Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT LEVEL RESOURCE

ALLOCATION AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL

by

Rhonda L. Kimball

______________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Rhonda L. Kimball

ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation represents the end of a very long journey with many facets.
Although the completion of this dissertation signals the beginning of another journey, I
am respectful of what I have learned in this process and value all these lessons.
Thankfully, I made the last trip in one piece and ready to learn much more. The long
process of coursework and this final piece of work included health issues, child rearing
issues, the balancing of work, motherhood and study and some very deep reflection. I am
truly thankful for what I have learned throughout this journey. Many people have made
this project possible. I am dedicating this work to these people who have helped me in the
most profound of ways.
To Megan and Merideth Kimball who are my two beautiful, smart and talented
daughters. You have always been and will continue to be my best teachers. Part of this
work was for you. It was a model of what women can become if they just keep at it.
To Mike Kimball, my wonderful husband, for his patience and tolerance. Thank you
for protecting me and supporting me on many levels for many years. Thank you for
taking those vows very seriously every day. Thank you for making sure our children
know that they can be what ever they want to be. Thank you for being interested in this
project just because it was of interest to me.
To Kim Norman Ph.D. and Linda Yniguez, Ph.D. who are my friends who are
literally “in the hood”. You have walked this path before me and walked my path with
me. You know what it took to get here. Thank you for making me believe that I deserve
iii

to be “in the hood” and could accomplish this task. I will think of you every time I wear
the regalia. Thanks for the stripes and the gold tassel!

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible by the assistance and support of a variety of
individuals. I wish to acknowledge the following people:
Dr. Lawrence Picus, Dissertation Chair, for never giving up on me and holding
me to a high standard. Thank You
Dr. Hentschke and Dr. Nelson for their feedback and time as members of my
dissertation committee.
Ms Marsha Guerrero and the staff at Morrison Elementary School for their
transparency about their money and their process.
My wonderful girlfriends, Roddi, Suzanne, Norma, Marty, Edna, Kelly and the
many other women who I am proud to call my dear and supportive friends. Thank you for
being so unconditional.
Ms Kim Dickes for her technical support even with short notice.
My family for giving me a great education and for being so proud.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER ONE 12
Introduction 12
Background of the Problem 14
Early History 14
Equity Focus 15
Money or Management 17
Current High Stakes Environment 18
Statement of the Problem 20
Purpose of the Study 20
Research Questions 21
Importance of the Study 21
Methodology 22
Limitations 22
Delimitations 23
Definition of Terms 23
Organization of the Dissertation 24

CHAPTER TWO 25
Review of the Literature 25
Introduction 25
Early History 27
Federal Involvement In School Finance 29
Finance Equity Issues 34
Adequacy Movement 39
Production Function Research 44
School Finance at the Micro Level 49
Data Issues 49
Resource Allocation and Use 52
Summary and Implications 60

vi

CHAPTER THREE 63
Methodology 63
Introduction 63
Purpose of the Study 64
The Sample 65
The Population 66
Instrumentation 72
Data Collection 72
Procedure 74
Direct Expenditure to Classroom 74
Direct Expenditure to Students 74
Overhead Costs 74
Summary 75

CHAPTER FOUR 76
The Findings 76
Introduction to the Findings 76
Findings by Research Question 79
Research Question Number One 79
Research Question Number Two 81
Research Question Number Three 81
Additional Expenditure Analysis 93
Expenditures for Special Populations and Services 93
Language Proficiency 94
Expenditures by Grade Level 95
Gender 95
Gender and Special Program Participation 96
Overhead Cost Analysis 97
Summary of the Findings 100

CHAPTER FIVE 104
Summary, Conclusions and Implications of the Findings 104
Overview of the Problem 104
Purpose of the Study 105
Methodology 106
Findings by Research Question 107
Conclusions 109
Comparison to Model Resource Allocation 112
Would Information Really Be Power? 121
Implications for Further Study 125

REFERENCES 129

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:
Parent Education Levels, 20062007 65

Table 2:
Academic Performance Index, School Score and Annual Growth 66

Table 3:
Teacher Education Level 67

Table 4:
Students by Ethnicity 68

Table 5:
Total School Population by Gender 68

Table 6:
20062007 School Enrollment and Language Status by Grade Level 69

Table 7:
Students with Disability by Grade Level and Service 70

Table 8:
Class Size by Grade Level 70

Table 9:
School Personnel by Classification 71

Table 10:
Methodology for Assigning Expenditures 75

Table 11:
Total Expenditures by Research Category 80

Table 12:
Total Student Expenditure 81

Table 13:
Direct Cost to Classroom 82

viii

Table 14:
Direct Cost to Classrooms for Actual Expenditures and Adjusted Salaries
to Represent First Year Teacher Salaries 84

Table 15:
Direct Cost by Classroom by Student to Total Classroom Base Cost 86

Table 16:
Intervention and Enrichment Program Student Participation, Mean Cost
and total Program Expenditure 88

Table 17:
Base Classroom Cost Plus Special Program Cost 93

Table 18:
Student Expenditures by Language Proficiency Level 94

Table 19:
Total Expenditures by Grade Level 95

Table 20:
Mean Expenditure by Gender 96

Table 21:
Intervention Program by Gender 97

Table 22:
Overhead Expenditures by Area and Percent of Overhead Cost 98





ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1:
Total Percentage of Expenditures by Research Category 80

Figure 2:
Total Expenditures by Research Categories and a Breakdown of District
Overhead Costs 99

x

ABSTRACT

The purpose to this study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of per pupil
expenditures at a specific school site. The objectives were threefold. The first objective
was to determine per pupil expenditures, the second question was to determine variations
in expenditures on a per student basis and finally, the third question in the study was to
explain the factors that contribute to any identified variation in expenditure patterns.
The sample consisted of one urban elementary school in a mid size district on a
traditional school calendar. The population consisted of 611 students in grades K5. This
particular school and district participate in the California class size reduction plan for
grades K3. The school is located in a low socioeconomic area and is designated a
schoolwide Title I program. This particular school is considered to be a high performing
school and has been honored as both a Title I Achieving school and as a California
Distinguished School in recent years.
This study analyzed the expenditures at the end of the 20062007 fiscal year and
assigned these expenditures to individual students using three major categories: direct
costs to the classroom, direct costs to individual students and overhead costs. Direct
expenditures to the classroom consisted of the cost of teacher salaries, paraprofessional
salaries and benefit costs. Direct expenditures to students were calculated using
information obtained regarding individual student participation in intervention or
enrichment programs. Overhead expenditures included administrative costs, instructional
support costs, clerical support, custodial, maintenance costs and ground’s upkeep.
xi

Once the expenditures for all students were obtained, these data were analyzed by
category. Factors such as grade level, ethnicity, gender and language classification were
considered in order to determine variation as well as the reason for these variations.
The major variations in expenditure per student were related to class size and
special program participation in either enrichment or intervention programs. It was
determined that teacher salary also played a role in expenditure variation.

12

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
Education is an enormous enterprise in the United States. It constitutes the largest
portion of most state and local governmental budgets; engages more than 100,000 local
school board members in important policy making activities; and educates tens of
millions of children (Odden & Picus, 2004). Many people are involved in the educational
process and much is at stake. For a variety of reasons and at any given time, the topic of
education is a source of great controversy.
  Education and financing education are topics that always seem to elicit debate.
Spending on public, K12 education in the United States exceeds $440 billion a year
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Despite these large sums of money spent annually for K12
education, we know remarkably little about how those funds are used at the individual
student level or at the school level (Picus, 2000).   School districts are held accountable
for the use of the funds received from federal, state and local budgets. However, the
accountability system for school funding is currently at the district level and
understanding how or why resource decisions are made is often not available for
individual students, groups of students, or specific school programs.
Currently, educators and educational programs are in the midst of a massive
accountability movement. This movement is characterized by the development and
refinement of state standards, public accountability and the use of rewards or sanctions
that are connected to student performance. These are all part of a systematic reform
effort. A question arises about school finance within the context of these issues. That is,
13

can current educational finance systems facilitate the goal of teaching students to these
higher standards? Are the amounts of resources currently flowing to schools adequate to
meet the needs of all students and are they enough to allow all students or almost all
students to meet these new high standards? The standards movement promise is that all or
almost most all children will meet or exceed these higher standards set by individual
states. Determining adequate funding to educate students to these new standards will be
difficult since currently little is known about how much is spent on individual students at
the K12 level.
For the most part, past school finance research has been focused on the issue of
fiscal fairness. While equity issues are certainly important, this focus does not address the
more fundamental question of what resources are necessary for students to reach these
high standards for academic achievement. That is, can school finance policies facilitate
the goal of teaching all students to these new expectations?
Much of the literature on educational finance calls for new school finance
structures that directly link finance to student achievement. These adequacy models will
require structures that can directly link finance to student achievement. These adequacy
models will require information about what resources students need, student groups need
and schools need to meet these new, demanding academic standards. The problem is data
that provide information about individual students and programs are not available at the
current time.

14

Background of the Problem
Early History
State funded, free public schools in which all students are educated to a specific
standard are a relatively new concept in the history of schooling in the United States.
Early schools began as private, religious endeavors. Our forefathers, such as Thomas
Jefferson, viewed education as a means for citizens to participate as equals in affairs of
government and essential to ensure the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution (Odden &
Picus, 2004). Massachusetts passed the Old Delauder Satan Act that required every town
to set up a school or pay a sum of money to a larger town to support education. This was
essentially the first system for financing schools through taxation. New Hampshire also
required its citizens to support elementary schools. Still, relatively few towns required
this type of support for schooling. Although Thomas Jefferson proposed the idea for the
creation of free public elementary schools, this idea did not begin to catch on until the
mid 1800’s.
By the mid 1800’s, the developing country began to realize the importance of
educating its citizens. Rural communities were challenged to support local schools.
However, wealthier, big city schools were evolving. By mid century, several states had
rewritten their state constitutions calling for a statewide system of public education as
well as formally establishing that state government would take responsibility for
financing schools (Odden & Picus, 2000). These new schools were government funded,
state controlled and known as “common schools.” Since centralized government control
would have been difficult during this time, local lay school boards were established to
15

decentralize the organization. This model shifted control of schooling from the church
and individuals to a local school board. It was expected that this board would act in place
of the church or the parent.
This new state public school model was not without problems. State constitutions
wrote phrases such as “general and uniform” or “ thorough and efficient” as well as
“basic or adequate” when referring to funding for the new school systems and
expectations for student’s education. These words seem to imply that all students will be
educated in a certain way. The description, however, does lack detail. The lack of
specificity on the part of our forefathers may have been an oversight or perhaps they truly
had no way of comprehending the complex nature of school finance issues that were to
come.   Regardless, school finance has evolved into an extremely complex matter for
policymakers at all levels of government and at all levels of schooling. Additionally,
there are serious challenges facing schools and states today in educating all children to
these new, higher expectations for all students attending public schools.
Equity Focus
Another part of the problem with school finance is the lack of student level
resource data. The traditional focus of school finance has been on fiscal equity. The
focus has been on assessing the degree of spending differences across districts (Odden,
1999). Large differences in revenues to schools existed due to widely varying property
tax bases across districts. These differences were determined to be unfair and remedied
through various means including legislative decisions and litigation.
16

One of the first court cases, Serrano v. Priest, was filed in California in 1968 and
asserted that a school finance system that was based on property taxes, did not provide
children with equal protection under the law and, therefore, these such funding systems
were unconstitutional. School districts with considerable commercial and industrial
property had higher property “wealth” per pupil. Other neighboring districts with less of
that type of property within their district boundaries had much lower “wealth”. These
disparities meant that any given property tax rate raised very different amounts of
revenue for varying districts. Further, districts with lower wealth behind each pupil had to
set higher property tax rates to obtain a given amount of revenue. The California court
found this system to be unfair (Edsource, 2000). The court required California to find
another way to fund schools based on a more equitable model. Currently, funding still
relies on property taxes. However, now there are certain revenue limits and minimum
amounts districts should receive.
This focus did serve to provide more equity in funding from district to district, not
only in California, but other states as well. Many states have developed and implemented
similar funding models. However, there are still problems with this funding structure.
The model did serve to equalize available monies so that every district received similar
amounts of funding. The school finance programs designed to remedy these tax base
problems were effective in raising overall education funds. However, significant
spending differences still exist and are still strongly tied to local wealth (Odden, 1999).
The structure is based on available funds rather than funds that are needed to
educate students. The notion of adequacy was not addressed at the time. Districts
17

received the funds that were generated from the tax base and had to make programs work
with whatever funds received. The issue of equity was the traditional focus of educational
finance research for the major of the last century.
Money or Management?
In addition to the school funding research that focused on the issues of equity for
the last half of the twentieth century, there was an additional concern during this time that
helped shape attitudes about school finance. This concern centered on how much money
actually did matter in improving student performance. Coleman et. al. (1966) conducted
one of the first, nationwide, analyses of the relationship between expenditure and student
performance. The Coleman Report concluded that resource inputs (expenditures) did not
influence student achievement (Nyhan, Alkadry, Mohamad, 1999). Subsequent research
by Hanushek (1997) also suggested that there was not a relationship between school
resources and student performance. Rather, schools exhibit continuing inefficiency in
their operations and “there is not a strong or consistent relationship between variations in
school resources and student performance” (p.141).
  The general concern among some as a result of this study was that money was
not what actually mattered in schools. Of course a certain amount was necessary to allow
schools to function. However, there was not a need to add additional resources to the
current school organization to improve student achievement. According to this study, the
problem appeared to be with the inefficient use of the funds. Subsequent studies
challenged Hanushek’s statistical methodology in arriving at these results. However, the
18

general concern remained. The use of resources was the actual problem rather than a lack
of resources provided to schools.
Although this early work found that money did not matter in schools, later
production function research did find relationships between resources and outcomes.
Since there is not a clear understanding of the role of inputs to educational outputs or
achievement, further investigation is necessary.
Current High Stakes Environment
The publication of “A Nation at Risk” (1983) created considerable controversy
when it was released. The report stated that our society and its educational institutions
seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling and of the high expectations
and disciplined effort needed to attain them (p.6). The report offered recommendations to
resolve the current problems including making recommendations in the area of standards,
expectations, content, leadership, teaching and time devoted to certain areas of study.
This report also addressed the issue of funding and called upon state and local
governments to finance schools and incorporate these reforms outlined in “A Nation at
Risk” into their education policies and fiscal planning (p.28). This was a direct call for
states to pay for these reforms.
  Public concern from this publication as well as additional studies and reports
helped to move education into the massive reform movement seen today. The publication
of the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) compared students in the
United States to students in other nations. These comparisons were extremely
unfavorable and further advanced the notion that individual students, groups of students
19

and schools in the United States were doing poorly when compared to other nations. One
of the early federal accountability programs, “Goals 2000” moved states to develop
curriculum and performance standards as well as develop and implement an
accountability system. Currently, the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) legislation focuses
specifically on raising achievement for all students. This national emphasis on teaching
students to a high standard will require a consideration of what resources are necessary to
reach these standards. This will require school finance policymakers to consider what are
adequate amounts of resources that will be necessary to meet these new and challenging
standards. This also asks policy makers to identify new finance structures that are more
directly linked to strategies that raise the levels of student achievement.
Currently, most state finance reporting systems focus on fiscal accountability
rather than understanding how or why resource decisions are made. This, “objectlevel”
reporting describes expenditures by salary, benefits, contracts, etc., but does not track
expenditures by function (Picus & Peternick, 1998). Function information would include
information about cost of instruction, administrative cost, maintenance, etc. Since this
type of data is currently not available in districts, information about what it costs to
educate students at various levels of schooling is not available. Also not available, is
information about what it costs to educate different students in different programs such as
a reading intervention programs in primary grades or an upper grade math tutorial
program during the school day. Until we can identify these specific costs, it seems
unlikely we will be able to ascertain how the use of educational resources is linked to
student achievement (Picus & Peternick, 1998).
20

School finance structures in this century have an additional responsibility. As a
result of the standards movement and the current high stakes environment, the challenge
for the new school finance system is whether it can provide adequate, per pupil revenues
for districts and schools to educate all students or almost all students to these standards
(Odden, 2001).
Statement of the Problem
Although there are vast amounts of money flowing to school districts from a
variety of sources at both the state and federal levels, we do not know how much it costs
to educate individual students or particular groups of students.
Although specific information is provided regarding what is spent on educating
students from state to state, it should be noted that these are averages obtained by
dividing the educational resources of the state or district by the number of students. Most
states only collect information from constituent school districts at the district level (Picus
& Peternick, 1998). The problem is that student level data are not available. Without this
information it is difficult or even impossible to determine if specific funds, intended for
certain students, are reaching them. Additionally, without this information, it is
impossible to determine if certain resources are influencing student achievement. In order
to determine if educational resources are linked to student achievement, identifying these
individual costs at the student level is necessary.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the specific resources allocated to each
pupil at K5 elementary school in a low socioeconomic community in a midsize urban
21

area. It provides a detailed picture of what it costs to educate individual students at a
particular school. Hopefully this study will contribute to a growing series of studies of
per pupil expenditures at other schools. These studies can then be compared and analyzed
to identify spending patterns between schools with similar populations.
Research Questions
This study addresses the following research questions:
1. What is the expenditure per student within a school?
2. How much variation in expenditure per student exists?
3. What factors contribute to variations in the expenditure per student?
Importance of the Study
The information gleaned from such a study will be important in a variety of ways.
The study will provide more detailed information about how educational
resources are used at the student and school level. This will be of special interest to state
policy makers in terms of knowing, specifically, how tax dollars are used at the school
level. This has the potential to provide a new level of accountability for school funding.
Additionally, in order to determine if a relationship exists between expenditures
and improved student learning, understanding per pupil costs is a necessary first step.
This particular research will be useful to school site personnel since the results
will yield detailed information about per pupil costs at this particular school.
Finally this study is part of a larger study in which a variety of schools are
examined. This look at school level funding has the potential to yield valuable
information about expenditures and outcomes.
22

Methodology
Expenditures are calculated for each student at a midsize, urban elementary
school on a traditional school calendar for the 20062007 school year. This study will
analyze the school site budget for the 20062007 school year and examine budget
allocations to individual students, classrooms as well as look at overhead costs. In
addition to reviewing the formal documentation, informal interviews will also be
conducted with various school personnel, including the principal and data clerk, in order
to obtain additional information about resource allocation and resource use.
This model has three major parts: direct expenditures to the classroom: direct
expenditures to individual students: and overhead costs. The information will then be
analyzed by grade level, ethnicity, gender and program. The methodology follows the
model established by Robillard (2001).
Limitations
These data were collected at one point in time at one specific school site.
Resources received or students enrolled after that point are not reflected in the data.
These data are unique to the specific school and may not be applicable to other school
communities.
Overhead costs that pertain to the local or central district are expressed a
percentage to the local school a divided equally among the students enrolled. Since
school districts do not typically collect data to answer the questions posed, it was not
possible to perfectly allocate central and local district costs to each individual student.

