You are on page 1of 60

A Doctoral Defense

James Andrew Dailey


Submitted to the Graduate School Prairie View A&M University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Spring 2013 Delco 220 Major Subject: Educational Leadership

James Andrew Dailey


M.Ed. Prairie View A&M University
(May 16, 2009) Educational Administration

B.A. University of Houston


(May 1997) Major: History

B.A. University of Houston


(August 1995) Major: English

Doctoral Committee
Patricia Hoffman-Miller, Ph.D. (Dissertation Chair)
Judith Hansen, Ed.D. (Member) William Kritsonis, Ph.D. (Member) Solomon G. Osho, Ph.D. (Methodologist) Pamela Freeman, Ph.D. (Member)
3

Abstract
WHITLOWE R. GREEN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Doctoral Defense ABSTRACT
SCHOOL SPENDING AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A CAUSAL COMPARATIVE STUDY EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF PER PUPIL SPENDING ON STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS. (Spring 2013) James Andrew Dailey, M.Ed. - Prairie View A&M University; B.A. University of Houston Dissertation Chair: Patricia Hoffman-Miller, Ph.D.
4

Abstract

(Continued)

The causal-comparative study explored the impact of per pupil spending on student

academic achievement in southeastern school districts in the State of Texas. The available
research is convoluted with regression models attempting to account for socio-economic issues rather than focusing on whether a correlation exists between per pupil spending levels and academic achievement levels. The researcher utilized a causal-comparative research method to identify and analyze the cause and effect relationship between schools per pupil spending rates and academic achievement rates of high school students in school districts in southeastern Texas. The research and analysis completed for this causal-comparative study provides a basic understanding of per pupil spending and academic achievement, and lays a foundation for analyzing how to adequately fund the reforms of a post modernistic future in the state of Texas and nation as a whole.
5

Dissertation Defense Format


Part I: Part II: Part III: Part IV: Part V: Introduction Review Of The Literature Methodology Analysis of Data Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion.

Part I

Introduction

Statement of the Problem


Despite decades of litigation and passage of educational reforms, there still exists disparities in per pupil spending in educational districts across America, and often these disparities exist between schools within the same district. According to Rosa (2010): The basic premise of litigation was that discrepancies in access to resources gave some students a higher quality of public education than others, violating individuals right to equal protection under the law. That is, the more a district spent per pupil, the better education it could deliver than a district that spent less per pupil. (p. 19).
8

Statement of the Problem


The educational reforms of the past scar the landscape of the present, and cloud the road of the future, because many of these reforms lacked equitable funding mechanisms to insure their success. Students today are faced with a multitude of technological advances, and a globally connected economy. A basic understanding of per pupil spending and academic achievement is needed to lay the foundation for analyzing how to adequately fund the reforms of a post modernistic future in the state of Texas and nation as a whole.

The Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this causal-comparative study was to determine if there is a difference in student academic achievement between high schools with low per pupil spending levels and high schools with high per pupil spending levels as reported in the Texas Education Agency PEIMS and AEIS report of 2010-2011. This study focused on four areas of TAKS testing outcomes as reported in the Texas Education Agency AEIS report of 2010-2011: 10th grade Reading/ELA, 10th grade Mathematics, 11th grade Reading/ELA, and 11th grade Mathematics.

10

The Research Questions


1. Is there a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management
System (PEIMS) and the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA for 10 th grade? 2. Is there a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Mathematics for 10th grade?

11

The Research Questions


3. Is there a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management
System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA for 11th grade? 4. Is there a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Mathematics for 11th grade?

