<%BANNER%>

The No Child Left Behind Comparability Provision and Within-District Resource Distribution

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043910/00001

Material Information

Title: The No Child Left Behind Comparability Provision and Within-District Resource Distribution an Examination of One Florida School District
Physical Description: 1 online resource (139 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chaprnka, Danielle L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: comparability -- equality -- equity -- expenditures -- fefp -- funding -- nclb
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The intent of Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to ensure that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, are provided a fair and equitable opportunity to meet challenging academic performance standards. Given such, Title I legislation requires that additional federal funding be provided to school districts and schools serving high percentages of children living near or at poverty levels. Furthermore, the Comparability and Supplement, not Supplant provisions of Title I require school districts to allocate federal, state, and local funds in a manner so that Title I funds serve as supplemental funds to schools serving high percentages of disadvantaged students. While the Federal Title I program brings local school districts additional funds, the efforts that local school district officials take to ensure that such funds are integrated with state and local funds so as to provide increased spending on the highest poverty schools are often unclear. Decisions made at the school district level that alter the spending levels of state and local funds have the ability to offset the impact of Title I funding. Such decisions often involve the placement of the school district's most experienced, educated teachers, who earn higher salaries than their less experienced, less educated colleagues. To this extent, the ability of Title I to provide supplemental resources among schools serving disadvantaged students becomes diminished. The purpose of this study was to analyze the spending patterns within one selected Florida school district over the fiscal year period of 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 and identify whether significant differences exist between the amounts of state and local funds expended per-pupil at Title I schools versus non-Title I schools, either before or after accounting for teacher salaries. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. The descriptive statistical measures employed were the mean, median, and standard deviation. In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per-pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I and non-Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two-sample Test was employed. The results illustrate that, in the selected Florida school district, the per-pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I schools, as compared to non-Title I schools, were generally equal, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. These findings suggest that the Federal Title I Comparability provision's requirement that school district officials distribute state and local funds equally before layering on Title I funds was being met within one Florida school district.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Danielle L Chaprnka.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043910:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043910/00001

Material Information

Title: The No Child Left Behind Comparability Provision and Within-District Resource Distribution an Examination of One Florida School District
Physical Description: 1 online resource (139 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chaprnka, Danielle L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: comparability -- equality -- equity -- expenditures -- fefp -- funding -- nclb
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The intent of Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to ensure that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, are provided a fair and equitable opportunity to meet challenging academic performance standards. Given such, Title I legislation requires that additional federal funding be provided to school districts and schools serving high percentages of children living near or at poverty levels. Furthermore, the Comparability and Supplement, not Supplant provisions of Title I require school districts to allocate federal, state, and local funds in a manner so that Title I funds serve as supplemental funds to schools serving high percentages of disadvantaged students. While the Federal Title I program brings local school districts additional funds, the efforts that local school district officials take to ensure that such funds are integrated with state and local funds so as to provide increased spending on the highest poverty schools are often unclear. Decisions made at the school district level that alter the spending levels of state and local funds have the ability to offset the impact of Title I funding. Such decisions often involve the placement of the school district's most experienced, educated teachers, who earn higher salaries than their less experienced, less educated colleagues. To this extent, the ability of Title I to provide supplemental resources among schools serving disadvantaged students becomes diminished. The purpose of this study was to analyze the spending patterns within one selected Florida school district over the fiscal year period of 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 and identify whether significant differences exist between the amounts of state and local funds expended per-pupil at Title I schools versus non-Title I schools, either before or after accounting for teacher salaries. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. The descriptive statistical measures employed were the mean, median, and standard deviation. In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per-pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I and non-Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two-sample Test was employed. The results illustrate that, in the selected Florida school district, the per-pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I schools, as compared to non-Title I schools, were generally equal, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. These findings suggest that the Federal Title I Comparability provision's requirement that school district officials distribute state and local funds equally before layering on Title I funds was being met within one Florida school district.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Danielle L Chaprnka.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043910:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE NO CHILD LEFT BE HIND COMPARABILITY P ROVISION AND WITHIN DISTRICT RESOURCE DISTRIBUTIO N: AN EXAMINATION OF ONE FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DANIELLE L. CHAPRNKA A DISSERTATION PRESE NTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIV ERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIA L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATI ON UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Danielle L. Chaprnka

PAGE 3

3 T o my d aughter, Paloma, who is my inspiration

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When I be gan the pursuit of my doctorate in the fall of 2007, I never imagined how many lives would be affected by my goals. I want to thank each of my family members, friends, and the University of Florida faculty members who helped and enabled me to make my drea m of earning my doctora te degree a reality. I could not have completed this trying journey without each and every one of you by my side. I would like to thank all of the faculty and staff at the University of Florida who have enabled me to earn this degre e. Dr. Mousa, for your kindness, time, and encouragement, I a m truly thankful. Dr. Crockett, Dr. Eldridge, and Dr. Garvan, who are three of the classiest ladies I have ever met, you are beautiful role models who have made ever lasting impressions on who I am as a person and an educator. Thank you, Dr. Garvan, for so graciously offering me your time and statistical expertise. Finally, I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. R. Craig Wo od, who is one of the most intelligent men I have ever met, for p roviding me the perfect combination of independence, guidance, and directive th roughout my dissertation work. I would not have been able to devise and carry out the research presented in this dissertation without your expertise, patience, and direction. Your time and insight are invaluable, and it has been a privilege to be your student. I would also like to thank my treasured friends, who have stuck by me during the past five years. I have had to turn down more invitations than not during t he course of my doctor ate work. T o those who understood, encouraged, and supported me, and who m I can still consider a treasured friend, particularly Sarah B., Amy P., Aimee E., Natalie W., and Cheryl M., with all my heart, I thank you. I especially want to thank my friends and fellow certificat ion cohort members who were able to prov ide encouragement, support, and empathy like no others could.

PAGE 5

5 A special thank you to Brent G who is a wizard at Excel, for his time and efforts in helping me create my tab les and f igures. Thank you to my beloved mother in law, Connie, and father in law Frank. You both have truly picked up where this doctora te degree has required Frank and me to leave off. The countless hours and days of help you have given us have be en monumental in enabling me to complete this work. For the love you have given me, and all that you both have done, and continue to do, I am truly grateful. I wish to thank my cherished Mom and Dad. It is because of you both that I am what I have become You both have provided me with the foundation to be successful in whatever I choose to pursue. Your happiness and pride in me has been the catalyst for all that I have accomplished. For so many reasons, I embarked on and completed this doctora te degree for you both. And, of course, most important of all, I want to thank my husband, Frank, and my daughter unending. The efforts this degree required him t o make were every bit as demanding as those required of me. Without his understanding, patience, and support, I never would have come to the end of this journey. And, to my dear Paloma, thank you for fulfilling me with so much happiness, desire, and insp iration. Every effort I make is for you. Frank and Paloma: this doctora te degree is truly our success.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 15 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 23 Purpose of t he Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26 Significance of the study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 29 Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 30 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 2 REV I EW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Federal Aid before Title I ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 T he Emergence of Title I ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ................................ ................................ 37 Title I (1965 1980) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Title I (1980 1994) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 46 Title I (1994 2001) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 51 Title I (2001 Present) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53 NCLB Act State Requirements ................................ ................................ ....................... 53 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) ................................ ................................ ................... 55 NCLB Act School D istrict Requirements ................................ ................................ ....... 58 Current Title I Components ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 Title I and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) ................. 60 Education Litigation and Title I ................................ ................................ .............................. 61 Equality, Equity, and Adequacy ................................ ................................ ............................. 62 Equality versus Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 62 Horizontal Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 63 Vertical Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 64 Adequacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 65 Inequities in School Funding ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 66