23

Delimitations
The study involved one school at one point in time and does not track resources
over a period of time. We are also impacted by the specific requirements of the district
and state.
Definition of Terms
Adequacy: Providing sufficient funds for the average school to teach the average
student to state determined performance standards (Odden, 2001)
Categorical programs: This refers to state aid that is designed for specific
programs. Examples of categorical programs are special education aid, transportation aid,
and aid for vocational education (Odden & Picus, 2000).
Direct costs: Costs that directly relate to a student such as a teacher or
instructional materials.
Equity: In school finance, equity refers to the distribution of money in such a way
that there is little difference in the amounts allocated between districts.
Indirect costs: Costs that benefit the school and the students as a whole such as
plant maintenance, but cannot be specifically allocated by student.
Horizontal equity: This form of equity refers to each student receiving the same
amount of resources.
Production function: This is an economic tool used to measure the contribution of
individual inputs to the output of some product (Odden & Picus, 2000).
24

Vertical Equity: This form of equity refers to a student receiving the resources
they need to compensate for conditions that negatively impact their learning (Young,
2003).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One has presented an over view of the issues involving education funding
and the importance of understanding the details of resource allocation at the student level.
Chapter Two will review the literature that relates to school finance and resource
allocation.
Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study, describes the
demographics of the school and details the process of collecting data.
Chapter Four presents the findings to the research questions. In this chapter, the
data are presented along with an analysis of the data and a discussion of the findings.
Chapter Five summarizes the study and reviews the findings. Chapter Five also
presents conclusions and implications stemming from the findings of the study.

25

CHAPTER TWO

Review of the Literature
This chapter presents a summary of the literature in the area of school finance.
This review includes an overview of the history of school finance including the federal
government’s involvement in education. This review includes a discussion of production
function research. This chapter reviews the history of the early focus on fiscal equity in
this country and the movement toward adequacy funding models in education. This
review also describes studies conducted relative to expenditures at the district and school
level as well as studies regarding data collection and use both at district and school levels.
Introduction
In 1994 the United States Congress adopted legislation declaring that “all students
can learn and achieve to high standards and must realize their potential if the United
States is to prosper” (National Research Council, 1999, p.15). In 2001, Congress and the
President further held schools and the Local Education Agencies (LEA’s) accountable for
student learning by signing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This particular piece
of legislation held schools and districts accountable for student progress to a degree not
seen before. This legislation has requirements for states to further develop standards,
create assessments in reading and mathematics, test students annually and collect and
manage a variety of data regarding student progress. This legislation also has
requirements for teacher quality and paraprofessional quality.
The legislation set a timeline for success. The goal of NCLB is to have all
students be proficient in language arts and math by the school year 20132014. Schools
26

and school districts must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of total
proficiency. These yearly progress goals are set for student subgroups as well. These
subgroups included students with disabilities, English learners, economically
disadvantaged students and different racial groups.   The goals must be met annually in
order to avoid outside intervention or sanctions (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
It is important to note that the issue of ensuring that all students learn and achieve
to these high standards creates fundamental challenges to the traditional system of
schooling currently in place in this country. These new expectations for schooling
generates a series of new questions for curriculum reform, school management structures
as well as questions about standards in general. A central issue surrounding this reform is
that of resources to schools. That is, if schools are going to be able to meet these high
expectations, it is imperative that the financial investment and financial resources
necessary to achieve these goals are available and continue to be available.
A key component of this important, school endeavor centers on school finance.
Our nation spends over $440 billion annually on public elementary and secondary
education (U.S Census Bureau, 2005). With these new expectations outlined by
Congress, there is a shift in the expectation for education finance systems.
Currently education finance systems face a huge challenge. How will these
finance systems produce greater student achievement? How will states alter current
finance system to provide the financing necessary to increase or maintain student
achievement for all or almost all students? This new expectation is that by the year 2014,
all students will be meeting these new higher standards. Included in this expectation are a
27

variety of special education students. Also included in this expectation are English
learners, economically disadvantaged students and other subgroups. Since education is
not mentioned in the Constitution, the responsibility for educating these students and
paying for education is a state function. Educational governance, including resource
allocation, is the responsibility of the state. These resource allocations vary significantly
across the United States from state to state as well as from district to district.
Early History
Today’s system of a free, state funded, public school education in which all
students are expected to be educated to specific standards is a relatively new concept in
the history of schooling. Early colonists did recognize the importance of education in
building and maintaining a democratic government as well as properly developing
individuals and organizations to serve it. Education is not mentioned in the constitution
so the responsibility for educating citizens becomes the responsibility of state
governments. However, it should not be assumed that early Americans were indifferent
to education or had little interest in it. James Madison proposed the establishment of a
university; Thomas Jefferson advocated appropriations of private lands for education; and
George Washington pressed hard for a national university (Burrup, Brimley & Garfield,
1999).
Early schools began as local entities and were largely private and religious based
(Odden & Picus, 2004). This was the model for most of the seventeenth, eighteenth and
early ninetieth century. This early model was based on the European model of schooling.
Education was considered a private matter and the funding for schooling was a mandate
28

for parents or masters and not governments (Odden & Picus, 2004). In the early part of
the development of the nation’s schools, most of the costs of school operations were
defrayed with nonmonetary services provided by school patrons to the school itself or to
the teacher. Fuel, custodial services, room and board for he teacher and similar services
were provided instead of salaries, insurance and benefits (Burrup & Brimley & Garfield,
1999). As states began to grow in size, the challenge for funding all schools began to
grow also.
School funding in the late 1800’s moved from local community funding or church
supported schools to a system supported by some form of property tax. In many
instances, schools were supported by revenue from land grants and other sources of
revenue (Burrup & Brimley & Garfield, 1999). In the mideighteenth century, several
states began to completely rewrite state constitutions not only calling for creation of
statewide systems of public education, but also formally establishing state government
responsibility for financing schools (Odden & Picus, 2000).
In the early part of the 1900’s, states began to implement what were known as
minimum foundation programs. The intent of this funding formula was to equalize
differences in local fiscal capacity (Odden & Picus, 2004). This statefunding model
moved education finance efforts away from the local level and attempted to equalize
funding across states.
As schools grew in size and complexity, so did the methods of financing them.
Today, all fifty states have a finance system that is all its own. There are fifty states and
fifty versions of systems for funding schools (Burrup & Brimley & Garfield, 1999).
29

Federal Involvement in School Finance
The federal government has an interesting responsibility with regard to education.
The federal role has changed over the years. The role of the federal government in
education and education finance during first part of the twentieth century can best be
described as “fluid.” The federal government had a minor role in the 1920s with federally
operated schools for American Indians. Efforts were accelerated in the 1930s to meet the
nation’s needs during the time of the depression. During this period, legislation
established the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation that distributed surplus food
for student lunches. Also during this time, the National Youth Administration and
Civilian Conservation Corps were established to provide work and training for the
nation’s youth. Additionally, the Public Works Administration made grants and loans
available for school construction (Burrup, Brimley & Garfield, 1999)
During World War II, the country was focused on funding the war effort. At this
time, federal resources were not readily available to support education. Two programs
were implemented during this period, however. In 1943, the Vocational Rehabilitation
Act was passed and in 1944 and the GI Bill was enacted for veterans to receive
vocational and educational opportunities (Burrup, Brimley & Garfield, 1999). Federal
involvement in education during this time was almost nonexistent since the nation’s
efforts were focused on other national and international issues for a many reasons.
Federal involvement in education finance during the early 1950s was also limited.
The only significant federal assistance to public schools came in the form of “impact
aid.” This program was enacted in 1950 to compensate school districts for revenues lost
30

because of the presence of military bases or other federal activities that took take place on
taxexempt properties in their local districts (Ladd & Hansen, 1999).
In the mid fifties, the federal government became involved in education in a
different way. The initial involvement was not in the form of development of a federal
office or program, but in a much more direct involvement. The federal government
became involved in education as a result of the Brown v. Board of Education decision in
1954. The federal government finally had to address the issue of unequal educational
opportunities for racial minorities. “In the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, the
United States awoke from its historical indifference to the problem of unequal
educational opportunities and began to address them”(p.4) (Ladd & Hansen, 1999).
President Eisenhower used federal troops in 1957 to protect black students seeking to
enroll in Little Rock’s Central High School. In 1964, congress passed the Civil Rights
Act further extending federal influence over school desegregation and access to equal
education. After troop involvement, the Office for Civil Rights was created. Additionally,
this act called for a study of educational opportunity in this country. This study was later
known as the Coleman Report ( Ladd & Hansen, 1999).
In the early sixties, this high degree of federal involvement continued. The civil
rights era helped to fuel President Johnson’s war on poverty. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965. Title I of the ESEA provided
funds for children at risk of educational failure. Funding formulas for this program were
linked to local poverty levels. Allocating funds in this manner has never been easy.
31

Disagreements about how funds should be disbursed are debated during every
reauthorization period (Ladd & Hansen, 1999).
From 19651975, federal funds for elementary and secondary education increased
by more than 200 percent. However, the country had once again fallen on economic hard
times and for the following five years, federal spending on education rose only two
percent during that time period (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2005).
President Ronald Reagan took office in 1980 and was opposed to expanding
federal roles in education and even campaigned for the abolishment of the newly created
United States Department of Education. During his administration, federal spending for
education was cut by 21 percent (History of Federal Role, 2005).
During the Reagan administration, the Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell, and
President Reagan assembled the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(NCEE). The role of this commission was to review and to report on the quality of
education in the United States. The report, A Nation at Risk, found that our country’s
educational system was producing mediocre results. One outcome of this report
determined that standards for student performance should be established. Also an
outcome of this report was the idea that we should take fiscal responsibility for our
failures as well. The report went on to explain that what we had allowed to happen to our
schools was “in effect, committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational
disarmament” (p.5). This report argued that we had “lost sight of the basic purposes of
schooling and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them.”
(p.6). The report also argued that “America’s place in the world had changed and that
32

these demands on our schools and colleges often exact an educational cost as well as
financial one” (Nation at Risk, 1983:p6).
Although President Reagan left the work of standards development to the
individual states, the report was described as a wakeup call to the country regarding the
status of public schools. This report started a new concern for the quality of education in
this country. The report also helped bring an interest in educational standards to the
federal level.
In September 1989, President George H.W. Bush met with the nation’s governors
for the nation’s first National Education Summit. The governors, including the Governor
of Arkansas at that time, Bill Clinton, played a role in establishing the goals that were to
be accomplished by the states by the year 2000. At the time, there were six objectives to
be met by each state. These objectives included high expectations for student learning as
well as objectives for school safety. This legislation was known as “America 2000.”
When President Clinton took office, he adopted most of the recommendations
that came out of the first education summit and created his own proposal. This
subsequent legislation was called, “Goals 2000”. Initially, this new Goals 2000 program
planned to create national education standards. Also in this initial design, the federal
government had the ability to accept or reject individual state standards that had been
developed and approved by individual states. The republican congress at the time was
opposed to this increased federal role. That part of the legislation was eventually
omitted. However, the focus on standards and increased accountability remained
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2005).
33

  In 1994, President Clinton again signed legislation that provided federal funding
to schools. This new legislation was known as “Improving America’s Schools Act”
(IASA). This legislation had evolved from the previous Goals 2000 program and had
more accountability for schools and school districts. This new legislation required
challenging content standards, benchmark assessments as well as required local education
agencies (LEA’s) to show adequate yearly progress in annual testing. It was clear that the
federal government supported the idea of standards and believed these standards to be the
means to hold schools accountable for the performance of its students. States were
allowed autonomy to develop their own educational systems and standards, but had to
comply with general guidelines and expectations regarding these standards and
educational systems outlined by the federal government.
When President George W. Bush was elected in 2000, he continued the work on
standards and accountability. President Bush made education one of his top domestic
priorities. On Jan 8, 2002, he signed into law the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). This increased federal funding by 24% from the previous year.
Along with this federal funding came an unprecedented increase in federal
mandates and accountability. No Child Left Behind Act requires annual assessments in
grades 310 in the area of Language Arts and Mathematics. Each year, the school and the
district must make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward goals determined by the
legislation and the state. By at least 2014 all students completing the eighth grade will
meet or exceed each state’s proficient level of academic achievement on the state
assessments for mathematics and readinglanguage arts. Schools that are not able to meet
34

their AYP have specific consequences. In addition to these mandates and sanctions, the
legislation also made provisions for teacher quality, paraprofessional quality as well as
provisions for parent notification of underperforming schools as well as dangerous
schools in their local attendance area (US Department of Education, 2005).
Finance Equity Issues
Although the federal government has a major interest in schooling due to the No
Child Left Behind legislation, public schooling is actually a state responsibility.
Public schools in this country have a long history of local control with regard to
what students are taught and how districts are funded. Prior to the 1970’s the only limit
on school district expenditures was the limit by the districts own wealth. The 1970’s
marked a period of change for locally funded schools.
In the early seventies, the Serrano v Priest case marked the beginning of school
finance litigation. John Serrano’s complaint against the state’s public school finance
model in the state of California eventually became a landmark decision that changed
school funding patterns across the country.
The funding system at the time was based on local property taxes. The plaintiff’s
local school district did not receive the same amount of per pupil dollars as other districts
across the state. The California court considered questions related to the comparative
wealth of districts, the classification of education as a fundamental interest and whether
or not the financing system was necessary to the attainment of any compelling state
interest. (Burrup & Brimly, Garfield, 1999, p 216) The court determined that this
difference in per student spending resulted in a violation the “equal protection clause” of
35

the United States Constitution as well the Constitution of the State of California (National
Research Council, 1999, p. 72).
It is important to note that the Serrano decision did not call for equalization of all
funding for schools. The court decision required school funding to be determined on
some basis other than district property wealth. Some differences in funding were
allowed. The Serrano decision equalized base funding for schools by establishing revenue
limits. (Ed Source, 2000).
A second case in Texas, Rodriguez v San Antonio, influenced educational funding
decisions as well. In 1973, three districts in Texas brought the suit regarding the system
of allocating state funds for education. This time the United States Supreme Court did not
rule in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state funding system that
provides more money per pupil to some school districts than others did not violate the
Equal protection clause of the 14
th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision
was based on a finding that education is not a federal constitutional right. The court
rejected the suspect classification based on the fiscal neutrality standard. The court held
that the defendants failed to show that any class of citizens has been denied an education
(Burrup & Brimly, 221). With the Rodriguez Case, school finance reform cases were
removed from federal courts and the federal courts were no longer a venue for the
education finance reform movement.
The Serrano case paved the way for widespread legal challenges to school finance
systems on the basis of the wealth neutrality principle. The Rodriguez case ensured that
school finance litigation would continue in the state courts rather than federal courts. This
36

decision meant that any finance equity concerns would have a state rather than a national
resolution. (National Research Council, 1999, p.7273).
As a result of this early litigation, state governments have assumed the larger role
in financing public education. “Often the equity gains in education finance in the past
thirty years are attributed to the role that state courts have played in forcing policy
change” (p.397). Since 1970, state school finance systems have been challenged in over
forty states. The state court system may, in fact, be the body making school finance
policy decisions (Bundt & Leland, 2001).
Although education finance litigation sought to provide equity to state finance
systems, research indicates that finance equity is still a problem today. Unequal school
funding still exists between states, within states and within districts.
The range of inequities between states is very broad. In the 200203 school year,
spending per pupil for elementarysecondary education in Utah was $ 4,860. Compare
this to the spending in the state of New Jersey. That state spent $12,202 per student.
California, in the same year, spent an average of $7,691 per student in the public school
system. In 20022003, and the national average during that time period was $8,019 per
student (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
Nearly half of the funding for public schools in the United States comes from
local taxes which generate large differences in funding (Biddle & Berliner, 2002). These
funding differences generate huge disparities in the quality of school buildings, facilities,
curriculum, equipment for instruction, teacher experience and qualifications, class size,
presence of auxiliary professionals and other resources. The authors explain that in other
37

advanced nations, school funding is not tied to local property taxes. Rather, they provide
equal perstudent funding from general tax revenue for all schools throughout the
country. Some nations also provide additional funding for disadvantaged students.
Biddle and Berliner (2002) suggest that the opposition to providing equity in
school funding reflects several factors. These factors could be due to the public’s lack of
knowledge about funding; a selfish desires to keep personal taxes low or inappropriate
beliefs about the causes of poverty that reflect individualism, essentialism or a culture of
poverty thesis.
Haycock (2000) describes a variety of ways to improve academic achievement for
poor and minority students under No Child Left Behind Legislation. Although adults
ascribe the ‘achievement gap’ label to children of poverty and to children who come from
certain family situations, there are examples where these labels do not create an
achievement gap and these children actually succeed.
There are certain similarities in their educational program that appear to be keys
to their academic success. First, the presence of standards for what students should learn
at benchmark grade levels are a critical part closing the achievement gap. Second, all
students should have a challenging curriculum that is aligned with the standards. Thirdly,
providing extra help for those students who need help will help to close the achievement
gap. Finally, teachers need to know their subject matter and be highly qualified in order
to teach.
Although Haycock (2000) points to commonalities that can lead to a reduction of
the achievement gap, there are still serious problems with inequities in school funding
38