12

Research Hypotheses
H1 - As measured by the PEIMS and AEIS reports, 10th grade students from high per pupil spending schools will outperform 10th grade students from low per pupil spending schools on the Reading/ELA TAKS assessments. H1: x1 x2 H2 - As measured by the PEIMS and AEIS reports, 10th grade students from high per pupil spending schools will outperform 10th grade students from low per pupil spending schools on the Mathematics TAKS assessments. H2: x1 x2 H3 - As measured by the PEIMS and AEIS reports, 11th grade students from high per pupil spending schools will outperform 11th grade students from low per pupil spending schools on the Reading/ELA TAKS assessments. H3: x1 x2 H4 - As measured by the PEIMS and AEIS reports, 11th grade students from high per pupil spending schools will outperform 11th grade students from low per pupil spending schools on the Mathematics TAKS assessments. H4: x1 x2
13

The Null Hypotheses


H01 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between

low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported
on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 10th grade. H01: 1 2 = 0 H02 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on

the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 10th grade. H02: 1 2 = 0
H03 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 11th grade. H03: 1 2 = 0 H04 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 11th grade. H04: 1 2 = 0
14

Significance of the Study


This researcher believes that a preliminary study exploring whether or not student

achievement is affected by the level of per pupil spending is a precursor to


determine how per pupil spending occurs at given schools and districts. This study is significant for educational reform and equal educational opportunities with equitable funding, because it lays a basic foundation for understanding per pupil spending and academic achievement. This study attempted to determine whether students in schools with the highest level of per pupil funding outperform academically students in schools with the lowest per pupil level of funding.

15

Limitations of the Study


1. There are encompassing socio-economic factors, not analyzed in this investigation, which could affect testing results. 2. It is possible for specific school expenditures to vary greatly between high schools in this study. 3. It is possible that geographical surroundings of the included high schools could affect testing results. 4. Private, and Parochial high school per pupil spending rates were not included in the 2010-2011 AEIS reports, and therefore they are excluded from this study.

16

Delimitations of the Study


1. This was a causal-comparative quantitative study.

2. This study only focused on per pupil spending of the top ten high schools, and the bottom ten
high schools as reported on the AEIS report of 2010-2011for school districts within Harris County. 3. Student achievement outcomes of the TAKS assessments were delimited to Reading/ELA and Mathematics scores for only 10th and 11th grade. 4. Student achievement outcomes of the TAKS assessments were delimited to Reading/ELA and Mathematics scores for 2010-2011. 5. The findings of this causal-comparative quantitative study are limited to Texas.

17

Operational Definitions
Achievement Gap: The difference between how well low-income and minority children perform on standardized tests as compared with their peers. For many years, low-income and minority children have been falling behind their white peers in terms of academic achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Per Pupil Spending: Per pupil spending is calculated by dividing the current expense of education by average daily attendance (ADA) , which is defined as the total days of student attendance divided by the

total days of instruction.


Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) assessments are criterion-referenced achievement tests designed to measure the extent to which a student has learned and is able to apply the defined knowledge and skills at each tested grade level. The TAKS program was launched in 2003 and was scheduled to be replaced by the STAAR (State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness) program beginning in 2011 (Texas Education Agency, 2012).

18

Part II

Review of the Literature Review

19

Highlights of Major Themes


Separate But Equal Accountability and Equitable Funding

Legal Jurisprudence and Texas


State Per Pupil Funding Accountability Standards Privatization of Educational Reform

Global Financial Crisis


Per Pupil Spending and School Expenditures

Federal Funding and Impact on


Student Achievement African-Americans and Litigation School Finance and Texas Minority Population

Technology Teacher Efficacy and School Funding Educational Facilities and Postmodernism

20

Part III

Methodology

21

Research Method
The researcher utilized a causal-comparative research method to identify and analyze the cause and effect relationship between school per pupil spending rates and academic achievement rates of high school students in select districts in southeastern Texas.
According to Schenker and Rumrill (2004) causal-comparative designs often involve derived groups to analyze differences between the derived groups on dependent variables.

22

Research Design
The researcher utilized a causal-comparative design. This type of design allowed the researcher to choose the independent variables for which to analyze their effects on dependent variables (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009). The rationale for the researcher selecting a causal-comparative design was to determine how per pupil spending rates impact student academic achievement levels. In this causal-comparative study the independent variable was the per pupil rates for each high school

The dependent variables were the tenth and eleventh grade TAKS scores for Reading/ELA and Mathematics as reported on the AEIS reports.