PAGE 7

7 Inequities among Districts within States ................................ ................................ ......... 66 Inequities across States ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 68 Inequities among Schools within Districts ................................ ................................ ...... 69 The Shift from Equity to Adequacy School Finance Litigation ................................ .......... 70 The Need for Improved Student Performance ................................ ................................ ........ 75 Does Money Matter? ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 78 The Dispersion of Base Resource Allocations ................................ ................................ ....... 80 The Fund Structure of Florida School Districts ................................ ................................ ...... 85 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 90 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 91 Program Cost Accounting and Reporting in Florida ................................ .............................. 91 FTE, Cost Factors, and Weighted FTE ................................ ................................ ................... 94 Descriptive Statistical Measures ................................ ................................ ............................. 96 Mean ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 96 Median ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 97 Standard Deviation ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 97 Inferential Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 98 Data Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 101 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 101 4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ................................ ................................ ........................ 103 Descriptive Statistics Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 104 Mean and Standard Deviation ................................ ................................ ....................... 104 Median ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 106 Statistical Hypothesis Test Results ................................ ................................ ....................... 107 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 108 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 115 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 116 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 117 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ ................ 119 APPENDIX A FTE HISTORICAL REPORT ................................ ................................ .............................. 123 B ANNUAL GEN ERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REPORTS ................................ ............... 127 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 138

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLE S Table page 4 1 Descriptive Statistics for State and Local Expenditures per Pupil on direct instruction at both Title I and non Title I schools, without accounting for teacher salaries for fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. ..... 110 4 2 Descriptive Statistics for State and Local Expenditures per Pupil on direct instruction at both T itle I and non Title I schools, after accounting for teacher salaries for fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar ............... 110 4 3 Wilcoxon Two sample Test resu lts for per pupil expenditures before accounting for teacher salaries. Dollar amounts reflect median per pupil expenditures, and have been rounded to the nearest dollar. ................................ ................................ .................. 113 4 4 Wilcoxon Two s ample Test results for per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries. Dollar amounts reflect median per pupil expenditures, and have been rounded to the nearest dollar. ................................ ................................ .................. 114

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 The mean state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I before accounting for teacher salaries schools for FYs 2006 to 2010. ............................ 111 4 2 Mean state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I schools after accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010. ................................ ............ 111 4 3 Medi an state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I schools before accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010. ................................ ......... 112 4 4 Median state and local expenditures per pu pil for both Title I and non Title I schools after accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010. ................................ ............ 112

PAGE 10

10 DEFINITION OF TERMS A DEQUACY of educational funding ensures that all schools have sufficient resources to ach ieve a specified outcome standard. 1 C OMPARABILITY P ROVISION is a provision of Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 stating that school districts may receive Title I funds only if state and local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving Title I funds. 2 E LEMENTARY AND S ECONDARY E DUCATION A CT OF 1965 (ESEA ) was a Great Society initiative directed especially at enhancing o pportunities for low income students, while improving the overall quality of education. 3 E QUITY is the fair distribution and expending of available resources within a state. 4 E QUALITY in educat ional funding has been interpreted to mean providing the same amount of money for each pupil who is to be educated. 5 F ULL TIME E QUIVALENT (FTE) S TUDENTS are students who are enrolled full time in one or more funded education programs. 6 1 Education Finance and Policy 3, no. 4 (2008): 404 405. 2 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (Supp. I 2002). 3 National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act ed. John F. Jennings (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 1995), 4. 4 Vern Brimley, Jr. and Rulon R. Garfield, Financing Educ ation in a Climate of Change, 10 th ed. (Boston: Pearson Education, 2008), 60. 5 Ibid., 63. 6 Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts Statistical Report: 2010 2011 (Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting) : 1 accessed December 22 nd 2010, http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf

PAGE 11

11 F INANCIAL A ND P ROGRAM C OST A CCOUNTING AND R EPORTING FOR F LORIDA S CHOOLS (R EDBOOK 2001 ) is a manual to provide Florida school districts with a uniform chart of accounts for budgeting and financial reporting, especially addressing topics such as governmental accountin g standards, program cost accounting and reporting, and school internal funds. 7 F ISCAL Y EAR (FY) is a time period used for calculating annual financial statements in businesses and other organizations. For the purposes of this paper, a fiscal year ref ers to the time period starting July 1st and ending June 30th. F UNCTION refers to the objective or purpose of an expenditure. Functions are the activities performed to accomplish the objectives of an organization. The activities of school districts are classified into four major functional categories: instruction, instructional support services, general support services, and community services. 8 G ENERAL F UND is a governmental fund holding all money not reserved to other funds. The general fund is th e largest of all funds in a school district because most current annual instructional expenditures are paid from it, including teacher and administrator salaries, teaching supplies, insurances and utilities. 9 H ORIZONTAL E QUITY implies that students, all of whom are perceived to be equal in their right to an education, should be treated equally. 10 L OCAL E DUCATION A GENCY (LEA) is synonymous with the term school district, which is an entity that operates local public primary and secondary schools. N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND A CT OF 2001 (NCLB) is an Act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. 11 7 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redboo k 2001) (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 2001): 1 1, accessed February 19 th 2011, http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/redtoc.asp 8 Ibid., 1 2. 9 David C. Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and Faith E. C rampton, Money and School s, 4 th ed (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2008), 111. 10 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984), 13. 11 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 12

12 O BJECT refers to the goods purchased or the service obtained. There are eight major object categories : salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, energy services, materials and supplies, capital outlay, other expenses, and transfers. 12 S UPPLEMENT NOT S UPPLANT P ROVISION is a provision of Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 stating that a state educational agency or local educational agency shall use federal funds received under Title I only to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such federal funds, be made available from non federal sources for the education of pupils part icipating in programs assisted under this part, and not supplant such funds. 13 T ITLE I stated purpose is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. 14 T ITLE I, P ART A is the first of nine Parts (Parts A through I) into which Title I legislation is categorized. The language of Part A is aimed at improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies and is further broken into two Subparts: Basic Program Requirements and Allocations. 15 V ERTICAL E QUITY recognizes that students are different and requires that unequals receive appropriately unequal treatment. 16 12 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001), 1 2. 13 Ibid. 14 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 ( Supp. I 2002). 15 Ibid. 16 Berne and Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance, 13