across states. Although some feel that money isn’t everything, the resource distribution in
some states is so unfair that it’s hard to imagine how to close the achievement gap
without closing the funding gap that contributes so heavily to it. According to Haycock,
in 42 states, fewer state and local dollars are spent in those states highest poverty school
districts than in the highest wealth districts. That difference is smallest in North Dakota
where it amounts to a difference of less than $12,800 in a typical elementary school.
In New York and Illinois, the contrast is much different. The state and local
spending per child from poverty to wealthy districts is so different that the difference
results in a $1.17 million per typical elementary school in New York and $777,000 per
typical elementary school in Illinois. She argues that money isn’t everything, but the
resource distribution in some states is so unequal and so unfair that is hard to imagine
how to close the achievement gap without closing the funding gap that contributes so
heavily to it (Haycock, 2000).
Hertert (1996) looked at the school level across and within school districts in the
state of California. This is especially interesting since, California, through a combination
of “judicial rulings, legislative action and taxpayers’ revolt initiative has created a state
funding system presumed to be generally free of interdistrict disparities” (p.72). The
analysis did confirm that there was a fairly equitable distribution when looking at per
pupil expenditures from unrestricted general funds to the district level. Hertert
demonstrated, however, that there are substantial differences in perpupil spending
among schools within a district and across schools among districts. School level
39

variation, both across and within districts were strongly associated with school type and
moderately associated with school size.
Adequacy Movement
Past education finance research and legislation have focused primarily on equity
issues. The focus on equity concentrates on the distribution of funds or relative levels of
funding to schools or districts. This has been a rather narrow focus and, for the most part,
concerned itself with the issue of fairness of the school funding system for students as
well as taxpayers. This focus appears to be shifting to a broader question that moves
school finance reform efforts from inputs to outcomes. This adequacy movement
concerns itself with determining what constitutes an adequate education and with
allocating enough money to provide an adequate education for every child (Picus, 2000).
Actually the concept of adequacy is not new. The basic state foundation system or the
perpupil funding system is really an adequacy model since the general state plan is to
ensure that a base level of funding is available for every child. Most current systems,
however, base adequacy on revenue available. This is essentially a political decision
rather than an educational decision based student need.
As with the equity focus in school finance, the adequacy movement has its own
judicial history and landmark court decisions that have set the stage for change.
Possibly the earliest attempt to define adequate education was in the Pauley v.
Kelly decision in West Virginia in1979. In that decision, the court defined a variety of
skills including literacy, the ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers,
knowledge of government, knowledge of the environment and several other skills that
40

defined an adequate education. Since the Pauley decision, adequacy has been the focus of
many court decisions. It should be noted that courts have upheld existing school finance
systems in court cases where states define adequacy as providing a minimum standard of
education (Picus, 2000).
In 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court took a dramatic and unprecedented step by
declaring the entire state system of elementary and secondary education as
unconstitutional for failing to provide all children an adequate education (National
Research Council, 1999, p.101). This meant that the system was failing to provide
educational opportunity for all students and that improving the fiscal capacity of schools
may be necessary.
In the Rose v. Council for Better Education decision, the state Supreme Court
declared Kentucky’s entire system of common schools unconstitutional. The court also
ordered the General Assembly to provide sufficient funding to provide each child in
Kentucky an adequate education as well as reform the property tax system that was
currently in place.
As a result of this decision, the Kentucky court outlined seven learning goals in
order to define an adequate education. These learning goals are as follows:
1. Sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to
function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization;
2. Sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable
the student to make informed choices;
41

3. Sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student
to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;
4. Sufficient selfknowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and
physical wellness;
5. Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or
her cultural and historical heritage;
6. Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic
or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life
work intelligently; and
7. Sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school
students to complete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding
states, in academics or in the job market.
While these seven goals change the face of education for students in Kentucky,
they changed education for students in other states as well.
Between 1989 and 1998, courts in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming also have ruled that their
state constitution education clauses guarantee students an adequate level of educational
opportunities that should allow them to achieve certain desired educational outcomes
(National Research Council, 1999. p. 107).
Adequacy is difficult to define, however. According to Ladd and Hansen (2002)
“despite the success of adequacy arguments in several prominent school finance court
decisions, there is as yet no consensus on its meaning and only limited understanding
42

about what would be required to achieve it.” We do understand that adequacy is
exclusively focused on school children and does not embrace taxpayers as objects of
concern (National Research Council, 1999, p.102).
There are two key factors that lead to this shift in the focus of school finance
according to Allan Odden (2003). As states became the main funders of education, state
policy makers began to ask the “does money matter” question with more intensity. State
policy makers wanted to know whether different levels of fiscal resources produced
important differences in educational opportunities and results.
The second issue that came to the forefront in the early 90’s was that of standards
in a high stakes environment. Is it possible to link educational dollars to student results?
Under standardsbased education reform, the benchmark test of school finance policy is
whether it provides sufficient or adequate revenues per pupil for districts and schools to
deploy education strategies that are successful in educating students to high standards of
performance (Odden, 2003).
The new legal issue will not be whether or not one district has more or less than
another district.   Rather the new question will be do all districts in the state have the
revenue that are adequate for the programs that they need to deploy and the staff they
need to hire to provide an adequate education for all the student in their district.
Currently, districts distribute resources to school sites with equity in mind.
Districts work hard to be certain that school sites are being assigned equal levels of
resources. A shift from equity to adequacy focus will mean a greater need to be attentive
43

to individual student needs and individual schools will not be provided with identical sets
of resources, as has been the case in the past.
Guthrie and Rothstein (1999) have several concerns about determining adequacy.
First, when defining adequacy, minimum resource levels must be specified to produce a
desired outcome. It will be important, however, not to specify a resource level that
ultimately wastes resources. If it is possible to determine resource levels that generally
produce the desired or adequate outcome, it is also possible that the level may be too
generous if the resources are used inefficiently. Secondly, when funding an adequate
education for students, will it be assumed that the level of resources necessary to produce
outcome in one subject such as reading will necessarily be the same in another subject?
Do we assume in funding an adequate education that the level of resources necessary to
produce outcomes in reading are the same as those in math? Secondly, to what extent
should we hold schools responsible to the specified outcomes as opposed to other
institutions involved in educating children especially with economically disadvantaged
families? Our knowledge and awareness in this area is still unsophisticated. Additionally,
there has been a lack of public as well as scholarly debate surrounding the issue of
standards and adequate outcomes. The problem arises when we begin to discuss
minimum verses average goals and relative verses absolute goals. Guthrie and Rothstein
(1999) caution that we should not move too quickly in determining new finance systems
before we have had these discussions and addressed these issues.
Designing an adequate school finance system requires the state to identify both an
adequate expenditure level for the typical student in the typical district and sufficient
44

adjustments for different students (Odden, 2003). In addition, it also requires the district
to manage the resources so those students meet the performance standards.
There are currently four methods that have been developed to determine an
adequate foundation expenditure level in different states across the country. The
successful district approach, the economic cost function approach, the professional
judgment approach and the evidence based approach. Today not one single approach
stands out. Three of the four models are being used in states across the country. It is
important to note that most approaches required substantial increases in education
funding.
Production Function Research
Production function analysis as a means to assess educational funding as well as
other educational inputs has been utilized for a number of years. Production functions are
a tool used by economists to measure the contribution of individual inputs to the output
of some product (Picus, 2001, p.289). Production function can be used in education by
studying the relationship between inputs such as expenditures per pupil to outcomes such
as student achievement as measured by an achievement test. Some examples of inputs
studied in a production function for education are class size, teacher education level, and
teacher experience level and per pupil expenditure (Hartman, 1999). While this method
of research has been used for over thirty years, the results have been mixed and have
created controversy regarding the relationship of money and education.
Since the release of the Coleman report in 1966, many research investigations
have studied resource inputs and student outcomes as measured by student achievement.
45

The Coleman report, one of the first inputoutput studies, suggested that schools did not
exert a very powerful influence over student achievement. The primary findings of the
Coleman study were that school inputs, other than student body composition, explained
little, if any, of the variance in school achievement (Coleman et.al. 1966).
Review of numerous production function studies by Hanushek led him to
conclude that there is no strong or consistent relationship between variations in school
resources and student performance. (Hanushek, 1997).
Both the Coleman study and Hanushek’s work fueled the early debate in
education finance research regarding the relationship between resources and outcomes.
These early, “Does Money Matter” arguments continue today.
Hanushek’s work has been challenged on methodological grounds by the work of
Hedges, Laine and Greenwald (1994). Arguing that Hanushek’s method for data
collection was flawed, they applied the statistical technique known as meta analysis to
the same data using the same hypothesis. Using this more sophisticated methodology for
the reanalysis of the data has demonstrated that production function between resource
inputs and student outcomes examined by Hanushek do not support his initial conclusion
that resource inputs are unrelated to outcomes. (Greenwald, Hedges & Lane, 1994)
Hartman (1999) examined whether higher spending equated to quality education.
He examined expenditure patterns of three different districts with varying spending
levels. Hartman found substantial differences existed among the resources available to
educational programs in the high spending, middlespending and low spending districts.
Students in the high spending districts had sizable advantages in term of resources
46

available to them over students in the other low spending groups (Hartman 1999). The
additional resources that were made available to them as a result of the higher spending
were smaller class size, the ability to provide teachers with greater experience and higher
education levels, additional support personnel and provide higher teacher salaries. The
district with higher quality resources had higher student achievement.
The work of Verstegen and King (1998) also found positive relationships between
resources and outcomes. In their review of production function research for the past
thirtyfive years, they found a variety of studies that supported a relationship between
school spending and student achievement. They argue that studies would be improved if
individual children and classrooms were the unit of observation instead of the school, the
district or the state.
There is evidence of a relationship between certain inputs and student
achievement. There appears to be a positive relationship between teacher ability level and
student achievement. Ferguson (1991) examined nearly 900 Texas school districts and
evaluated the effects of teacher quality (scores on a licensing examination, master’s
degrees and experience) and concluded that greater investment in teacher quality relate to
higher student achievement test results.
Ferguson and Ladd (1996) conducted a similar study in Alabama using less
extensive data and found similar results. Their results found that teachers’ academic
ability, education and experience when combined with class size positively associate with
student test scores. Finn and Achilles (1990) in a study in Tennessee of class size
reduction found significant benefits of smaller class size. Benefits were seen across all
47

academic measures. This study demonstrated that small classes have an advantage over
larger classes in reading and mathematics in the primary grades especially in the
performance of minority students. These lower pupil teacher ratios relate positively to
higher student outcomes.
In a metaanalysis of production function research, Laine, Greenwald & Hedges
(1996) concluded that school resources are systematically related to student achievement
and these relationships are large enough to be educationally important. Smaller classes
and smaller schools are positively related to student achievement. Resources that attempt
to describe the quality of the teacher such as teacher quality, teacher education and
teacher experience show very strong relations with student achievement. The most
consistently positive relationship with achievement is teacher ability. They caution that
their findings do not provide detailed information on educationally efficient means to
allocate existing dollars or new dollars at the school site. Also, the authors caution that
the quantity of resources is not everything. How educators utilize resources and
incentives created for both children and teachers are equally important. The study authors
suggest that this research moves the education reform policy debate from the central
question of “Does money matter?” to a more prescriptive question of “How does money
matter?”
David Monk (1997) clearly calls for the need for more data at the school or
program level. In particular, he believes it is becoming clear that more needs to be done
to collect data that gives insight into resource allocation practices taking place with local
48

education agencies (LEA’s). In addition to a lack of data, there are considerable amounts
of data collected at all levels of the educational system that remain largely unused.
Additionally, there is a disconnect between research on school finance and research on
effective educational practices. Linking these two lines of research could allow more
sophisticated analyses of how resources, practices and results are connected at the site
level.
Rothstein (1998) found current measures of school productivity to be limited. He
contends that little energy has been spent in attempts to measure many of the other
important outputs of schools. We have no standardized reports of adolescents physical
health or no (or very limited) trend data on the national goals of “responsible citizenship”
or competency in fields like the arts. Few states have high stakes tests that go beyond
reading and mathematics. The problems with this limited data have the potential for
distortion of school production since what is being considered are the outputs that are
most easily measured. Rothstein urges school finance scholars to invest more energy in
broadening the data we require before making existing data more precise.
The argument regarding “Does Money Matter” and production function research
has not been settled. Neither side has won this debate. However, there is a definite need
for further study.
The Coleman Report and the Hanushek studies were the standard argument for
denying money to education on the grounds that money would not fix school problems.
This belief regarding the relationship between money and school success existed for
49

many years. It appears, however that more current studies suggest that there may be a
relationship between certain financial inputs to student achievement outputs.
School Finance at the Micro Level
According to Odden (1999) it is time to restructure these aging school finance
systems. The traditional focus of school finance has been on fiscal equity. Assessing the
degree of spending differences across districts has been an important endeavor. Now
however, new school finance systems would provide schools with adequate amounts of
funding and put principals and teachers in the fiscal driver seat to make decisions
regarding student need. In essence, this would be a major overhaul. States will need to
redesign the finance system, districts will need to decentralize budgets to the schools and
school sites will need to reallocate resources to higher performance strategies and be held
accountable for producing results (Odden, 1999).
Although the idea of district and school level data is relatively new concept
education finance research, there are some data, research and recommendations available
from the literature. There is research in the area of resource allocation as well as data
management.
Data Issues
There are several issues about the collection, use and availability of data. Cohen
(1997) examined data from rural Ohio schools and made recommendations regarding
data issues and explained some of the pitfalls encountered when examining schoollevel
data. According to Cohen, data should matter when making policy decisions. However,
in many important ways, the data necessary to make informed decisions is lacking. This
50

was either due to inadequate collection system or a need or demand for more complex
information. Part of the problem with the type of data that was collected was that it was
only as good as what was needed to stay compliant. These data were generated and used
to meet auditing requirements.
A second problem with the system was that it did not provide quality data to make
decisions. This information was useful in past years at the district level, but currently
more technical type questions needed to be answered to make policy decisions. The
more sophisticated and detailed the policy questions, the more crucial it is to have a
sophisticated and detailed data system that supports the answers being generated..
According to Cohen, one specific concern arises for the accountability system to
work at the school level. That is, how do we define a school? The state has an arbitrary
definition that is currently used. As data moves to the school level, keeping track of data
for accurate comparison may be difficult.
In other data concerns, according to Farland (1997), the state of Minnesota has a
history of development of information systems that incorporate the use of fiscal data as
well as staffing data at the site level. Farland (1997) found that school site personnel
must have a stake in the collection of this data and the ability to use it for decision
making. It is important to note that data has to be needed at the site level in order for it to
be collected accurately. This is even the case when the data is state mandated.
Secondly, an integrated database is necessary. Finally, the school will need to
establish the capacity for sitebased management. Individuals will have to be trained to
use data for administrative purposes and allow the education sites to have more decision
51

making authority if they are to be expected to generate accurate information about
themselves.
Tetreault (2000) supports the idea of more sophisticated data driven collecting
and reporting procedures as an integral part of school accountability legislation. Problems
could arise at the state level when different districts do not use the same accounting
databases at the local level or the data resides in a database, but no one knows how to
query the database and extract the information. There could be a variety of problems with
the data at the local level.
He describes problems in the implementation of the ‘InSite’ program developed
by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand that was developed to gather report
school level expenditure data. Stakeholders including district and school personnel did
not enthusiastically embrace this new InSite system. South Carolina school personnel
went so far as to seek alternative sources of revenue through grants, foundations or other
fund raising actives or even to cut programs rather than to use this new system. The
recommendation in the case of the implementation of these new systems is to pay careful
attention to the way in which data systems are developed as well as implemented at the
staff level.
Goertz (1997) in a study of schoolbased data looked at what challenges in
collecting schoollevel data and how can the type of data at the school level be improved?
Schoollevel resource data should be collected because it can address issues of equity,
adequacy and efficiency. Goertz found that states and school districts vary in the type and
quality of data that are reported at the school level. She further concluded that unless and
52

until schoollevel resource and student data are used to allocate state and /or district
revenues or to monitor and evaluate the performance of schools and or school districts,
states have no incentive to collect or report schoollevel data beyond counts of students
and their test scores (p.302). Schools of course have the best information about who is
providing what level of services to which students at any point in time. In this era of
decentralization, having this quality of information at the school level will be important.
In 2004, 23 states collected schoollevel financial data. There is a great deal of
variation in how the data are collected, whether schools are audited and whether the
information is reported to the public (Johnston, 2005).
Resource Allocation and Use
Clark (1998) examined several topics related to school level resources in Texas.
Accounting practices in Texas have been standardized over the past decade making it is
possible to examine school level data. This study considered whether salary costs are the
primary determinant of resource differences among schools, resources reaching those
students in most need and those resources affecting academic performance. School level
resources were found to be only somewhat less equitable than among school districts.
Salary compression had recently occurred causing the salaries of new and experienced
teachers to vary by a small amount. This variation between beginning and experienced
teachers probably affected the result.
The second question regarding whether additional resources make their way to the
students who generate them through categorical funds and whether or not any such
additional resources translate into measurable improvements. The findings indicate,
53