23

Target Population
The public high schools chosen for the quantitative research study are located in southeastern Texas. All private and parochial schools are excluded from this study. The high schools serve students in grades 9-12. Tenth and eleventh grade test takers are the target population for this quantitative causal-comparative research study. The research included all tenth and eleventh grade student academic performance on the summative state assessment during the 2010-2011 school year.

24

Sampling of Participants
The research utilized purposive sampling. According to Singh (2007) when a
specific sample needs to be targeted for research the selection of the targets becomes purposive in nature. The researcher purposively selected the top ten per pupil spending

high schools, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high schools located within the
target area. This causal-comparative research study utilized 2010-2011 school year data from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports.

25

Description of the Instrumentation


Creswell (2009) argues that the validity of the instruments to collect data is paramount when conducting quantitative research. The instrumentation for this quantitative causal-comparative research study was the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills 2010-2011test, which is validated by the Texas Education Agency (2012). The per pupil spending rates of each high school selected were recorded from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) report.

26

Statistical Technique(s)
An independent T- Test was utilized in this causal-comparative research study.

According to Singh (2007) an independent T-Test is an appropriate test to conduct


causal-comparative research. The results of the T-Test were utilized to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in the comparisons , and therefore, if the null hypothesis are rejected (Creswell, 2009).

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 20 software was utilized by the researcher to analyze the collected data of the causal-comparative research

study.

27

Summary of Research Procedures


A quantitative causal-comparative research study was conducted by the researcher to identify and analyze the cause and effect relationship between a schools per pupil spending rates and academic achievement in high schools in school districts located in southeastern Texas. The researcher purposively selected the top ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas. The research utilized purposive sampling. The instrumentation for this quantitative causal-comparative research study was the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills 2010-2011 test, which has been validated by the Texas Education Agency (2012). An independent T- Test was utilized in this quantitative causal-comparative research study.

28

Part IV

Analysis of Data

29

Findings
The purpose of this causal-comparative study was to determine if there is a difference in student academic achievement between high schools with low per pupil spending levels and high schools with high per pupil spending levels as reported in the Texas Education Agency PEIMS and AEIS report of 2010-2011. This study focused on four areas of TAKS testing outcomes as reported in the Texas Education Agency AEIS report of 2010-2011: 10th grade Reading/ELA, 10th grade Mathematics, 11th grade Reading/ELA, and 11th grade Mathematics. The instrumentation for this quantitative causal-comparative research study was the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills 2010-2011 test, which has been validated by the Texas Education Agency (2012). The researcher purposively selected the top ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas.

30

Findings
The participants for this study were the top ten per pupil spending high

schools located within Harris County Texas, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high
schools located within Harris County Texas which consist of these school districts:
Aldine Independent School District Alief Independent School District Channelview Independent School District Clear Creek Independent School District Crosby Independent School District Cy-Fair Independent School District Dayton Independent School District Deer Park Independent School District Galena Park Independent School District Goose Creek Independent School District Houston Independent School District Huffman Independent School District Humble Independent School District Katy Independent School District Klein Independent School District La Porte Independent School District New Caney Independent School District North Forest Independent School District Pasadena Independent School District Pearland Independent School District Sheldon Independent School District Spring Independent School District Spring Branch School District Stafford Municipal School District Tomball Independent School District Waller Independent School District 31

Top Ten Selected Schools


Table 1.0 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) of the Top Ten Selected Schools.

Campus 1. Campus J 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Campus K Campus Q Campus A Campus S1 Campus S2 Campus F Campus S3 Campus N

Per Pupil Spending Rates 14,784 13,290 11,869 11,375 11,336 9,380 9,362 9,356 9,355 9,315
32

10. Campus C

* Campuses in alphabetical order using the first letter.

Bottom Ten Selected Schools


Table 2.0 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) of the Bottom Ten Selected Schools.