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education THE NO CHILD LEFT BE HIND COMPARABILITY P ROVISION AND WITHIN DISTRICT RE SOURCE DISTRIBUTION: AN EXAMINATION OF ON E FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICT By Danielle L. Chaprnka May 2012 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership The intent of Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to ensure that all students, regardles s of their socioeconomic status, are provided a fair and equitable opportunity to meet challenging academic performance standards. Given such, Title I legislation provides for federal funding to be administered to school districts and schools serving high percentages of children living near or at poverty levels The Supplement, not Supplant p rovision within Title I legislation require s that such f ederal funding supplement state and local funding administered to schools serving needy student populations. W hile the Federal Title I program brings local school districts additional funds, d ecisions made at the school district level that alter the spending levels of state and local funds have the ability to offset the impact of Title I funding. Such decisions o earn higher salaries than their less experienced, less educated colleagues. The purpose of this study was to analyze the spending patterns within one selected Fl orida school district over the fiscal year period of 2005 2006 through 2009 2010 and identify whether significant differences exist between the amounts of state and local funds expended per pupil at Title I schools versus non Title I schools, either before or after accounting for teacher salaries.

PAGE 14

14 Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. The descriptive statistical measures employed were the mean, median, and standard deviation. In order to test for a statistically significant difference bet ween the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I and non Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two sample Test was employed. The results illustrate that, in the selected Florida school district, the per pupil expenditures of state and local fun ds at Title I schools, as compared to non Title I schools, were generally equal, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. These findings suggest that the Title I Supplement, not Supplant distribute state and local funds equally before layering on Title I funds was being met within one Florida school district.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION been assistin g schools in meeting the educational needs of students living near or at poverty levels. 1 Originally, the concept of Title I was enacted in 1965 under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 2 The ESEA committed to closing the achievement gap b etween low income students and their more advantaged peers. The ESEA has been amended and reauthorized several times since its 1965 enactment. The most current reauthorization, known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) states that the purpose of Title I high quality education and reach, at minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic 3 Moreover, the Comparability provision of Title I requires school districts to use state and local funds to provide comparable services between needy, Title I schools and less needy, non Title I schools. By equalizing education services before the additi on of federal funds, the school finance Comparability provision aims to ensure that school districts distribute Title I money as a type of enrichment on top of an already level playing field. Specifically, the Comparability provision of the NCL B Act states: (A) COMPARABLE SERVICES Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), a local educational agency may receive funds under this part only if State and local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, taken 1 John F. Hughes and Anne O. Hughes, Equal Education: A New National Strategy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), 10. 2 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C § 821 (Supp. I 1966). 3 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 16

16 as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving funds under this part. 4 After accounting for state and local dollars, Title I dollars are intended to provide supplemental funds for supplemental services in high poverty sch ools. The Supplement, not Supplant provision is designed to ensure that Federal Title I funds be used to augment the regular educational program, not to substitute for funds or services that otherwise would be provided by state and local dollar s. Specifically, the Supplement not Supplant Provision of the NCLB Act, states: (1) IN GENERAL A State educational agency or local educational agency shall use Federal funds received under this part only to supplement the funds that would, in the absenc e of such Federal funds, be made available from non Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not supplant such funds. 5 The basic principles of Title I state that schools with large concentrations of low income the intent of Title I seems both altruistic and socially beneficial, the findings of empirical research, along with loopholes in NCLB Act law r egarding how school districts measure comparability, suggest that Title I funds may not be serving the purpose for which they were intended. The effectiveness of the Title I program has been questioned since its inception in 1965. erformed a meta which showed that during the 1970s and early 1980s, Title I programs for the disadvantaged did 6 4 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C § 6321 (Supp. I 2002). 5 Ibid. 6 Analys is of Federal Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18, no. 4 (1996): 315 20.

PAGE 17

17 198 0s, however, student achievement among those served by Title I funds has remained almost the same, with only minimal improvements. 7 The U.S. Department of Education released its most recent assessment of Title I In 2007, titled A National Assessment of Ti tle I, Final Report 8 This report states that there has been no statistically significant change in the achievement gap between 1999 and 2004, based on long term trend data for reading and math. 9 A separate report prepared by the National Center for Edu cation Statistics, titled Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that significant gains in closing the achievement gap are lacking, at best. Long term data depicted in this report shows that from 1999 2007 the achievement gap for reading has narrowed slightly, while the gap for math has shown no significant change. 10 Furthermore, a ccording to both Reading 2011 and Math 2011, there has been no significant change in the achievement gaps between white students and any 11 Although research findings regarding the effects of increased funding on student performance are mixed, on 7 Ibid. 8 Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary, National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: Implementation (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007), accessed January 3 rd 2001, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084012_rev.pdf 9 Ibid, 45. 10 Allen Vanneman, Linda Hamilton, and Janet Baldwin Anderson, Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), 1, accessed February 1 st 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf 11 National Center for Education Statistics, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), 2, accessed D ecember 22 nd 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf ; National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation (Washingt on, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), 2, accessed December 22 nd 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf

PAGE 18

18 the achievement gap may have to do with the administration of state, local, and federal funding at the school district level. Authors have pointed out that while many states have deve loped funding systems that result in equitable funding for school districts, there has been little change in the inequitable way that school district officials fund their schools. 12 While the Federal Title I program brings school districts more funds, it i s unclear how school district officials integrate these additional funds with state and local funds to provide increased spending on the highest poverty schools. 13 To the extent that state or local governments offset Title I funding by altering the level o f spending of state and local funds, Title I may have diminished impact on There exists a body of literature suggesting that decisions made at the school district level are influencing the ability of Title I funds to serve as supplemental resources among schools serving disadvantaged students. 14 Some researchers argue that local school district officials offset federal spending on Title I schools by reducing local and state spending on such schools, which in t urn disables federal funding from serving as supplemental funding to schools serving high percentages of disadvantaged students. 15 Resulting from a study o n how Title I funds fit 12 John Podesta and Cynthia G. Brown, Education Week 7, no. 44 (2008): 28. 13 Marguirite Roza, Strengthening Title I to Help High Poverty Schools: How Title I Funds Fit into District Allocation Patterns (Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2005), accessed February 11 th 2011, http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_crpe6_title1_aug05.pdf 14 Journal of Education Finance 33, no. 3 (2008): 297 310; The Education Trust, The Funding Gap 2005: Low Income and Minority Students Shortchanged by Most States Journal of Public Economics 88, (2004): 1771 1792; William Hussar and William Sonnenberg, Trends in Disparities in School District L evel Expenditures Per Pupil (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000), accessed January 13th, 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000020.pdf Journal of Education Finance 88, (1994): 88 A New Look at Inequalities in School Funding: A Presentation on the Resource Variations within Districts (Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2002). 15