“Even in the case of a large Texas district that appears to be distributing more resources
to schools serving students with the greatest need, there is little measurable effect from
the resources. Resource levels are still inadequate to overcome the educational of a
poverty background and expenditures must be targeted appropriately to achieve strong
academic achievement for all students” (Clark, 1998, p 389). Looking at school level
data, they were able to consider the effects of resources used on specific groups of
students.
Berne, Stiefel and Moser (1997) argue that schools rather than districts should be
the primary units for management analysis and policy. Many questions can be answered
by using school level data. The authors argue that schoollevel production function
analyses require linking specific resources to outcomes. At the school level, these
answers to efficiency and effectiveness of instructional expenditures will become more
clear. “We continue to need more information on productivity of various learning and
teaching techniques and this information may ultimately require studentlevel production
type studies” (Berne, et. al. p.253).
Odden and Archibald (2000) studied the resource reallocation process at five
elementary schools. In each case, each site implemented educational strategies to boost
student academic achievement that included strategies to reduce class size and to redefine
staff roles in order to best serve student needs. They found that reallocating existing
funds has a positive impact on schools. “All of the schools studied were able to
implement expensive educational strategies to boost student achievement with very little
54

new funding. They did so by reallocating their current resources” (Odden & Archibald,
2000, p553).
This reallocation of funds was not without problems. One problem that surfaced
was that of district support. All schools involved in the study reported the need to have
additional assistance from the district office in the form of information and access.
Additionally, districts and school sites did not always share priorities. Once conditions
for this research study changed, additional monies were used to fund technology rather
than maintain the reallocated programs and funding for those programs that had a direct
goal of focusing on student achievement. This, however, was and isolated case. This is an
important study since it demonstrates that schools sites are capable of making decisions
that focus on student achievement and schools are willing to reallocate resources and
have the ability to analyze specific choices and improve achievement for students at their
school.
Picus (1997) contends that the production associated with the educational process
in education takes place at the school site level. However, it is hard for researchers to
access school level data. Policies are not currently in place that allow for such
distribution of this data. Student and staff information is confidential. One possible
solution to this problem is to create a licensing system similar to the one used by the
National Center for Educational Statistics. This way individuals and universities seeking
to use this data must meet certain security standards. There will be some drawbacks to
this data. The data will not be able to be compared across states. Additionally, this data
alone will not tell educators how to use resources more efficiently to improve student
55

performance. The data could help educators to understand where resources are going and
link spending patterns to student outcomes.
Goertz & Stiefel (1998) examined the trend of urban school districts to move
toward the use of sitebased management (SBM) and the corresponding trend to
decentralize budget authority. They summarized data on school based budgeting in
Chicago, Fort Worth, New York and Rochester. They found they had limited control
over their budget. Actually only 20 percent of the school’s budget was in their control.
The schools continued to spend their money in traditional ways such as music programs
and materials. In all four districts, the constituent members felt the principal has
considerable power in deciding how the money is spent.   Many involved in the
budgetary process felt constrained by their lack of knowledge and the strings attached to
budget allocations and categorical programs. This is important information for those
involved in moving to a school level budgeting system. It appears that considerable
training will need to occur if teachers and even administrators are working in this
decentralized budget model.
Okapala (2002) examined educational resources and student demographics in an
intraschool district analysis. This analysis was conducted looking at perpupil
expenditures, school and teacher characteristics within lowwealth schools in North
Carolina. It became evident that there was a large minority population (African
American) concentrated in the lowwealth schools. It was also noted that mastery of the
reading and mathematics correlated positively with school wealth. Okapala reported that
class size and school size were not significant with respect to student achievement scores.
56

Instructional expenditures were not significant as well. Student demographic factors were
the primary variables that were significant in explaining changes in reading and
mathematics achievement. Okapala recognizes that certain variables operate on an
individual school level and continued research is necessary.
Thornson and Edmonson (2000) analyzed educational expenditures in the
Minnesota public school system for the 19971998 school year demonstrated that the
current funding model in the state of Minnesota was inequitable especially to rural
communities. The cost of educating children in smaller schools was higher than in
larger schools. The current formula for funding schools produces inequities that are
detrimental to small rural schools. According to the researchers, the state’s premise that it
costs the same amount of money to educate a child in school regardless of the enrollment
in the district is flawed. Rather, size of the district does matter. The author’s recommend
an alternative to the current funding formula that corrects the inherent weakness.
Odden and Archibald (2001) examined a Wisconsin, mid size, school district with
growing enrollment. In this case study, the authors examined the ability of the district to
reallocate resources to reduce class size in both Title I schools as well as nontitle I
schools. At both types of schools, the district was successful in reallocating resources as
well as generating new dollars to school sites and reducing class size beyond what could
have been had they only used categorical dollar reallocation. This district shifted from a
halfday kindergarten to full day program. This generated funds that exceed the cost of
the program. Also, in this growing district, the cost to educate new students was less than
was paid by the state formula. This created additional revenue for the district. Finally, the
57

district used Title I, P5 funds, Title VI and SAGE funds that were available to reduce
class size in primary grades. This study illustrates the importance of district leaders and
decision makers having full knowledge of district budget and state funding formulas in
order to reallocate dollars.
In another study in Wisconsin, Odden, Archibald & Tychesen (2000) examined
schoollevel finance reform. Using what they referred to as the Modern Red Schoolhouse
design, the authors examined school level finance reallocation in 30 districts across the
state. The Modern Red Schoolhouse design is a comprehensive school reform model
designed to accomplish the goal of improving student performance. Although this reform
model is an expensive strategy, through resource reallocation, it was found that schools
do have sufficient fiscal resources to engage in comprehensive school reform efforts.
Some examples of these reallocations included a substantial change in expenditures for
staff development and technology and a reduction in the number of regular classroom
teachers.
Fermanich and Kimball (2002) examined resource reallocation for three schools
planning to move to a whole school change model linked to high performance. These
whole school models are considered effective, but expensive and often are not feasible.
These whole school change models, sometimes known a comprehensive change model,
includes all important aspects of school change including management, curriculum and
instruction, technology, parent involvement and professional development. The model
examined was Success for All/Roots and Wings. The examiners did not, however,
58

endorse any specific model. The researchers in this case focused on school staffing since
most other school expenditures will remain relatively constant.
The researchers found by significantly reallocating staffing resources at these
three schools that schools do possess the funds necessary to adopt two of these more
expensive whole school designs. However, other issues may present problems for
implementation as reported by the authors. First, there may be problems with the school’s
ability to change. Some faculty may need to adopt a new curriculum and new
instructional approaches. Also, the school’s magnet status may change thereby changing
school culture. The recommendation in this case is to move slowly. Legal and regulatory
issues may be a problem as well. The staffing reallocation has the potential to cause
problems in certain categorical programs such as special education and with the
collective bargaining agreements. Further research will be necessary to improve the
implementation of these comprehensive school programs.
In another study of resource allocation and intra district resource disparities,
Stiefel, Rubenstein and Schwartz (2004) examined the determinants of resource
disparities among schools in three large urban school districts: New York, Cleveland, and
Columbus. The authors found the teacher pupil ratio was consistently larger in high
poverty, high minority and low performing schools. This is consistent with previous
research. However, these teachers generally have less experience in teaching and less
education level and consequently lower salaries as compared to teachers in the more
advantaged schools. These poor children are less likely to have teachers who are fully
licensed or teachers who hold a masters degree. This was true in New York and similar
59

results were found in Cleveland and Columbus. In order to alleviate these funding
disparities, researchers and other reformers have identified a number of recommendations
about how to allocate funding at the school level in order to promote adequate
achievement and/or equitable financing.
One recommendation is to provide schools with budget information in dollars
rather than in staff positions. This would make decisions that are about staffing up to the
school site to determine the cost of teachers. This would make more expensive teachers
less attractive to schools and presumably they would not be clustered at the same school.
A second recommendation is to provide differential pay for qualified teachers in
hard to staff subject areas as well as differential pay for working in certain schools and
with certain grade levels. This would address the undersupply of teachers in these areas.
The issues of teachers working in other areas that they perceive as less demanding could
also be resolved.
A third resolution would be to develop and implement a “weighted” studentbased
funding formula in which dollars flow to students. A variety of factors could be used in
this “weighted” funding model such as student poverty status, students with a certain
English proficiency levels and students with a disability or other special needs. A funding
weight would be attached to each of these types of students. These weights would
generate additional funding over and above a base funding level.
One final recommendation is to move the district based funding formula to the
school level. This is not a new idea, but has previously been recommended by Odden and
Busch (1998). This model funds schools on the basis of their mix of students rather than
60

the district’s general student composition. It offers schools new discretion and resources,
but would require a redefinition of the role of the district. These four policy options offer
more tradeoffs for schools in the long run.
Summary and Implications
This chapter examined the literature on school finance as well as the history and
the development of current school finance systems. School finance in the early history of
the country had limited requirements. As the country grew, states adopted constitutions
that required state supported schools for all children. Court battles, legislative bills and
even Supreme Court Decisions moved school finance systems to where they are today.
Funding schools is a state responsibility. For much of the last century, education finance
research has focused on finance equity within states, between states, in districts, between
districts and between schools.
With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, education finance has new
responsibilities. School resources must now be enough to produce this higher level of
student achievement as outlined in state standards. Defining this level of adequacy in
school finance is a new challenge. Literature on school finance has addressed the issue of
“Does money matter” with mixed results. There appears to be a relationship between
resource inputs such as class size and teacher quality with student achievement. However,
early production function research found that there was not a relationship between
resources and student achievement.
61

Current school finance literature examines resource reallocation and data issues at
the school level. In order to link finance to achievement, further research is necessary to
track dollars at the school level in order to link spending to results.
Today school finance systems in all 50 states have unprecedented responsibilities.
Over the past several years, states have developed, published and refined content and
performance standards and set ambitious performance goals for students. Assessment
programs have been developed and implemented to provide accountability for the
achievement of standards. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has demanded
that all children achieve those standards in reading and mathematics by the 20132014
school year. Public school finance systems today uniformly fail to support the nation’s
education goals regarding greater student performance (Olson, 2005).
New school finance systems need to be developed, updated, overhauled or
completely redesigned to provide adequate funding to meet the needs of all students to
achieve at these new high standards. Past funding formulas are not often anchored in
curriculum, assessments, constitutions, cost studies or research. The amount of funding
for schools has been determined politically and based on the availability of funds
(Verstegen, 2002). It is this past practice and the need to fund schools to reach these new
goals that makes additional research in the area of school level finance necessary.
This study will collect student level expenditure data at a public elementary
school and track expenditures student by student. The study will also consider
instructional programs to which the student is assigned. This study will determine where
62

and how schools are actually spending their money and if the expenditures contribute to
student achievement.
The quality of data at the school level and student level has improved over the
past several years. “Today it is possible to get detailed studentlevel demographic and
performance data. Often we can only link it to district wide fiscal data. If we better
understood how much was spent at the school or ideally at the student level, it should be
possible to more fully understand the relationship between money and achievement
(Picus, 2002, p. 5). This investigation hopes to provide the level of data necessary to
deepen this understanding and further explore the relationship between money and
student achievement.

63

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

Introduction

School finance research is dependent on the quality of fiscal data available to
researchers. Over time, the focus of school finance research has shifted. This focus has
moved from the state and district level (macrolevel approach) to a focus that considers
school level data and even the student level data to assist researchers in determining the
role resources play in student education and student success. This microlevel analysis
will allow researches to improve the knowledge base in four specific school finance areas
outlined by Picus and Peternick (2000). These areas are:
Equity
Adequacy
Productivity
Accountability
This research design is similar to the design used by Robillard, (2001). This
research was also conducted at the site level. In that research a database of students at an
urban high school was created. School and district budget information was obtained from
various reports. Once budget information was obtained, specific expenditures were
assigned to students. In the Robillard study, three categories were used for analysis:
direct expenditures to the classroom; direct expenditures to students and overhead costs.
These categories are also similar to Hartman (1999) in which expenditures were grouped
by instruction, support services and noninstructional services for study. This previous
64

research served as a guide for this study. The 20062007 school year was selected
because the data from this fiscal year is most complete. This allows the researcher to
examine the most current expenditures.
This chapter reiterates the purpose of the study along with a description of the
school site examined. This chapter also provides a description of the student level
database and information on the procedure for applying costs to students. This analysis
included the examination of expenditures by class, grade level, ethnicity, language
classification and program.
Purpose of the Study
This study was conducted at the student level to determine the variation of student
level resource allocation and resource use. The analysis of these data had the potential to
provide accurate information for the following research questions:
1. What is the expenditure, per student, in a mid size, urban elementary school?
2. How much variation in expenditures per student exists?
3. What factors contribute to the variation in expenditure per student?
The sample was selected because it is a mid size elementary school in a lowincome area
with a large percentage of students of high need (high poverty and language minority
students). This school was also selected because of ease of accessibility to information
about programs as well as other important data. Finally, this school was selected because
it has most recently received the Title I Achieving School Award and has also been
selected as a California Distinguished School. Studying expenditures at this particular
65

school site because of the population and the school’s success at educating this particular
student population yielded important resource allocation information.
The Sample
The data were collected from a midsize, urban elementary school with students
in grades kindergarten through grade five. The school operates on a traditional calendar
determined by the local bargaining unit. The school population at the time of this study
was 611 students. The school is located in a lowincome section of a southern California
suburb. The school continues to operates as a schoolwide Title I program. According to
the school profile, the school mobility rate at the time of the study was 12 percent.
The average parent education level was a “2” on the parent survey conducted by
Standardized Testing and Reporting System (STAR) from the California Department of
Education Policy and Evaluation Division (2007). A one on this scale represents “not a
high school graduate” and a five on this particular scale represents “graduate school”
education. The following table represents parent education levels at the school reviewed:
Table 1
Parent Education Levels, 20062007

Parent Education Levels Percent
Not a High School Graduate 52
High School Graduate 26
Some College 19
College Graduate 3
Graduate School 1

Fifty two percent of the parents at this school were not high school graduates.
Twenty six percent of the parents reported their highest level of schooling as a high
school graduate. Nineteen percent of parents reported attending some college, three
66

percent of parents were college graduates and one percent of the parents attended
graduate school. Ninetyeight percent of the parents at this school provided a response to
this survey.
For the past seven years, the school has met or exceeded the API growth targets
set by the state of California. For only one year out of the previous eight did the school
fail to demonstrate positive growth toward the expected target. The following table
outlines the Academic Performance Scores (API) for this particular school.
Table 2
Academic Performance Index (API) School Score and Annual Growth

School Year API Score Growth from
Previous Year
19992000 590 N/A
20002001 599 +   9
20012002 689 + 90
20022003 746 + 57
20032004 754 +   8
20042005 791 + 37
20052006 785   6
20062007 802 + 17

At the time of the study the school’s statewide rank is was a six and the similar
school rank was a ten. This school has scored a ten in similar schools rank for the past
two years.
The Population
According to the 20042005 CBEDS data, there were 670 students enrolled at this
school at the time of the report. Thirty three percent of these students were considered
English Language Learners as determined by the statewide assessment (CELDT). All
classes were considered Structured English Emersion (SEI). Every teacher in the school
67

had the appropriate credential to teach this type of classroom. All teachers either held a
Cultural, Linguistic, Academic Development Certificate (CLAD) or the equivalent or a
Bilingual, Cultural, Linguistic, Academic Development Certificate (BCLAD) or the
equivalent. As a result of all the teachers holding appropriate credentials or certificates,
all students were able to be placed in any classroom and were supported.
There were 26 classroom teachers at the school. The number of years of teaching
experience varied. The average number of years of teaching experience at this school at
the time of the study was 13 years. All teachers held a bachelor degree and 13 teachers
held a master’s degree. In and 6 classroom the teachers held a master’s degree with at
least 30 units beyond the masters.
Table 3
Teacher Education Levels

Teacher Education Level Number of Teachers
Less than Bachelor’s 0
Bachelor’s Degree Only 2
Bachelor Degree Plus 30 Units 3
Master’s Degree 15
Master’s Degree Plus 30 Units 6
Total: 26

The school ethnic makeup as reported in the School Profile for Fiscal Year 2006
2007 was 88 percent Hispanic and 6.0 Percent White. The school’s African American
population was 3.2 percent. Other ethnic groups were represented at this school.
However, their numbers did not constitute a subgroup. The following table outlines
student demographics.

68

Table 4
Students by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Hispanic White
African
American
Asian Filipino
Number of
Students

558

38

20

4

11
Percentage
of   School

88.3%

6.0%

3.2%

0.6%

1.7%

The gender make up of the school was 51 percent male and 49 percent female.
Table 5
Total School Population by Gender

Gender

Number Percent of School
Population
Female
Students
299 49%
Male
Students
312 51%

Total

611

Additionally, according to school records, this school had a high population of
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. This information was determined by the
amount of students receiving free and reduced lunch. The following table provides
information regarding grade level and percent of English learners.

69

Table 6
20062007 School Enrollment Language Status by Grade Level

Grade Enrollment
Number of
English Language
Learners
Percent
In the Grade
Level
K 100 50 50%
1 101 48 48%
2 101 50 50%
3 97 32 33%
4 118 34 29%
5 94 29 31%
Total/Average

611

243

40%

This school received categorical funding from a variety of funding sources. The
school received school wide Title I funds, State Compensatory Education funds (SCE)
Economic Impact Aid Limited English Proficient (EIALEP) and School Improvement
(SI) funds in addition to the general fund budget.
During the 20062007 school year, there were 51 students receiving special
education services. These services were provided by either the speech and language
pathologist or the special education resource teacher. No special day classes were
assigned to this school campus for the 20062007 school year.
Table 7 outlines the students by grade level receiving support for the speech and
language pathologist or special education resource teacher.

