors, writing lab staff, and technology lab staff. The PVPEF has an 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. endowment fund that is presently over $1,000,000. (See http://www.pvpef.org, the Web site for the Palos Verdes Education Foundation.) Similar foundations are present in Beverly Hills, where 4 years ago, an anonymous donor left a cashier’s check for $1,000,000 for athletic upgrades so the high school could have a night football game; and in Manhattan Beach, where the April 4, 2003, edition of the Daily Breeze reported that residents had donated more than $1,000,000 to avoid teacher layoffs or cuts in classroom services (Moilanen, 2003). To date, the FUSD and the City of Fundamental have just reached an agree ment to make a certain soft drink the “Official Soft Drink for Fundamental and the FUSD.” The soft drink company sought to partner with the school district and the city in an exclusive cause-based marketing agreement to quell “bad press” regard ing sodas on school sites. The city’s mayor stated, “We are in to cash, not calories” (as cited in Moilanen, 2003, p. A3). CPRE in the New York study has selected to look at teacher time as an input based on the large investment in teacher salaries. This would look at what the teacher does during the day. At the elementary level, it would be difficult to allocate teacher time per subject area covered due to the nature of the elementary classroom. At the high school, it would be far easier, since teachers teach during individual class periods and their activity could be traced to programs and students. This type of data was not consistent from state to state. A perplexing issue in this area is course titles, course descriptions, and actual course content. For example, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a person is teaching social science or language arts. At an individual site, the number of programs and the sheer number of different allocations and expenditures are quite large. In many cases, researchers 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. make assumptions based upon the best information available. In some cases, the assumptions could distort the reality of allocations. Monk (1997) suggested, as have others, that a great deal more effort is needed in order to accurately follow revenue and allocations at the school site level. He suggested that site data be accessible and identifiable so that inputs and outputs could be tracked and linked. He echoed the problems that others have found when trying to follow beyond the district level. It is evident that a great number of significant issues surround the ability to collect the necessary data from a multitude of states, districts, and site sources. The site, the focus of attention for the present study, is the source of much of this difficulty. Experience has revealed unforeseen immutable roadblocks at various levels that literally bar the researcher from access to pertinent information. These are enumerated in chapter 4. Incentive-Driven Accountability: Rewards and Sanctions Performance funding is used in fields of endeavor, such as sports, sales, manufacturing, and company safety campaigns. Sports team members earn bonuses for hitting certain benchmarks that trigger bonus payments; in many forms of sales, incentive bonuses are paid to individual sales producers and teams of sales producers. In business, performance funding is an expected part of the process and serves as a motivator for most involved. Education is not selling insurance policies or hitting home runs. It is far more complex than these types of goals. Education is a developmental process, with each child learning in different manners and responding in different ways. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The process of learning cannot be reduced to merely getting the “right” answer on a particular test, for the offer of bonus money. At various times in California’s history, the state has experimented with inducements to students and then to teachers to increase achievement on statewide accountability measures. Some were folly, and some just went broke. From 1984 to 1986, the California legislature offered “Cash for CAP” (CAP meaning the California Assessment Plan). Under this arrangement, schools with high-scoring graduating seniors received financial rewards. The tests had consequences for schools but had no bearing upon the lives of seniors. The program was abandoned very early in its life when it became evident that high school seniors were “holding schools hostage” by refusing to do their best on the test unless they also received rewards. At some schools, seniors hatched plans as if it were a challenge or game to sabotage the test results, while at other schools seniors submitted lists of demands to perform well on the tests. Cash for CAP incidents were somewhat predictable. First, since test answers were submitted anonymously, the students taking the test had no stake in its outcome and thus there was no reason to take the test seriously. The students’ response to the Cash for CAP program exposed a major flaw in the incentive- driven adequacy concept (Loofburrow, 1992). Beyond the folly aspect to the extremely low-stakes test, questions arose concerning to whom incentives should be awarded. Should the teachers be given the incentives if the school did well, since their salary is the most significant contributor by formula to a student’s outcome? Should the whole school be rewarded for its success? How should incentives be distributed? Should the state or the principal determine school needs? Could site councils endorse some sort of celebration? 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No guidelines regarding the use of the incentives were in place at the time the incentives were awarded. The concept of incentives raised other questions of equity. Could schools with large proportions of students from low-income areas compete fairly with schools in middle- and higher-income neighborhoods? Would incentive programs even the playing field or widen the gap between high-achieving areas and low-achieving areas? This was the same question that was asked in 2002 when the California put the State Testing and Reporting (STAR) system in place, with the incentives and sanctions stipulated in NCLB (Bennett, & Carlson, 1986; California Department of Education, 2003-2004). Should low-performing schools be rewarded for growth or should rewards be given only to those schools that perform at the highest level, regardless of ES or neighborhood conditions? Does offering performance incentives close the achieve ment gap or widen it? If the gap is widened, do performance bonuses add to the disadvantaged nature of schools from poorer areas and those with minority popula tions? It would appear that NCLB and other individual states’ incentive programs with rewards and sanctions have the great potential to make the “rich richer” and make those who are already challenged face even greater challenges than before. Guthrie (2001) asked some interesting questions focusing on the meaning of adequacy and testing. Is “adequacy” relative or absolute? If higher-funded schools receive bonus incentives, does this negate vertical equity and exacerbate the disadvantaged nature of many low-funded schools? The result would seem to be an encore of the findings of the Coleman Report regarding the gap between classes. Are the sanctions against lower- performing schools with a typically disadvantaged population punishment for being disadvantaged? Should a system of dual-level adequacy be developed to 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distinguish adequacy at a basic proficiency level and at a high achievement level? (Guthrie, 2001). The California Golden State Examination had great potential for establishing a dual adequacy system, since it included a wide scope of subjects and a three-level distinction on its scoring, from proficient response to outstanding response. This examination was cancelled (except for language arts and mathe matics) due to the California budget crisis (Spears, 2003). Until finances could no longer sustain it, California (in recent years) provided cash to schools that met the Academic Performance Index (API) growth standards. AB 1114, Chapter 52, Statutes of 1999, allocated $100 million dollars to this incentive program. In 2000, the certificated staffs of schools that met the requirements for API awards were to receive monetary rewards. Those require ments were as follows: (a) 2001 API must show at least 2 times annual growth target, (b) all subgroups must make 80% of 2 times the school target, (c) element ary and middle schools must have a 95% SAT9 participation rate, and (d) high schools must have a 90% SAT9 participation rate. The rewards distribution was that largest gains received the largest awards, based on growth (number of API points increased over 2 times the school’s target): (a) 1,000 certificated staff on full-time employment (FTE) basis in schools, with the largest growth getting $25,000 each; (b) 3,750 certificated staff on FTE basis getting $10,000 each; and (c) 7,500 certificated staff on FTE basis getting $5,000 each. Under this system all designated groups had to meet the API growth incentive to be eligible. This included English Language Learning (ELL) students and specified ethnic groups and children receiving free and redueed-price meals (FARMS; Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999, 2001). 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Performance funding raises some interesting questions. Should all teachers be rewarded, or only those teachers who classes demonstrated subject matter mastery (if that is what is being tested)? Should principals have some say in how reward money is distributed? Based on California’s attempts at incentive-based funding, no conclusion can be drawn about its impact. Only questions remain. The Production Function at the Student Level Robillard and Picus (2000) made a continued case for collecting data at the student level. The motivation for this type of study is the growing trend to increased empowerment of school site councils in school site decision making and the growing demand for accountability at the student level. With individual test scores available as outputs, the need for inputs that may or may not contribute to those scores should be determined. There is a concern that student-level data would lack specificity and could go underutilized or relegated to a file cabinet, as with many other level data collections. Further, the difficulty of collection is understood. Given the potential of student-level data, it is the researcher’s belief that the collection effort should be undertaken. (Presently, there is legislation pending in California to establish statewide standardized student test databases.) The debates between researchers about the role that money plays in student achievement are well chronicled, but no definite answers have been forthcoming. Many researchers, including Berne and Stiefel (1999), have contended that data collected at the student level will expand and clarify the ongoing research on equity, adequacy, accountability, and productivity. 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Picus and Robillard (Robillard & Picus, 2000) provided a conceptual framework as well as methods that could be utilized for data collection. This type of study was difficult. Access to a far wider range of data was required. Although recent studies and discussions have focused on school-level data collection and an outcome, a far more enlightening possibility is the potential of student-level inputs and outputs at the classroom level. The model could evolve to where teacher effectiveness, related to salary, could be a meaningful input. Robillard (2001) pioneered these data collection models for student-level inputs. His descriptive study, limited to one high school, put in place a very work able template that can be utilized for school-level financial data collection. His study template also has the potential for expansion as new resources are deter mined. Furthermore, his database has the potential to be expanded to include nonfmancial considerations as inputs that also might contribute to outputs outside of the production function model. With an expansion of the technology resources available, database expansion and varied definable outputs could be manipulated to provide a great deal of insight into student achievement and effective use of student funding. The present study provides such an expansion, but in no way includes every possibility. With California adopting a standardized accounting and reporting format, data collection (at least in state-defined areas) could be a great deal easier. Indeed, the model created by Robillard (2001) has the potential to open a completely new frontier in the study of school finance and productivity studies. A review of recent studies of school-level data leads to the conclusion that research should focus on the individual student, who, in essence, is the actual target of the education system. Ambiguities and generalities are not answering direct 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. questions on whether money matters and whether the money efficiently is spent. Focusing research at the student level could open many new avenues on vertical and horizontal equity, adequacy, individual achievement related to costs, and productivity from the student level expanded to wider populations. It could also unearth a wider range of inputs that are not currently included. A concern related to the formulation of a production function equation based at the student level is that test results are, for the most part, a snapshot at a specific moment in time. To relate all expenditure data to that one moment could easily be misleading. From this researcher’s perspective, it appears that inputs would be better linked to growth rather than to one score related to achievement. A longitudinal study would address the cumulative effects on all inputs and could show whether the dollars spent over time brought about success. Given the most recent school-level research studies, Robillard’s (2001) responses to the demand for developing student-level financial data were an addition to production function research. As Hanushek, Laine, and others grappled over whether or not money matters, it was clear that student-level financial data were missing from the landscape (Greenwald et al., 1994b; Hanushek, 1994). Robillard (2001) has sown the seeds for a new look at how the education dollar is allocated. What could be the measure of success or achievement? What are the inputs that contribute to producing output? What could be the meaning for funding differences between identifiable groups? A consideration might be to determine what other possible outcomes might be included, such as graduation rates or college level acceptance data (e.g., University of California versus California State University scores on the U.S. military aptitude test), normed physical fitness tests, and more. Having these outcomes on the “bench” could 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. facilitate the expansion of these data collection studies when the studies expand to include measurements of achievement. This type of study will remain for future researchers to complete. The Impact o f Litigation The Need fo r Precise Data As a researcher studies inputs, the impact of litigation, which has been one of the cornerstones of educational change over the past 50 years, must also be considered. Hickrod, Ramesh, and Pruyne (1995) found a strong pattern in recent litigation strategies that should be taken into consideration by the plaintiffs of those litigations. If case precedent is poor for plaintiffs, and it is in many states, it is almost a certainty that plaintiffs will face a motion to dismiss based upon prior cases that give great presumption of legitimacy to the legislative bodies in these areas of public policy. This will mean a long struggle all the way up the ladder of judicial review.. . . Even if a trial on the facts takes place, it is almost a certainty that defense will argue that the current founda tion level provides a minimally adequate education; therefore, any amount of disparity above the foundation level is irrelevant. The state will argue that, if the poorest-funded school district in the state is adequately funded, then no one’s Constitutional rights have been harmed. It may even be admitted, very grudgingly by the state, that educa tion just might be a fundamental right under the Constitution, but it is a right only to enter the playing field, it does not constitute a right to a level playing field. At best, the Constitution may require the state to provide an educa tion that is adequate to meet the needs of basic participation in the repre sentative governmental processes of the state. The individual has a right that is only to the minimum education necessary to be a good citizen. (p. 10) When Hickrod asked himself, “Is it worth fighting for?” his answer was a strong, “Yes.” For the following inequalities between school districts is an old, old wound that lies festering in the body politic of the United States and must some day 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be excised. Another reason to persist in addressing the problem is because quite frankly it is dangerous to defer abjectly to legislative bodies in matters as central to the health of the Republic as is education. (Hickrod et al., 1995, pp. 10-11) A further reason to continue with litigation despite its slow process is that equity and adequacy established within the school setting becomes a springboard for those qualities in all aspects of public society. Education is the only public function that has its own article in every state constitution in the nation. Cases are needed as a means to reexamine and possibly expand the “ unique function” role of education. This description of education, attributed to a statement in 1934 by Charles H. Judd of the University of Chicago, argues that public education is like absolutely no other public service. Education is the only public function that has its own article in every state constitution in the United States; the founders of each state obviously believed that education was an important and unique function of the state and should be treated as such (Hickrod et al., 1995, p. 11). Although the arguments by Hickrod et al. (1995) were somewhat global, the definition of adequacy remained central to production function studies. Will adequacy address basic skill-level achievement or will it address high-level achievements? As more research focused upon the concept of adequacy and its relationship to student achievement, litigation challenging how states provided an adequate education was sure to follow. Litigation involving education is marked by dedicated passion because the issues revolve around the equality of the indivi dual citizen student. The issues are not of right or wrong, but of fair and unfair. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ representatives see their causes not just as one fundamental right among others; they see education as the foundation of their civil rights as a springboard into full participation as a citizen. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Adequacy Litigation: A Nationwide Dilemma Once again, as with past periods of education change and turmoil, litigation has taken center stage in defining how best to educate the children of the various states. With the advent of state-by-state content standards, accountability mechan isms, and high-stakes tests in order to graduate from high schools, the relationship between the achievement accountability demands by the states and what was pro vided by the states to meet the demands became the central theme in adequacy litigation across the country. Nationwide advocacy groups have challenged both education systems and funding levels on whether those systems are preparing each child to meet the new higher standards of accountability established by each state. The law suits have challenged the raising of the bar on the grounds that districts, as agents for the states, are not adequately funding schools in the form of teacher salaries, books, materials and suitable educational facilities to meet the new demands (Access, 2004). Since San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) established that education is a state’s constitutional responsibility, each state has become the testing ground for new legal theory regarding how that responsibility should be exercised. As of February 2004, law suits had been filed in 45 of the 50 states to challenge the various state methods of school finance. Since 1989, plaintiffs have won about two thirds of the school funding decisions (19 of 29), including landmark cases in Kentucky and Montana. In these cases, plaintiffs used the state’s constitutional language or the states equal protection clauses as the basis for their positions. Most of these cases showed a shift from the concept of equity to the plaintiffs’ right to an adequate education. 