PAGE 19

19 into district allocation patters, Roza found that some school districts distr ibute base funds inequitably, so that wealthier schools, which do not receive Title I funds, receive more base funding than schools which receive Title I funding. 16 supposed to boost spending for high poverty students, not fill holes created by district allocation 17 Research analyzing within district per pupil expenditure variations in one large urban school district found that once Title I money was extracted from instructional spending totals, significant disparities existed among schools. 18 In an analysis of the effects of Title I on state and local education revenue, and how much the Title I program ultimately increases spending by the recipient school districts, researchers found that state and local rev enue efforts initially were unaffected by Title I changes, but that local governments substantially and significantly crowd out changes within a three year period. 19 School districts which employ accounting practices that allow for the impact of Title I f unds to be negated by decreased state or local funding are at risk for being in violation of two main provisions of NCLB Act legislation: The Comparability provision 20 and The Supplement, n ot Supplant provision. 21 The Comparability provision requires that s chool districts be able to document that the services provided with state and local funds in Title I schools are comparable to those provided in non Title I schools. State and local funds must be used in Title I schools to provide services that are at lea st comparable to services provided to non Title I schools. Whereas 16 17 Ibid., 2. 18 d Achievement in an Sociology of Education 76, no. 1 (2003): 27. 19 20 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (Supp. I 2002). 21 Ibid.

PAGE 20

20 the Comparability provision aims to equalize state and local funds among all schools within a district, the Supplement, not Supplant provision requires that federal funds do not take the pl ace of any expenditures that would have been made with state and local funds. In other words, the effects of federal money should be to supplement, not supplant, local and state spending. In addition to questions regarding comparability prior to accountin g for Title I funds, are questions regarding the use of Title I funds. According to the U.S. Department of education, Federal Title I allocations have almost doubled since 2000 ($8 million in 2000, $14.5 million in 2009, and $13 million in 2010). 22 While large amounts of this funding are designated to certain programs, such as Improving Basic Programs, Reading First, and Migrant Education, some researchers argue that it is not easy to trace these dollars to schools and ascertain whether or not these funds are being spent in ways that benefit disadvantaged students most greatly. 23 Monk, for example, pointed out that a lack of building level financial records has limited the study of the distribution of resources among schools. 24 Additionally, Unnever, Kerch hoss, and Robinson were unable to replicate their study of district variation in educational resourc es because school level data were unavailable. 25 To be eligible to receive Title I funds, a school district must demonstrate that it satisfies the Comparab ility requirement of the NCLB Act. 26 According to the federal statute, a school district 22 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary, accessed January 12 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite section1.html 23 Review of Educational Research 51, no. 2 (1981): 215 236; James D. Unnever, Allan C. Kerchhoff and Timothy J. Robinson, Economics of Education Review 19, no. 4 (2000): 245 259. 24 216. 25 26 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 21

21 is deemed to have met the Comparability requirement if district officials file a written assurance of comparability with the state, maintain documentation that they ha ve implemented a district wide salary schedule, and maintain documentation of district wide policies that ensure equity among schools regarding teachers, administrators, other staff, and the provision of curricular materials and instructional supplies. 27 F urthermore, U.S. Department of Education non regulatory guidance requires school districts to demonstrate and document that such policies are being implemented and are resulting in equivalence being achieved among schools. 28 To demonstrate that equivalence is being achieved, the school district may use such measures as student/instructional staff ratios, student/ instructional staff salary ratios, or expenditures per pupil. A school district may also implement a resource allocation plan based on student char acteristics, such as poverty, limited English proficiency, or disability. 29 Within these options for demonstrating equivalence, two loopholes arguably exist. First, not defined within federal statute or regulations. Furthermore, Florida statute also fails to Instead, Florida statute only states that, 12 staff member who se function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K 12 personnel 30 Florida statute continues by listing K 12 27 I bid. 28 Non Regulatory Guidance: Title I Fiscal Issues (U.S. Department of Education, 2008), 16, accessed February 18 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf 29 Ibid. 30 FLA. STAT. §1012.01 (2011).

PAGE 22

22 personnel instructional staff 31 Therefore, two schools could appear comparable in instructional staff even though one school employed only teachers and the other school employed primarily teacher aides. Secondly, student/instructional staff salary ratios are based on average amounts of money spent on instructional staff s alaries per student, rather than on real salaries. This is upheld by the NCLB Act expenditures per pupil from State and local funds, or instructional salaries per pupil from State and local funds, staff sal ary differentials for years of employment shall not be included in such 32 In other words, if a school district chooses to compare per pupil teacher salary expenditures, the district does not have to take into consideration the difference in spending on the salary of a veteran teacher or a teacher with advanced degrees, as opposed to a novice teacher or a teacher with only minimal credentials. Instead, per pupil teacher salary expenditure comparisons among schools are done by comparing the a verage instructional staff salary per student in each Title I school with the average instructional staff salary expenditure per student in non Title I schools. 33 Without accounting for differences in actual teacher salaries, Comparability requirements can not produce meaningful expenditure comparisons between Title I and non Title I schools. 34 31 Ibid. 32 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (Supp. I 2002). 33 Non Regulatory Guidance, 16 17. 34 Lindsey Luebchow, Equitable R esources in L ow I ncome S chools: Teacher E quity and the F ederal Title I C ompa rability R equirement (Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 2009), accessed July 10 th 2011, http://education.newamerica.n et/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Equitable_Resources_in_Low_Income_Scho ols.pdf

PAGE 23

23 Statement of the Problem Most of the discourse on inequitable school funding has centered on the drastic disparities in spending and related educational resources fo und between school districts of varying degrees of wealth. 35 Hussar and Sonnenberg measured disparities within states over the period from 1980 1994 and concluded that within state funding disparities declined in most states, whereas funding disparities amo ng all districts in the nation increased. 36 Hartman analyzed disparities in spending between school districts in Pennsylvania and found that districts with higher property values and income levels enjoyed higher per pupil expenditures. 37 In 2002, the Educat ion Trust released a study that compared unequal funding between districts in all the states in the U.S. and found that districts with higher proportions of poor and minority students received fewer state and local dollars per pupil as compared to district s with fewer disadvantaged students. 38 More recently, the Education Trust released a further study analyzing the funding gaps in forty nine states a nd found that, across the county, $907 less is spent per student in the highest poverty districts than in th e most affluent districts. 39 Resulting from such findings has been a wave of school finance litigation, which has led to changes in state funding formulas. Such changes have shifted the relative amounts of state aid received by richer and poorer districts to reflect 35 Hussar and Sonnenberg, Trends in Disparities in School District Level Expenditures Per Pupi l ; William T. Journal of Education Finance 20 no. 1 (1994): 88 106; Greg F. Orlofsky, The Funding Gap: Low Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars (Washington, DC: The Education Trust 2002); The Funding Gap 2005: Low Income and Minority Students Shortchanged by Mos t States (Washington, DC: The Education Trust 2005). 36 Hussar and Sonnenberg, Trends in Disparities 31. 37 38 Orlofsky, The Funding Gap: Low Income and Minority Students, 3 8. 39 The Funding Gap 2 005 2.