70

Table 7
Students with Disabilities by Grade Level and Type of and Service

Grade
Level
K 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Students
Receiving
Speech
Therapy
9 3 6 1 2 2 23
Students
Receiving
RSP
Services
3 3 3 7 9 3 28

In the year 20062007, there were 26 regular classroom teachers assigned to this
school site. The district participated in the class size reduction program in grades
kindergarten through grade three. The average class size in primary (K3) was 20 and the
average class size in upper elementary (45) was 30.
Table 8
20062007 Class Size by Grade Level

Grade
Level
K 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Number
of
Students
100 101 101 97 118 94

611
Percent of
Total
School
Population
16 17 17 16 19 15

100%

In addition to the classroom teachers, the school support staff consisted of one
part time speech and language pathologist (50%), one fulltime special education teacher
(resource specialist), one parttime counselor (60%), and an assigned district psychologist
71

(20%) who is on campus one day per week. Additionally there were several instructional
aides. The funding for these positions come from the local school site as well as the
district office.
The noninstructional staff included the school secretary, school custodian,
cafeteria manager plus several part time cafeteria aides. The noninstructional support
staff also included several aides that supervised the playground, classified staff who
provided clerical work in the front office and classified staff who worked in the library
and media center.
Table 9
School Personnel by Classification

ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATED CLASSIFIED
Principal (1) Classroom Teachers (26) Clerical

Psychologist – (1 day per
week)
Special Education Resource
Teacher (1)
Custodial
Speech and Language
Pathologist (50 %)
Cafeteria


Counselor –(40 %)
Para Educators

Yard Aids


The district provided a staff development coach in the area of Language Arts that
conducted demonstration lessons and coached teachers one day per month. Additionally,
the district provided groundskeepers and additional custodians as well as other service
personnel such a plumbers, painters, locksmiths and carpenters that supported the school
based on service requisitions and regular maintenance needs.

72

Instrumentation
As mentioned, the parameters for data collection in the research study were
established in the research conducted by Robillard (2001). Additionally, this research was
in collaboration with 18 other University of Southern California graduate students in the
Ed.D program under the direction of Dr. Lawrence Picus.
In order to answer research question number one of the study regarding
expenditures per student within a school, data was collected at the school site using
available reports, student databases and student information available for the school and
district with the assistance of school personnel as well as assistance form the district
business office and the district integrated technology department. These data were
entered, by student, into an Excel worksheet. Categories of expenditures have been
created within the Excel worksheet. The categories for study were as follows: direct
expenditures to the classroom; direct expenditures to students and overhead costs.
The second and third research questions addressed the variation in pupil
expenditures and factors that may influence those variations. Once the database had been
completed, the per pupil expenditures were analyzed to obtain mean, median, range and
to determine patterns by different school groupings such as special education program,
intervention programs or grade level variation.
Data Collection
Student data including student name, grade level, teacher, language classification,
gender, ethnicity and eligibility for special programs such as gifted and talented and
special education were obtained from the district DATA system. The data from the
73

20062007 fiscal year was used to provide a complete record of expenditures from this
most recent school year. Faculty and staff salary and benefit information was obtained.
The district database provided expensed budget analysis for the end other the fiscal year
20062005. This information provided information about expenditures by both program
(funding source) and by object code (type of expenditure, salaries, supplies). Additional
program and financial reports were in order to determine the type of expenditure. These
reports included the School Plan, the Elementary School Budget Worksheet for
Compensatory Education and other documents as deemed necessary depending on the
analysis.
In addition to reviewing district and school expenditure documentation, informal
interviews were also conducted with such individuals as the principal, the school data
clerk and district office personnel regarding program information and resource allocation
information.
One area of concern in determining the expenditure per pupil at a site was how to
account for services provided by the district office. For purposes of determining these
expenditures, this study considered these funds as indirect costs.
Capital costs were considered in this study. The school was undergoing
modernization as a result of Measure “S” passed by local taxpayers in 2003. These funds
were considered in this research. However, the major work for this modernization was
completed in the prior school year.

74

Procedure
Direct expenditures to classrooms
To determine direct expenditures to classrooms, we will first consider the salary
and benefit cost of each individual teacher and divide it by the number of students
assigned to that classroom. If a teacher has been assigned a paraprofessional, the
paraprofessional cost will be determined as well using the same process.
Direct expenditures to students
Direct expenditures to students are those costs specifically directed to one student
or specific groups of students. Rosters of these particular students and student groups
were generated and the cost of the teacher salary and paraprofessional salary was charged
to the individual student. Some special program expenditures in this category included
the teacher intervention program, the after school tutoring program for student
intervention and the gifted and talented education program. A summer school
intervention program was also a part of this information.
Overhead costs
The overhead costs were totaled and divided by the total number of students.
Overhead costs included such things as the school principal, the operations staff, the
custodian, supervision aides and the cafeteria staff. The cost of utilities was also
considered in overhead costs. Table 10 illustrates the structure for this analysis.

75

Table 10
Methodology for Assigning Expenditure

Summary
This chapter provided a description of the school setting along with school
organization information. The process for collecting and organizing the data along with a
procedures for analyzing the data were discussed. The next chapter presents the results of
the data collection and will discuss the findings.

Direct Cost

Direct Cost to Student Overhead
Cost
Teacher Salaries

Special Education Services
Cost

Administration
Benefit Cost

Intervention Programs

Psychologist
Paraprofessional Cost

Summer School Substitutes
Music Program

Cafeteria
GATE Services

General Supplies
School Counselor

Office Clerical
Plant Maintenance

Utilities

District Office

Textbooks

Grounds

76

CHAPTER FOUR

The Findings

The purpose of this study was to obtain actual expenditure information on a per
pupil basis at an urban elementary school located in the state of California. Once the data
were obtained, an analysis to determine variation in overall perpupil expenditures was
conducted. This study addressed three research questions:
1. What is the expenditure per student within a school?
2. How much variation in expenditure per student exists?
3. What factors contribute to the variations in the in the expenditure per student?
This chapter will review the process for obtaining the data, review the specific areas of
expenditures considered at the school level and then organize the findings by research
question.
Introduction to the Findings
This study analyzed actual student expenditures at a K5 urban elementary school
operating on a traditional school calendar. These data were collected for the 20062007
school year. These data were collected and grouped into three major categories: direct
expenditures to the classroom, direct expenditures to students and overhead costs.
Direct expenditures to the classroom consisted of teacher salaries as well as para
professional salaries for those aides assigned to that classroom. This number also
included the cost for benefits for this group of school personnel. Once the salary and
benefit information were obtained, the classroom total was calculated and then divided by
77

the total number of students assigned to that classroom. This process yielded a base cost
for every student in the school.
Direct expenditures to students were obtained by determining what specific
resources were allocated to individual students or a specific group of students either as an
intervention program or enrichment program based on student need or interest. The cost
of that program was then allocated to the individual student or groups of students
respectively. There were a variety of expenditures in this category. Most programs
provided additional support or remediation to students. Allocations included in this
section were the resource specialist program (RSP) for special education students, speech
and language services provided by a speech pathologist, student counseling provided by
an onsite counselor, individual student tutoring for intervention (provided by the
classroom teacher), “Think Together,” a structured after school intervention program,
summer school for remedial students and specific licensing agreements such as
“Standards Plus” and “Rosetta Stone” intended for classroom use and use in the school
technology center.
Also included in the direct expenditure category were programs that provided
enrichment to different student groups at the school. These programs included the gifted
and talented education program (GATE) and whole class music instruction provided by
an “Artist in Residence” from the Los Angeles Music Center. Additionally, some
students received individual music instruction for the violin or for the dulcimer.
Finally, overhead expenditures were obtained for a variety of school and district
services. Expenditures at the school level included textbooks, materials, equipment,
78

playground supervision, front office clerical and secretarial, site custodial services,
school library, substitute teachers, cafeteria and transportation. Expenditures from district
level that supported this specific school included district administration, district
maintenance, a certificated literacy coach, modernization costs for this particular school
year and the cost of utilities. The total of these overhead expenditures was calculated and
then divided by the total number of students at the school. A cost was assigned to
individual students based on total number of students in the school.
The direct expenditures to classroom, direct expenditures to students and total
overhead expenditures were then combined to determine a total expenditure per student
in the school. These completed data were then analyzed by categories such as grade
level, special intervention program participation, special enrichment program
participation, and gender and language fluency. Statistical calculations were performed
to obtain mean, median, mode, standard deviation, range, restricted range as well as
minimum and maximum expenditures. These results were studied to determine patterns,
and rationale for the variations between students.
The data for investigating these research questions were obtained in several ways.
Student and class information was obtained from the school’s current data system.
Additional expenditure information was obtained from documents provided by the
district and school. This included site budgets, district budget information and
information from the County Office of Education. Additional information was obtained
from interviews with the principal, site personnel involved in the delivery of special
services as well as interviews with district personnel regarding certain budget areas.
79

A spreadsheet using Excel was developed that included information about
individual students in the school. This spreadsheet contained information about 611
students and included expenditures directly assigned to individual classrooms,
expenditures for individual students and indirect site and district overhead expenditures.
Findings by Research Question
  The following sections describe the results in order of research question.
Research Question Number One
The first research question asked what is the expenditure per student within a
school? Based on the completed database, a total expenditure per pupil was calculated
for the 611 students in the database. The result of the expenditures per student attending
the school were calculated, as described above, to determine the average expenditure per
pupil. These numbers included classroom cost, special program costs for students with
special needs or interests and overhead costs from the school and district.
Table 11 presents the totals for each of the three research categories and outlines
the average expenditures for each area and the percentage of the total expenditure for that
year. The total of expenditures for the 20062007 school year were $ 4,236,768.70. The
average expenditure per pupil was $6,934.15.
Direct cost to classroom represented the largest percent of the total expenditure
and the direct cost to individual students was the smallest category.

80

53%
37%
10%
Direct Costs
to Classroom
Direct Costs
to Students
Overhead Costs
Total Percentage of Expenditures by Category
Table 11
Total Expenditure by Research Category

Type of Analysis Direct Cost To
Classroom
Direct Cost to
Student
Overhead Cost Total

Mean

3,669.85

797.60

2,466.70

6,934.15

Total
Expenditure
($)

2,242,278.32

424,662.80

1,569,827.58

4,236,768.70

Percent of Total
Budget
($)

53

10

37

100

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the three areas of school expenditures. The
cost of teacher salaries, benefits and the cost of instructional aids to the classroom was
the major part of the school expenditure.
Figure 1
Total Percentage of Expenditures by Research Category

81

Research Question Number Two
Research question number two asked how much variation exists among
individual student expenditures.
To obtain this information, all three areas in the database were considered.
Included in this calculation were the total costs to students including base cost per
classroom, the cost to students receiving special services or enrichment programs and the
overhead costs either from school or district sources to the school. Table 12 indicates that
expenditures per student a do vary. The minimum expenditure per student was $3,630.70
and the maximum expenditure per student was $13,073.29. The range is $9,442.59. The
restricted range is $4,986.56.
Table 12
Total Student Expenditure

Statistic

Expenditure per Student
($)
Mean 6.934.15
Median 6,900.54
Standard Deviation 1,612.74
Range 9,442.59
Restricted Range 4,986.56
Minimum 3,630.70
Maximum 13,073.29

Research Question Number Three
The third research question examined factors that contribute to variation in the
expenditures per student. In order to determine the answers to this question, several
analyses were conducted using the existing student database.
82

The first area that is a factor in the variation in expenditures per students is the
area of teacher compensation.
Currently teacher compensation in the state of California is determined by two
factors. Teachers are compensated for years of professional service as well as the amount
of professional or college credits earned beyond a bachelor or master’s degree. Table 13
presents the variation in the area of direct cost to classroom. This base cost included
teacher salary, cost of benefits and the cost of paraprofessionals working directly with
students in the classroom. The base cost to classroom is $3,669.85 per student. The
minimum cost to classroom was $1,073.23 per student and the maximum cost was
$5,198.22. The range was $4,124.99 and a restricted range is $3,429.11. This figure was
calculated using actual cost to classrooms from three areas. These three areas considered
teacher salary, cost of benefits and cost of the paraprofessional assigned to the
classroom. Teacher cost make up the major portion of this expenditure.
Table 13
Direct Cost to Classroom

Statistic Actual Cost Per Student ($)
Mean 3,669.85
Median 3,877.94
Standard Deviation 1,030.43
Range 4,124.99
Restricted Range 3,429.11
Minimum 1,073.23
Maximum 5,198.22

This particular school was in a unique situation regarding staffing and teacher
compensation at the time of this study. When these data were collected, a hiring freeze
83

was in effect for all certificated personnel. This moratorium on hiring impacted the
staffing expenditures at the school.
At the beginning of the school year, many more students attended than were
actually projected. Once school started, two new classrooms had to be created and two
new teachers had to be hired. Because of the hiring freeze, the teachers hired to staff
these classrooms were hired as longterm substitutes, paid the long term substitute pay
rate and offered no benefits. These two new teachers promised to stay in these positions
for the entire school year. During the previous school year, these two teachers had
completed their student teaching at this school and now held preliminary credentials.
These beginning teachers were already familiar with the school schedule, school policies
and knew many of the students and other faculty. These particular teachers had hoped to
eventually be offered a permanent position at this site or at another site in the district. For
this reason, they were willing to work with only a long term, substitute contract.   At the
time of this study, permanent positions across the district and the state were not as
available as they had been in prior years when the class size reduction program was
initially implemented.
These new teachers were paid at the longterm substitute rate and no benefits
were included in their monthly pay due to the hiring freeze. This low pay rate, when
calculated using the model for this study, had the potential to offer a false impression to
the degree of variation when considering base expenditures for classrooms. For this
reason, two types of salary information were calculated for the base classroom cost. In
one calculation, the actual substitute pay amounts were used as part of the calculations
84

for base cost to classrooms. In the second calculation, the salaries of the two teachers
receiving longterm substitute wages were adjusted. The salary information was adjusted
and calculations were made based on different salary information. These longterm
substitutes were paid as though they were first year teachers working under a contract
with a salary and benefits. This adjusted figure reflects the cost as though they were first
year professionals.
Table 14
Direct Cost to Classroom for Actual Expenditures and Adjusted Salaries
To Represent First Year Teacher Salaries

Statistic Actual Cost ($) Adjusted Cost
Mean 3,669.85 3,751.35
Median 3,877.94 3,877.94
Standard Deviation 1,030.43 877.11
Range 4,124.99 3,294.63
Restricted Range 3,429.11 2,687.65
Minimum 1,073.23 1,903.59
Maximum 5,198.22 5,198.22

When considering the new classroom cost when the longterm substitute pay
converts into a salary for a first year teacher, the mean increased by $81.50 per student.
The major change when looking at these data are the changes in the minimum cost to
students from these classrooms. The base classroom minimum increases by $830.36 per
student. The maximum cost remains the same. This information is important to note
when considering these data, the change from substitute pay to first year teacher salary
plus benefits does change the total base cost per student. The major change is seen in the
minimum cost per student in the overall school picture because it only really impacts the
two lowest paid teachers.
85

A second factor that influences variation in perstudent expenditures is that of
class size. Table 15 provides information about class size and total classroom expenditure
as well as base expenditure per student. Table 15 outlines each classroom in the school,
the number of students assigned to that classroom, base expenditure per student and total
classroom expenditure for base costs.
Class size does make a difference when considering base expenditures to students.
Two classrooms in Table 15 have a total classroom base cost of $97,377.22. However,
one of these classrooms is a first grade classroom of 21 students and the other classroom
is a fifth grade classroom of 32 students. This difference in class size changes the base
cost to individual students. In the primary grade classroom of 21 students, the base cost is
$4637.01. In the upper grade classroom of 32 students, the base cost to individual
students is $3,043.04. Although the overall classroom base cost is the same, there is a
difference of $1593.97 per student allocated students in the primary grade classroom that
can be attributed to the reduction in class size. This is a difference of $17,533.67 between
the primary and upper grade class.
No classrooms in the upper grades (45) have a base expenditure per student that
is above $ 4,000.00 per student. In the primary grades (K3) the majority of the
classrooms have a base cost per student above $4,000.00. Two classrooms in the primary
grades have a base cost per student above $5000.00. The most expensive classroom in
the school has a base class expenditure of $106,540.71. However, since the class size is
twentynine students, the expenditure to individual students is only $3673.82. All the
86

upper grade classrooms have a per pupil expenditure that are below their primary grade
counterparts.
Table 15
Direct Cost Classroom by Student and Total Classroom Base Cost

  Grade Level Number of
Students
Classroom Base
Cost Per Student
($)
Total Classroom Base
Cost ($)
K 20 5,198.22 103,964.44
K 23 3,794.20 87,266.60
K 19 4,569.45 86,819.55
K 19 4592.98 87,266.62
K 20 4,528.58 90,571.60
1 21 4,637.01 97,377.21
1 20 3,300.96 66,019.20
1 20 4,335.59 86,711.80
1 20 3,691.90 73,838.00
1 20 4,651.51 93,030.20
2 21 4,375.54 91,866.34
2 19 5,125.00 97,375.00
2 21 3,936.39 82,664.19
2 19 1,695.89 32,221.91
2 21 3,877.94 81,436.74
3 20 4,457.13 89,142.60
3 18 4,805.16 86,492.88
3 20 4,133.43 82,668.60
3 19 4,097.32 77,849.08
3 20 4,071.83 81,436.60
4 31 2,437.35 75,557.85
4 28 2,864.89 80,216.92
4 29 3,673.82 106,540.78
4 30 1,073.23 32,196.90
5 32 3,043.04 97,377.28
5 31 2,460.57 76,277.67
5 31 3,282.70 101,763.70
N =611
Mean =3,669.85

87

It is generally the case in K3 classrooms that the base expenditure per student is
greater since the studentteacher ratio is smaller. Additionally, kindergarten classroom are
provided a paraprofessional for part of the school day. One kindergarten teacher has an
aide for three and a half hours and the other kindergarten classrooms share a three and a
half hour aide between every two teachers.
  In addition to teacher compensation and class size as factors in variation of
expenditures between students and student groups, also a factor in variation of
expenditure per students were the costs of special programs for intervention and
enrichment programs. The database was sorted for special education programs including
RSP (resource specialist) and the speech and language program i.e. speech therapy. Also
included in the database were information about the cost of the counseling programs, and
programs that provided remediation such as individual teacher tutoring, summer school
and participation in a structured after school program called “Think Together.” Finally,
participation in enrichment programs such as gifted and talented (GATE) programs,
classroom level music programs and participation in individual music lessons were also
reviewed. Many of these students participated in multiple programs.