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In some states, victories based on equity were reversed by the courts, stress ing that adequacy better describes the right of the plaintiff. In three states (Maine, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) equity lawsuits were lost. In losing, the three states were advised that challenging each state’s funding addressing the adequacy of the systems would have been a better approach. This implied that, although the sys tems were found to be equitable, those same systems might not be providing an adequate education for all children (Access, 2004). O hio’ s Challenges Ohio’s entrance into the litigation fray lives up to Hickrod’s view that, rather than the courts bringing about swift remedies to what is perceived as rather pronounced disparities in the various state’s finance systems, the process will be slowed by the great difficulties in the reallocation of state’s resources and defining what constitutes adequacy. In 1991 the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding filed an adequacy lawsuit against the State of Ohio. In 1997 the state Supreme Court declared the state’s education finance system to be unconstitu tional (DeRolph v. State of Ohio I, 2001). Legislative action was promised as a remedy. When a remedy failed to materialize, the coalition filled a second suit against the state, claiming that the state failed to provide “a thorough and efficient system of common schools” (DeRolph v. State of Ohio II, 2002). Again, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court. It gave the State Assembly 1 year to enact legislation that would, in essence, “fix the system.” At this time Republican state representative and House education chairman Randall Gardner (1999) stated, “If spending more money on education in the last four years matters . . . if making education funding more predictable and stable 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. matters, then the supreme court will hopefully say some positive things” (p. 18). Gardner also stated, regarding the state’s appeal, that “a funding system can still be constitutional and yet have room to be improved” (p. 18). The courts disagreed and remanded the case back to the lower court to continue the work of providing an adequate system of education funding for the schools. In Spring 2001 the state revised the funding system and enacted a 2-year, $ 1.4-billion increase in state funding for education. A mediator assigned by the court to monitor the process again found the state’s response to be inadequate. On December 11,2002, the Ohio Supreme Court ended the DeRolph v. State of Ohio funding litigation by declaring the state education finance system to be unconstitutional and directing the General Assembly to remedy the system’s deficiencies {DeRolph v. State o f Ohio II, 2002). The court did not retain jurisdiction in the 11 -year-old case. It gave the legislature and the governor very specific instructions on what should be provided. In March 2003, after the legislature rejected the governor’s proposal for a tax increase to support education, the plaintiffs asked the Superior Court for a compli ance conference on the state’s conformity with aspects of the court’s orders in DeRolph. The state Supreme Court, reemphasizing its December 2002 decision to end its jurisdiction in the long-standing litigation, issued a writ of prohibition on May 16,2003. This put the case back under the lower court’s jurisdiction. In essence, the state Supreme Court said that the Ohio school funding system, as well as the school system itself, was unconstitutional, but it washed its hands of the case by remanding it to the lower court to seek constitutional compliance. Once again, the state system was found unconstitutional and, once again, both the lower and the 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. higher court tossed the problem back to the legislature to address (DeRolph v. State ofOhio III, 2002). In 1997 William L. Phillis, the executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy in School Funding, expressed dismay that the judicial system and the legislative system would remain at a stalemate while a whole generation of children had passed through a system that had been judged to be inadequate. “The state’s only hope is to delay” (as cited in Sandham, 1999, p. 18). In 2004 this case remains in this legislative ping pong match. The system has been found unconsti tutional but no one seems to have the capacity or will to resolve the situation (Access, 2004). Kentucky In Kentucky Rose v. Council for Better Education (John A. Rose, 1989) took issue with the overall funding system of the schools and of the school system itself. In 1990 the Kentucky Supreme Court found the entire Kentucky education system to be unconstitutional. In response, the Kentucky General Assembly passed the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990. The act has been referred to as the “most comprehensive educational reform ever attempted in the United States” (Verstegen, 2004, p. 9). From 1989 to the present the State of Kentucky has been in the dynamic process of revamping the entire funding system and the entire education delivery system after the courts found in favor of Rose and took the reform of education on as its own task. In attempting to meet its own challenge, Kentucky established a very specific and detailed description of adequacy, combining the language of the court and its own description adequacy in response to its established accountability 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. systems. In a 2003 document prepared for the Council for Better Education entitled “Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky,” Verstegen (2004) described in detail general allocations per student in the various levels of schooling and for the various districts within the state to address ade quacy. This process has been sustained for over 12 years. South Carolina In South Carolina the debate currently centers on a different level and on a completely different scale. In Abbeville County School District, et al. v. the State o f South Carolina, et a l (1999) the plaintiffs sought to define what was meant by adequate education. The courts initially sought the definition of what was considered minimally adequate for a basic education. This approach seemed to center on equity rather than on adequacy. In refiling, this suit has the judiciary refocusing on trying to define quality but also exploring the adequacy of its system in the 21st century. This was a major evolution of thought by the state regarding its constitutional role in the education process. North Carolina In Leandro v. State of North Carolina (1996) the plaintiffs sought a defini tion of adequacy to meet the demands of the 21st century as well as a system of education to meet those high demands. New York Two states, New York and California, have been confronted with well- documented suits that spell out in laborious detail both the inequities within their systems and the hellish conditions in which many inner city students are required to 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. endure, in comparison to their more affluent peers in more affluent neighborhoods. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al, Appellants v. State of New York, et al (1995) has been grinding through the judicial system since 1995. The New York education finance system was found to be unconstitutional, specifically as it applied to New York City schools. Judge DeGrasse, in his decision, stated, In the course of reforming the school finance system, the threshold task that must be performed by defendants is ascertaining, to the extent possible, the actual cost of providing a sound basic education in districts around the state. Once this is done, reforms to the current system of financing schools fund ing should address the shortcomings of the current system, (n.p.) In responding to the court’s decision, Duncombe and Lukemeyer (2002) prepared studies to determine the cost of an adequate education in New York. In their well-detailed study they looked at various methods to calculate the costs of adequacy. In all cases, generalized data were used, such as average teacher salaries in the various locations, cost of housing, and many other costs related to education. In selecting a statistical model, most models dealt only with costs of education. Only the “cost function model,” a model of looking at costs in a district where student scores met the state-imposed standards, took outcomes into con sideration. Even at that level, legal and legislative verbiage differed from standard ized test scoring, with such descriptors as “being about to vote,” “being about to read political arguments and make a rational choice,” “take part in the normal functions of a citizen.” DeGrasse took this a step further by including, “capably and knowledgeably. . . being able to understand such complex issues as tax policy, global warming and DNA evidence” {Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al, Appellants v. State o f New York et al, Respondents 1995; Rebell & Feldman, 2003). The position was taken that the standards of accountability were set so that 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a person who met them could act in the way described by both the courts and the legislature, even though there seemed to be a disconnect between the two concepts. At no time during these discussions was there a determination of the actual cost of either educating a student at the classroom level or accounting for his or her success or lack of success at a particular funding level. In 2003 the case was finally settled, with the state being required to provide a “meaningful high school educa tion” and accomplishing this through an equitable funding system. California Eliezer Williams v. the State of California (2000) evolved to a broad-based set of allegations against the state involving districts throughout the state for a distinct pattern of underserving poor students, immigrant students, and students of color. Plaintiffs included students, families, and guardians from districts and schools in San Francisco, Oakland, Vallejo, Inglewood, Compton, Lynwood, Long Beach, Fresno, San Diego, and many other areas. In each of these districts, a litany of issues was claimed to inhibit students from learning. This litany is cited school by school and plaintiff by plaintiff with regard to the varied conditions of each school as evidence of gross and systematic neglect on the part of the state through its agents, the local education entity. Plaintiffs and children of the plaintiffs from the class action schools with substandard learning conditions and learning tools were claimed to have been denied the opportunity to leam and achieve because of these substandard condi tions. It was claimed that students who must share textbooks with other students in class lose more than text usage time in class; they also lose homework time in using the text as a source. 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many of the students in the class action grouping were reported to attend decrepit schools infested with vermin and lacking means to control the heat or the cold. In many cases, windows remained broken and unrepaired from year to year. Graffiti once applied was not removed. Restrooms were filthy, in various stages of disrepair, or nonfunctioning. The suit alleged that, under these conditions, students must strenuously concentrate to remain educationally focused when surrounded by uncertainty, poverty, filth, and sometimes dangerous conditions. Under another filing the Williams suit alleged that students who attended multitrack schools under the Concept 6 calendar were denied an estimated 17 educational days within the 180 days required by the state. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) uses Concept 6 for 18 high schools (as well as most overcrowded middle and primary schools). This plan divides the student population and teachers into three tracks: A, B and C. Two of the tracks are always in session during the 12-month calendar. Under this plan, students receive 163 instruction days instead of the normal 180. Because of the tightness of the schedules, one track is finishing as the next track is enrolling. Books have to be turned in so the next group can check them out. This overlapping reduces the schedule by from 3 to 5 days, depending on the individual school’s protocol (Oakes, 2003). In some schools, students attend three or four 90-minute classes 5 days per week for an 8- to 10-week period. Under this arrangement, students complete the equivalent of one traditional semester in the 10-week time period. Within 20 weeks, a student could complete 1 year of high school in what would be one semester in a traditional setting. Several lawsuits have been brought against the LAUSD, the State of California, and the California Board of Education to attempt to resolve some of 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these inequities. School districts operating under Concept 6 were Los Angeles Unified, Lodi Unified, and Vista Unified. The Latino enrollment in the affected schools was 84%, with only 1% of the students being White. The plaintiff students attended schools with high percentages (more than 50%) of noncredentialed teachers. One issue was constant in each school and district: Each of these dis tricts and schools underserved poor, immigrant, Black, brown, and language minority students. This distinct lack of services in this era of increased accounta bility placed these students at marked disadvantage in the high-stakes testing system {Eliezer Williams v. State o f California, 2000). Recently enacted high school graduation exit requirements and exit testing to be administered in the California High School Exit Examination Program (California Education Code, 2003), which may deny graduation and diplomas to students who cannot meet these standards. The state also will deny promotion to students who do not meet state standards on state achievement tests. The learning conditions described in Williams are alleged to have deprived the affected students of a fair opportunity to succeed within this high-stakes accountability system. Students in more affluent schools and districts do not face these types of obstacles and, as has been the case with standardized tests nationally and within California, the wealthier an area, the higher the achievement levels. The Role o f the State The state retains ultimate, plenary power over public education in California. Local school districts are agents of the state for the operation of a common school system and have responsibility to provide educational necessities for learning. Williams (2000) claimed that California has failed to establish even 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. minimal standards for school operation and that, where state or local officials have claimed to establish minimal educational standards, these standards more often are insufficient to ensure minimal educational opportunity. Where blatant violations existed and the minimally imposed standards have become known to the state, state or local officials have taken no effective steps to remedy the situations. Williams (2000) alleged that the state and responsible state officials cannot reasonably assure that California’s public school children receive basic educational opportunity given the extreme variances between districts in both funding and past performance on state tests. The suit also looks at the consequences imposed by the pending CAHSEE. Passing the CAHSEE will be required to graduate from any high school in California. This standard has been set when it is well known that many districts and schools cannot hire “highly qualified staff.” The schools in the class action suit have less than 50% of their teachers credentialed by the state; the suit alleges that this is clear evidence that not every child is given an equal chance at success. Because the state has responsibility for all children within the state, the suit claims that the uneven playing field tolerated by the state is unconstitutional. In a synthesis of the opinions filed in Williams, Oakes (2002) found the following: 1. Qualified teachers and relevant materials are fundamental to students’ education. 2. Many California schools in poverty areas, with Black and Hispanic populations and ELL students, do not have the teachers, materials, or facilities that are enjoyed by the majority of California students. 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. State action and inaction have contributed to the conditions enumerated through lack of adequate data collection and lack of capacity and will to respond with interventions to address the needs. 4. California has a fragmented and incoherent approach to state policy making that sets education finances without consideration to a plan for educational delivery and equity. This is exacerbated by the delegation of authority over schools when no formal or coherent policy sets to remedy inadequacies as they arise or are detected. Overview o f Litigation A review of each of these lawsuits indicates that the definition of adequate is key. In each case, adequate funding is demanded. Nowhere in any of the cases filed was a number given on how much it costs to educate a child within a school. In addition, the determination of how much is spent on a child and relating that amount to his or her success or failure was not presented. The actual cost of providing an education for a child remains elusive. The converse is also true: Research may serve as grounds for litigation as fresh research reveals data at the student level. To date, the study by Robillard (2001) was the first to chronicle spending at the student classroom level. Although not part of a production function equation, that study demanded that creation of a database from similar studies be undertaken to develop common terminology and common data collection methods. The State of California took a major step to facilitate data collection by adopting the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS), to be implemented statewide in the 2003-2004 school years. From the state to the district, it was 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. successful; from the district to the site and from the site to the classroom, the allocations and expenditures were handled in the “business as usual” manner. The litigation demanding adequacy will also demand the cost. A standardized account ing system may he a facilitating step in the search for an answer. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review the salient literature addressing the utility of production functions at the student level. The review explored the current level of school funding, guiding principles, and the efficacy of the current funding systems. The taxing of property to pay for schools, which was a worthy idea at its inception, soon became an intolerable burden as inflation pushed property assess ments to extremely high levels. In some cases, property tax on the inflated property value became more than people earned. Tax revolts followed, patterned after Proposition 13 in California. Because school finance is a function unique to each state, each state has its own unique issues and unique responses to those issues. As the focus of school funding shifted from equality of funding to the adequacy of funding, each state legislature and each state judicial system constructed its own definitions and descriptions of the issues. These forms of legislation and litigation in most states are still pending, as each state wrestles with the meaning and cost of adequacy. In some cases, such as Kentucky and Ohio, the process has spanned more than 10 years. With the call for adequacy came the call for greater accountability for student learning for the dollars spent. Also, various methods of sanctions and 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rewards were established to entice districts, schools, and teachers to ensure that students were prepared for standard test measurements. Again, each state devised its own accountability system. Overarching the local and state control of schools was NCLB. This federal intrusion into previously sacred state ground came with its own set of mandates, sanctions, and rewards. Unfortunately, it arrived under funded to implement its goals. As states wrestle with its implementation, school funding takes the spot light on center stage. The question that it engenders is how much a state will be willing to pay for what level of subject mastery. Lurking in the shadows of all of this wrangling and intrigue are the two basics questions: Do schools need more money? On the other hand, do schools need to spend what money they have more efficiently? Chapter 3 details the allocations for one moderately large high school. This should shed light on how education dollars are spent. 