Campus 1. Campus C1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Campus C2 Campus E Campus T1 Campus T2 Campus C3 Campus S1 Campus S2 Campus V

Per Pupil Spending Rates 5,142 5,171 5,247 5,290 5,346 5,358 5,398 5,427 5,436 5,436
33

10. Campus K

* Campuses in alphabetical order using the first letter.

Frequency Table Top Ten


Table 7.0 Frequency Table and Central Tendencies identifying the Mode, Mean, Median and Standard Deviation of the Per Pupil Spending Rates, 10th Grade Mathematics Scores, 10th Grade English Scores, 11th Grade Mathematics Scores, and 11th Grade English Scores using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the Mathematics and English scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Top Ten Selected Schools.

Spending N Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode St. Deviation Range Minimum Maximum Sum Valid 10 10942.20 615.480 10358.00 9315a 1946.320 5469 9315 14784 109422

10th Math 10 65.50 4.220 71.50 73 13.344 40 42 82 655

10th ELA 10 85.30 2.176 86.50 78 6.881 20 75 95 853

11th Math 10 85.20 2.323 85.00 84 7.345 22 73 95 852

11th ELA 10 90.10 1.531 91.00 92 4.841 17 82 99 901

______________________________________________________________________________ a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

34

Frequency Table Bottom Ten


Table 8.0 Frequency Table and Central Tendencies identifying the Mode, Mean, Median and Standard Deviation of the Per Pupil Spending Rates, 10th Grade Mathematics Scores, 10th Grade English Scores, 11th Grade Mathematics Scores, and 11th Grade English Scores using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the Mathematics and English scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Bottom Ten Selected Schools.

Spending N Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode St. Deviation Range Minimum Maximum Sum Valid 10 5325.10 34.387 5352.00 5436 108.740 294 5142 5436 53251

10th Math 10 81.50 4.148 81.00 99 13.117 35 64 99 815

10th ELA 10 94.30 1.422 95.00 99 4.498 11 88 99 943

11th Math 10 92.60 1.833 92.50 98a 5.797 16 83 99 926

11th ELA 10 96.70 .817 97.50 99 2.584 6 93 99 967

______________________________________________________________________________ a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

35

1st Null Hypothesis


1. H01 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and


AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 10th grade.

36

1st Null Hypothesis Findings


Table 9.0 Independent T-Test using the using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the 10th Grade English scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Top Ten and Bottom Ten Selected Schools. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-Tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

English Equal variances assumed Equal variances Not assumed

2.044

.170

-3.462

18

.003

-9.000

2.600

-3.462

15.505

.003

-9.000

2.600

______________________________________________________________________________ * The level of significance p 0.05 The null hypothesis is rejected because the significance level is less than .05. The data revealed that there is a significant difference between student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 10th grade.
37

2nd Null Hypothesis


2. H02 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and


AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 10th grade.

38

2nd Null Hypothesis Findings


Table 10.0 Independent T-Test using the using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the 10th Grade Mathematics scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Top Ten and Bottom Ten Selected Schools. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-Tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

Math Equal variances assumed Equal variances Not assumed

.000

1.000

-2.704

18

.015

-16.000

5.917

-2.704

17.995

.015

-16.000

5.917

______________________________________________________________________________ * The level of significance p 0.05 The null hypothesis is rejected because the significance level is less than .05. The data revealed that there is a significant difference between student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 10th grade.
39

3rd Null Hypothesis


3. H03 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and


AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 11th grade.

40

3rd Null Hypothesis Findings


Table 11.0 Independent T-Test using the using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the 11th Grade English scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Top Ten and Bottom Ten Selected Schools. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-Tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

English Equal variances assumed Equal variances Not assumed

2.172

.158

-3.803

18

.001

-6.600

1.735

-3.803

13.744

.002

-6.600

1.735

______________________________________________________________________________ * The level of significance p 0.05 The null hypothesis is rejected because the significance level is less than .05. The data revealed that there is a significant difference between student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 11th grade. 41

4th Null Hypothesis


4. H04 There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and


AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 11th grade.