88

Table 16
Intervention and Enrichment Program Student Participation, Mean Cost and total
Program Expenditure

Table 16 provides expenditure information associated with these special
programs. The most expensive costs associated with these special programs are usually
programs that involve some type of student intervention. The most expensive program
that serves five percent of the student population is the Resource Specialist Program
(RSP). The cost to individual students for this program is largely due to the fact that the
special education teacher has many years of experience and many units beyond a
master’s degree. This particular teacher is on the highest step and column on the district
salary schedule. Additionally, the RSP classroom is provided an instructional assistant to
work with these special education students. For these reasons, the cost for each student
in this program is $4,141.36. This expenditure is in addition to the base classroom cost
per student.
Program Number of
Students
Percent of Total
School
Population
Per Pupil
Mean
$
Total Program
Cost
$
RSP 28 5% 4,141.36 115,958.08
Speech 23 4% 1,851.93 42,594.39
Counseling 73 12% 810.00 59,130.00
GATE 47 8% 117.00 5,499.00
Think Together 71 12% 1,350.00 95,850.00
Summer School 91 15% 169.00 15,379.00
Teacher
Tutoring
58 9% 317.53 18,416.60
General Music 293 48% 119.45 34,998.85
Music, Violin 17 3% 1,019.02 17,323.34
Music,
Dulcimer
13 2% 308.55 4,015.05
License
Agreement
511 84% 30.33 15,498.63
89

The speech and language program and the counseling program are also some of
the most expensive expenditures. These programs have a small teacherstudent ratio and
a certificated professional providing direct service to students.
Other intervention programs also contribute to cost variance per student. These
programs are the “Think Together” after school program and summer school for student
remediation. The “Think Together” program is an after school program sponsored by
Proposition 49 and serves twelve percent of the school population at this elementary
school. The cost for this year was $1,350.00 per student. This program was in the startup
stages of implemented this year so students only participated for half of the school year.
Expenditures for this program for this year were attributed to the need to hire staff, select
students, and generally organize the program in preparation for students. Students did
participate from January until June.
The “Think Together” program is offered to select students. This after school
program and offers tutoring, homework help, group games and snacks. Once students are
selected, the program has strict standards for student participation including a limit on
student absences and high expectations for student behavior. The high cost of this
program to implement is primarily due to a variety of personnel available to work with
students. The program employs one full time person to work at the school site and also
provides an additional staff person for every twenty to thirty participants. Also factored
into the cost are regional supervisors and other administrative personnel.
90

The least expensive intervention program was the summer school program. This
program served fifteen percent of the student population at a cost of $169.00 per
participant.
Another student intervention opportunity provided to students was the “teacher
tutoring” program. In this program, the average cost was $240.00 per student. The cost
of this program changes from classroom to classroom based on the number of students
participating from individual classrooms. The regular classroom teachers provided
tutoring on voluntary bases. Although all teachers are not required to participate, those
who do offer this tutoring are paid a stipend. The tutoring is offered one hour per week
and teachers are paid for two hours of instruction in order to provide teachers an hour of
planning time as well as an hour of instruction for students.
This design is intended to provide tutoring based on progress in the regular
classroom and connect intervention to classroom study. Teachers are paid to tutor their
own students for one hour per week. They are also paid an hour for planning time. This
tutoring is provided weekly from October through April. The recommended group
maximum for this intervention is eight students. Teachers work with as few as three
students and as many as nineteen students for this weekly, hourlong, tutoring session.
For this reason, the cost to individual students varies. Also included in this expenditure
are transportation costs. A bus is provided to students who stay after school and
participate in this program.
91

One final expenditure that can be considered intervention is the cost of license
agreements. This particular school purchases yearly access to certain software programs
such as Rosetta Stone for English learners, Standards Plus and Study Island.
Besides the programs that are considered to be student interventions, there are
enrichment programs for some students as well. The gifted and talented (GATE) program
had one of the lowest expenditure per pupil for those students receiving a special support
program. The expenditure for this group was $ 117.00 per student. The GATE program
served eight percent of the total school population. The program at this school is designed
for fourth and fifth grade students exclusively. The coordinator of the program is a
teacher in the halfday kindergarten program and was paid a stipend. Additionally,
outside agencies were contracted to provide enrichment to these students in the area of
science.
In another enrichment program, the school offers a general music program to
almost fifty percent of the student population. Individual music lessons in either the
violin or dulcimer are offered to five percent of the uppergrade students as one more
enrichment program.
The general music program was provided to twelve classrooms by an “Artist in
Residence” from the Los Angeles County Music Center. Not all classrooms were offered
this general music instruction. The basic philosophy of both the Music Center as well as
the school was that in order for students to learn either music theory or performance, the
focus of study should involve a certain degree of depth in order to be successful. This
meant that students participated in weekly music study for this oneyear period. The per
92

student expenditure was $119.45 and the total expenditure for this school year was
$34,998.85.
In addition to classroom music study, individual music lessons were also
provided. Two types of lessons were offered. Students studied either the dulcimer or the
violin. The expenditure for violin lessons was $1,019.02 per student and the expenditure
per student for dulcimer lessons was $308.85. There are several reasons for the difference
in expenditures. Another “Artist in Residence” from the Music Center provided the
Violin lessons. While the violins were donated, these instruments needed to be
refurbished in order to be appropriate for student use. The teacher providing lessons on
the dulcimer was a teacher on the school staff who was paid a stipend for providing these
lessons. These instruments were donated to students. A relative of the dulcimer teacher
makes these instruments and he made and donated the instruments for the individual
students. This helped to reduce the expenditure per student for this type music study.
The lowest expenditure per student in the area of special programs was that of
license agreement. This school purchases several program licenses annually. These
programs are used in the school technology center as well as the library and individual
classrooms as appropriate. The kindergarten students do no use these programs.
However, all other student groups have access to and use these programs.
Table 17 presents the combined cost of base classroom cost and the cost of
special programs for individual students.

93

Table 17
Base Classroom Cost Plus Special Program Cost

Simple Statistic Expenditure
Mean 4,467.44
Median 4,433.83
Mode 1,163.99
Standard Deviation 1,612.74
Range 9,442.59
Restricted Range 6,041.55
Minimum 1,163.99
Maximum 10,606.58

These special programs also account for variation in expenditures per child. Law
requires some of the special programs and other programs are offered to enhance student
learning or provide program enrichment for a variety of learners. It is important to note
that these special programs (required or optional) account for ten percent of the total
expenditure per student and account for variation in expenditures per child. The
minimum expenditure from combining base class cost and special program cost is
$1,063.99 and the maximum cost is $10,606.58 with a range of $9,442.59.
Additional Expenditure Analysis
Expenditures for Special Populations and Services
This section will look at additional areas that influence expenditures per students
and analyze these data based on gender, language fluency classification and expenditures
by total grade level. Also included in this section is a discussion of school and district
overhead expenditures as they relate to the total school program.

94

Language Proficiency
Expenditures for Special Language Populations were analyzed. Table 18 shows
the differences in expenditures per student between the six levels of language
classification or language Proficiency.
Table 18
Student Expenditure by Language Proficiency Level

Language Proficiency Level Number of Students

Expenditure Per Student
Beginning 55 6,987.08
Early Intermediate 57 7,466.15
Intermediate 98 7,042.21
Early Advanced 30 6,983.67
Advanced 3 7,077.74
Redesignated to Fluent 25 5,803.70
Initially Fluent 87 6,584.82
English Only 256 6,977.22

Table 18 presents per pupil expenditures by language classification. These
expenditures consider the total expenditures for the three research areas of base
classroom cost, special programs costs and overhead costs. The highest per pupil
expenditure of $7,466.15 is in the area for the students with the language classification of
Early Intermediate. Students in the Redesignated to Fluent Category have the least per
pupil expenditure of $5803.70. This amount is below the average expenditure per student
of $6,934.15 that is outlined in Table 11 at the beginning of this chapter. The three
categories that consider students to be fluent speakers of English are the categories of
English Only, Initially Fluent and Redesignated to Fluent. The expenditures in these three
areas are for the most part, less than for students in the categories that consider these
students English Learners.
95

Expenditures by Grade Level.
Table 19 outlines the expenditures by different grade levels instead of at the
classroom level. The lower cost per grade level in grades five and six can be attributed to
larger class sizes at these grade levels. We can assume that the higher expenditures
would be in grades K3 since these grade levels participate in class size reduction
program. The highest cost per grade level is in third grade. After review of the
classrooms, Kindergarten is most likely to have the highest cost since that grade level has
three paraprofessionals included in the base cost. However, the cost in grade three is the
highest grade level cost in the school. This cost can be attributed to a cluster of highly
paid teachers assigned to this grade level.
Table 19
Total Expenditures by Grade Level

Grade Level Number of Students Expenditure per
Student
K 100 7,541.61
1 101 7,157.40
2 101 7,195.52
3 97 7,709.00
4 118 6,069.36
5 94 6,053.27
Total Students (n) 611

Gender
In addition to expenditures by grade levels, gender was also analyzed. Table 20
presents the total expenditures for boys and the total expenditures for girls at this school.

96

Table 20
Mean Expenditure by Gender

Gender

Population (n) Expenditure
Girls 299 6,735.60
Boys 312 7,124.43

While the number of students is almost divided evenly between boys and girls,
more money is spent on boys than girls by $388.83. This difference can be attributed to
the higher number of boys participating in special programs. More boys than girls are
receiving special program services at this school. This is outlined in the next section.
Gender and Special Program Participation
Gender representation in special programs was also analyzed. Table 21 describes
the type of special services provided to students, the total expenditure for that particular
service and a breakdown of student representation by gender.

97

Table 21
Intervention Program Participation by Gender

Support
Program
Total
Students
(n)

Percent
Girls
(%)
Percent
Boys
(%)
Total
Program
Expenditure
($)

RSP

28

25

75

115,958.08

Speech

23

26

74

42,594.39

Counseling

73

30

70

59,130.00

Teacher
Tutoring

58

50

50

18,416.60

Think
Together

71

45

55

95,850.00

Summer
School

91

35

65

15,379.00

GATE

47

55

45

5,499.00

In general, the boys at this school receive more of these special services than the
girls do. In the GATE program, teacher tutoring and “Think Together” programs, gender
representation is about the same or exactly the same in these three programs. In the RSP,
speech, counseling and summer school programs, boys have a higher level of
representation than girls by as much as a three to one ratio.
Overhead Cost Analysis
Overhead expenditures are the same for all students in this study. However, these
expenditures are important to review. This adds information to what factors are
considered when looking at expenditures at the school level. Table 22 illustrates the type
98

of overhead expenditure and what percentage this expenditure is of the total cost within
this category.
Table 22
Overhead Expenditures by Area and Percent of Overhead Cost.

Type of
Overhead
Expenditure
Individual
Expenditure per
Student
($)
Total Expenditure
($)
Textbooks 69.65 42,556.15
Materials 110.73 62,667.77
Equipment 69.11 42,226.21
Front Office 143.00 87,373.00
Supervision 81.07 49,533.77
Site Custodian 99.00 60,489.00
Library 89.00 54,379.00
Cafeteria 89.00 54,379.00
Transportation 135.00 82,485.00
Curriculum Development 75.11 45,892.21
Literacy Coach 74.67 45,623.37
Site Administration 240.31 146,829.41
District Administration 228.98 139,906.78
District Maintenance 811.68 495,936.48
Substitutes 100.56 61,442.16
Utilities 122.55 74,878.05
Modernization 38.02 23,230.22

Total

1,569,827.58

The lowest percent of the total overhead cost is in the area of curriculum
alignment and data review. Annually, teachers are provided time to meet during the
summer to plan for instruction and align current curriculum to state expectations. This
process also involves a review of individual student data. The most expensive cost in this
category is district maintenance. This expenditure includes the cost of additional
custodians and weekly grounds crew. Also included in this expenditure are the costs to
99

maintain painters, locksmiths, plumbers and electricians employed by the district. The
cost of site administration is fourteen percent of the overhead budget and the cost of
district administration is nine percent. Those three areas represent the highest costs in the
category.
Some of these similar overhead cost categories can be combined. The following
Figure represents overhead cost when these like categories are combined.
Figure 2
Total Expenditures by Research Categories and a Breakdown of District Overhead
Costs



District maintenance comprises the largest percentage of overhead costs at 32
percent. The next category of site classified salaries comprises all of classified salary cost
at the school site. These include the cost of the librarian, clerical staff, cafeteria staff,
classroom aides, yard duty aides and site custodian. This cost is 20 percent of the total
overhead cost.
The category of “other” combines the areas of modernization costs, utilities, and
site substitutes. This is 15 percent of the total overhead budget.
53%
37%
10%
Direct Costs
to Classroom
Direct Costs
to Students
Overhead
Costs
32%
9%
9%
9% 6%
20% 15%

Detail of Overhead Costs
Total Percentage of Expenditures
District
Maint.
Site Classified
Salaries
Other
Classroom
Equipment
Site Admin.
District
Admin.
Staff Dev.
Distribution of Overhead Costs
100

The budget category of equipment is another area that combines like costs. This
category includes textbook expenditures, materials as well as new equipment. This is 9
percent of the total overhead cost.
Both areas of site administration and district administration are 9 percent of the
total overhead cost respectively.
When considering overhead costs, the area of literacy coach and professional time
for curriculum alignment were combined and represented as staff development on the
chart. This area comprises 6 percent of the overhead cost.
Summary of the Findings
The purpose of this study was to analyze actual expenditures per student at an
urban elementary school in California. Expenditure amounts were collected and
examined for the 611 students at this school. This school is a kindergarten through fifth
grade campus.
This study was designed to examine the following research questions:
1. What is the expenditure per student at an urban elementary school?
2. How much variation exists in expenditure per student?
3. What factors contribute to variation in the expenditure per student?
This study investigated how expenditures at an urban elementary school were
distributed on a per pupil basis. Expenditures were assigned to students in three ways.
Money was assigned to students directly. This was done by assigning the cost of the
classroom teacher, benefit costs and the cost of any paraprofessional assigned to that
classroom. Secondly monies were assigned to individual students participating in special
101

intervention or enrichment programs. These support programs included resource
specialist program (RSP), speech and language program, counseling, teacher tutoring,
and after school programs. Enrichment programs included the GATE program as well as
classroom music programs and individual music lessons.
Finally monies were assigned equally to all individual students that represented
overhead costs or indirect costs. These expenditures at the school site included cost of the
principal, office staff, site custodian and cafeteria staff. Expenditures at the district level
that contributed to the indirect costs at the site level were facilities maintenance costs,
utilities and administrative costs.
These expenditure data were sorted into different categories and analyzed.
Categories included grade level, gender, participation in intervention or enrichment
programs and language classification. The findings were presented for each of the three
research questions. These findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.
1. What is the expenditure per student within a mid size, urban elementary
school?
A spreadsheet was created analyzing individual expenditures for the 611 students
attending the school at the time of the study. The average expenditure per student was
$6,934.15. This minimum expenditure was $3,630.70 and the maximum expenditure was
$13,073.29.

102

2. How much variation exists in expenditure per student?
The summary statistics for each of the 611 students in the sample show that the range is
$9,442.59. The restricted range, the difference between the 95
th
percentile and the 5
th

percentile, is $4,986.56. The restricted range is considerably smaller than the range with a
difference of $4,456.03
3   What factors contribute to the variation in the expenditure per student?
A variety of categories were analyzed. Several factors contribute to the variation. Teacher
compensation was found to contribute to the variation. Teacher costs were analyzed and
found to have a range of $4,124.99. Another factor that contributed to the variation is
that of class size. Two classrooms that have the same base cost have a difference of
$1,593.97 in expenditure per student when examined. One classroom was a primary
grade with twentyone students and the other classroom was an upper grade classroom
with twentynine students.
A third factor that was considered in variation of expenditure per student was the
cost of support and intervention programs as well as enrichment programs. Students
participating in these programs showed an increase in their per pupil expenditure.
The analysis of language classification showed students with a language
classification of “Early Intermediate” had the highest per pupil expenditure and students
who were considered “Redesignated to Fluent” had the lowest per pupil expenditure.
When gender was analyzed, the average cost of boys was $ 388.83 higher than the
average cost of girls at this school. This is probably due to the representation of boys
103

involved in special programs like, RSP, speech services, counseling and summer school.
Boys are more likely to be enrolled in these programs.
Expenditures per student by grade level showed variation as well. Grade levels
that participated in the class size reduction program were more likely to have a higher
cost per grade level than those grade levels (45) that did not participate.