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 DATABASE CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This study of student-level resources describes the individual per-period student-level spending allocations at one moderately large traditional California comprehensive high school for the 2001-2002 school year. This study traces three levels of funding: funds directly linked to the student, funds indirectly linked to the student, and various outside funding sources. The district is centralized in its approach to budgeting, with less than $100,000 dollars allocated to UNHS in semi unrestricted funds. In a shift from past practices, categorical funds are primarily centralized for use in district-driven targeted programs. UNHS received a California Digital High School Grant in which the dollars were centralized. The site has no equipment budget to expand equipment. UNHS is the largest high school in the district in terms of area and enrollment; it is also the most ethnically and linguistically diverse. School Site Demographics and Description UNHS is moderately large traditional comprehensive high school in FUSD, located in southern California. The school’s population at the time of the study was approximately 2,071, including Los Angeles County Office of Education programs that utilized the UNHS site for their programs such as multiple handicapped, orthopedically handicapped, visually impaired, moderately to severely cognitively impaired, and basic skills. These students utilized seven rooms on the campus, modified to accommodate each student’s needs. These students were main streamed to the extent of their disability whenever possible but were not included 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on the site enrollment tally of students or on the class size roster of the classes involved in the study. FUSD also based its Basic Skills classes (moderately to severely cogni tively impaired students, including a range of autistic students) at the site. These students were included as part of the normal school enrollment. Several of the above students were wheelchair dependent and had individual attendants, supplied either by Los Angeles County or by the district. The school was on a “traditional” one-track calendar starting in early September and ending in late June. It had a small summer school for remediation, fall season athletics, and groups such as band, drill team, pep squad, Academic Decathlon, and Student Council. The Army JROTC unit conducted a summer camp at Camp Pendleton, California. The Camp Pendleton week was primarily funded through federal JROTC money and regular ADA. According to the high school guidebook, in order to graduate, a student had to accumulate 220 units or credits areas (Table 1). These requirements reflect both State Board of Education mandates and local district requirements. By California Education Code (2003), students must be in class for a total of 64,800 minutes. In order for the school to collect ADA funds, a student must attend 220 minutes each day. The FUSD Board of Education requires that each student take six courses per semester, with the exception of second-semester seniors, who may take a five-course schedule. The unit or credit system dates back to 1906, with the establishment of the Carnegie Unit, which measured the amount of time that a student must study a subject. This unit of measure evolved into a means of determining teachers’ payment. It has since evolved to designate contact hours between a teacher and a 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1 Graduation Requirements at United Nations High School (220 Credits Required) Academic department Specified courses Required credits Mathematics Algebra 1 required 20 credits Language Arts English 1-4 or electives 40 credits Social Studies World History U. S. History Government Economics 30 credits Science Life Science Physical Science 20 credits Physical Education Physical Education, Dance, JROTC, or Athletics 20 credits Health 5 credits Foreign Language Spanish, Korean, French, Japanese 10 credits in one language Practical Arts or Wood, SCROC, Home Economics, Computer Literacy, Business Education 10 credits Fine Arts Dance, Voice, Instrument, Art, Ceramics, Photography Elective courses 65 credits Note. Source: United Nations High School Student Handbook, 2001-2002, by United Nations High School, 2001. JROTC = Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, SCROC = Southern California Regional Occupation Center. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. student. It is a measurement system unchanged since its 1906 inception (Boyer, 1983). For the regular school year, all students at UNHS were programmed into classes by their parents and their “alpha” counselor, based on their academic needs and skills. An “alpha’ counselor is one who has been assigned a certain division of students categorized by their last names. There was no tracking, per se, but there were classes for students in need of assistance in mathematics and reading. The population was very diverse socially, economically, ethnically, and linguistically, with no one ethnic group having a majority. UNHS had an 11% population of ELL students, with an additional 26% who had attained fluency status of Fluent English Proficient (FEP). Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Urdu represented the major language groups, with the remainder reflecting 15 other home languages. Appendix C is a duplicate R-30 report mandated by the state for 2001-2002 that specifically lists nonnative speakers by their home languages. This R-30 report determines the Emergency Immigrant Assistance-Limited English Proficient (EIA-LEP) categorical funding for the year to follow. The R-30 is prepared from computer files and is the reliable source of this type of information. Approximately 20% of the students received FARMS, and 85 students were listed as CALWORK recipients. UNHS fielded 45 athletic teams and had 46 active clubs. The attendance rate was approximately 98% and the graduation rate was 99%. Approximately 97% of the students reported that they would attend postsecondary schools, with the majority going to local community colleges. A significant number qualified for matriculation to the 4-year university system, and many chose to attend. Most of 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. those who qualified selected the guaranteed admissions tracks at the community college level (UNHS, 2001-2002). UNHS was selected as a California Distinguished School in 1992 (Western Association of Schools and Colleges [WASC], 2002). The Art, Research, and Curriculum Associates, funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, selected UNHS for a 3-year research case study on the impact of leadership on reducing violence and accepting diversity. UNHS was described as a lighthouse school for reducing violence and enhancing racial harmony. This case study combined, with 20 others, formed the basis for a text entitled Leading for Diversity: How School Leaders Promote Positive Interethnic Relations (Henze, Katz, Norte, Sather, & Walker, 2002). In 1998 UNHS received the John Anson Ford Award from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angles Com mission on Human Rights for its contributions to human rights within Los Angeles County. Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study was threefold. 1. The first and primary purpose of this study was to determine, as accur ately as possible, the per-period spending for each student at a large comprehensive California high school. 2. Once the primary data were determined, the second purpose was to determine the variance among students, programs, and other identifiable student groups or student categories. 3. The third purpose was to determine what accounted for any significant variances. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The intended outcome was to refine collection methods, to provide a more refined foundation for establishing baseline information for per-period student spending projects, and to establish guidance for further studies of this nature. This study will eventually provide a basis for future student-level production function studies at other schools and districts. The study could also serve as a guide for future longitudinal studies using the production function model. The research questions designed to focus this study were as follows: 1. What is the expenditure per student within a school? This was deter mined by the level of funding provided to each student from all sources by indivi dual class period. 2. How much variation exists in expenditure per student? 3. What factors contribute to variation in the expenditure per student? In order to answer these questions, it was important to review the organizational structure of the school to determine how various decisions were made. In order to do this, the researcher looked at the school governance structure, policy influencers at the site, and how the school operated in general. Formal School Governance UNHS was led by an FUSD-appointed principal and three FUSD-appointed assistant principals. Each assistant principal was a generic hire (not hired for specific expertise in any one aspect of high school management). The assumption was that each had equal skills in all aspects of high school management and operations. Two other governance bodies were in place: 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. The formally constituted School Site Council met once per month for a 10-month period. The basic function of this group was to approve the spending of categorical and unrestricted funds assigned to the site. 2. The formally constituted English Learner Multicultural Advisory Committee (ELMAC) served in an advisory capacity on issues regarding language learners and other related cultural issues. It convened four times per year in order to receive ELA-LEP funding from the state. Groups o f Influence Groups of influence were those groups who met regularly in an advisory capacity to the principal on specific topics. These groups were narrow in focus and pragmatic in intent. 1. Elected department chairpersons handled departmental and managerial issues. 2. The Futures Committee, developed out of the 1995 WASC visitation, was responsible to focus on tests, learning, goals, and implementation plans. This group also served as the Digital High School Committee and decided on the implementation of Digital High School Funding. 3. The UNHS Regiment Parents Association suggested policies and pro cedures for band operation and secured and allocated outside funding for the band. 4. The UNHS Athletic Boosters Club suggested policies and procedures for athletics. This group also solicited and distributed funds for athletic purposes. The UNHS Athletic Boosters, unlike athletic booster clubs at some schools, did not venture outside the role as a support group for all athletic programs. Because of 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. financial rivalry among athletic programs, this organization was of marginal influence. 5. The UNHS Parent Teachers Association (PTSA) served in a similar capacity as the Athletic Boosters Club but primarily functioned as a support organization for the school and the children by providing volunteer services and a small amount of money for scholarships. These groups were invaluable in their contributions on their selected issues. However, at times, they did not see the holistic issues of the school but were strong advocates for their own issues. School Operations The formal operation of UNHS was determined by the Administrative Council, which consisted of the principal (chair), the three assistant principals, the dean, the activities advisor, and the athletic director. This group met weekly to deal with overall, ongoing operations of the school. Only the principal and the assistant principals served in an evaluative capacity. Because of the centralized nature of the district, the operation basically consisted of implementing policy established centrally by the district. Decision making on site centered on the methods and personnel of any implementation. Database Construction A database was created from multiple information sources downloaded into Microsoft Excel®; here individual worksheets were created and then imported into Microsoft Access® to create an overall database. The database consisted of the following: (a) student data, (b) unique funding issues, (c) class size, (d) free and reduced-price meals program data, (e) employee financial data, (f) fees and 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stipends, (g) unique financial package considerations, (h) site-level expenditure data, (i) Associated Student Body (ASB) funds, (j) United Nations Network at Risk program, and (k) outside funding sources Student Data Student data were obtained from the Information Technology Department of the FUSD. The Information Technology supervisor downloaded the complete student database into a Microsoft Excel® format. All students enrolled as of June 30, 2002, were included in this database. The database was reviewed for any anomalies and duplicate names. Students not included within the UNHS popula tion were hospital-based students or students in groups of home settings, as assigned by the County of Los Angeles, and students on home study. From this source, student names, student numbers, course numbers, section numbers, and period numbers were obtained. In addition, teachers’ names and identification numbers were obtained. This information came in the form of a data file that listed all of the information by student, by period, and by teacher. In other words, it was a data-rich version of the normal master schedule as of June 30, 2004. The assumption was that all students remained in the same courses for the entire school year, with one significant exception: Because athletic allocations seemed significant, pseudo periods were created for fall and winter sports for students who participated in athletics. This created a sixth, seventh, or eighth period for the students in the database, and required creating a slightly different calculation for each student athlete’s athletic periods, since he or she would have a different coach and a sport’s unique funding level. Allocating exact expenditures for athletics was 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. difficult because, while quarters and semesters divide the academic year, the athletic seasons take place in the fall, winter, and spring. Unique Funding Issues Unique funding issues emerged as the study progressed. 1. The Future Teachers program was unique to the database. Future Teachers in the program served at local elementary schools as teachers’ assistants, readers, and monitors. A fully credentialed teacher who was assigned a special “program” period coordinated the students’ schedules and assignments. Students were assigned one fifth of the coordinating teacher’s financial and compensation package. 2. Students assigned as class aides, library aides, office aides, attendance aides, and so forth were assigned unique section numbers but were not counted on any teacher’s total student allocation; because of the nature of these students’ assignments, no financial package was assigned to them. 3. Twenty-four students attended the Come Together Regional Occupation Center for two class periods each day. An average teacher compensation package was determined. Each of these students received an allocation of two fifths of this average package to make the schedules whole. An attempt was made to determine the cost per period of the occupation center, but that was fruitless. Approximately 93 eighth-graders from the local middle schools took courses at the high school during zero, first, or seventh period. Approximately 30% of the 93 took two courses, zero period and first period. Due to technology limitations, this population could not be reconstructed. Their numbers contributed to the class sizes but they were not assigned an expenditure package. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Class Size The UNHS registrar provided data regarding class size, using an onsite database. These data were included for every class period from zero period (early start) through seventh period (one period after the normal school day). These data included course numbers, numbers of students, teacher’s names, and class names by periods. Individual programs and classes were determined by their section numbers and course numbers. This provided a crosscheck to data supplied by the Information Technology Department. Free and Reduced-Price Meals Information regarding students receiving free and reduced-price meals was received from the Director of Food Services of FUSD. Funding for this program was calculated using the cost of the normal price for a Type A lunch ($2.50) and the normal cost for a Type A breakfast ($1.50). The $4.00 total daily allotment was multiplied by 180, the number of school days that had both lunch and breakfast periods, resulting in a total of $720.00 per student. These dollar amounts were allocated to the identified students. Employee Financial Data The Human Resources Accounting Division of FUSD supplied employee compensation information. Personnel included in these data were all indirect and direct personnel, members of the Board of Education, a one-season walk-on coach, and all of the FUSD central office support personnel related to UNHS. These data included individual salaries, hourly wages, fringe benefits, and State Teacher Retirement System (STRS) and Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) district contribution figures, as well as specific job titles and worksite locations. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These data were downloaded to a Microsoft Excel® worksheet, where each employee was evaluated to determine whether his or her job was directly, indirectly, or not related to UNHS. In general, these were divided into central office functions, support functions, and direct site functions. This information was analyzed to determine what percentage of each individual’s total compensation package was related to UNHS students. These calculations were prepared in Microsoft Excel® worksheets and then imported into the Access® database. Fees and Stipends Information regarding fees and stipends for extra duty assignments were secured from the UNHS principal’s office. These included stipends for coaching, department chairs, publications, band, dance, drill team, pep squad, academic decathlon, and special programs. Fees to individual teachers who headed onsite programs, such as Diversity Retreats and JROTC competitions, were also included in the overall employee compensation calculation. These stipends and fees varied by activity and program and were added to the total compensation package of the individual teacher or employee involved. Unique Financial Package Considerations Fees and stipends paid to walk-on coaches were assigned to the head coach’s total compensation package for the individual sport, if the coach was a full time faculty member, as part of the overall funding for that sport. The same practice was followed for instructional assistants and paid classroom aides. If an aide’s or assistant’s work was general in nature to the class, the wages and financial package was assigned to the teacher of record. This ensured that all students 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. received the allocation of the funding resources for the particular class period. If the assistant was a one-on-one aide assigned to a particular student, the financial package of the assistant was applied directly to the student. In the case of JROTC, courses were conducted by both an officer and a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO); therefore, the financial package and stipend for the NCO was combined with the package of the officer to form the overall teacher contribution to the periods involved. Site-Level Expenditures Expenditures from state and federal sources for specific materials, supplies, textbooks, library materials, and classroom related equipment, athletic equipment, custodial supplies, and other like items were obtained, to the greatest degree of accuracy possible, from the assistant principal for business services at UNHS. This information was not made available through district sources. Collection of this information was accomplished by tracing each individual pseudonumber, purchase orders, and invoices related to UNHS for the 2001-2002 school year. The informa tion was then entered by category into a Microsoft Excel® worksheet, where alloca tions were determined. Once these allocations were determined, they were imported into the Microsoft Access® database. These data included site allocations for categories such as Senate Bill (SB) 813, SB 1882, and EIA-LEP students. Allocations were specific to departments and allocated to specific categories of students. Materials and supplies were allocated as specifically as possible by each department, specific class, or student category. This was entered into a Microsoft Excel® worksheet and then transferred to the Microsoft Access® database. 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Associated Student Body Funds ASB fund information was received from the UNHS ASB account clerk at in hard-copy format. These data were then entered into a Microsoft Excel® spread sheet, where a determination was made whether the ASB distribution was for general use or for specifically identifiable groups or teams. ASB funds were of two types: general ASB funds collected and distributed by the ASB and ASB Trust Fund accounts, outside funds from undetermined sources that were deposited in the ASB office and spent on specific groups of students. In some cases, the recipients of these funds could not be determined because the membership of the particular group could not be determined with accuracy. Where group membership could not be determined, the expenditures were generalized to the UNHS population as a whole, assuming that the program or club was a service to the school in general. Once the worksheets were completed, the information was imported into the Microsoft Access® database. A sample worksheet is included in appendix C. UNHS Network at Risk Program The UNHS Area Network is a proactive at-risk program that requires no funding, only in-kind hours from the agencies involved. This group, which included a UNHS assistant principal, a counselor, and the dean, met 3 hours every other week to address attendance and discipline issues both in and out of school. It was supported by the secretary to the dean for preparation of materials. Based upon the estimated hourly wages of non-UNHS personnel, the esti mated cost of the Network for the year was $9,120. This dollar amount was then divided by the total population of the school, and that amount was assigned to each student because the program was available for all students and served all students by its positive impact upon the school. 