42

4th Null Hypothesis Findings


Table 12.0 Independent T-Test using the using the 2010-2011 school Per Pupil Spending rates report from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and 2010-2011 AEIS report of the 11th Grade Mathematics scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Exam of the Top Ten and Bottom Ten Selected Schools. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-Tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

Math Equal variances assumed Equal variances Not assumed

.286

.600

-2.501

18

.022

-7.400

2.959

-2.501

17.077

.023

-7.400

2.959

______________________________________________________________________________ * The level of significance p 0.05 The null hypothesis is rejected because the significance level is less than .05. The data revealed that there is a significant difference between student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 11th grade. 43

Part V

Summary, Recommendations, & Conclusion

44

Summary
This causal-comparative research study explored the impact of per pupil

spending on student academic achievement in southeastern school districts in Texas.


The researcher purposively selected the top ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high schools located within Harris County Texas. The purpose of this causal-comparative study was to determine if there was a difference in student academic achievement between high

schools with low per pupil spending levels and high schools with high per pupil
spending levels as reported in the Texas Education Agency PEIMS and AEIS report of 2010-2011.
45

Summary Continued
The average student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was

1,037, while the average student population of the Bottom Ten per pupil spending
schools was 2,716. The average At-Risk student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was 66.42%, while the average At-Risk student population of the Bottom Ten per pupil spending schools was 40.77%. The average years of experience of the teachers at the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was 10.45 years, while the average years of experience of the teachers at the

Bottom Ten per pupil spending schools was 10.94 years.


The average African-American student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was 39.91%, while the average African-American student population of the Bottom Ten per pupil spending schools was 19.51%.
46

Summary Continued
The average Hispanic student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools

was 48.61%, while the average Hispanic student population of the Bottom Ten per
pupil spending schools was 34.73%. The average White student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was 8.27%, while the average White student population of the Bottom Ten per pupil spending schools was 34.11%. The average Asian student population of the Top Ten per pupil spending schools was 2.19%, while the average Asian student population of the Bottom Ten per pupil

spending schools was 9.31%.

47

Summary Continued
The research and analysis completed for this study explored whether or not
student achievement is affected by the level of per pupil spending to serve as a precursor to determine how per pupil spending occurs at given schools and districts. The study found that there is a statistically significant difference in student academic achievement between high schools with low per pupil spending levels and high schools with high per pupil spending levels as reported in the Texas Education Agency PEIMS and AEIS report of 2010-2011.

48

Recommendations For Further Study


In accordance with the results of this causal-comparative study, the researcher recommends the following for further study: 1. A study could be performed to explore the impact of student At-Risk populations on whether there is a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public

Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence


Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). 2. A study could be performed to explore the impact of over-all student population on

whether there is a difference in student achievement between low per pupil


spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).
49

Recommendations For Further Study


3. A study could be performed to explore the impact of the allocation of school funds on whether there is a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). 4. A study could be performed to explore the impact of student gender populations on whether there is a difference in student achievement between low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public

Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence


Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).
50

Recommendations For Further Study


5. A study could be performed to explore the impact of Federal allocation of

educational funds on whether there is a difference in student achievement between


low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). 6. A study could be performed to explore the impact of State allocation of educational funds on whether there is a difference in student achievement between low per

pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public
Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).
51

Conclusion
In conclusion, according to the data, the Bottom Ten per pupil spending

schools located within Harris County Texas outperformed the Top Ten per pupil
spending schools located within Harris County Texas on the 2010-2011 TAKS: 10th grade English Exam, 10th grade Math Exam, 11th grade English Exam, and the 11th grade Math Exam. With billions of dollars cut from current educational funding budgets in the state of Texas, school districts are resorting to litigation to alleviate their financial crises, and these difficult times in education in Texas are exasperated by the new state

accountability measures of the STAAR exams. The heart of all current educational
equity litigation in Texas today is that there are not enough funds to adequately provide equity in education to be able to meet current accountability measures.
52