104

CHAPTER FIVE

Summary, Conclusions and Implications of the Findings

Overview of the Problem

Educating students at all levels of schooling very often creates controversy as well
as debate. Funding education elicits a variety of opinions from politicians, lawmakers,
educators and parents to name a few. This controversy about how best to educate students
and how best to finance schools has a long history.
The Coleman Report (Coleman, Campbell, McPartland, Mood, Loeinfield &
York, 1966) published in the late 1960’s, introduced the idea that public school finance
was not only a topic for analysis, but is a topic for reform as well. These early arguments
about school funding and resource use continue today.
The era of accountability for public schools and education in general began with
the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983). This document strongly suggested that the
nation’s public schools were not doing the job they were intended to do. This report was
published over twenty five years ago.
The accountably issue in public schools, first generated by the publication of A
Nation at Risk (1893) continues today. The most recent federal law, the No Child Left
Behind Act (2001), requires schools, teachers and students to meet certain standards of
performance as outlined by a variety of measures for achievement.
Financing schools has been a longstanding controversy. However, financing
schools so that all students are able to meet these new, high stakes, accountability
measures is a relatively new notion.
105

Traditionally, studies in school finance have looked at expenditures at the district
or state level. Those figures may not accurately reflect the actual cost of educating
individual students at individual school sites. Generating a collection of school level data
are important in analyzing the individual differences that do exist between schools and
between classrooms within schools. Picus (2000) argues that costeffectiveness studies
for schools and school districts would be much more accurate if there were student level
resource measures that were defined to be inclusive and to differentiate between kinds of
programs and students. Collection of school level data will offer critical information that
can drive instructional and resource decisions.
This topic becomes even more important in tough economic times. Many states,
are working to cut education funding in order to help balance a shrinking state budget. In
many states today these are considered to be desperate times. This is also true in the state
of California. Information about resource use and resource effectiveness at the school and
student level will be extremely important for policy makers, politicians, school
administrators, teachers, community members and parents.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify resources allocated to each pupil at a
traditional calendar, K5 elementary school in a low socioeconomic community in a mid
size district. The study of this urban elementary school provides a detailed picture of the
cost to educate individual students.

106

This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What is the expenditure per student within a school?
2. How much variation in expenditure per student exists?
3. What factors contribute to variations in the expenditure per student?
Methodology
The study data were collected at an elementary school in the Southern California area.
The student population was 611 students at the time of this analysis. At the time of the
study, the school qualified for Title I schoolwide funding and ranked as decile seven
school in state wide rankings based on the Academic Performance Index (API) and as a
decile ten school when compared to similar schools based on the annual Academic
Performance Index (API). At the federal level, this school has met the adequate yearly
progress (AYP) targets since the No Child Left Behind program improvement process
was implemented. Most recently, this school has received several honors for excellence.
The school was selected as a Title I achieving school in 2006 and again in 2009. The
school was also awarded the California Distinguished School honor in spring of 2008.
The student data were collected from the District Student Information System at
the end of the 20062007 school year. Student data including student name, grade level
teacher, language classification, grade, gender, ethnicity and eligibility for special
programs such as gifted and talented program participation and special education
program participation were collected. The district database provided expense budget
analysis for the end of the school year. Additional program and financial reports were
used to determine expenditures.
107

The data were collected and sorted into three major categories for analysis. These
three distinct areas were direct expenditures to classrooms, direct expenditures to students
and overhead costs. Direct expenditures to classrooms included the cost of the classroom
teacher, benefit costs and the cost of any instructional aide assigned to that classroom.
Direct expenditures to students included the cost of professionals assigned to provide
special services to individual students. These expenditures included instructors for special
education students, instructors for a variety of music programs, the onsite counselor and
after school support programs. The third category assigned to all students was overhead
costs. These expenditures included the cost of clerical services, maintenance, custodial
services and administration. Once these data were collected, an Excel program was
created to analyze the information.
Findings by Research Question
The first research question asked, “What is the expenditure per student within a
school?” A spreadsheet was created depicting individual expenditures for the 611
students at this elementary school. This study found that direct cost to students and
classrooms is fifty three percent of the total school budget. The average expenditure per
student is $3,669.85. It is important to note that two classroom teachers were actually
long term substitutes for the entire school year. This is as a result of the hiring freeze
imposed by the district for the 20062007 school year. The salaries for these two teachers
were also calculated as though these two teachers were actually considered to be full
time, first year professionals and paid using on the regular district salary schedule. The
salary for both was also calculated to include benefits. In this scenario the average per
108

pupil expenditure for students was $3,751.35. These expenditures only account for the
cost of the classroom teachers’ salary and benefits and any costs associated with a
classroom paraprofessional. The average total cost of educating a student including base
classroom costs, direct cost to student and overhead costs was $6,934.15.
The second research question asked, “How much variation exists in expenditures
per student?” The summary statistics for each of the 611 students in the sample show that
the restricted range is $4,986.56. The restricted range is determined by calculating the
difference between the 95
th
percentile student and the 5
th
percentile student. The overall
range in this study was $9,442.59.
The third research question asked, “What factors contribute to variation in the
expenditure per student?” There were a variety of factors that were identified which
accounted for the variations in the expenditures per student. Teacher compensation was
found to contribute to the variation in expenditure. When analyzed, the cost of base
teacher compensation was found to have a range of $4124.99. The majority of the
teachers at this school had many years of experience and that accounts for this range.
Another area that was found to have a variation was that of class size. Classes
with less children cost more to operate. Two classrooms that have the same base cost
when considering teacher compensation, have a difference of $1593.97 per student in
expenditures when examined. This would mean a difference of $15,939.70 when looking
at a class of twenty students verses thirty students.
A third factor that was considered in variation of expenditures per students was
the cost of intervention as well as enrichment programs. Students participating in these
109

programs had an increase of per pupil expenditures with a range $9,442.59.   The
resource specialist program cost the most at an average of $4,141.36 more per student.
Music programs also added to the variance. When outside music consultants were used,
the cost to offer music programs changed since these music consultants cost more than
paying the regular classroom teacher an additional stipend to teach music.
When individual programs were analyzed, a variation was observed. In the area of
Language Classification, students who were classified as Early Intermediate had the
highest per pupil expenditures per student. This may be due to their involvement in
special support programs to help move them get to higher levels of language functioning
and ultimately classify this students as fluent English speakers.
When gender was analyzed, the average cost for educating boys at this school was
higher than educating girls. The average cost was $388.83 more than that for the average
cost of educating girls. This can be attributed to their participation in extra support
programs.
Expenditures per student by grade level showed variation as well. Grades that
participated in the class size reduction program had a higher cost per grade level than
those grade levels (45) that did not participate.
Conclusions
This study supports the research that salaries comprise the major percentage of
expenditures in education. This study also shows the impact class size has on school level
expenditures. Extra costs such as special education and other special support programs
had an impact on cost per student. Additionally, the cost for special enrichment programs
110

impacted spending at the student level. Also considered a significant cost to per pupil
expenditures was the cost of senior staff members that were earning the highest salaries.
Any study of expenditures per student should consider expenditures, but also
consider cost effectiveness as well. Clearly, allocating funds for experienced staff is a
very costly investment. However, level of quality instruction and student achievement are
considerations that lend credibility to this investment. At this particular school, the most
recent Academic Performance Index (API) as measured by the state of California was
813 out of 1000 possible points for the 20072008 academic year. The statewide
performance target or goal for schools is equal to an API score of 800 or above. This
school meets the academic targets regularly. This school has achieved the honor of being
identified as a California Distinguished School in 2008 and has been awarded the Title I
Achieving School honor twice since 2005. This school has a score of 10 in similar
schools ranking and a score of 7 in the statewide ranking system. Additionally, this
school out performs their other district counterparts in the area of API by an average of
98 points and outperforms the statewide average of 742 by a margin of 71 points.
Reducing class size is another costly commitment to the school and the district
budget. Class size could have been instrumental in assisting this school achieve this
current level of academic excellence. The longterm effectiveness of class size reduction
is an area that will require further study.
The area of special support to students accounts for ten percent of the school
expenditures. This expenditure includes intervention as well as enrichment programs.
While the cost of special education programs were the most expensive, enrichment
111

programs accounted for a considerable amount in this area as well. Participation in these
programs may account to some degree of this school’s success. The ability to meet
individual student need through these intervention programs may account for student
success.
Additionally, the enrichment programs may also play an important role in
increasing student achievement. This particular school maintains that a study of the arts,
more specifically, a study of music, enhances student learning. Currently, school faculty
work with the Music in Education National Consortium and its director Dr. Larry Scripp.
While not all students are enrolled in individual instrument instruction or in a classroom
receiving specific instruction from an outside professional, throughout the student’s
academic time at this school, they will receive some level of an “in depth” music
program. Since many grade levels have this type of program in place and the program is
expanding, this in depth music study will be possible.
It is also very interesting to see how much of the average student expenditure is
attributed to overhead cost. Within this category are sitespecific areas such as site
custodian, cafeteria, clerical expense in the front office, along with instructional and
administrative expenditures. This relatively high cost is further increased by costs
allocated by the local district for a variety of operational and instructional services. This
is especially important since this particular district operates all services such as
carpenters, locksmiths, painters, plumbers, electricians and a variety of others as “in
house services”. This large block of workers are full time district employees and provide
these services as requisitioned requests. Additionally, the work supplies and
112

transportation such as work trucks are also part of the cost to all individual schools within
the district and to the district itself. The district also operates its own bus garage and a
fleet of busses for student transportation. These costs add to the school overhead costs
considerably.
Comparison to Model Resource Allocation
The particular school that was reviewed appeared to be quite successful in terms
of State of California assessment results. Additionally, for the 20072008 academic year,
this site received the California Distinguished School Award. This school has also
received the Title I Achieving School award two times within a fouryear period.
Because of this success, it is important to consider where resources were focused that
may have attributed to these successful results. Another consideration is to look at where
resources need to be concentrated for future and continued success.
Recently, Odden, Picus, Goetz, Fermanich & Turner (2006) conducted a
Successful District Analysis in the State of Washington. In a Successful District Analysis
approach, a set of school performance criteria is established and then the expenditure
levels of those schools meeting these criteria are used in order to estimate the funding
levels needed for all districts to meet these established expectations.
In addition to the state level analysis, case studies were also conducted on how
schools used resources and how their resource use practices were linked to their
instructional improvement strategies.

113

Once these individual school studies were analyzed, several themes emerged that
described the core elements of successful schools.
These elements are:
1. Focus on Educating All Students
2. Use Data to Drive Decisions
3. Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
4. Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional
Development
5. Restructure the Learning Environment
6. Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Through informal interviews with the principal and data clerk, information about the
school program and resource allocation was provided. This section considers these
elements as they relate to the school examined for this study in the state of California.
1. Focus on educating all students
The staff at this school was focused on educating all students. The current school
structure allows for teachers at every grade level to meet regularly to discuss student
progress and plan for curriculum mastery. During these regular meetings, teachers
discuss all students at the grade level rather than distinguish their students from other
students from other individual classrooms. In this way, teachers plan for the success of all
students at that grade level, plan next steps for all students during class time and plan
intervention as necessary. These plans include sharing students between teachers at that
grade level in order to meet individual student need.
114

Additionally, the entire faculty meet every week in a formal session to discuss
assessment results, receive staff development or participate in total school planning.
Individual information about students are not only discussed a grade level team meetings,
there is an opportunity to discuss students and total school programs at these school level
meetings as well. The teachers in the school share students in order for them to
participate in formal music instruction and to participate in cross age tutoring. These
regular faculty meetings serve as a forum to discuss school level problems and solutions
as well as participate in staff development.
2. Use data to drive decisions.
Even before the school year begins, teachers have met to map their incoming students
using available data such as the state assessment descriptors of “far below basic, below
basic, basic, proficient or advanced” This data map regarding students is useful for
communicating with parents and creates a common language for discussion. This map
also helps teachers to effectively group students for targeted intervention if they are
struggling. This map is also useful when differentiating the instruction in the regular
classroom.
There are a variety of data systems in this school that drive instruction. Data are
provided through state assessments, district benchmark data and teacher created
formative assessments. Since teachers meet as grade level groups on a weekly basis and
the entire staff meets weekly as well, student level data are regularly available for
discussion and future instructional use.
115

Teachers base their curriculum alignment information on disaggregated data from the
state assessments. The school’s “Data Director” program provides individual student
information over multiple years. This information is also useful for long range planning
during the curriculum alignment process.
The district requires participation in the district designed benchmark assessment
program. These assessments are given three times during the academic year. These data
are ready immediately for teacher use since they are scored at the school site. These data
are discussed at the individual team level as well as at the regular, school wide, faculty
meetings. It should be noted that the kindergarten teachers have added items to their
district level assessment since they felt they needed additional information about their
students in the area of literacy development.
Finally, the teachers consider their formative assessments that are created at the
individual grade level. Teachers are able to differentiate instruction based on these
assessments. Because of the variety of assessments and the frequency of assessment, a
feedback loop is created. This process allows for a speedy identification of struggling
students. These students can be targeted for assistance in many areas either in the regular
program, in a tutoring program, considered for further evaluation for special services or a
combination of all of these options.
Clearly, data drives the programs at this school.
3. Adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards
The school uses the state adopted language arts and math programs that are
considered by the publisher and the state of California to be aligned to state standards.
116

While these materials are considered core materials for the language arts and math
programs, the teachers have spent time aligning the curriculum they teach from these core
materials to state standards as well as state assessments.
During the summer, teachers meet as a grade level team to review their content and
instruction and to determine successes and next steps based on student performance on
teacher made assessments, district assessments, publisher assessments and state tests.
Using a backward mapping process, the curriculum taught at this school has been aligned
to standards and assessments during these summer planning sessions.
In addition to the curriculum alignment process, the teachers in kindergarten have not
only aligned their program to the adopted text in language arts, these teachers have
created their own program that requires students to develop a site vocabulary, phonics
skills, fluency skills and comprehension that moves at a faster pace than the adopted
curriculum. That is, students are expected to know their letters and sounds by October
and are expected to be able to blend letters by that time as well. This expectation holds
students to a higher standard than the current adopted text.
These additional program pieces allow kindergarten teachers to group students for
reading instruction. Also students write every day in directed centers. This supplemental
program can be included since this school has a full day kindergarten program and also
participates in class size reduction.
4. Support instructional improvement with effective professional development.
The school provides a variety of professional development opportunities for all
teachers. The school currently “banks” minutes during the school week. This allows for
117

an early dismissal time every Wednesday of the school year in order for teachers to meet
to discuss student progress. Teachers at these meetings look at disaggregated state
assessment data, review benchmark assessment information as well as look at other areas
of the school program.
In addition to regular meetings to discuss student progress, the school participates
in a literacy development program in partnership with the University of Washington. The
school has identified a classroom teacher to act as the demonstration teacher and make
this classroom the demonstration classroom for the entire school. The district provides a
coach to work with the teacher several times per month. Additionally, teachers at the
school visit the classroom as a grade level team using substitute release time and meet
after the observation to debrief about teaching strategies with the demonstration teacher
and the literacy coach.
Teachers can also participate in personalized staff development at the district level
through the Professional Development Academy. This academy is offered through the
district’s Curriculum and Instruction Office and teachers can sign up for courses to clear
their credential, participate in master’s programs or participate in mini courses to increase
their skill level in computer use or teaching strategies.
5.   Restructure the learning environment.
The school in this study has restructured the learning environment in a variety of
ways. The school has developed small learning communities by using a grade level team
model. This grade level team approach allows for frequent instructional planning and
support. This model provides support when reteaching is necessary. This model also
118

provides for ability grouping using flexible groups as necessary. These groups are
determined by using frequent grade level assessments and organized during weekly grade
level team meeting times. The district is required to provide every teacher with
structured planning time during the regular school day. This school provides common
planning time for all the teachers at the same grade level. This common planning time
allows for formal contact amongst the teachers at that grade level in order to solve
problems or plan for individual students.   At the discretion of the teachers, they can
conduct a regular meeting as they see necessary.
Class size has been reduced to an average of 20 students in grades kindergarten
through grade three. This is another example of the restructuring that has taken place over
the past several years.
The school is dedicated to providing an uninterrupted core time for both reading and
math.
This particular school has further restructured the learning environment by adding
a fine arts program in the area of music. This program has a process for selection for
student participation. Outside professionals are hired to provide specific classrooms
instruction in a variety of musical instruments as well as general music instruction.
Certain classes are selected to participate so these students in a specific classroom are
provided with a concentration of music instruction for enrichment. Rather than a
piecemeal model that offers a brief encounter with the fine arts, teachers in these music
classes allow all students in the class an opportunity to study music for the year. While
on the surface this seems not equitable, when you consider the program from the
119

perspective of what students will study in their elementary years at this school, all
students will have the opportunity to study music in depth and those who choose to study
further have a valuable foundation in general music education or are able to actually play
an instrument and read music.
This music study provides enrichment and valuable skills for all students. This school
is able to balance the study of basic skills and
6.   Provide struggling students with extended learning opportunities.
Struggling students at this school have multiple opportunities for intervention. One
role the regular grade level meetings play in planning for instruction is to determine
student progress toward curriculum goals. These discussions center on regular
assessments and offer an opportunity for students to be involved in reteaching of skills
that were not previously mastered. These regular meetings allow teachers to quickly
identify struggling students and embed extra help within the school day.
In addition to regular classroom teachers reteaching skills during the regular school
day, individual teachers offer regular tutoring to their own students one to two days per
week from October through April. Several teachers also work with students from other
classrooms in their gradelevel if the regular teacher is not available for this type of
tutoring. This tutoring is offered after school. This model allows for the teacher to
provide tutoring to students who they know, these teachers know the area of need, these
teachers know the current area of study and they know why the student struggles. The
ideal number for each group is no more than eight students per teacher. This number was
determined by the school leadership team. However, many groups are smaller than eight.
120

During this October to April tutoring window, a bus is provided to take students home
who participate in this afterschool program. This bus takes students directly to their
doorstep and provides parents with peace of mind knowing that their child can arrive
home safely and under supervision. This support helps parents allow their child to attend
the tutoring sessions and resolves the “getting home” problem after school is finished.
The school counselor also provides learning opportunities for struggling students in
the form of individual as well as group counseling. This particular counselor meets with
almost sixty students on a regular basis in small groups in order to address issues that
interfere with student behavior and the ability to focus in the classroom.
THINK TOGETHER is and afterschool program that also provides help for
struggling students. This program has high expectations for attendance and provides
structured homework support and tutoring in a daily after school program.
Additionally, all students are provided with support on a school website where
parents can obtain school information about assignments and find student practice
exercises and assessments that can be done by parents with the child at home. In this way,
families are aware of general student information and expectations
Finally, each grade level has developed common homework assignments and the
structure for homework is the same from grade level to grade level. Every teacher sends
home progress reports every two weeks and grade level newsletters are sent on a monthly
basis to help make parents aware of school expectations and keep parents informed.
This particular school has found multiple ways to channel resources to support these
practices.
121