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Outside Funding Sources Funds and donations from outside groups were also individually entered into a Microsoft Excel® document. These funding sources were the UNHS Athletic Booster Club, the UNHS Regiment Parents’ Association, Mobil Oil Corporation, Mobil Oil Pegasus Grants, Toyota Motor Sales, Inc. (the official Adopt-a-School partner), and anonymous benefactors. For the 2001-2002 school year, funds of this nature were insignificant. All of these monies were primarily channeled through the UNHS ASB trust account system. These data were analyzed in a Microsoft Excel® worksheet to determine the targets of each individual allocation. Once determined, these worksheets were imported into the Microsoft Access® database. Funding Source and Allocation Limitations The researcher had access to many accounting documents related to the function of the school district in general and the functioning of UNHS in particular. FUSD account procedures were not clear, nor were they timely. Neither were the definitions of various budgetary categories within the budget clear. The researcher had access to FUSD’s overall school budget and its “Budget Made Simple,” a pamphlet published for citizen consumption. It was through this document that the gross amounts allocated to UNHS under the general terms of operations were determined. Many pieces of data applicable to UNHS remained unidentified or unavailable due to the FUSD’s accounting system and the unclear definitions of FUSD’s funding categories. An example of this was that no allocation of legal fees could be determined from either the general budget or the simplified budget. FUSD’s legal fees were pooled with other district overhead costs as a district operating expense in total and could not be assigned to particular entities or services. Through a conversation 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with FUSD’s chief financial officer, a general overall cost was estimated to be $300,000 covering three areas: (a) liability exposure, (b) special education, and (c) consultation. The term legal fees was not located in any budget documents. The second problem stemmed from the researcher’s attempt to determine the substitute teacher costs at UNHS. A total cost could be determined for the whole district but not by individual school. This cost was found under the category of “operations.” FUSD had no means of determining the precise totals for UNHS. For the researcher, this lack of specificity was frustrating, since the numbers of substitute teachers utilized by various schools could be radically different. Deter mining these data was of interest because costs for substitute teachers were sub tracted from the site-level categorical funds from SB 813, SB 1882, EIA-LEP, and others. The question that was asked focused on the district’s obligation to have a substitute in each unmanned classroom and the funding source for those substitutes. The researcher could not trace categorical funding from the school to the district for costs of substitutes. Building and land costs were not included in the study, nor were the pro ceeds of a bond measure passed in 1998. Although covered in a site-level Main tenance Master Plan, the distribution of these funds was handled by an appointed Ad Hoc Facilities Committee that set all priorities and schedules based on greatest need. To assign bond money spent only in the 2001-2002 school year would present a false picture of this input. Allocations From Three Perspectives In order to get an overarching view of the total district budget and its application to UNHS and each individual UNHS classroom, an allocation system 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. template included in the text School Finance: A Policy Perspective (Picus & Odden, 2000a) was applied to make first-level determinations. This categorization of funds is described in appendix C. The initial approach to data collection used these financial divisions as designations. After matching the descriptive language of the template to the language used by the FUSD, the structure allowed the researcher to assign jobs and functions as managerial, central support, and site operations. Using these three categories, the various expenditures, from school board members to part-time test supervisors, were assigned to a function and to an applicable category. The categories of district function, optional district function, and site function were included in the overall database construction (appendix C). This method was worthwhile because the language of the actual budget was not easily understood unless a function was attached to the budget item. Even the best efforts were difficult. Funding Allocation Categories To get another look at the budgeting process, the district budget and site budget funds were divided into three categories: direct, indirect, and outside sources. This framework was formally utilized in this study. Indirect and direct expenditures equaled 100% of normal state and federal dollars. Outside resources were considered over and above regular school funding. Various expenditure levels were calculated. Horizontal equity measures for UNHS were calculated utilizing the Microsoft Access® database. Where applicable and practical, data were imported into a standard computer software statistical analysis package. 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Questions and Queries to Determine Respective Funding Levels The following expenditures were calculated: 1. The mean expenditure per student overall 2. The median expenditure per student overall 3. The range of funding of students overall 4. The variation of funding among students 5. The mean funding per student per period 6. The range of funding of students per period 7. The median funding per student per period 8. The range of funding of students per period Similar calculations were run by grade, ethnicity, gender, and academic department. Calculations and Procedures For central office functions generalized to the whole district, the amount for those functions was divided by the total population of the district and then applied to each student at UNHS. If a central office function was unique to the secondary level, the costs of those functions were divided by the total secondary population of the district, and that amount was assigned to each student. To the degree possible, materials and supplies were assigned to the indivi dual departments within UNHS and became part of the value of each class section within that department. If this did not work, the amount was divided by the number of periods allocated to that department and became part of the funding amount for each period within the particular department. Staff development expenditures were also allocated to the teacher. The student became the beneficiary through 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. attendance in the classes taught by those teachers who utilized staff development opportunities. On site, the administrative costs; counseling costs; costs of the dean, counselors, psychologist, and speech therapist; cost of release periods for the athletic director and activities advisor, campus security, cafeteria workers, and night custodians, as well as all clerical and custodial assistance, were totaled and divided by the population of UNHS and applied to each student. Summary This chapter describes the methods utilized in the study. This design attempted to follow as closely as possible the accepted accounting practices utilized in the educational environment and from a previous study of this kind by Robillard (2001). This chapter ventures into new territory, since very little is chronicled on how expenditures are assigned on a per-period, per-student basis. In order to determine how money was spent and to determine whether that money was spent wisely, studies such as this could prove to be essential to researchers following the money trail. This proved to be a daunting task due to various impediments to finding the baseline data. The need for standardization was evident, as was the need for common definition of terms within budget categories. It was surprising that the straightforward term legal fees appeared nowhere within the published budgets. It was also surprising that the researcher was given a verbal description of those fees and how they had been spent, yet there was no budget data available to support or refute these statements. With further refined methods of data collection, researchers may be able to answer definitively the question, “Does money matter?” 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Chapter 4 presents the findings of the statistical inquiries as well as other findings related to the inquiry in general. This provides focused insight on how funds were applied to individual students and to individuals at the classroom level by period. It also provides insight into methodologies for future inquiries of this nature and whether funding per student equals adequate output. The intent of the research was to determine the level of spending at the classroom level for each student. As explained in chapter 3, the accumulation of data was extensive and every means possible was used to see that dollars spent were allocated either directly or indirectly to each individual student. Before continuing with the statistical findings, it is necessary to report on some other significant findings related to this study. Review o f Research Questions The research questions driving this study were as follows: 1. What is the expenditure per student within a school, as determined by the level of funding by class periods provided to each student from all sources? 2. How much variation exists in expenditure per student? 3. What factors contribute to variation in the expenditure per student? Traditional Funding Sources The total expenditure budget for UNHS for the 2001-2002 school year from regular traditional school funding sources was calculated as $9,104,422. This is the dollar amount considered unique to the site from traditional funding sources. This 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. amount represents all district costs attributable to UNHS, such as the contribution of the superintendent financial package, the costs of all indirect services to UNHS in the form of warehouse workers, mechanics, and so forth. In each case, the cost of the item was divided by the total population of the district to establish a per- student figure. These per-student figures were then allocated to each student at UNHS. If the service or person’s service was unique only to the high school, these numbers were divided by the total high school population (1,897) to establish a per- student allocation. These figures were then allocated to each student at UNHS. Budget items that were not included in this overall budget were bond allocations and land or building values. Nontraditional Funding Sources The dollars from outside sources utilized at the school came primarily from ASB operational funds and ASB trust funds. The total cash amount was $872,125. Thus, the total actual cash budget for UNHS was $10,189,913. Outside contribu tions are discussed in detail at the end of this chapter. Methodology: Findings Studies of this nature have only one precedent, the Robillard study (2001). This being the case, it was necessary to take a very intense review of the overall school budget in order to determine the directions in which money flowed and to determine the route of those funds to the student in the classroom. An analogy can be that the budget was like a meandering river, with many tributaries, that took direct as well as circuitous routes to its intended ending place. It also must be said that some of those tributaries seemed to disappear into the underbrush. 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In December 2002, the California Department of Education released the SACS in the California School Accounting Manual (California State Department of Education, 2003). This code structure, applicable to all public schools in California, was adopted in 2002, to be implemented across the state by 2004. The present study took place before that standardization. The FUSD took a rather hostile view of adopting the standardization process, as can be determined by reading a district-wide memo to all managers regarding budgetary data (see appendix D). It was within the environment described within the memo that the researcher’s search of budgetary data and budgetary rationales took place. Determining Enrollment and Applicable Case Studies At the start of this study it was decided that a date would be selected as the target date for all data and a snapshot would be taken of all data as of this date. The date selected was June 30,2002. At first blush, this date seemed appropriate. It was at the end of the school year, dollars would have been allocated, and students would still be recorded in their year-end class schedules. This assumption was incorrect at one significant level: The target date occurred after all sports seasons had concluded and all athletes had been assigned out of athletics for the 2001-2002 school year. It also occurred after all grades of eighth graders had been transferred to their respective middle schools. In addition, by Board of Education policy, seniors who had completed their graduation requirements would have reduced schedules of five periods instead of the required six periods, and athletes who were underclassmen would be assigned to general physical education classes or upcom ing fall sports for the very last part of the school year. An example was that a baseball player would not show up in that sport but might show in football, in 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. anticipation of the following year. This type of situation could skew athletic allocations significantly. Athletic Expenditures and Hybrid Allocations In order to correct these anomalies, the researcher went back to the initial class schedule of the 2001-2002 school year to determine where students had been assigned. The assumption was made that the overwhelming majority remained in their academic periods for the entire year. This coincided with the June 30, 2002, data collection date. For students participating in athletics, it was apparent that they rotated in a series of end-of-the-day periods, all of which were athletic/physical education courses, dictated by the changes in the athletic seasons. Because the money expended on athletics appeared to be significant, an effort was made to create hybrid athletic periods that would take into account the contribution to that student of funding through each sport. This would include equipment, assistant coaching aides, coaching stipends, assigned officials, sports entry fees, awards, miscellan eous related expenditures, and transportation. An example of this type of hybrid contribution is that a student participating in three sports (e.g., football, basketball, and baseball) would have approximately 25 separate transportation charges to his or her “investment” package. A student who participated only in football but remained in physical education would have only five transportation charges. In contrast, if a student had an on-campus teacher as a coach in those three sports, that student would receive the hybrid teacher financial package allocation of the three salaries plus associated stipends. Another student who might have participated in three sports might have had two walk-on or non-teacher coaches and one on- 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. campus teacher coach. This student would receive the hybrid financial package of the stipend for each walk-on and the prorated portion of the teacher/coach financial package. This would be significantly different from the first example. This type of allocation precision was attempted in all cases where adequate information could be compiled. Availability o f Precise Data Without the standardization of the budgetary process in place, the researcher relied on a number of question-and-answer sessions to attempt to gain full knowledge of what was meant by various budgetary categories. For the clear majority of budget categories, the linkages and routes to the students were obvious and clear. However, in many cases, routes were not obvious and remained obscure. One example was the determination of how much money was allocated to legal services and on whom those dollars were spent. This figure was not delineated on any published budget. It was determined that the expenditure was embedded in various operational expenses and allocated to special education, liability exposure, and human resources. The amount was “about $300,000” and “distributed equally” as conveyed orally to the researcher by the district Chief Financial Officer (CFO; see appendix X). These figures and category assignments were not considered, due to the imprecise nature of the conversation. The assumption was that the money was in the various operational expenses and could be allocated to the sites and to the students in an indirect manner. Although allocated indirectly to all students in the district in an equal manner, the actual allocation was imprecise and did not tell the story of legal fee allocations. The researcher found this to be the case in the 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. allocation of costs for substitutes, capital improvements, maintenance, utilities, and other categories. Rather than an amount allocated to UNHS, these costs were generalized to the whole district, with each student then receiving an indirect amount in this manner. The key fact was that the money was allocated but it had to be generalized to the whole student population of the district and then parceled out the schools in per-student equal allocations. The formula for determining this type of allocation was as follows: total cost of maintenance divided by total district enrollment equals per-student allocation. This same type of calculation was used in every case in which an indirect expenditure had to be factored for the whole district student population. In some cases, where a cost item was unique to the high schools but not specific to each high school, a similar calculation was made: total cost of high school item divided by total high school enrollment equals per-student allocation. The researcher was invited to look through thousands and thousands of archived hard-copy invoices and documents for that year to determine this alloca tion with more precision. Such as process was not realistic. The attempt to determine the precise substitute teacher allocation to the target high school was not practical. The best available option was to take the district operational allocation, divide it by the district enrollment, and arrive at a per-student allocation via this calculation. This presented a significant problem due to various funding sources for substitutes. If a site had various forms of categorical or grants dollars, substitutes for those programs were to be charged to the budget for those programs. The researcher could follow the dollars from the source out side of the district to the district and from the district to the site, but the researcher could not follow the funding flow from the site back to the district to pay for the specific substitute allocation. For substitute costs, the study used the operational 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. allocation generalized to the whole district per student as the amount allocated to each student at UNHS. Having to follow this course was frustrating because the researcher could not specifically allocate with any precision the dollars to students covered by the various programs. This also skewed the allocation of categorical funds. A new computer system was promised that would allow for actual compari sons between years, starting in 2003-2004. It was also indicated that one would be able to determine site substitute costs by categorical fund and by program. These examples are representative of a finding that standardization of accounting practices from the federal government to the state, from the state to the district, from the district to the site, and from the site to the classroom is needed. For this researcher’s investigation, standardization ended once funds arrived at the district. The accounting practices by the district appeared to be sound but were limited by the systems involved, particularly in the limitations placed upon fields within the computer system. Every effort was made to allocate dollars as precisely as possible. The district budget allocation to UNHS was set by a projected enrollment table as of June 2001. The exact number of students was determined as of the first week of the 2001-2002 school year. In October, California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) data were collected for June 30, 2002. Each of these dates provided a different enrollment table. Budgeted Student Enrollment and Actual Student Enrollment The enrollment of UNHS was a very fluid number. In June 2001 a pro jected enrollment figure of 2,015 was established. Budget dollars were allocated according to this number and staffing was allocated per negotiated class size 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. numbers based upon this figure. As of September 2001, the enrollment figure at the site and on the books was 2,071. This number included 93 eighth graders, special education students, 19 assigned independent study students, 13 hospitalized or home teaching students. There was a drop in enrollment of 133 students from the first enrollment figures of September 2001 to the data selection date of June 31,2002. Most of this loss in population was due to the noninclusion of 93 eighth-grade students, who took one or two courses at UNHS. As of June 31, 2002, those student records had been returned to their respective middle schools for inclusion on their report cards and transcripts. Also, as of the June date, there were 19 independent study students and 13 home or hospital students. This left 5 students unaccounted for. These students could be missing from the overall count for a number of reasons. Perhaps they were students who were shown as enrolled but who never actually attended UNHS. Perhaps they had transferred to another school but their records had not been requested by the new schools. If this were the case, then these students would be considered dropouts. For computation purposes, the number of students was set at 1,897, which represented students taking four or more class periods at UNHS. Using this number excluded 48 students who were enrolled in three or fewer periods under special circumstances. Funding Allocations: Findings Below are various data calculations aimed at determining how much money was spent at the classroom level to educate a student at UNHS. The general expenditure for typically matriculating students is summarized in Table 2. 