Conclusion
Texas Honorable District Judge John Dietz, on February 4, 2013, ruled that
the state's school finance system is unconstitutional, and suggested a figure of $2,000 needs to be added to the per pupil spending levels in the state of Texas (Peyton, 2013). It is the funding schemes and formulas utilized at the local, state, and federal levels which contribute to a widening of the achievement gap. Miles and Roza (2006) argue that even though urban school districts across the United States of America are aware that staff-based allocation of resources over student-centric formulas are creating

per pupil spending inequities, they continue to utilize such an antiquated inequitable
funding system. The research and analysis completed for this causal-comparative study provides a basic understanding of per pupil spending and academic achievement, and lays a foundation for analyzing how to adequately fund the reforms of a post modernistic future in the state of Texas and nation as a whole.
53

Thank You

54

References
Ajilore, O. (2006). Econometric Issues in Education Finance. Review Of Regional Studies, 36(2), 192-204. Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on Educational Resources That Do Affect Student Achievement. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(4), 23-42. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8104_2 Battaglino, T., Haldeman, M., & Laurans, E. 2012-01-10 The Costs of Online Learning. Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning: A Working Paper Series from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC. Bernstein, S. (2004). Teaching and Learning in Texas: Accountability Testing, Language, Race, and Place. Journal Of Basic Writing, 23(1), 4-24. Boswell, C. (2010). State Education Finance and Governance Profile: Texas. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 85(1), 101-103. doi:10.1080/01619560903524001 Carr, M. J., Gray, N. L., & Holley, M. J. (2007). Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An Analysis of Intra-District Spending Patterns in Ohio. Journal Of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 7(1), 36-53. Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep Your Eye on Texas and California: A Look at Testing, School Reform, No Child Left Behind, and Implications for Students of Color. Journal Of Negro Education, 74(4), 332-343. Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore.

55

References
Dills, A. K. (2004). Do Parents Value Changes in Test Scores? High Stakes Testing in Texas. Contributions To Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), 1-32. Downes, T. A., & Shah, M. P. (2006). The Effect of School Finance Reforms on the Level and Growth of Per-Pupil Expenditures. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(3), 1-38. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_1 Earthman, G. (2009). Planning Educational Facilities: What Educators Need To Know. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Eaton, S., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Is Desegregation Dead? Parsing the Relationship between Achievement and Demographics. Education Next, 10(4), 50-59. Emery, K. (2007). Corporate Control of Public School Goals: High-Stakes Testing in Its Historical Perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 25-44. Everhart, R. (2006). Why Are Schools Always Begging for Money? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 70-75. Financial Allocation Study for Texas (2010). Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. The Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY. Glen, W. J. (2006). Separate But Not Yet Equal: The Relation Between School Finance Adequacy Litigation and African American Student Achievement. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(3), 63-93. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_3 Greene, J. P., & Trivitt, J. R. (2008). Can Judges Improve Academic Achievement?. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 83(2), 224-237. doi:10.1080/01619560801997010 Grubb, Norton W. (2009). The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, New York. Hart, P. (2004). Hood Riddance. Texas Monthly, 32(3), 58-88.

56

References
Hedman, C. (2011). SCHOOL LAW--THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PROLONGS EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS. SMU Law Review, 64(2), 779-785. Hines, M., Conner, J., Campano, G., Damico, J., Enoch, M., & Nam, D. (2007). National Mandates and Statewide Enactments: Inquiry in/to Large-Scale Reform. English Teaching: Practice And Critique, 6(3), 76-91. Hoff, D. J. (2005). Texas School Finance Ruling Draws National Attention. Education Week, 25(14), 25-27. Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of highstakes testing in the USA: accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622. doi:10.1080/01411920500240767 Imazeki, J., & Reschovsky, A. (2005). Assessing the Use of Econometric Analysis in Estimating the Costs of Meeting State Education Accountability Standards: Lessons from Texas. Peabody Journal Of Education, 80(3), 96-125. Ishaq, K., & Kritsonis, W. (2009). Applying Postmodernism: Solutions to all our Educational Problems. ERIC Online Submission. Janssen, J. J. (2000). Public School Finance, School Choice, and Equal Educational Opportunity in Texas: The Enduring Importance of Background Conditions. Review Of Litigation, 19(1), 1. Jimenez-Castellanos, O. (2010). Relationship Between Educational Resources and School Achievement: A Mixed Method Intra-District Analysis. Urban Review, 42(4), 351-371. doi:10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6 Johnson, P. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2010) Greener Schools, Greater Learning, and the LEED Value. Doctoral Forum: National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 7 (1). 57