PAGE 24

24 increased funding equity across districts. As of 2008, within state disparities were the lowest they have been since the first documented measurements nearly thirty years ago. 40 Although research and litigation have addressed inequities in per pupil expenditures existing across districts, such action falls short of explaining and addressing inequities in per pupil expenditures that exist within districts. In a study of schools and districts in California, Hertert found that despite the state le between districts, there was a much greater degree of variation between schools within the same district. 41 Inequities in the distribution and utilization of educational resources at the school le vel money and other resources to schools. Analyses of school district spending practices would help education stakeholders better understand what role school districts play in ensuring equal distribution of state and local funds. As part of t he NCLB Act of 2001 Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I to evaluate the implementation and impact of the Title I program. 42 The final report of this stud y, prepared by the U.S. Department of Education and released in 2007, included three key evaluation questions addressing Title I participation and the use of Title I funds: 1. Whom does the Title I, Part A program serve? 2. What does the money buy? 3. How are the funds distributed, and has that changed since the last reauthorization? 43 40 41 F unding for D istricts M ean E qual F unding for Classroom S Where Does the Money Go? Resource Allocations in Elementary and Secondary Schools, ed Lawrence O. Picus and James L. Wattenbarger (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc, 1996), 71 84. 42 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6491 (Supp. I 2002). 43 Stullich, Eisner, and McCrary, National A ssessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: Implementation, 10.

PAGE 25

25 In regard to the first question, the report found that the number of students counted as Title I participants has tripled over the past decade, rising from nearly 7 milli on in 1994 95, to 20 million in 2004 2005. 44 Regarding the second question, the report found that most Title I funds were used for instruction, supporting salaries for teachers and instructional aides, providing instructional materials and computers, and s upporting other instructional services and resources. 45 Most relevant to this study, are the findings regarding the third question: How are the funds distributed? Regarding this question, the report found that at the school level, the highest poverty schoo ls received smaller Title I allocations per low income student than did low poverty schools. 46 In 2004 2005, the average Title I allocation in the highest poverty Title I schools was $558 per low income student, compared with $763 per low income student in low poverty schools. 47 48 and that one way Title I is designed to reach this goal is ence to local educational 49 it would seem illogical and problematic for the highest poverty schools to not be receiving the largest per pupil Title I funding allocations. Given a large body of research findin g within district disparities to outweigh between district 44 Ibid., 12. 45 Ibid., 16. 46 Ibid., 10. 47 Ibid. 48 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002). 49 Ibid

PAGE 26

26 disparities, it is relevant to question whether these inequities in per pupil funding allocations may be a result of decisions made at the school district level. 50 If conclusions about the effectiv eness of the Title I program are going to be drawn based on the assumption that Title I funds are serving the purpose for which they were intended to provide supplemental resources to an otherwise level playing field, then it is imperative to ensure that these conclusions are not based on false assumptions. Research exploring the level to which state and local funds are dispersed equally, with specific focus on the effect that teacher salaries have on equality levels, will provide the field of education finance literature with suggestions regarding the extent to which NCLB Act Comparability requirements are being met, and in turn provide information for evaluating the extent to which additional funding is the key to improved student performance. Purp ose of the Study Most of the discourse on inequity in school funding has centered on the drastic disparities in funding found among school districts of varying degrees of wealth. But, a wealth of such literature concerning inequities across districts reve als little about inequities in funding within districts. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the spending patterns within one selected school district to identify whether significant differences exist between the amounts of state and local funds expended per pupil at Title I schools versus non Title I schools, either before or after accounting for teacher salaries. The following questions were addressed in this study: 1. Is there a significant difference in the per pupil expenditure amount s of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, before accounting for teacher salaries? 50 84; Sarah M. Burke Journal of Education Finance 24, no. 4 (1999): 435 district Funding Journal of Ed ucation Finance 24, no. 4 (1999): 503 518.

PAGE 27

27 2. I s there a significant difference in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, after ac counting for teacher salaries? 3. What do the differences in per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries, reveal about the extent to which the require ments of the Federal Title I Comparability provision are being met? Considering that the Comparability provision of Title I requires school districts to use state and local funds to provide comparable services between needy, Title I schools and less nee dy, n on Title I schools, it should be expected that the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds for both groups of schools and across both variables are equal. Therefore, the following null hypothesis was addressed for each of the five fi scal years observed in this study (2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 2008, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010): Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the median per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds at Title I schools and the median p er pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds at non Title I schools. The results of this research will serve several purposes. First, the results will provide one example for the condition of within district school expenditure equity. Second, the results will reveal the extent to which the highest paid teachers are dispersed equitably throughout a selected Florida school district. Third, the results will serve as one example for determining whether school districts are meeting Federal Title I Com parability requirements. Lastly, this study will add to the wealth of research literature informing policymakers and the general public for future decision making regarding within district funding practices and teacher allocation matters.

PAGE 28

28 Significance of the study In 2008, Baird investigated the impact of federal dollars on school funding disparities, both within and across states. 51 Particularly of relevance to this dissertation are her findings regarding within state disparities. Using the coefficient of variation, she found that prior to accounting for federal revenue, inter district funding disparities fell throughout the 1990s by 16 percent. 52 After factoring in federal funds, inter district funding disparities fell by 15 percent. 53 su ggest that federal funding may have little impact on funding disparity levels between needy state funding disparities are a result of policies within states, and not the result of federal policy or programs. 54 The findings of her study create significance for similar inquiry to be conducted within districts in order to see if within district actions offset the ability of Title I funds to increase the per pupil expenditure amounts a t needy schools. This study is significant for three reasons. First, ensuring that school district officials are addressing the needs of disadvantaged students and providing such students with the supplemental resources to which they are entitled, as re quired in NCLB Act legislation, is an ethical and legal responsibility of such decision makers. 55 Checking for expenditure inequities within districts is one way of doing this. Secondly, if conclusions about the effectiveness of the Title I program are go ing to be drawn based on the assumption that Title I funds are serving the purpose for which they were intended to provide supplemental resources to an otherwise level 51 310. 52 53 Ibid. 54 55 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 29

29 playing field, then it is imperative to ensure that these conclusions are not based on false assumptions. Thirdly, if large state and local funding expenditure disparities between Title I and non Title I schools within the selected Florida school district exist, either before or after accounting for teacher salaries, then factors resulting in such outcomes need to be identified and addressed. However, if these data reveal that no such disparities exist and that Title I funds are in fact serving as supplemental resources to disadvantaged students, then perhaps researchers and policymakers need to consider sources other than increased funding as a means for closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and non disadvantaged students. This study will identify where and when any such disparities do exist, within one selected Florida schoo l district. Lastly, a portion of education finance literature reports that state legislatures have largely met their obligations to resolve disparities among school districts, suggesting that the bulk of the remaining disparities are the result of decisio ns made at the school district level. 56 Therefore, it is purposeful and significant to conduct research which both calculates disparities in per pupil expenditures within school districts and identifies potential causes. Methods This study inquired into r ecent trends in the distribution of education dollars across schools within a selected Florida school district, with particular attention paid to the impact of teacher salaries on per pupil expenditure disparities between Title I and non Tile I schools. I t pursued this by calculating per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local dollars within the selected school district, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries, over the fiscal year period of 56 Center for American Progress, Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantages Students and What Federal Policy Can Do About it (Washington, DC: Center for America Progress, 2008), accessed December 28 th 2010, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/compa rability.pdf ; and, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance (Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2008), accessed May 1 st 2011, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502976.pdf

PAGE 30

30 2005 2006 through 2009 2010. District per pup il expenditure totals for Title I and non Title I schools were then compared to identify whether statistically significant differences at the .05 alpha level were apparent. While resource disparities within districts can be measured in a variety of ways, this study used two of the most common measures found in education finance literature: descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Three main descriptive statistical measures were used to examine the resource accessibility to students served by ei ther a Title I or non Title I school within the selected school district: the mean, median, and standard deviation. These three measures were used because each measure is relevant, each measures the disparity of an expenditure distribution differently, an d because all three are widely accepted measures of disparity within the field of education finance. In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I and non Title I schools the Wilcoxon Two sample Test was employed. The Wilcoxon Two sample Test is a nonparametric statistical hypothesis test for assessing whether two independent samples of observations have equally large values. 57 It is one of the most well known and powerf ul of the nonparametric tests for comparing two populations. 58 Sources This study utilized data from FYs 05 06, 06 07, 07 08, 08 09, and 09 10. This study required school level data that was available through sources associated with the accounting dep artment and the student projections department of the selected school district. Since the 57 Schuyler W. Huck, Reading Statistics and Research (Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2008), 484. 58 Ibid.

PAGE 31

31 instruction, per pupil disparity calculations were limited to those of funds expended on only direct instruction of students at each school. Total direct instructio nal expenditure amounts were collected from the Annual General Fund Expenditure Report which is an unpublished document obtained from time equivalent students per s Fulltime Equivalent Historical Data Report which is an unpublished document obtained from personnel associated Limitations of the Study Data used in this study are limited to that of elementary schools from one selected Florida school district. Per analyzed. Only expenditures on direct instruction were included. This study depicts the monetary expenditures on students enrolled in Kindergarten through fifth grade basic programs only and does not include district expenditures on students enrolled in Exceptional Student Education or English for Speakers of Other Languages pro grams. Organization of the S tudy Chap ter 1 introduced the problems being addressed in this study and presented sections from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that are relevant to this study. Chapter 2 contained a review of the history and evolution o attention to that of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and Title I. Chapter 2 also provide d a review of education litigation involving both Title I and the shift from a focus on r esource equity to a focus on resource adequacy in public education. Chapter 3 include d a discussion of the two types of quantitative research methodology used in this study: descriptive

PAGE 32

32 and inferential statistics. A discussion about program cost accountin g and reporting in Florida was also given in Chapter 3 Chapter 4 present ed the results of the statistical analyses in the form of text, tables, and figures. Chapter 5 contain ed conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further action and resear ch regarding the problem addressed in this study. Summary The intent of Federal Title I funds is to increase the educational resources available to disadvantaged students. Key provisions within Title I statutory text require school districts to us e state and local funds to provide comparable services between needy, Title I schools and less needy, non Title I schools. Doing so will ensure that districts distribute Title I money as a type of enrichment on top of an already level playing field. A po rtion of school finance literature suggests that decisions made at the school district level are influencing the ability of Title I funds to serve as supplemental resources among schools serving disadvantaged students. Such decisions have the potential to offset federal spending for poor schools by reducing state and local spending on such schools. Teacher salaries are an important variable influencing a school Comparability provision allows school di stricts to compare teacher salaries among schools by using teacher salary averages, these reach true equity. Through the use of descriptive and inferential statistics, this study inquired into recent trends in the distribution of education dollars across schools within a selected Florida school district, with particular attention paid to the impact of teacher salaries on per pupil expenditure disparities bet ween Title I and non Tile I schools. It pursued this by calculating per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local dollars within one selected Florida school district, both before and after accounting for real teacher salaries.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 REV I EW OF T HE LITERATURE Federal Aid before Title I Federal funding of public education largely began with the Johnson administration and the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) 1 The ESEA was designed by commissioner of education, F rancios Keppel, and constituted the most important 2 The ESEA transformed federal involvement in education by making federal funds available to states and school districts. While federal funding of pub lic education largely began when President administration passed the ESEA of 1965 a national commitment to education p redate s even the ratification of the C onstitution. In 1787, the Congress of the Confederation passed the Northwest Ordinance, which surveyed lands and granted the sixteenth section of each township for educational uses. 3 In fact, a total of nearly ninety nine million acres of federal land were granted for the establishment of educational institutions, under the Northwest Ordinanc e. 4 In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act which provided grants of land to the states, which could be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies. 5 In 1917, the Smith Hughes Act passed, which provided federal funding for agricultural and vocational education. 6 In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Impact Aid law. 7 This law was 1 Marvin Lazerson, ed., American Education in the Twentieth Century: A Documentary History (New Yo rk: Teachers College Press, 1987), 37. 2 Hugh Graham, The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 70 75. 3 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money and School s 4 th ed ., 44. 4 Graham, The Uncertain Triumph, xvii. 5 Agricultural History 37, no. 2 (1963): 103 107. 6 Graham, The Uncertain Triumph, xvii; Gerald C. Hayward and Charles S. Benson, Vocational Technical Educat ion: Major Reforms and Debates 1917 Present (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991), 6 8.

PAGE 34

34 designed to assist school districts that ha d lost property tax revenue due to the presence of tax exempt federal proper ty. The Impact Aid law (now Title VIII of the ESEA) provides assistance to school districts with concentrations of children residing on Indian lands, military bases, or low rent housing properties. The Impact Aid law has been ame nded several times since it s inception in 1950, but continues to provide funding to school districts 8 Partially because of Sputnik, Congress passe d the National Defense Education Act in 1958. 9 This Act authorized federal funding for scientific research and science education. 10 Finally, i n 1964, the Civil Rights Act passe d which, among other things, authorized the federal government to provide aid to schools and higher education institution s deal ing with problems related to inequality and desegregation 11 Over the course of two centuries, the federal government took action, although limited, in the area of education when vital national interests were involved Examples of such action include supporting democracy by granting land for the establishment of schools and colleges, fost ering economic expansion by training workers providing for the de f ense of the nation by expanding educational opportunities in critical areas of learning, and working to overcome segregation and inequalities among schools. These actions combined with ci vil rights and social welfare imperatives of the time, resulted in the emergence and enactment of Title I of the ESEA 7 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/impactaid/whatisia.html 8 Ibid. 9 Graham, The Uncertain Triumph, xviii, 4 5. 10 Graham, xviii, 5 7. 11 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money and School s 4 th ed., 46 47