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Calculations were based on a student population of 1,897, representing all students with a schedule of four or more periods. Table 2 Distribution o f Funds per Student: Mean, Median, Range, and Percentile Range Descriptor Percentile Funds Mean $5,317 Median $4,867 Standard Deviation $1,926 Variance $3,710,311 Minimum $2,038 Maximum $18,456 Range $16,417 Percentile 5th $3,242 25th $4,193 50th $4,867 75th $5,866 95th $8,710 Note. Four-class minimum used for all computations, N - 1,897. Based upon a minimum four-class load (the minimum load for a student by district regulations and California Education Code, 2003), the mean dollar amount allocated was $5,317. Table 3 shows a mean allocation for UNHS that was $2,007 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. less than the California average expenditure per student ($7,324) and $2,770 dollars less than the national average expenditure per student ($8,087; EdSource, 2003). Table 3 Mean Allocation 2001-2002: Federal, State, Local, and Actual Basis Reported allocation Difference National $8,087a $2,770 State $7,324a $2,007 Fundamental budgeted $6,518b $1,201 Fundamental reported $5,829° $522 Student-level spending at United Nations Fligh School $5,317d a Source: How California Ranks Palo Alto, California, by EdSource, 2003, Sacramento: California Department of Education. b Source: Fundamental Unified School District User-Friendly Budget, 2001-2002, by Fundamental Unified School District, 2001. cSource: Fundamental Unified School District Accountability Report Card (DARC), 2000-2001, by Fundamental Unified School District, 2000. d Researcher’s calculations of classroom-level expenditures. Based upon revenue limit after the implementation of Proposition 13, FUSD is considered a low-funded district. This means that its property tax base was set at the 1978 assessed evaluations. The assessed evaluations could increase by no more than 2% per year for the home owner of record; once a property was sold, its assessment would reflect the new purchase price as the tax base. FUDS, as its name implies, was and remains a fiscally conservative city that has always prided itself on its fiscal management. As a result, its property tax assessment level in 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1978 was quite low in comparison to other cities in California. Despite the impact of Serrano, the Serrano Band between FUSD and neighboring districts has widened considerably. The gap between published per-student expenditure at the national and state level in relation to the mean per-student expenditure at UNHS was somewhat pro nounced. The reason behind this gap most probably is located in the definition of per-student allocation versus actual calculated expenditures. Within a school budget, there are passthroughs and other expenditures, such as debt service, that are considered in the per-student allocation by the district but actually revert to the state or other governmental agencies and are not allocated to the site. Expenditures from various federal grants include distribution to private schools within the geographical location that pass through the location education authority (LEA). Although these funds come to the district, the allocation does not go to the schools. Another potential reason for the difference between the published per- student spending at the district level and the actual expenditure at the student level is the allocation of categorical dollars to the site on a per-student basis where the allowable overhead costs are then transferred back to the district. Money would appear to have been allocated but, in reality, it was not spent at the site level. Following the dollars back to the district was problematic but would show as a general allocation to all students in the district serviced by the categorical funding. The exact accounting for these dollars gets lost when employees are funded through multiple sources. Trying to allocate these funds specifically was impossible due to lack of information. Technically, the overhead would be assigned to the child in an indirect manner, but accurate calculation of this inter action was not possible. The standardization of accounting procedures and 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. categories would allow for tracing these dollars from their source to their intended recipient. The assumption was that these funds were returned, in some way, to the allocation for the child. Variance in Student Spending by Periods o f Enrollment Table 4 shows the number of students and allocations for those students taking five or more periods, six or more periods, and seven or more periods. Those taking four or fewer periods were not included in this calculation because this would be considered to be a nonstandard class load. Table 4 also reflects the mean expenditures for student taking five, six, seven, or eight periods. Note that the mean expenditure goes up, as it should with more periods attempted. Table 4 demonstrates the variance in cost for students taking course loads of five or more periods. Five is technically the least number of periods that a student can take according to the Education Code, although a student could take four periods, provided the units involved were correct. In all cases, the mean cost per student and the median cost per student are significantly different. The range is of interest, particularly for those students taking five periods and those taking six periods. The range is $14,836 at the five-period level and $12,416 at the six-period level. These large range differences, compared to those for students taking seven periods or eight periods can be attributed to special code issues and students involved in after-school activities. Special Education Special Day students rarely are scheduled beyond six periods. For this study, there were none. In addition, students involved in sports and other activities are excluded from selecting afternoon classes and are limited by zero period offerings. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4 Allocation Figures for Students by Enrolled Periods Both at an Enrollment Level and the Cumulative Number at That Level or Above Periods Mean Median Number Maximum Minimum Range 5 $4,479 $3,824 341 $17,878 $3,041 $14,836 5+ $5,143 $4,646 1,773 $17,877 $3,041 $14,836 6 $5,235 $4,697 1,260 $ 15,846 $3,429 $12,416 6+ $5,301 $4,800 1,432 $15,845 $3,429 $12,416 7 $5,700 $5,437 161 $9,318 $3,967 $5,350 7+ $5,785 $5,456 172 $10,632 $3,967 $6,665 8 $7,031 $6,838 11 $10,632 $5,363 $5,296 Distribution by Grade Level In Table 5, the mean amount expended is highest for the 9th-grade students, with the 10th-, 11th-, and 12th-grade students following in descending order. An analysis of why this particular allocation takes place shows two significant factors. The first and most significant is that 12th-grade students can take fewer class periods if they will be meeting graduation requirements early. This reduces their normal class load during the second semester of their senior year to five classes or, in some cases four classes, instead of the six that is the normal class load. The second factor is the ability of students, primarily 11th- and 12th- graders, to take Work Experience for two periods per day. These students’ schedules would show the contribution of only five teacher packages, thereby reducing their overall expenditure package. 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 5 Grade-Level Distribution of Funds for Students in Four or More Classes Grade n Mean allocation SD CV % of total allocation % of all grades 9 483 $6,017 $1,616 .27 28.8 25.5 10 483 $5,509 $1,886 .34 26.4 25.5 11 456 $5,041 $1,441 .29 22.8 24.0 12 475 $4,675 $2,355 .50 22.0 25.0 Total 1,897 $5,317 $1,926 .37 100.0 100.0 The third factor is the option to work as an aide for a period in lieu of taking an academic class. During this period the student would not be the beneficiary of any instruction or skill development. This would be applicable to the 12th-, 11th-, and lOth-grade students, in that order. The reason for the order is that the accumu lation of graduation-required units would be satisfied most often by those in the higher grade levels. In addition, the number of aide options would be most open by the order of scheduling, 12th grade through 9th grade. For the period in which the student serves as an aide, the student would receive no teacher package value because there would be no academic connection to an outcome associated with a student in that kind of period. This grade order of expenditure is the exact opposite of what Robillard (2001) found in his baseline study. In reviewing his study, there is no explanation for his reported distribution by grade level. This divergence between the two studies at two rather large high schools shows the importance of continuing to 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. expand this type of research in order to determine expenditure patterns in the secondary school. Also, more research is necessary to implement standardized accountancy protocols and accountancy language. The coefficient of variance for the total population was .37, indicating a moderately wide distribution of allocations about the mean. This would show a tendency away from horizontal equity. The most pronounced variance was within the 12th grade, with a variance of .50. This can be attributed to the variance in course-taking patterns available to seniors, depending upon meeting graduation requirements. The narrower variance at the 9th-grade level can be attributed to all students taking very similar schedules at that grade level. The federal range ratio for these same figures shows an allocation of $8,711 at the 95th percentile and $3,240 at the 5th percentile. This yields a ratio of 1.69, indicating that the ratio between the highest and the lowest allocations is a little over 1.69:1.00. This ratio also shows a moderate disparity between the lowest- funded students and the highest-funded students. A review of the course-taking patterns of the students does not indicate any abnormal patterns. The usual pattern of course matriculation for an honors-level, Advance Placement-level, or multiple- funded special education-level student would be a rationale for the higher funding levels. This pattern is within the norm of the school. Distribution by Ethnicity Table 6 is an analysis of the distribution of funds by ethnicity, showing some unusual disparities. Distribution of funds to Filipino students shows some interesting variances. The mean expenditure for Filipino students was $654 to $344 dollars less than the mean of all other groups. The n of 48 Filipino students 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was low, accounting for only 2.7% of the total enrollment. However, the range for Filipino students was within the range of all other ethnicities and its measure for horizontal equity was significantly higher than that for American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and Blacks. This situation, unique to the Filipino student, might be an area for further inquiry at the site level. Table 6 Distribution of Funds by Ethnicity, Using Grouped Means Ethnicity n Maximum Mean Minimum Range American Indian 10 $9,691 $5,539 $4,065 $5,626 Asian 680 $17,565 $5,276 $2,993 $14,574 Filipino 48 $16,039 $4,867 $2,957 $13,082 Black 119 $9,398 $5,473 $3,230 $6,168 White 544 $16,589 $5,522 $3,018 $13,570 Hispanic 364 $18,456 $5,620 $3,057 $15,398 Pacific Islander 21 $8,606 $5,345 $3,261 $5,345 The maximums for expenditures in the distribution show significant variations between two ethnic groups. American Indians, Blacks, and Pacific Islanders had maximum amounts under $10,000, while Asians, Filipinos, Whites, and Hispanics had maximum amounts ranging from $16,039 for Filipinos to $18,456 for Hispanics. It should be noted that two students very near the high of the maximum range in the Asian and Hispanic area also had one-on-one assistants, 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which raised the maximum in range for both to over $44,000. A probable explana tion for the disparities between the two groupings can be attributed to a district policy that prohibits students on permit or who are nonresidents from receiving special education services. A further look shows that Asian and Hispanics had a higher incidence of multiple funding, meaning that they qualified for categorical funds in more than one area. These areas most often were EIA-LEP, Special Education, and/or FARMS. Whites also had a significant number of multiple- funded students; many White students were also in Special Education, particularly the Special Day designation, and FARMS. Table 7 summarizes these same equity measures by gender. Table 8 demonstrates horizontal equity by ethnicity when using the most basic horizontal equity measurement. Table 7 Equity Measures by Gender and Grade Variable and Category n Maximum Mean Minimum Range Gender Female 835 $15,869 $5,241 $1,957 $12,911 Male 951 $18,456 $5,584 $2,992 $15,464 All 1,786 $18,456 $5,424 $2,957 $15,499 Grade 9 478 $15,263 $6,040 $3,491 $11,771 10 479 $15,953 $5,524 $3,113 $12,840 1 1 449 $15,263 $5,041 $2,992 $12,271 12 380 $18,456 $4,974 $2,957 $15,499 Note. Two students have a one-on-one assistant, at an additional cost of $27,000 each. 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 8 Horizontal Equity Measure by Ethnicity, Using Trimmed Mean: Coefficient of Variation (CV) Measure American Indian Asian Filipino Black White Pacific Hispanic Islander 95th percentile N/A $8,336 $7,248 $8,660 $8,790 $9,610 $8,439 5 th percentile $2,413 $3,320 $2,864 $3,267 $3,112 $3,315 $2,560 Restricted range N/A $5,017 $4,384 $5,393 $5,678 $6,295 $5,779 Federal range ratio 1.511 1.531 1.651 1.825 1.899 2.173 Trimmed mean $5,166 $5,036 $4,547 $5,249 $5,153 $5,326 $4,966 SD $1,942 $1,751 $1,873 $1,597 $2,160 $1,976 $1,414 CV .3759 .3477 .4120 .3042 .4319 .3710 .2848 Nonresident Students Various types of nonresident students attend UNHS. The first type is the student who lives outside the UNHS attendance boundaries but applies through the district office for seat at UNHS that might be available after all resident students are enrolled. This type of student might be a resident of FUSD who wants to attend UNHS but lives within the attendance boundaries of another FUDS school. These situations are handled before the start of each school year on a lottery basis, if there are more applicants that available seats. Generally, these types of permit students are accepted because the parents are exercising their right to choice within the district. The second type of nonresident student is a student who moves into the district to live with a legal guardian or foster parent. Once guardianship is deter mined, the student is enrolled. The third type of nonresident student is the child of 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a district employee who lives outside of the regular attendance boundaries. This student, like other permit students, must be granted a release from the home school. Once that release is obtained, the student can enter a school determined by the district office, usually the school of the student’s choice. It used to be the policy of the district to accept children of anyone who worked within the city of Funda mental. This practice was stopped due to abuses of the practice. One issue that is very contentious is the enrollment of a special education student of a district employee. Every effort is made to have the student attended the normal home school, purely for financial reasons. If a student is admitted to the district and then seeks to be tested for special education, that student is referred back to the home school. It is the district’s policy that no student on permit or guardianship be allowed to be tested for special education. A further policy is that, for every student applying for testing for special education, the district conducts a home check to determine whether that student is, indeed, a resident. The home check includes a physical check of the living conditions of the student within the home to determine sleeping arrangements, typical student-type foods, clothes in closets, and normal things that a student would have in a home. This same type of check is done for all athletes transferring into the district. For special education, this scrutiny is required due to the costs incurred by special education programs, particularly if a student has multiple conditions or would require one-on-one assistance. Without referring to specific data, the registrar at UNHS indicated that Blacks had obtained the highest number of permits for the 2001-2002 school year. The statistical measures reported in Table 8 utilized the restricted range that measures the range or difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles and grouped means. The measurement of the coefficient of variation is the standard deviation 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. divided by the mean. The measurement indicates the percentage of the variation about the mean where zero indicates that expenditures are distributed in the exact same manner to the total student populations. The findings as discussed in the following subsections. Teacher Financial Package by Period The highest financial package per student by period was $10,760 for a Special Day Special Education Student. This section had two students. This package included the contribution of an instructional assistants package. The lowest financial package contribution per student by period was $194.07 for a JROTC class section. This section had 29 students. The contribution of teacher compensation to a class section was dependent on the teacher’s overall financial package and the number of students enrolled in each section. Impact o f Teacher Financial Package on Student Expenditure by Ethnicity For each class that a student took, the student received the contribution of that teacher’s compensation package for that class divided by the number of enrolled students. If a class had only one student, that student received the contri bution of l/5th of the teacher’s compensation package. If the class had 30 students enrolled, the l/5th contribution was divided by 30 to determine the value of the contribution that each student received. The mean compensation package of teachers at UNHS was $58,780. In order to determine whether some students benefited from more highly compensated teachers, the total combined contributions of teachers’ financials packages were 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. calculated for each student. This would mean that, for each period, a student could have a different dollar contribution for each teachers’ compensation sources. Tests were run to determine whether students received more or less than the mean contribution. These tests were run by grade level, gender, and ethnicity. Nothing was remarked by grade (Table 9), with the exception that 9th graders were equally divided between above and below the mean teacher compensation package. Table 9 Numbers and Percentages o f Students Above and Below Mean Teacher Compensation Packages, by Grade Grade N Above % Above Below % Below 9 483 249 51.5 234 48.5 10 483 342 70.1 141 29.9 11 456 288 63.1 168 36.9 12 475 297 62.5 178 37.4 Total 1,897 1,176 62.0 721 38.0 By ethnicity, 721 had total teacher contributions below the mean and 1,181 students had total teacher contributions above the mean package (Table 10). The breakdown of the percentages of students with higher than the mean total teacher compensation contributions packages by ethnicity shows a rather large disparity between Asian and White students, who had over 70% above the mean teacher compensation contribution, while the percentage for Black and Hispanic students 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were right at 50% above or below the mean. This is an area for further exploration, since the veteran teacher compensation contributions favored Asian and White students. Based upon a review of the overall master schedule, this is attributable to the type of course offerings taught by the more veteran and higher paid teachers. Veteran teachers are more likely to be teaching Honors courses, Advanced Placement courses, and third-level science and mathematics courses. Table 10 Numbers and Percentages of Students Above and Below Mean Teacher Compensa tion Packages, by Ethnicity Ethnicity N Above % Above Below % Below American Indian 10 5 50 5 50 Asian 680 191 28 489 72 Filipino 48 17 36 31 64 Black 119 52 44 67 56 White 544 255 28 389 72 Hispanic 364 186 51 178 49 Pacific Islander 21 14 67 7 33 Total 1,786 721 38 1,181 62 This distribution is analogous to the overall distribution of teacher resources addressed in Rodriguez (1992). In that case it was alleged that the most senior and highest-paid teachers systematically fled the inner city for the more affluent 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. suburban schools. It was argued that students in the more affluent areas were getting a higher-valued education based on the higher salary contribution. In the case of UNHS, a case can be made that Black and Hispanic students were receiving an financially inferior education based upon the relationship between teacher salaries and student expenditure distribution by ethnicity. If one accepts that higher pay is related to higher quality instruction, this situation existed. More scrutiny would be required to determine the site-specific reason for this disparity. Outside Funding Inside funding, or the traditional funding sources for an education site, comes in the form of dollars allocated to a site through regular state and federal funding sources and programs. These include basic support allocations as well as categorical and compensatory funds. These funds are considered the total support package for a school and are expressed in an allocation per ADA or per student identified as a categorical recipient. This combined funding equals 100% of the formal allocation to support the school. In examining a school budget, particularly in attempting to develop a means of determining a production function equation, outside funding is somewhat of an anomaly. Outside funding can come to a site from an array of sources and in an array of forms. In some cases, outside funding allows a site to reallocate traditional funding. In some cases, outside sources can provide unique programs at no finan cial burden to a district or site. Through direct donations to the site, the discretion ary funds available to a site can be augmented. This section addresses the findings related to outside funds utilized by UNHS. 