References
Lee, J. (2010). Dual Standards of School Performance and Funding? Empirical Searches of School Funding Adequacy in Kentucky and Maine. Education Economics, 18(2), 207228. Lips, D., Watkins, S. J., Fleming, J., & Heritage, F. (2008). Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? Backgrounder. No. 2179. Heritage Foundation. Liu, G. (2008). Improving Title I Funding Equity Across States, Districts, and Schools. Iowa Law Review, 93(3), 973-1013. Mcfadden, L. (2009). Miami's "Zone" Teaches Lessons About Low-Performing Schools. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 557-562. Miles, K., & Roza, M. (2006). Understanding Student-Weighted Allocation as a Means to Greater School Resource Equity. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(3), 39-62. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_2 Moore, S. D., Kochan, F. K., Kraska, M., & Reames, E. H. (2011). Professional Development and Student Achievement in High Poverty Schools: Making the Connection. International Studies In Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council For Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 39(2), 65-79. Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 42-48. Picus, L. O., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence From Wyoming. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 80(3), 71-95.

58

References
Preuss, G. (2009). The "Father" of Texas Education: A.M. Aikin and the Modernization of Texas Public Schools. East Texas Historical Journal, 48(2), 17-25. Ram, R. (2004). School expenditures and student achievement: evidence for the United States. Education Economics, 12(2), 169-176. Richwine, J., & Heritage, F. (2011). The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding. Backgrounder. No. 2548. Heritage Foundation. Roza, M. (2010). Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Russo, C. J. (2009). ASBO at 100: A Supreme Court Retrospective on Equal Educational Opportunities. School Business Affairs, 75(1), 36-39. Ryan, K. & Cooper, J. (1995). Those Who Can, Teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Salinas, C. S., & Reidel, M. (2007). The Cultural Politics of the Texas Educational Reform Agenda: Examining Who Gets What, When, and How. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 42-56. Schachter, R. (2010). The Price of a Good Education. District Administration, 46(9), 39-54. Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, J. D. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 117-121. Sharp, W. L. (1993). School Spending: Is There a Relationship between Spending and Student Achievement? A Correlation Study of Illinois Schools. Shelly, B. (2011). Money, Mandates, and Local Control in American Public Education. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. Sage Publications: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore.

59

References
Smith, M. (2011, December 2). Robin Hood an Accepted Reality for Texas Schools. The Texas Tribune, p. A1. Smith, C. (2012, April 5). State comptroller says health care bill will reduce education spending. The Bryan College Station Eagle, p. A1. Stutz, T. (2012). School finance trial to start in late October. Dallas News April 16, 2012. Texas Education Agency (2012). An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas.http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=148 Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The Walls Speak: The Interplay of Quality Facilities, School Climate, and Student Achievement. Journal Of Educational Administration, 46(1), 55-73. Uline, C. L., Wolsey, T., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Lin, C. (2010). Improving the Physical and Social Environment of School: A Question of Equity. Journal Of School Leadership, 20(5), 597-632. United States Census Bureau (2011). Public Education Finances: 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, May 2011. U.S. Department of Education (2012). Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., & Maniotis, L. (2005) the Educator's Guide to Texas School Law. University of Texas Press, Austin. Whitney, A. (2012, April 3). Districts Avoid School Finance Lawsuits, Cite Finances. The Texas Tribune, p. A1.

60