PAGE 35

35 The Emergence of Title I In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education 12 ruled that segregation of children by race in the public schools was a violation of the Fourteenth A mendment of the U.S. Constitution 13 That ruling gave rise to a nation al debate about the quality of education being provided to African American children and eventually led to a broader discussion abo ut the needs of children of all races who came from poor families or who had other disadvantages. 14 When President Kennedy assumed office in 1961, he proposed large scale federal aid to improve education, including the education of black children and of oth er poor and disadvantaged youths. 15 At the time, black childr en constituted approximately 13 percent of the enrollment in elementary and secondary schools. 16 As a group, they were overwhelmingly poor : 65 percent of black children were living in poverty, co mpared with 20 percent of white children. 17 In other words, the issues of r ace and poverty becam e linked because the factors of r ace and poverty in America were intertwined. Three major obstacles prevented President Kennedy from enacting his education in itiatives. 18 First, some feared that new federal aid to education would lead to forced integration of white an d black students. Second, conservatives said that new federal aid would lead to 12 Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 13 Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander, American Public School Law, 7th ed (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009), 1024 1026. 14 Joel Spring, Conflicts of Interest: The Politics of American Education, 2nd ed (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1988), 97. 15 Gr aham, The Uncertain Triumph, 4 26. 16 Thomas Snyder and Linda Shafer, Youth Indicators, 1996 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996), 54, 68, accessed March 25 th 2011, http://nc es.ed.gov/pubs98/yi/youth.pdf 17 Ibid. 18 Graham, The Uncertain Triumph, 26 52.

PAGE 36

36 federal control of elementary and secondary education. Third, pr oponents of Catholic schools and other private schools blocked any new legislation that did not involve some aid to their schools. In 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which sought to remove legal barriers to the full participation of racial minorities in American society. That law addressed one obstacle to federal school aid by requiring the racial integration of studen ts in public schools. 19 In 1964, Lyndon Baines Johnson was elected President and he and his administration address ed C ommission on E ducation, John Gardner, suggested approach and Title I of the ESEA was proposed as a program of aid to disadvanta ged ch ildren, along with other categorical programs designed to strengthen public education (Titles II IV). 20 With this approach, Johnson was able to overcome the second and third obstacle originally faced by the Kennedy administration. Johnson gained the supp ort of Catholic school proponents by 21 benefit theory explains that federal money would follow the disadvantaged child to whatever school he or she attended public or private. He also reassured conservatives that federa l aid would not lead to federal control of elementary and secondary education by requiring that a both public and private schools, and that trustee would be the local public school district. This 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 John F. Hughes and Anne O. Hughes, Equal Education: A New National Strategy (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1973), 12, 18, 20.

PAGE 37

37 idea of child orientation, but with public control of the funds, while including private schools in the allocation of federal funds, cleared the way for Congress to pass the ESEA of 1965. 22 On April 9th 1965, Congress passed t he ESEA of 1965 23 The ESEA of 1965 was landmark legislation codifying the federal role and national interest in ensuring quality education for all students. The ESEA was a Great Society land mark that signified a national interest in assuring equal access to a quality education for all Americans. In essence, the federal government took responsibility for compensating poor school districts to put them on a fiscal par with more affluent district s. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is undoubtedly the most expansive federal education bill every passed to date. 24 An o utgrowth of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the ESEA became Lyndon Johns s educational centerpiece of the and was aimed toward providing funding for poor and disadvantaged students. 25 As a former teacher, Johnson witnessed the impact that poverty had on to lead an educated, productive life. In his poverty speech, Johnson is cited: We must, by including special school aid funds as part of our education p rogram, improve the quality of 26 22 Graham, 26 52. 23 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C § 821 (Supp. I 1966). 24 1771. 25 Hughes and Hughes, 10 15. 26 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lynd on B. Johnson, 1963 64 Volume I, e ntry 91, 112 118 (Washington, D C: Government Printing Office, 1965), accessed December 1 st 2010, http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/john son/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640108.asp

PAGE 38

38 education and global events of the time also inspired passage of the ESE A. Realization that and heightened when the Soviet Union successfully launched the Sputnik spacecraft during the Eisenhower admin i st r a t ion in 1957. 27 John F. Kenn edy kept discussions for improving education a priority by developing a number of proposals to ensure that America n students were competitive with those in other countries and that every American received a good education, regardless of religious, racial, proposals to derive the ESEA that passed in 1965 28 The ESEA is an extensive federal statute which funds primary and secondary education. The Act mandates that funds are authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement promotion. The A ct was originally authorized through 19 70; however the federal government has reauthorized the Act several times since its enactment. The current reauthorization of the ESEA is known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 29 The original ESEA contained six Titles. Title I was designed to p rovide financial assistance to school districts for the education of children from low income families. 30 Title II funds were responsible for school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional 27 Graham, 3 10. 28 Graham, 3 25. 29 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 USC § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002). 30 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C § 821 (Supp. I 1966).

PAGE 39

39 materials. 31 Title III was concerned with supplementa ry educational programs and services, and the educational centers where such programs and services could be held. 32 Educational research and training was the emphasis for funds allocated through Title IV. 33 Title V provided for the strengthening of state d epartments of education. 34 The last section, Title VI, contained general provisions of the ESEA. 35 The ESEA has been amended and reauthorized several times since its enactment. In 1981 Congress reauthorized the ESEA as the Education Consolidation and Improve ment Act of 1981 (ECIA). 36 domestic affairs, the intent of this reauthorization was to provide greater flexibility for state and local providers of education services in the ir uses of federal funds. As a result, Title I, which continued as Chapter 1, was streamlined to remove some of its rigidness; more than forty categorical programs were consolidated into a single block grant under Chapter 2; and, the language of Chapter 3 reduced the role of the federal government in both state and school district decision making. 37 In 1994, the ESEA (during that time known as ECIA), was reauthorized as the of 1994 (IASA). 38 The IASA was a major part of the C that aligning federal resources and policies with state and local reform would strengthen and 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3801 (1982). 37 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money and School s, 48 38

PAGE 40

40 improve education for all children. In addition, IASA encourag ed comprehensive school reform, upgraded instructional and professional development to align with high standards, and strengthened accountability. IASA amended ESEA legislation and established new programs outside of the ESEA. The amendments made to ESEA reflected the following themes: (1) the creation of linkages between major ESEA programs and systemic education reform; (2) increased administrative flexibility or states, local education agencies, and schools; (3) a new focus on several areas of emerging education interest; and (4) somewhat greater targeting on students and schools with high needs. 39 Among the major programs amended or established were the Title I program, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program, and the Bilingual Educa tion Act. 40 In 2001, the ESEA (known then as the IASA) was reauthorized as The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). 41 The NCLB Act is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measureable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. 42 The Act required states to establish assessments of basic skills to be given at certain grade levels, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. 43 In 2007, reauthorization of the NCLB Act was passed by congress, but vetoed by Pr education bill, which included NCLB Act reauthorization, exceeded his budget request. 39 Act: An overview of P.L. 103 382. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 4, accessed November 11th, 2010, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED379792.pdf 40 Ibid. 41 No Child Left Behind Act o f 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (Supp. I 2002). 42 US Department of Education, NCLB Executive Summary accessed December 2 nd 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf 43 Kristen Tosh Cowen and Charles J. Edwards, The New Title I: The Changing Landscape of Accountability, 6 th ed (Washington, DC: Thompson Publishing Group, 2009) 1 34.