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Outside funding is any funding that supports a student’s education and comes from outside the traditional sources described above. This type of funding could come from multiple sources, including county, state, and federal aid allocated to an individual or family based upon need, such as Social Security allotments, CalWORKS allocations, county aid to the impoverished, and faith-based aid based upon need. These funds indirectly support a student’s education by providing necessities that allow the student to participate in schooling. The second source of outside funding is funds channeled to a school or district through private foundation programs established outside of the legal district definition, such as local education foundations, philanthropic foundation alloca tions, and grant-driven foundation allocations. The third source of outside funding is funds from ASB operations, in the form of ASB dues; ASB revenues from sponsored activities, such as dances, games, and sales; ASB trust accounts established for specific purposes; corporate donations to a school; and individual donations to a school in the form of goods, services, and dollars that are channeled through the ASB office. The fourth source of outside funding is in-kind contributions, pro bono services, or volunteer time donated to a school or program. Volunteer hours are difficult to quantify with much accuracy; however, in many cases, the volunteer is critical to the operation of certain school programs. Where possible, the researcher limited this type of contribution to identifiable programs with volunteer staffing critical to the program’s existence. These programs are ongoing in nature, not one-time events. Volunteer hours converted to “dollar funding” was dealt with as theoretical funding as a percentage of overall funding for the particular programs. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These programs could be generalized to the student body as a whole or unique to teams or activities. The impact of outside funding, regardless of its form, was significant on UNHS. Volunteerism often took the place of financial donations. In many cases, outside funding is indicative of the ability of a community to raise funds and might be a measure of a community’s SES. However, schools in poverty areas may receive large amounts of outside funding in the form of grants from outside the home community. For UNHS for the 2001-2002 school year, the outside funding sources were FARMS; ASB operational funds and ASB trust accounts; U.N. Education Founda tion grants; Toyota Adopt-a-School corporate sponsorship; Mobil Oil Pegasus Grants; parental contributions in the form of transportation fees; direct donations to particular teams, clubs, or organizations; the Parent, Teacher, Student Association; U.N. Athletic Booster Club; U.N. Regiment Parents Association; Fundamental Police Department School Resource Officer; KYCC; North Area Network volun teers; volunteer coaches in specific sports; and parental volunteers for ongoing specific tasks. Free and Reduced-Price Meals The largest source of outside funding comes from FARMS. Each student who qualifies receives the equivalent of $720 in the form of breakfasts and lunches (Table 11). For the 2001-2002, school year UNHS had 431 students qualified for this program. These funds were allocated to the identified students directly. FARMS was included as an outside allocation because it was not directly linked to curriculum or instruction. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 11 Costs of Free and Reduced-Price Meal Program Variable Amount Number of participating students 431 Cost per student $720 Total cost of program $310,320 A Police Department School Resource Officer is a sworn officer assigned to UNHS area schools 4 days per week. Being a sworn officer, he or she is armed and has the power to arrest and transport arrestees. The high school area consists of one high school, two middle schools, and four elementary schools, along with numerous private preschools and day care centers. This officer is also responsible for all reports of a juvenile nature from within the UNHS quadrant of the city of Fundamental. The officer is stationed at the high school, where he has computer links to the headquarters station. He maintains files and other resource related to his duties. This officer serves as a minisubstation for the UNHS area. This office is maintained year round. Officers in this community normally work a 4-day week. The allocation of time spent directly in service to the high school was estimated by the school resource officer at about one third of his work week. Based upon the school resources officer’s estimate of his salary and fringe benefits package at $75,000, it was estimated that the contribution to UNHS for his services was $25,000. (Note: This amount was approximated by the information supplied by the officer; there was no independent corroboration.) 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Associated Student Body Contributions Table 12 summarizes the contributions to the school’s operation from the ASB operational budget. This is the amount spent during the 2001-2002 school year through ASB dues, events, and sales. These funds were expended by approval of the ASB representative council. The operational expenditure approaches $250,000, going primarily to athletics and the yearbook. Table 12 Associated Student Body (ASB) Operational Expenses Activity Generalized to All Specific to a Group General Expense ASB event expenses $40,236 Yes, ASB Yes Routine ASB expenditures $4,815 Yes, ASB Yes Athletics $82,593 Yes, Athletics No, Athletics only Print and publish yearbook $71,347 Yes, Yearbook No, Yearbook only Total operating expenses $207,991 In reviewing ASB operations, an effort was made to allocate the funds collected and expended to the group or individual student that was the beneficiary of the funds. Membership lists of the various organizations were determined by team rosters, club membership rosters (where available), and club photographs with names listed. (This last method provided an estimate of the group’s membership.) The FUSD requires that all club membership rosters be provided to them and that parent permission to join a club must be obtained. However, this mandate 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was ignored, and no formal membership lists were available through administrative channels. This amount does not cover the cost of printing. Funds are over and above the amount collected for yearbook purposes. Yearbooks go only to those who pay for them, but costs are subsidized through other sources. (See Table 12.) Table 13 shows aggregated amounts handled by the ASB Office in the 2001-2002 school year. Prior to this study, the district had not considered income and operating expenses of the ASB. However, during the course of this study, the district implemented a standardized accounting system for each secondary school. The district also gathered information on the amount of revenue garnered by soda machines on the high school campuses in order to take over their operation centrally. This will have a major impact on athletics. Table 14 presents ASB total funds, by both amount and percentage of ASB total funds, specifically allocated to individual groups and to the student body in general. Table 15 presents ASB trust fund allocations to the individual clubs and groups involved. JROTC Outside Funding The JROTC program is uniquely funded. A Commissioned Officer and an NCO staff it. If the program has an average enrollment of 10% of the student body or 150 students, one half of each instructor’s salary is paid by the U.S. Army and the other half is paid out of district funds. If units maintain strong enrollments and receive exemplary evaluations, a unit can be funded at 100%. The unit is evaluated by assigned officers of both college-level ROTC and the Army. This program is in a unique situation in that materials received by it do not come from normal funding channels. For the 2001-2002 school year, this was $24,475 (Table 16). This type 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of contribution varies from year to year, depending upon the logistical needs of the unit. The materials from the Army remain the property of the Army unless donated to the school. Table 13 Allocation of Associated Student Body (ASB) Operational Funding, 2001-2002 Source of Funds Dollars Available Dollars Spent ASB revenue $59,839.94 $45,051.00 Athletic revenue $67,084.34 $82,593.00 Yearbook revenue $68,934.57 $71,347.00 ASB Trust revenue $631,941.18 $631,941.00 ASB Trust carryover $166,057.00 $166,057.00 Total $993,857.16 $996,990.00 Summary: Outside Contributions in Actual Dollars The total cash dollar amount contributed to UNHS students from sources outside of the normal school budgeting process during the 2001-2002 school year was $1,012,368. This dollar amount constituted over 11% of the total UNHS budget allocation of $10,101,344 distributed to the students. These funds were distributed directly to the individual students, generalized to a specific club or activity or generalized to the total student body depending primarily on how the funds were raised, by whom the funds were raised, and whether tradition bound the ASB to apply funds to specific programs in the athletic/activities areas. Rarely 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were ABS funds ever targeted to core academics, with the exception of clubs that were actually supporting specific academic courses. Table 14 Description of Allocations of Associated Student Body (ASB) Trust Funds Description of Allocation Amount of Allocation Percentage of Total Trust Allocated to specific groups $505,822 78.9 Allocated to school population $93,684 14.6 Not available for allocation $14,346 2.6 Scholarship funds $17,900 2.7 Total funds available 631,812 98.8 The majority of the outside funds were directed to cocurricular activities, primarily athletics. As outside funds, these dollars represented the will of outsiders to fund individual teams and activities based upon individual student participation or the need of the particular activity. The student who is not an athlete or does not participate in any cocurricular or extracurricular activities funded through ASB does not benefit from this rather large source of funding. Outside funding through ASB provides game officials, league dues and fees, tournament entry fees, awards, and travel expenses for longer trips. The regular school budget funds the total athletic transportation costs and some of the supplies, and pays the salaries of teacher-coaches. The regular budget also funds stipends to the varsity and junior varsity head coaches and to a limited number of assistants (at least two for each 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15 Distribution of Associated Student Body (ASB) Funds to Clubs and Programs Program ASB Other External Total External Students Served #10 Tin Can Band 5,075 5,075 17 ACADEC 100 100 32 Art/Ceramics 11,255 11,255 352 Band 5,575 21,785 27,360 45 Baseball 34,726 7,357 42,083 42 Boys’ basketball 20,226 14,520 34,746 24 Boys’ golf Boys’ soccer 4,569 360 4,919 13 7,195 5,494 12,689 17 Boys’ volleyball 23,177 5„599 28,776 39 Cross Country 3,150 3,908 7,052 51 Dance 20,642 20,642 107 Drama 12,488 12,488 74 Drill 27,459 3,450 30,909 12 Ecology 441 441 22 Football 26,762 9,529 36,291 73 FARMS 310,320 310,320 431 French Club 2,284 2,284 26 Girls’ basketball 16,392 14,315 30,707 28 Girls’ soccer 10,814 5,287 16,101 12 Girls’ volleyball 20,793 2,871 23,664 20 IPS 283 283 41 Journalism 1,259 1,259 21 JROTC 33,442 2,262 35,704 150 Key Club 11,175 11,175 84 Korean Parents 172 172 76 KYCC 2,700 2,700 14 Multimedia 68 68 22 Music 4,318 4,318 55 PE/Health 6,548 6,548 564 Pep Squad 42,743 4,657 47,400 23 Polynesia Club 1,328 1,328 25 Science 62 62 1,433 Softball 13,829 7,645 21,474 42 Special Education 12 12 160 Note. ACADEC = academic decathlon team; FARMS = free and reduced-price meals; JROTC = Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps; KYCC = Korean Counseling Center for Youth; PE = physical education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sport for both boys’ and girls’ teams, except for football, which has six assistant coach stipends). Outside of Title IX equity issues, the school has flexibility in how the extra stipends are assigned. For most teams, the stipends are divided among paid volunteers. Table 16 Outside Funding of Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), 2001-2002 Funding Source Amount Officer salary $39,841.72 Non-Commissioned Officer salary $25,365.56 Materials, texts, uniforms, equipment $24,475.00 Total U.S. Army contribution $86,682.28 If these costs were to be transferred to the regular school discretionary budget, hard choices would have to be made regarding the reallocation of funds. The district-allocated amount to the site for discretionary funding purposes amounted to approximately $99,000. This amount was used to provide textbooks and replenish book collections, supplementary texts, duplication paper, stationary supplies, all equipment requests for physical education, and basic requests from all sports. This budget also provides all custodial supplies, including cleaners, bags, and paper goods. The outside fund contributions to support clubs, athletics, and activities are 10 times the district’s contribution for discretionary spending. 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Without the community’s willingness to contribute outside funding, drastic reductions in programs would be necessary. Outside Funding: Pro Bono and Volunteer Services As with most schools, UNHS had able and willing volunteers. For some, their service is of good intention but of marginal value in sustaining the school’s programs. In an attempt to capture the volunteer value contributed to the school, only identifiable support programs were selected. The value of these programs was established from provider estimates or by allocating the district minimum hourly amount for the category of work provided to the school. Casual volunteer hours were not considered, nor were volunteer hours stipulated in the district’s certifi cated contract. Athletics Athletics is part of the regular school curriculum. As such, it is staffed by credentialed teachers where possible, and each receives a certain percentage of the general funding applicable to the entire school. Each also receives from that general funding the cost of transportation to and from school events and perform ances. The supply budget is a part of the general supply budget of the school. Most sports and activity positions receive a stipend in addition to the regular salary allocation. With the exception of football, where six positions are allocated, each team (boys and girls) is allocated two paid positions to pay a head coach and a junior varsity or lower-level coach. In many cases, due to sport expertise, walk-on coaches are utilized. These coaches are supervised by the credentialed teachers or the athletic director. 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Because the funding allocation provided by the district does not cover the levels of teams fielded by the various sports, many positions must be filled by volunteers. Outside funding for these programs vary depending on the activity level of the sport or group and on the largess of benefactors. Table 17 shows funding sources for activities and the percentages that are represented as part of the total funding for the activity. The volunteer hours are theoretically funded at the lowest stipend provided by the district. Table 17 Volunteer Coaches in All Sports: Pro Bono Dollar Equivalent Sport Coaches Cost at lowest rate Head Coach Volunteers Pro Bono Cost Girls’ soccer 3 $3,900 2 lower division $3,900 Boys’ soccer 5 $6,500 1 varsity $6,500 Baseball 4a b $5,200 Freshman $5,200 Softball 3 $3,900 Freshman $3,900 Football 6C $7,800 Freshman $7,800 Track l d $1,300 $1,300 Boys’ volleyball 3 $3,900 Freshman $3,900 Girls’ volleyball 3 $3,900 Freshman $3,900 Girls’ basketball 3 $3,900 Varsity $3,900 Wrestling l d $1,300 $1,300 Boys’ basketball 1 $1,300 $1,300 Totals 33 $42,900 Note. None received compensation for coaching. a Freshman Coach Credentialed Teacher with period for coaching, no stipend. b Junior Varsity Coach Credentialed Teachers without period for coaching, no stipend. °Freshman Head Coach Credentialed Teachers with periods for coaching, no stipend. d Credentialed Teacher volunteer, no period, no stipend. 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. United Nations Network at Risk Program Table 18 shows the expenditure for the UNHS Area Network, a proactive at-risk program that requires no funding, only in-kind hours from the agencies involved. This group includes a UNHS assistant principal, a counselor, and the dean, who meet 3 hours every other week to address attendance and discipline issues, both in and out of school. It is supported by the secretary to the dean for preparation of materials. A Network at Risk parent meeting/panel discussion is held prior to the start of each school year to outline the program to the parents of students who qualify for At-Risk designation, arbitrarily set at five absences. Table 18 Function Hourly Rate Cost for the United Nations High School Area Network (Pro Bono) Function Hours Hourly Rate Total Juvenile Justice Commissioner 2 $300 $600 Formal Probation Officer 2 $45 $90 Gang Intervention Probe Officer 2 $45 $90 Informal Probation Officer® 40 $40 $1,600 Juvenile Diversion Specialists 2 $50 $100 School Resource Officer® 40 $30 $1,200 Psychologist 2 $60 $120 Juvenile Division Detective® 40 $35 $1,400 Totals 90 N/A $5,200 a Usual biweekly participants. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The participants include the Juvenile Justice Commissioner, formal proba tion officers for probation after incarceration release, gang intervention probation officer, informal probation officer for nonincarcerated offenders, juvenile diver sions specialist, psychologist, police juvenile division investigating detective, school resource officer, school principal, assistant principal for student services, district child welfare and attendance specialist, school dean of discipline, one alpha counselor, the school conflict resolution manager, and the school’s peer mediations or conflict managers. Figures in Table 18 are based upon estimated hourly wages of non-UNHS personnel. The goal of this program is better school behavior on and off campus, as well as improved attendance. Attendance rates have increased since the program’s inception; the dollar amount represented by the increase is unknown. Korean Youth Community Counseling Program The KYCC program provides UNHS with two counselors every other week for 2 hours to address the needs of Korean students new to the country to help them to adjust to American schools and the American way of life. This has been an invaluable service in acculturating students who spoke little or no English and who had significant difficulties in adjusting to American schools. See Table 19. Table 19 Cost of Korean Youth Community Counseling (Pro Bono) On-Campus Hours Students Served Per Week (40 Weeks) Hours Per Year Funded Amount 14 2 80 $2,700 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Parent Volunteer Hours Volunteer hours in service to a school are difficult to calculate and evaluate. The following are programs of interest that are required for the operation of the school, integral to the culture of the school, or basic programs that are part of the normal school operations staffed completely or in part by volunteers. Textbook distribution for the 2,000 or so students at UNHS takes place during the week before the start of the school year and extends into the first week of classes. The distribution is coordinated by the school librarian and the librarian’s assistant and staffed by volunteer parents, who carry out the operations, including getting a student’s book list, running for the books, and then electronically reading the barcode on each book to assigning the books to the student’s name. Using adults was found to be the most effective for this distribution, particularly for accuracy when books had to be electronically recorded. This function requires four volunteer adults for 8 hours per day for 1 week and two volunteer adults for 6 hours per day during the first week of school. The total hours of this function are summarized in Table 20. Table 20 Parent Volunteer Services in Textbook Distribution (Example of Vital Services) Period N Hours Days Total Hours Minimum Pay Rate Value Before school 4 8 5 160 $8 $1,280 First week 2 6 5 60 $8 $480 Totals 6 10 220 $1,760 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Total Outside Contributions The total dollar amount, including pro bono or volunteer hours converted to minimum equivalent dollars, is significant, approximating 10% of the total budget of the school (see Table 21). With the exceptions of the funds for JROTC and athletics, outside funds targets are extraneous to the curriculum. In total, very little of outside funding can be linked to the core curriculum. The combined effect of outside funding on the UNHS campus is significant. Without outside funding, the athletic program would have to be reduced by one half to function within the district allocated budget: Approximately 23 teams would be eliminated. The pro bono services, although not vital to the curricular goals of the school, provide other unique and important functions. The UN Network and the KYCC counseling program help students to keep focused upon education; although not directly related to a test score, these are directly related services to students. Not all programs were included in this listing, nor were all clubs. One club of note is the Human Relations Club. This club was established to ensure that the school remains a school for all students. This club, with volunteer teachers as sponsors, has won awards and has been in demand at other schools as a model. Over the years, the #10 Tin Can Band has played over 1,000 performances throughout the southwestern United States. This program, taught by a teacher, relies on a host of volunteers to ensure that the events take place. This band functions in addition to the regular high school marching band. An exchange program with Kashiwa Municipal High School in Kashiwa, Japan, requires up to 50 families to volunteer their homes for 3-week home stays by visiting students. The whole school serves as volunteer hosts, mentors, and 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 21 Programs Receiving External Funding, With Pro Bono Services Converted to Dollar Amounts Source of Funds and Program Funded Funding Funded services Free and reduced-price meals (FARMS) $311,000 Associated Student Body (ASB operations) $207,991 Annual $71,347 ASB Trust $631,941 JROTC materials and salary $89,138a School Resource Officer (Prorated school service) $25,000 Pro bono services North Network $5,200 PTSA textbook distribution $1,760 Korean Youth Community Counseling $2,700 Volunteer coaches $42,900 Total pro bono dollar allocation $49,860 Total outside program converted $1,389,521 Note. JROTC = Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, PTSA = Parents, Teachers, Students Association a Half of the salary paid by the U.S. Army. b Assigned dollar amount is based on actual state costs to the agencies involved or on the lowest wage for like work paid by the district. 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. instructors for these visits, putting in many extra hours during the 3-week stay. The cost of the program in hourly dollars would be significant. It was through outside funding that UNHS conducts a yearly Diversity Convention for all southern California high schools, centered on showcasing various presenters, programs, and resources that leadership students and advisors can utilize for their own campuses to address diversity, misunderstanding, and cultural differences. This convention involves utilizing the entire campus, with all aspects provided to participants at no cost, including T shirts, continental breakfast, lunches, and handouts. The cost for this convention was not tabulated. Summary The findings in chapter 4 answered the research questions but went far beyond that point. A significant finding centered on the difficulty of gathering accurate data. Repeatedly, questions were met with no response or were answered with hostility. Areas in the budget with the most vague descriptions of categories and dollars actually spent within those categories were costs for substitutes, legal fees paid and to whom for what part of the school operation, and categorical accounting of funds. This area of the study was frustrating. In addition to the responses to the research questions, interesting findings centered on the differences in dollars allocated to Whites, Asians verses dollars allocated to Hispanics and African Americans. This was attributed to the patterns of courses that each group took. The database created for this research was very encompassing, accurate, and thorough, considering the limits placed by the district. Dollars were tracked from the district to the child in each period of the school day. 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Outside contributions to the school represented approximately 11% of the school’s operational budget. In some ways, this is related to the SES of the parti cipants in the programs; in others ways, it is a function of good will on the part of the school community. Without these outside funds, many programs, primarily athletics and activities, would be bare bones operations or would cease to exist. Pro bono hours were significant for the operation of the school. The overall total of outside funds approached 1.3 million dollars. That is a great deal of money and dwarfs the amount of unrestricted funds under a principal’s control. 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Continued Research Post Accounting Standardization A review of recent studies of school level financial data related to student achievement leads to the conclusion that research needs to continue to focus upon the funding level of the individual student at the classroom level. In order to continue this task, ambiguities and generalities describing fund ing levels and achievement levels must be addressed. Currently, there is often no clarity regarding whether funding is being allocated to its intended targets. This is primarily true in relating budget matters from site budgets to district budgets. Currently, the nomenclature of each remains somewhat different. Although the mandated standardization of accounting methods has taken place in California, the standardization ends at the district level, by design, although the process has been established for sites to use the standard accounting scheme. As long as accounting schemes and accounting language differ, finding definite answers to spending questions will remain somewhat elusive. Focusing research at the student level will allow individual student achieve ment to be more closely related to exact funding allocations. With more clearly delineated student funding data, statistical views of vertical and horizontal equity, adequacy, and productivity can be expanded from the student level to wider popu lations. Through this process, the linkages of funds to outcomes could determine what funding supports achievement and what funding is extraneous to that process. This process could have a profound impact upon how schools operate based upon mandated goals and objectives. This could bring the concept of the comprehensive 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. high school under the microscope to determine whether its structure best serves the demand for heightened accountability within the limits of budgetary constraints. A review of the high school structure could bring into question teacher salaries, based upon course importance in addressing outcomes, course time allocations within student schedules, and course matriculation patterns. Outcomes could also be scrutinized to determine whether grades, within limited time frames such as quarters, semesters, or years, or levels of subject matter mastery at proficient, intermediate, and expert levels would best describe the goals of accountability. Production Function as Most Appropriate Measurement Tool Production function studies seem to be forced fits of education outcome data to education finance data. The cliche “garbage in, garbage out” seems to apply here. Each study reviewed in chapter 2 had an amorphous input targeted either to an amorphous outcome or to a specific outcome. Regardless of the selected out come, the nature of the linkage of input data to the outcomes was, at best, speculat ive. In a limited number of instances, an outcome took place that was attributed to an input, such as improved achievement related to smaller class size. If class size reduction was the treatment and improved achievement was the result, then the relationship is strong and the cost of the improvement could be determined. However, rarely did specific quantifiable outputs relate to targeted application of resources. Education does not produce a finished product, only a product measured in time. If one accepts this premise, then the totality of inputs over time produces the product that is measured within the frame period. A review of the production function literature shows that targets were, for the most part, “betterment” and the 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. input was more money. Given these types of cause-and-effect relationships, any and all conclusions could be drawn. A concern related to the formulation of a production function equation based at the student level on standardized test scores was that test results are a snapshot at that specific moment in time. Probably, “hot spots” of achievement linked to targeted funding could be found. With standardized fiscal data, the researcher could determine the nature of funding and relate those funds to more specific outcomes. Without standardized data, only ambiguity as to replication will exist. With no specific inputs targeting the desired products or scores, no mean ingful production function exists. Other accountancy formulations and tools should be developed, tested, and applied to better gauge the relationship between money spent and outcomes. Policy-Driven Programs and Success Measurements Any accounting system should create methods for linking policy funding to policy outcomes. This would be a natural fit under the production function model. Presently, policy funds, such as Title 1 funding, EIA-LEP funds, and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) must be accounted for to determine whether dollars were spent on eligible items and activities. These funds are never related to the achievement of the targeted population. Policy-driven funding should require policy effect accountability. A standardized accounting system would greatly enhance the possibility of achieving this goal. 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Longitudinal Studies Currently, the output of a student-level production function is a score measuring student-level achievement on state-level standards as measured by norm-referenced standardized tests. Success is based on an arbitrary judgment at the state level. The production function would then be the total financial inputs that were contributed to each individual student that produced a specific output. This application of funding does not give a clear relationship to the levels of student achievement. A longitudinal study of financial inputs related to student outputs might show the impact of funding upon outcomes. Currently, state-level legislation has called for student scores to be stored on statewide database systems. In isolation, these scores do not give the clear picture of the level of student success. It would appear that an index or matrix should accompany all scores to show what levels of funding were allocated. This would better serve as a record of student achievement related to allocated dollars. To do otherwise creates a limited picture. Linking Funding to Program Oversight The largest segment of site funding is for classroom instruction and support. Oversight of this function should be enhanced, and “good teaching” should be quantified to ensure that instructional dollars relate to achievement improvement. A more exacting measure is needed to include quantifiable teacher input based upon the past “success” level of the student. A measurement system linking teachers to student success should be developed and implemented in order to relate dollars allocated for outcomes produced. Presently, teachers are immune from accountability for student success. 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By utilizing studies such as this one, policy makers and practitioners can develop more clear understanding of how dollars are spent and what that spending produces. Determining what is fair, equitable, and adequate is complex. Without specific studies such as this one that looks at the baseline classroom funding of each students, policy makers and practitioners must continue to rely on their best guesses as to how money is actually spent. Studies such as this can help policy makers and administrators to explain how dollars are spent and to pinpoint where greater funding is needed. A close look at a school’s budget will certainly yield a wealth of information on spending efficiency. Dates Selected for Data Reporting A significant problem arose in the study because of poor date selections from the onset. A date was selected as near to the end of the school year as possible so that all expenditures would have been made and would have been easy to match to students. This was not the case. Using the last date in the fiscal cycle of school years assigns a date when all expenditures have been made and accounted for. The enrollment figure on which the school’s budget is based is important information, which is likely to be learned from close-of-the-year communications of the previous academic year. The best student population snapshot should occur when the majority of students are enrolled, probably midway in the second semester of the academic year. To do otherwise may result in atypical schedules, varying enrollment numbers, and the possibility of seniors being on reduced schedules. Research should be based on an identified enrollment figure, selected carefully and justified in the research document. This could reduce the work load significantly. 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Making School Managers Aware This report produced some disturbing findings regarding the unequal treatment of unequals. When patterns of lowered allotments can be traced to racial issues, more study is needed to determine why this takes place. Informed of this type of financial data, managers should be able to remove barriers and enhance opportunities for all students if they take the time to let the allocated dollars speak to them. Some forum or publication should speak to this issue. 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES AB 125, California Assembly, 33rd session. (1999). An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 60850) to Part 33 of the Education Code, relat ing to high school graduation. Sacramento: Assembly. Abbeville County School District, et al. v. the State of South Carolina, et al. (South Carolina Supreme Court Filed April 22,1999) Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 15, S.E. 2d Opinion No. 24939, heard October 9,1997, filed April 22,1999. Access. (2004). Litigations challenging constitutionality ofK-12 funding in the 50 states. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from http://www.accessednetwork.org/ Achilles, C. (1999). Let’ s put kids first: Finally getting class size right. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Anick, C. M., Carpenter, T. P., & Smith, C. (1981). Minorities and mathematics: Results from the national assessment of education progress. Mathematics Teacher, 73, 560-566. Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after A Nation at Risk. Phi Delta Kap- pan, 74, 593-597. Bennett, S. M., & Carlson, D. (1986). A brief history of state testing policies in California. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1995). Student-level school resource measures. Re trieved October 9,2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97536-4.html Beme, R., & Stiefel, L. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to present. In H. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Beme, R., Stiefel, L., & Moser, M. (1997). The coming of age of school-level financial data. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 207-233. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954). California Department of Education. (2003). California school accounting man ual. Sacramento: Author. California Department of Education. (2003-2004). Testing programs for the state of California. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ statetests/ 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California education code. (2003). Sacramento: California Legislative Publica tions Office. California Taxpayers’ Association. (1993). Proposition 13: Love it or hate it, its roots go deep. Sacramento: Author. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al., Appellants v. State of New York et al., Respondents, 1 No. 117A 156 (New York Court of Appeals 1995). Capper, C. A. (1990, July). Exploring community influences on leadership and reform: A micro-level and macro-level analysis of poverty and culture. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Boston. Center for Education Reform. (1998). A nation still at risk: An education mani festo. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Clarke, C. (1998). Using school-level data to explore resources and outcomes in Texas. Journal of Education Finance, 23, 374-389. Clune, W. H. (1995). The empirical argument for educational adequacy, the criti cal gaps in the knowledge base, and a suggested research agenda. Re trieved August 1, 2004, from www.nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97536-3.html Cohen, L. A., & Vogel, D. R. (2001). School finance reform in Tennessee: Inch ing toward adequacy. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 297-317. Cohen, M. C. (1997). Issues in school-level analysis of education expenditure data. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 255-279. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity (Coleman Study, EEOS). Retrieved May 7, 2003, from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ PRINT/063 89.xml Cooper, B. S. (1993, March). School-site cost allocations: Testing a micro- financial model in 23 districts in ten states. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque. Cooper, B. S. (1994). Making money matter in education: A micro-financial model for determining school-level allocations, efficiency and productivity. Journal o f Education Finance, 20, 66-87. DeRolph v. State of Ohio I, 97 Ohio St. 1 (3d 434 2001). DeRolph v. State of Ohio II, St.3d 434,2002 (Ohio-6750 2002). DeRolph v. State of Ohio III, St.3d 434, 2002 (Ohio-6750 2002). Duncombe, W. & Lukemeyer, A. (2002). Estimating the cost of education ade quacy: A comparison of approaches. New York: AERA. 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. EdSource. (2003). How California ranks Palo Alto, California. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Eliezer Williams, a minor, by Sweetie Williams, his guardian ad litem, et al., v. State of California, Delaine Eastin, State Superintendent of Public Instruc tion, State Department of Education, State Board of Education, No. 312236 [Class Action], August 2000). Fortune, J. C. (1993). Why production function analysis is irrelevant in policy deliberations concerning education funding equity. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(12), 23. Fundamental Unified School District [pseudonym]. (2000). Fundamental Unified School District accountability report card (DARC), 2000-2001. Fundamental Unified School District [pseudonym]. (2001). Fundamental Unified School District user-friendly budget, 2001-2002. Gardner, R. (1999). Lessons of a century: A nation’s schools come of age. Edito rial Projects in Education, 18(26), 18. Goertz, M. (1997). The challenges of collecting school-based data. Journal of Education Finance, 22, 291-302. Greenwald, R., Fledges, L., & Laine, R. D. (1994a). Does money matter? A meta analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student out comes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. D. (1994b). Money does matter some where: A reply to Hanushek. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 9-10. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. D. (1996a). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. D. (1996b). Money does matter: A re search synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies. In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenberg (Eds.), Where does the money go? Re source allocation in elementary and secondary schools (10th ed., Vol. 10, pp. 44-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guthrie, J. W. (2001, November). Twenty-first century education finance: Equity, adequacy and the emerging challenge o f linking resources to performance. Paper presented at Florida State University’s College of Education Sesqui- centennial Symposium, Funding Florida’s Schools: What Does the Con stitution Require? Tallahassee, FL. Hansford, N. H., & Stallman, J. I. (1997). Our taxes: Comparing Oklahoma with other states in 1997. Stillwater: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.osuextra.com 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hanushek, E. A. (1981). Throwing money at schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1(1), 19-41. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177. Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school per formance. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45-51. Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Money might matter somewhere. A response to Hedges, Greenwald, and Laine. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 5-8. Hanushek, E. A. (1995). Moving beyond spending fetishes. Educational Leader ship, 55(3), 60-64. Hanushek, E. A. (1996a). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform without consideration of school performance. In L. O. Picus & J. Wattenberg (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in ele mentary and secondary schools (pp. 20-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hanushek, E. A. (1996b). School resources and student performance. In G. Bur- tless (Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 43-73). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student per formance: An update. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-149. Hayasaki, E. (2003, May 4). Los Angeles students on protest tour say high school exit test is unfair: They say what’s really needed are better conditions and resources on campus. Los Angeles Times, p. B3. Helfand, D. (2003, May 2). State education official seeks to delay exit exam. Los Angeles Times, p. Bl. Henze, R., Katz, A., Norte, E., Sather, S. E., & Walker, E. (2002). Leading for diversity: How school leaders promote positive interethnic relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hertert, L. (1993). Resource allocation patterns in public education: An analysis o f school-level equity in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Hertert, L. (1996). Does equal funding for districts mean equal funding for class room students? Evidence from California. In L. O. Picus & J. Wattenberg (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 71-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hickrod, G. A., Ramesh, C. G., & Pruyne, M. J. (1995). The effect of Constitu tional litigation on education finance: A farther analysis. In W. J. Fowler, Jr. (Ed.), Selected papers in school finance, June, 1995 (Vol. NCES 97-563, p. 13). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1996). The schools we need: And why we don’ t have them. Charlottesville, VA: Doubleday. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1999, September 11). Opposing approaches so Johnny can read: Finding the answers in drills and rigor. New York Times, p. B ll. Hodas, S. (1993). Is water an input to a fish? Problems with the production- function model in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(12), 17. John A. Rose, President Pro Tempore of the Senate; Donald J. Blandford, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Appellants, v. The Council for Better Edu cation, Inc. et al., Appellees., 60 Ed.Law Rep. 1289 (Supreme Court of Kentucky. 1989). Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Streets and Highways x22500,1972 Sess. (1972). Lau v. Nichols, 39 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1974) (S.Ct. 786 1974). Leandro v. State of North Carolina (North Carolina Court of Appeals Filed: 19 March 1996). Levinson, A. M. (1988). Reexamining teacher preferences and compensating wages. Economics of Education Review, 7, 357-364. Loofburrow, P. T. (1992). Composition in the context of CAP: A case study o f the interplay between assessment and school life (Technical Report No. 58). Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley. McCroskey, J., & Meezan, J. (1997). Family preservation and family functioning. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Milner, D. (1983). Children and race. New York: Sage. Moilanen, L. (2003, April 4). Parents’ gifts save teachers’ jobs. The Daily Breeze, p. A3. Monk, D. H. (1989). Education production function: Its evolving role in policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 31-45. Monk, D. H. (1993). A reply to Mr. Hodas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(15), 4. 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Monk, D. H. (1997). Challenges surrounding the collection and use of data for the study of finance and productivity. Education Finance, 22, 303-316. Monk, D. H., & Roelke, C. (1995). The origin, disposition, and utilization of re sources within New York State public school systems: An update. Madi son: University of Wisconsin, Center for Education Research and the Finance Center. Nakib, Y. (1994). The allocation and use of education dollars at the district and school level in Florida. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the Finance Center, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Projections o f education statis tics to 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,115 ST AT 14251 6 plus many subsections (2002). Nyhan, R. C., & Alkadry, M. G. (1999). The impact of school resources on stu dent achievement test scores. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 211-271. Oakes, J. (2002). Investigating the claims of Williams v California, 2002 (Synthe sis of Expert Reports Prepared for Williams v California No. wws-rri) lb- 1002). Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Democracy, Equity and Access. Oakes, J. (2003). Multi-track, year-round calendar (Concept 6) and busing to overcrowding: Report prepared for Williams v. State of California. In J. Oakes (Ed.), Education inadequacy, inequality, and failed state policy: A synthesis o f expert reports prepared for Williams v. State of California Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources to support high student achievement: An empirical look at five sites. Journal o f Education Fi nance, 25, 545-564. Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. O. (1995). The story of the educa tion dollar: No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-168. Parrish, T., Matsumoto, C. S., & Fowler, W., Jr. (1995). Disparities in public school district spending, 1989-90. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research. Phyler v. Doe, 72L. 2d 786 (1984) (102 S. Ct. 2382 1982). 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Picus, L.O. (1995). Does money matter in education? A policymaker’s guide. In National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Selected papers in school fi nance (Vol. 97, pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: NCES. Picus, L.O. (2000). Student-level finance data: Wave of the future? The Clearing House, 74, 75-80. Picus, L. O., Hertert, L., & Tetreault, D. (1994). The allocation and use o f educa tion dollars at the district and school level in California, Madison, W I: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Con sortium for Policy Research in Education, The Finance Center. Picus, L. O., & Odden, A. R. (2000a). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to present. Milwaukee, WI: McGraw-Hill. Picus, L. O., & Odden, A. R. (2000b). School finance: A policy perspective. (2nd ed., rev.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Monk, D., & Nakib, Y. (1995). Story of the education dollar: No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kap- pan, 77, 161-168. Picus, L. O., & Wattenberg, J. L. (1996). Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (10th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Plessy v. Ferguson, 210 (Supreme Court of the United States 1896). Public Law 94-142. Education of All Handicapped Children Act (now called Indi viduals with Disabilities Education Act) (20 USC 1400) (1975). Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999; Chapter 3, Statues of 1999,1 4 (2001). Rebell, M. A., & Feldman, S. (2003). The fight for fiscal equity. E-Journal: The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, 8. Ritter, G. W. (2002). EDFD 5683: Issues in education policy. Paper presented at “Notes on School Funding Litigation and the Effectiveness of Education Spending: What Does the Literature Tell Us?” Fayetteville, AR. Robillard, E. (2001). The collection and use of student level resource data in K-12 education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Cali fornia, Los Angeles. Robillard, E., & Picus, L. O. (2000). The collection and use of student-level data: Implications for school finance research. Journal of Educational Consider ations, 28(1), 226-231. Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Los Angeles County Superior Court 1992). 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez No. 71-1332 (Supreme Court of the United States 411 US 1; 93 S. Ct. 1278; 1973 U.S. Argued October 12, 1972). Sandham, J. L. (1999). Court rejects Ohio finance plan, revives debate on school funding. Editorial Projects in Education, 18(26), 18. Serrano v. Priest (Superior Court for Los Angeles County, CA 1971). Serrano v. Priest (I), 487 P.2d 1241 (Superior Court for Los Angeles County, CA 1976). Serrano v. Priest (II), 557 P.2d 920 (California Court of Appeals 1982). Serrano v. Priest (III) (Second District Court of Appeals 1985). Spears, P. (2003). 2003 Golden State Examination administration. Sacramento, CA: Superintendent of Public Information. Takahira, S., Gonzales, P., Frase, M., & Salganik, L. H. (1998). Pursuing excel lence: A study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Torrance Unified School District. (2001). Torrance user-friendly budget. Tor rance, CA: Author. United Nations High School [pseudonym]. (2001). United Nations High School student handbook, 2001-2002. Verstegen, D. A. (2004). Calculation of the cost of an adequate education in Kentucky: A professional judgment approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(8), 9. Verstegen, D. A., & King, R. A. (1998). The relationship between school spend ing and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of produc tion function research. Journal of Education Finance, 24, 243-262. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Accrediting Commission for Schools. (2002). Focus on learning report [for United Nations High School, 2001]. Burlingame, CA: Author. White House fact sheet: No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Retrieved January 2, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/ 20020108.html 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHICS FOR UNITED NATIONS HIGH SCHOOL, 2001-2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. United Nations High School Enrollment Demographics as of May 31, 2002 2110 students (989 female, 1121 male) 501 seniors (216 female, 285 male) 482 juniors (226 female, 256 male) 519 sophomores (252 female, 267 male) 515 freshmen (238 female, 277 male) 93 - 8th graders taking one or more classes (57 female, 36 male) 345 students on free lunch plan (17.1%) 99 students on reduced lunch plan (4.9%) 53 students in Special Day Program (6 female, 47 male) 72 students in Resource Program (16 female, 56 male) 23 students in the Life Skills Program (6 female, 17 male) 40 students receiving Speech and Language Services (13 female, 27 male) 13 students receiving home teaching (4 female, 9 male) 19 students receiving independent study (1 female, 18 male) 11 students identified as orthopedically impaired (5 female, 6 male) 5 students identified as visually impaired (1 female, 4 male) 85 students identified as GATE, but hundreds enrolled in honors and advanced placement classes 211 English Language Learners) 30% White, 41% Asian/Pacific Islander, 21% Hispanic, 7% African American, 1% 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Average Class Size School-wide Number of Classes Average Class Size English 444 27.0 Mathematics 101 23.2 Social Science 67 25.9 Science 56 28.4 Distribution by First Language Grade G rade G rade G rade t'oial '• > o; wiiiiaaai id 12 lotal Hank-'I angiiasie' N a m e Spanish 15 23 15 19 72 35% Korean 8 1 2 - 9 — 1 s 37 18% Jap anese 8 * 7 8 5 28 13% V iei-n ’ .PK so ; 4 ? ~ _ _ . . 'S 08% Urdu 7 5 4 5 (V /% /vahu; 3 2 1 2 ■ 0 5% Oilier IliliillM llililiilii i i / | H w <W r fv U itiu n rir. (Pulongliur.; 9 1 I 1 { 5 i'2% T.idnii (iY hpin-'.j 0 1 3 4 i ; ; 1 * : : o i y r ^ 1 Burmese 0 ; 1 2 oi% ; ; ■ ! 2 01% * Q ' 0 2 ! : * . • K -n\;r ; « ; 1 : 00% Polish d 0 i 1 f 'W V ^ iv . ■ , i r-'.er - '.il.; a : 57 ' i 52 " * s ' " _ S i . % of Totals 22.0% 27.8% 24.8% 25.4% inn . ltW% 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B FACT SHEET, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fact Sheet, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 President Bush has made education his number one domestic priority. On January 23,2001, he sent his No Child Left Behind plan for comprehensive educa tion reform to Congress. At that time, he asked members of Congress to engage in an active bipartisan debate on how we can use the federal role in education to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. The result, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, embodies the four princi ples of President George W. Bush’s education reform plan: stronger accountability for results, expanded flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. The agreements will result in fundamental reforms in classrooms through out America. This is the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. It redefines the federal role in K-12 education to help improve the academic achievement of all American stu dents. 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C TEMPLATE TO ASSIGN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS FOR COST ANALYSIS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cost of Services Provided by Various School Administrative Entitled by Administrative Function Required District Functions Optional District Functions Site Administrative Functions 1. Insurance/W orker Compensation 1. Office of the Supt. Instruction Classroom teachers Special Education teachers 2. Business Support Services: Payroll 2. Information Systems Quality Benchmarks 3. Business Support Per sonnel & Admin. 3. Accountability Sys tems 4. Business Support Pur chasing 4. Developing IEPs 2. Categorical Program s a. Compensatory Ed. b. Programs for disabled c. Limited English Prof. d. Gifted and Talented e. Other 5. Instructional Adm. Categorical Programs 5. Monitoring Fed./ State Categorical Programs 6. Specialist Staff 6. Home to School Transportation 7. Substitute Teachers 7. Legal Services 8. Services for Severely Disabled 8. L.E.A. Education Ini tiatives 9. Community Services 9. Federal Program (Not Developed) 10. Instructional Support C urr. Development 3. Instructional Aides 11. Inst. Support Prof. Dev. Administrators 4. Tutorial 12. Inst. Support Prof. Dev. Teachers 5. Instructional Facilitators 13. Inst. Support Media, Tech., software 6. Curriculum Develop ment Supervision 14. Pupil Support Services Attendance, Counsel. 7. Teachers Supervision 15. Pupil Support Health 8. Professional Develop. 16. Major Facilities Reno vations 9. Technology Supervision. 17. Minor Facilities Reno vations 10. Guidance & Counseling 18. School Operation 11. Family Outreach 19. School Maintenance 12. Clerical and Adm. Staff 20. Salary Transition 13. Transportation Activities 21. Extracurricular Sports 14. School Improve. Plan 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D INTERNAL MEMO REGARDING ACCOUNTING STANDARDIZATION MANDATE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. October 9, 2002 To: Site Administrators and Department Heads From: Subject: Problems involving 2001-02 Fiscal year Closeout and County Office of Education interface of financial data Most of you are aware of the ordeal the that the Fiscal Services Department has been experiencing over the past year, first in learning and implementing an entirely new generation financial software system and making the painstaking conversion to SACS (State Account Code Structure), and now in attempting our first closeout of a fiscal year, which requires interfacing with the County Office's own new financial systems. By now I am sure everyone's patience is wearing thin with what may be perceived as excuses from our staff in not being able to respond in a timely manner to your budget questions and requests, but I want to emphasize as strongly as pos sible, that what we have taken on this year is a huge, complex undertaking, which has even given our external audit firm some pause in trying to help us sort out this reconciliation of accounts. Most of the larger districts in the County are a year behind us in this process, which is why this problem is confronting just a few districts this year, primarily Torrance, Santa Monica-Malibu, and Hacienda La Puente. I pray for their sakes that these problems are resolved by next year when large districts such as Los An geles, Long Beach etc. must come on board. By now a great deal of the most de tailed and frustrating part of the process is completed; however we still have work to do in conjunction with our auditors and the County in reconciling many of the restricted or "categorical" program budgets. This work should be completed before the end of the month. We realize that this makes it extremely difficult for those managers and staff mak ing decisions on limited categorical funds, without a precise number on specific carryover funds. All I can promise at this point is that we are working extremely hard to finish what is left, and we apologize if we have been short or have appeared to be disinterested in your position when you have requested information. I am re questing your patience and understanding as we work through this, and if you have a specific problem with an account, or a budget transfer of an urgent nature, please direct your calls to me, or if corresponding via e-mail, please copy me on the e- mail. Just to put this in perspective, this is the first financial system conversion for this district in twenty years, so for those of you with retirement in the not too distant future, it should be smooth sailing. For those of you looking at many more years, who may experience another state financial system “reform” on something that wasn’t broken, my condolences. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

PDF

Addressing social promotion and retention issues: A look at one middle school in the process of reform

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

An analysis in the use of student performance data in schools

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

PDF

An analysis of the use of data to increase student achievement in public schools

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

PDF

Black male perception of opportunity structures

PDF

Cognitive and motivational factors that affect the achievement of elementary students on standardized tests

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of data utilization in schools: A case study

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

PDF

Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...

Asset Metadata

Creator Scully, Timothy P. (author)

Core Title An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Finance,OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, demography,sociology, ethnic and racial studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-328318

Unique identifier UC11340758

Identifier 3155475.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-328318 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155475.pdf

Dmrecord 328318

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Scully, Timothy P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA