Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Critique of the Article

“A lingering Question of Priorities: Athletic Budgets and Academic Performance Revisited”

Emmanuel K. Fai

Course: HLTH 8008-2

Walden University

School of health Sciences

October 08, 2009

1
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Bibliography
Meier, K. J., Eller, W. S., Marchbanks III, M. P., Robinson, S., Polinard, S., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2004). A
Lingering Question of Priorities: Athletic Budgets and Academic Performance Revisited. Review of
Policy Research, 21(6), 799-807. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00109.x
Description of the central research problem

a) Research Topic

The topic is athletes’ academic performance. The authors state, “The impact of athletics on
academic performance of the entire school remains an open question.” This makes the research topic
more specific, focusing on athletics and academic performance.

b) Research Problem

The research problem is divergent goals in an academic setting can hamper the primary mission
of the organization. The authors stated that a positive impact on spending public money on
extracurricular activities such as athletics (p. 800). This accounts for the why public money is spent on
extracurricular activities. The year of the original research is not clearly stated, and this research is a
follow-up with more data. The research is to investigate if devotion to athletics competes with the
traditional mission of academic institutions and the impact of athletic budgets on academic performance
within Texas school districts. The problem was not clearly stated. The article does not show how the
problem relates to previous work in this area (American Psychological Problem, 2010, p. 27). The
article does not show the theoretical and practical implications of the study.
c) Purpose
The research is to address whether athletics and academics are divergent goals and the impact of
athletic budgets on academic performance. The purpose was clearly and concisely and agreed with the
title. The research purpose is not clear to an average reader. The audiences are politicians and school
organizations that spend tax dollars money to support athletic activities without considering the
implication of athletic on academic performance in the district level.
d)Research questions
The research question is “do expenditures on athletic budgets within a school district have an impact,
either positive or negative, on overall academic performance of that district?” This research question does not
relate very well with the title of the article. Primary and secondary hypothesis are not stated.

2
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Review of Literature
The authors cited no clear review of literature, however; the authors used appropriate reference in the
introduction. The authors stated, “Existing literature on the impact of athletics on student performance has
concentrated on individual-level analysis.” The research is shallow if because it did not state the academic
performance of nonathletic students.
Quality of Evidence
The authors cited “a considerable body of research indicates that student participation in extracurricular
activities as athletics minimizes delinquency (Landers & Landers, 1978)” to support the positive impact of
athletics on students (p. 799, introduction, para.2). This is strong evidence, however; this reference is very old,
and activities of 1978 are different from those of 2004 (p. 799, introduction, para.1). The evidence “a person
might be excused if, upon visiting a school, he or she concluded that the primary objective of the school system
was to field an athletic team (Coleman, 1961)” is weak to support the many athletic programs in public schools
(p. 799, introduction, para.1). The authors stated, “Institutionalizing athletics may signal students that athletics
are as important as or more important that academic performance” (p. 800 introduction, para.6) and no
supporting evidence.
Methods
The data came from Texas school districts covering form 1997 to 1998. The authors used “Texas is well
known as a state that is fanatical about athletics in general and football in particular (Bissinger, 1991; Gent,
1973; Jenkins, 1972)”, to support the choice of Texas school districts as a source of data (p. 800, data and
method, para.1). The authors did not mention sampling procedure, sample size, power, precision, and research
design. Thus, it is difficult for the audience to analyze the research. Dependent variables and the independent
variables were not concisely stated. The research methodology is not clear to an average audience like an
athletic player. The primary audience is educational policy makers, because the authors published it in the
Review of Policy Research journal.
There is some limitation of bias. In referring to subjects, the authors stated “black and Latino students” (p.
802 data and method, iv. para.3). The authors capitalized Latino, but not ‘black’. According to American
Psychological Association (2010, p. 75), when referring to racial and ethnic groups, use capitalized proper
noun. The authors used color for the Black race, and region for Latino Race and this is not consistency. The
authors used minority without a modifier-racial or ethnic before the noun (American Psychological
Association, 2010, p. 75).

3
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE

The authors mentioned control variables. The dependent variables were students’ attendants, basic skills,
and average SAT and ACTS scores. Independent variables include the per student athletics budget of the
district, and percentage of African American and Latino students in Texas district schools. Poverty and total
per student expenditures were controlled. Hypothesis 1 is the relationship between athletic expenditures and
student performance, which agreed with the research topic. The authors used the T-Score to analyze the data,
but not full discussion about the distributed mentioned.
Results

The authors presented the data in table form and explained with a short narrative. The authors did not begin
by relating findings back to the overall purpose of the study.

Findings
 Hypothesis 1 is positive, but not statistically significant. The authors stated that the results are
most consistent with the null hypothesis, but did not go further to show the consistency.
 Athletics can influence student performance on basic exam performance. Table 2 results show a
negative Texas Assessment of Academic Kills [TAAS] relationship between athletic
expenditures and student performance.
 Strong negative relationship exists between athletic budgets and student performance on SAT
and ACT examinations. From the article, “the athletic budgets can have a can have a maximum
impact of 45 points on SAT or 1.2 points on the ACT” (p. 803, findings, para.3).
 School districts with larger athletic budgets have student bodies that are less likely to participate
in college admission tests and less likely to score highly on these tests.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the authors stated that existing literature shows a positive relationship between athletics
and student performance, but when the analyses is moved to a district level, different results are obtained. In
addition, the authors mentioned that when school district spends money on athletics, academic performance is
low. Furthermore, the authors suggested that additional research merits the impact of athletic expenditures on
the overall academic performance. The authors based the conclusions on logical findings. The recommendation
for future studies was adequately stated. This article was well organized, but not in-depth. The sampling
procedure and size were not clearly stated. Overall, the not meet the quality of a scholarly article.

4
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE

References

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
(6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author
Meier, K. J., Eller, W. S., Marchbanks III, M. P., Robinson, S., Polinard, S., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2004). A
Lingering Question of Priorities: athletic Budgets and Academic Performance Revisited. Review of
Policy Research, 21(6), 799-807. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00109.x