If Teachers Had This Information

Would Information Really Be Power?
After careful review and analysis of student level expenditures at a specific
elementary school, it is clear that school level expenditure information is not only
difficult to obtain, but convoluted as well. According to a recent report generated by the
Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence in the State of California (2007),
California’s current K12 education finance system is the most complex in the nation.
That certainly was the case with this research when considering student level
expenditures. Access to information was sometimes difficult. Once obtained, the
information was often in a format that was challenging to comprehend. Once this
information is in a comprehensible format, this information may be of interest to
teachers. Not only will this information be of interest, having teacher input and feedback
will be necessary in the future. When considering resource allocation at the school level,
teacher feedback, at some point, may become very important.
If this school finance information can become more comprehensible and less
convoluted, the question arises of what if teaches had access to this expenditure
information and what if the information was transparent and available to teachers in a
format that was easy to comprehend?   This section considers this notion.
If teachers had access to student level expenditure information, there are several
things that are possible. In a variety of ways, teachers might become a vital part of
determining the solutions that will be necessary when making future decisions about
certain school program’s value as well as sustainability.
122

Actually, teachers have always had access to some district finance information.
This information has been in the same complex and convoluted form that has been
available to the general public. For the most part, the teachers’ bargaining unit was the
organization or group that made decisions for the membership at large. These decisions
were usually limited to the bargaining process in which salary and benefit packages were
determined along with considerations for working conditions for the membership and the
school calendar.
Initially, if teachers had access to this information about resource allocation in a
comprehensible format, they may have a predictable reaction to seeing school level
expenditure information presented in this way. This initial reaction may involve some
anger about where resources are channeled and some disbelief about the actual cost of
expenditures for employees, programs and materials. This information will most likely be
new information for teachers as they look at the actual cost of school staff, certificated
and classified, the cost of benefits, program costs and the cost for other outside services
and materials.
As teachers continue to consider these actual expenditures for programs, services
and personnel, the anger or disbelief may wane. Teachers might move from these initial
reactions and become concerned regarding the value of these programs and services.
This subsequent reaction may be one of concern for the value of a program,
policy or process at the school level. That is, teachers may question the wisdom of the
expenditure when balanced against student success including academic achievement or
student growth. For example, if considerable resources are allocated to a certain
123

program, teachers may be very concerned about student outcomes. Teachers may actually
be the source of important and detailed feedback regarding programs.
It is important to remember that it is teachers who have the most contact with
students. This is the way the system is organized and continues to be the case. It is
important to remember not only do teacher have the most contact with students, teachers
continue to be the group that has the most information about student achievement in both
formal and informal ways. Also, teachers as a group have the most influence over student
success.
During past “low funding” periods in education in the state of California,
superintendents and other district spokespersons can be heard saying that, “if cuts are
likely, they will be made far away from the classroom” and “every effort will be made to
be sure that classrooms do not suffer”. This seems to be the politically correct response to
satisfy the general public that education, as we know it, can continue, and any cuts made
by the district will be in a place that will not be obvious to the general public.
In these current economic times, however, even cuts at classroom levels will have
to be made. Teachers may actually have an opinion and a solution for what to do and
how to do it. Naturally, they will not be involved in some decisions about personnel
issues. Some of those continue to be confidential. However, teachers can certainly
comment on a variety of school plans for restructuring since teachers have the most
information about students.
Most recently in California, the Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence
(2007) published a report on California public schools. This article comments on many
124

areas in need of change in the public school system. One area that the committee found to
be problematic was the area of school funding. The current system has a of a collection of
categorical programs that require considerable school and district level compliance and
rules for using this money. This funding system requires school to implement programs
that may or may not be useful in advancing student achievement. According to this
report, since all these programs are disconnected and independent, schools have a
difficult time developing a coherent and strategic plan for education.
This report calls for a transition to a student centered funding model over a 510
year period. It is recommended that this new system allocate funds based on the needs of
the students. This report also calls for additional resources for students needing the most
help. It is the intent of this new funding model to shift governance from the state to the
community. Certainly, teachers should be an active part in determining what works and
what needs to be changed when this new type of funding system is implemented. This
report also calls for the school and district budgeting system to be more understandable.
This will certainly help teachers offer input once budget information is more
comprehensible.
Currently more data are available to teachers than ever before. Teachers are more
able to make data driven decisions. With the need for site level data and information,
teachers may very well be the group that connects effectiveness of programs and program
value to school funding.
There is trouble ahead for any school funding system that is currently based on
property tax revenues. This is true for school funding systems that are even partially
125

based on these revenues. A recent Los Angeles Times Article (2009) predicts a steep
drop in property tax revenue since home values are continuing to spiral down in the state
of California. Currently, the drop in Los Angeles County is estimated to be at 1% and
there is an estimated 5.7% drop in revenues in San Bernardino County. This trouble will
only serve to compound a funding system that is already “on the ropes” in terms of
funding to schools for the current fiscal year as well as the next few years ahead.
Teachers will certainly become a vital part of the conversation about resource use, the
value of certain programs, and the success of certain programs at the school level and
even be a vital part of the conversation about the individual student level as well.
Implications for Further Study
After careful review of an urban elementary school located in the Los Angeles
area of Southern California, it is clear there are several areas for further study.
This particular study was done at one elementary school at a particular
point in time. This study relied on the data available and was done retrospectively.
Several recommendations for further study can be made in this area. First, this school can
be studied throughout several funding cycles to determine where resources are allocated
especially if this level of school success continues. Other successful elementary schools
can also be studied in order to obtain additional information about where resources are
concentrated. This successful school study in the state of California could yield additional
information about successful resource allocation models. Further study should be done to
look at other achieving schools in this state with similar student populations in order to
126

determine common resource allocation practices that yield these higher levels of
achievement.
As mentioned, this study was completed using a retrospective approach to data
collection and information. In a few instances, data were lost or the information collected
relied on the ability of school personnel to recall certain student groups or student
programs. Further research should be done in order to obtain accurate school level data.
While the data in this study are considered accurate, perhaps a study using the case
studies model would allow for more “real time” data collection. The researcher would
study a school as the school year unfolds and be able to track the funding source or
amounts as these expenditures are actually encumbered.
Also in the area of next steps for further study are additional studies in the area of
connecting resources to student achievement. This study determined what it cost to
educate a student and the variance of student funding at a particular school site for a
specific school year. However, it was not part of this research to determine if this funding
made a difference in terms of student success. It was not known if these resources
dedicated to students made a difference in academic achievement. While it was known
that this particular school was successful, specific programs and practices were not
examined to evaluate their value in terms of student achievement. This would be a natural
next step for review.
Certainly another important area of study is that of further research regarding
overhead cost in school districts. Some studies should consider the feasibility of “out
sourcing” some of these services currently provided by “inhouse” personnel using
127

school district resources. Studies should be conducted that compare outsourcing bussing
costs to actual district cost in providing transportation. Also included in these studies
should be the study of the feasibility of outsourcing plumbing, electrical, painting,
carpentry and locksmith services. This research can consider the feasibility of hiring
independent contractors or private companies to provide these services on an “on
demand” schedule rather than employ a large group of workers who are on the district
payroll and work when something backs up, shut down, remain locked or is in need paint
at the current time. Naturally these studies would need access to district information and
should be done by looking at the actual cost of these services. These studies should go
well beyond looking at the salary of the employee and consider the actual cost of these
services including the use of district vehicles, district materials, district tools and district
fuel to complete this work. Again, this research would require full access to district data
and these data are very often difficult to calculate or in some cases confidential.
One final area for further study is the issue of access to student level data and
access to financial information about the school, district and other publicly funded
programs aligned with the school. Easy access to student information for this study was
based on the author’s personal relationship with school personnel, administrators and
other district level people. However, some data were difficult to obtain even though this
information is considered to be public information.
It is clear that a system needs to be constructed that will allow researchers access
to these student level data systems necessary for further research. During the course of
this study, it was this author’s experience that when asking for some data that were public
128

information, a certain level of “gatekeeping” occurred when an existing relationship with
the source of the data did not exist. A system for access should be considered in order for
further study to continue in this area of school finance.
Picus (1997) called for such a system since some school and student data are
confidential. This process would allow for researchers to have access to the data they
need in order to study school finance systems at the school and the student level. Perhaps
a system to license individuals or universities to conduct this research that involves a
background check or other documentation is in order. There continues to be a problem
when trying to access information that is actually public information. There is also a
problem with access to student information that is considered confidential as well. Both
of these issues arose during the course of this study. This recommendation from Picus,
made over ten years ago, would provide easier access for those with this type of license
or access. This access can only improve the quality of data available for further study.
The study of school finance and school finance systems remain complex. Funding
schools is still an emotionally charged issue. Access to important information is
sometimes confidential and difficult to obtain. Certainly studies regarding school level
finance should continue. The question of “Does money matter?” is being expanded to
include the notion of “How does money matter?” Research on school level expenditures
will continue to add information about these new issues.

129

References

ACCESS, Project for the Campaign of Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia
University. (n.d.) Kentucky, Historical Background, Retrieved July 2, 2006, from
http://schoolfunding.info/contact.php3.

Biddle, B., & Berliner, D. (2002). Unequal school funding in the United States.
Educational Leadership, 59(8), 4859.

Berne, R., Stiefel, L., & Moser, M. (1997). The coming of age of schoollevel finance
data. Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 246254.

Burke, S. M., & White, G. P. (2001). The influence of district characteristics on intra
district resource allocation. Journal of Education Finance, 26(3), 259280.

Burrup, P. E., Brimley, V., & Garfield, R. R. (1999). Financing education in a climate
of change (7
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Busch, C., & Odden, A. (1997). Introduction to the special issue: Improving
educational policy and results with school level data a synthesis of multiple
perspectives. Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 225245.

Campbell, R., Cunningham, L., Nystrand, R., & Usdan, M. (1990). The organization and
control of American schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Mac Millian.

Clark, C. (1998). Using schoollevel data to explore resources and outcomes in Texas.
Journal of Education Finance, 23(3), 374389.

Cohen, M. (1997). Issues in schoollevel analysis of education expenditure data.
Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 255279.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Loeinfeld, F., & Youk, R. (1966).
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

EdSource. (2003). Selected readings on California school finance. Palo Alto, CA:
EdSource.

Farland, G. (1997). Collection of fiscal and staffing data at the schoolsite level.
Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 280290.

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why
money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465497.
130

Ferguson, R. R., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of
Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable. (pp. 265298).
Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Fermanich, M., & Kimball, S. (2002). You can get there from here: How three urban
schools could use their existing resources to afford comprehensive school reform.
Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 7596.

Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size. American
Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557577.

Fortune, J. C., & O’Neil, J. S. (1994). Production function analysis and the study of
educational funding equity: a methodological critique. Journal of Education
Finance, 20(1), 2146.

Goertz, M. (1997). The challenges of collecting schoolbased data. Journal of Education
Finance, 22(3), 291302.

Goertz, M., & Stiefel, L. (1998). Schoollevel resource allocation in urban public
schools. Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 435446.

Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. (2007). Students first, renewing hope
  for California’s future. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from www.edsource.org.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1994). When reinventing the wheel is not
necessary: A case study in the use of metaanalysis in education finance. Journal
of Education Finance, 20(1), 120.

Guthrie, J., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling “adequacy” to achieve reality: Translating
Adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements. In H. Ladd, R.
Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and
perspectives (pp. 209259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of schoollevel resources on student
  performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141
164.

Hartman, W. T. (1999). Education funding disparities: What do the dollars buy? Journal
of Education Finance, 24(3), 389408.

Haycock, K. (2002). State policy levers: Closing the achievement gap. The State
Education Standard, 3, 713.

131

Hertert, L. (1996). Does equal funding for districts mean equal funding for classroom
students? Evidence from California. In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.),
Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary
schools (pp. 7184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Johnson, R. C. (2005). Making every dollar count. In Quality counts 2005 no small
change: Targeting money toward student performance. Education Week.
Retrieved on July 20, 2006 from www.edweek.org.

Ladd, H., & Hansen, J. (2002). Making money matter: Financing America’s schools. In
W. Fowler Jr., (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 19992000: Fiscal
proceedings from the annual state data conference, July 1999 and July 2000
(pp. 4555). National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Laine, R., Greenwald. R., & Hedges, L. (1996). Money does matter: A research synthesis
of a new universe of education production function studies. In L. O. Picus & J. L.
Wattengarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in
elementary and secondary schools (pp. 4470). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Monk, D. H. (1997). Challenges surrounding the collection and use of data for study of
finance and productivity. Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 303316.

Odden, A. (1999). Making better use of resources for educational reform. In D. D. Marsh
(Ed.), Preparing our schools for the 21
st
century: 1999 yearbook (pp. 143164).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120125.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources to support higher student
achievement: An empirical look at five sites. Journal of Education Finance,
25(4), 545564.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S., & Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school
level expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of
Education Finance, 28(3), 323356.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Committing to Class Size Reduction and Finding the
resources to implement it: A case study of resource reallocation in Kenosha,
Wisconsin. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(30). Retrieved July 6, 2002,
www.firstsearch.org.
132

Odden,A., Archibald, S., & Tychsen, A. (2000). Can Wisconsin schools afford
comprehensive school reform? Journal of Education Finance, 25(3), 323342.

Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3
rd
ed.).
Boston: McGraw Hill.

Odden, A., & Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., & TurnerMangan, M. (2006).
An evidencedbased approach to school finance adequacy in Washington. Report
prepared for the K12 advisory committee of Washington learns.

Okpala, C. (2002). Educational resources, student demographics and achievement scores.
Journal of Education Finance, 27(3), 885907.

Olson, L. (2005). No small Change: Financial evolution. Education Week. Retrieved on
July 6, 1006, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2005/01/06/index/html.

Picus, L. O. (2000). Studentlevel finance data: wave of the future? The Clearing House,
74(2), 7580.

Picus, L. O. (2000). Adequate funding: Courts wrestle with a new approach to fair and
equitable funding for education. American School Board Journal, Retrieved
November 16, 2000 from http://www.asbj.com/schoolspending/picus.html.

Picus, L. O. (1997). Using schoollevel finance data: Endless opportunity or bottomless
pit? Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 317330.

Picus, L. O., & Blair, L. (2004). School finance adequacy The state role. Southwest
Educational Laboratory Letter. XVI, 38.

Picus, L. O., & Peternick, L. (1998). Developing student resource variables for the early
childhood longitudinal survey. In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Selected papers in school
finance 1995 (pp. 107121). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.

Pruslow, J. (2001). What do we spend to educate a child? The student resource allocation
model. School Business Affairs. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from www.asbointl.org.

Robillard, E. (2001). The collection and use of studentlevel resource data K12
education. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.

133

Rothstein, R. (1998). Reflections on the limitations of our ability to measure school’s
productivity, and some perspectives from the past. In W. Fowler, Jr. (Ed.),
Developments in school finance, 1998: Fiscal proceedings from the annual state
data conference (pp. 1118). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.

School Level Data Collection. (2004). Education Week. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from
www.edweek.org.

Stiefel, L., Rubenstein, R., & Schwartz, A. E. (2004). From districts to schools: The
distribution of resources across schools in big city school districts. In D. H Monk
& J. Wyckoff (Eds.), Symposium on education finance and organizational
structure in New York State schools (pp. 111). Albany, NY: Educational Finance
Research Consortium.

Tetreault., D. (2000). Mining for answers: The challenges of state school finance data
based. The State Education Standard,1(2), 2529.

Thorson, G.R., & Edmondson, J. (2000). Making difficult times worse: The impact of per
pupil funding formulas on rural Minnesota schools (Eval. Rep. No. 142).
Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University, Center for Rural Policy and
Development.

U. S. Census Bureau. Public Education Finances. (2003). Annual Survey of
Local Government Finances, Issued March 2005.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003, February). NCLB, Stronger Accountability
Standards, Assessment and Accountability. Retrieved July 2, 2006 from
http://www.edgov/.

U. S. Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence. (1983). Nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Verstegen, D. A. (2002). The new finance: Today’s high standards call for a new way of
funding education. American School Board Journal. Retrieved, July 2, 2006 from
http://www.asbj.com/schoolspending/index.html.

Verstegen, D. A., & King R. A. (1998). The relationship between school spending and
student achievement. Journal of Education Finance 24(2), 243262.

134

Young, G. E. (2003). An analysis of per pupil resource allocation at an urban elementary
school. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
National Conference of State Legislatures, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
Retrieved June 27, 2005, from www.clso.org/programs/educ/NCLBHistory.html.

Zavis, A. (2009, March 10). Steep drop in property tax forecast. The Los Angeles Times,
  pp. A1, A16.

Asset Metadata

Creator Kimball, Rhonda L. (author)

Core Title Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/30/2009

Defense Date 07/08/2009

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

Tag education administration,education finance,oai:digitallibrary.usc.edu:usctheses,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation in districts and schools,school level finance

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email mike@americancompressor.com,ronditaone@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2775

Unique identifier UC1305041

Identifier etd-Kimball-3251 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-281775 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2775 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kimball-3251.pdf

Dmrecord 281775

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kimball, Rhonda L.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of per pupil expenditures at a specific school site. The objectives were threefold. The first objective was to determine per pupil expenditures, the second question was to determine variations in expenditures on a per student basis and finally, the third question in the study was to explain the factors that contribute to identified variation in expenditure patterns.