PAGE 41

41 educational reform plan, known as A Blueprint for Refo rm 44 This plan encourages the nation to embrace educational standards that would prepare Americans for global leadership. This plan and math with the goal that all students should graduate from high school college ready by 2020. 45 Moreover, it provides incentives for states to adopt academic standards that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace. Rather than relying on test scores alone, as does th e NCLB Act, A Blueprint for Reform proposes measuring academic growth on indicators such as pupil attendance, graduation rates and learning climate. It supports the creation of accountability systems that reward student growth and school progress toward c ollege and career school district officials to focus on closing the achievement gap by identifying and intervening in schools that continually reflect achievement gaps. However, the language in A Blue Print for Reform suggests lessening federal interference in reasonably well run schools. 46 Title I (1965 1980) Title I is currently the largest federal aid program for elementary, middle, and high schools. 47 It is one of the six Titles under the original ESEA of 1965, and continues to be the 44 U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary an d Secondary Education Act, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010), accessed April 2 nd 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf 45 Ibid, 9. 46 Ibid. 47

PAGE 42

42 largest federally funded education program. 48 Under the original ESEA of 1965, Title I was designed to provide financial assistance to school districts for the education of children of low income families. 49 Once ESEA took effect in 1965, $1 billion flowed to states and local school districts. 50 When the law was first signed, funding was based on three factors and required the use of two poverty indicators in the formula to distribut e funds. The three factors, beginning with the two poverty indicators, were as follows: A) the number of children aged five through seventeen from families with annual incomes of less than $2,000, B) the number of children aged five through seventeen from families with incomes exceeding $2,000 in the form of aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), under Title IV of the Social Security Act, and C) One half the state average per pupil expenditure in the state for the second proceeding year. Substitu ting the symbols used above for the factors themselves, the formula applied was: (A+B) x C = the number of dollars of the maximum basic grant. 51 When Public Law 89 750 became effective in November of 1966, two other factors were added to the funding formu la. 52 These factors were the number of children supported in foster homes with public funds, and the number of children in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, provided their education was not the responsibility of a state agency. 53 Public La w 89 750 also changed the per pupil expenditure 48 U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002): 13, accessed December 3 rd 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf 49 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C § 821 (Supp. I 1966). 50 Hughes and Hughes, 12. 51 U.S. Department of Educat ion, History of Title I ESEA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969), 5 8. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

PAGE 43

43 factor fr om one half the s tate average per pupil expenditure to one half the state or national average, whichever is higher. 54 This original formula was considered a flat grant, which did not take into acc ount local tax rates or assessed valuation. A flat grant is a flat sum of money per unit paid to districts without concern for a local share or local ability to pay. 55 Through this flat grant, every district received identical amounts of funding for each s tudent enrolled, regardless of inequalities among districts, such as local wealth and district geographic location. Under the original ESEA legislation, a school district was required to have at least 100 children from low income families or 3 percent of its total enrollment from low income families. 56 In November of 1966, Public Law 89 750 changed the required number of children for eligibility to ten. 57 Title I funding grew rapidly from $746.9 million in 1965 to its peak of $3 billion in 1980. 58 So far, T itle I of the ESEA has been the largest aid program administered entirely by the federal education agency. With the passage of the ESEA, the political coalition composed of President Johnson and the Congress, assumed that the Title I mission had been d efined. 59 However, in a relatively short mission in the legislation needed to be addressed. While some interpreted Title I as a mandate to serve poor and depriv ed children, using the schools as the vehicle for providing special education and educational related services, others interpreted Title I as a program to aid school systems, 54 Ibid. 55 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, 85. 56 U.S. Department of Education, History of Title I ESEA, 9. 57 Ibid, 10. 58 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, 47. 59 Hughes and Hughes, 12.

PAGE 44

44 using the number of deprived children as the mechanism. 60 Such confusion is reason able given the contradictory wording of the original law. In its Declaration of Policy for Title I, the ESEA of 1965 states: In recognition of the special educational needs of children of low income families and the impact that concentration of low income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance (as set forth in this title) to local educational ag encies serving areas with concentrations of children from low income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means... 61 The beginning of this excerpt can be interpreted to view Title I as a policy for aiding the children, while the later portion lends itself to benefiting local educational systems. 62 63 of Title I dollars should be led to the failure to devise a plan for the spending of Title I dollars. Within way to provide educational services to poor and deprived children. 64 After ongoing debate, the reformers gradually prevailed over the traditionalists. 65 This victory can be attributed, in part, to the release of Title I of ESEA: Is It Helping Poor Children? 66 This report suggested that Title I 60 Hughes and Hughes, 32. 61 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 821 (Supp. I 1966). 62 Hughes and Hughes, 223. 63 Ibid, 32 33. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Is I t Helping Poor Children? Title I of ESEA. A Report. (Washington, DC: Washington Research Project, 19 6 6).

PAGE 45

45 money was being used for general school purposes, rather than being specifically directed toward poor and educationally deprived children. This report found that in some ca ses, Title I money was being used in ways that did not affect teaching and learning at all, such as for the purchase 67 In response to this report, the USOE increased the rules and regulations for administering Title I funds, and as a result, two new provisions were adopted. First, the Comparability provision was designed to ensure that Federal Title I funds targeted disadvantaged children, and that these funds be used in additi on to not in lieu of state and local funding. Second was the Supplement, not Supplant provision, which required that services funded with federal dollars co u ld not replace any educational services that a disadvantaged child would have received from st ate and local dollars prior to the supplementary federal aid. 68 With the adoption of such provisions, the intent of Title I was becoming more and more clear: To improve the educational opportunities of poor and disadvantaged children. However, implementati on of these provisions proved difficult. Apathetic and sometimes defiant state departments of education often produced inaccurate data, incorrect computations, and untimely reports. 69 This led to even more stringent administration of Title I, increased t ransparency of federal bookkeeping, and more federal audits on school districts. As a result, it became clear that schools were implementing effective programs geared toward targeting the needs of the neediest students, such as reading laboratories, and p oor and minority groups raised their expectations 67 Ibid, 27, 57. 68 Ensu ring Equal Opportunity in Public Education (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2008), 16, accessed March 29 th 2011, http://broadeducation.org/asse t/1128 ensuring%20equal%20opportunity.pdf#page=15 69 Ibid., 19.

PAGE 46

46 about what they could achieve through education. Also resulting from these heightened rules and accountability was a surge of complaints from school officials about the overload of federal paperwork that was now tied to Title I funds, along with concerns about the inherent drawbacks new Title I provisions. 70 Title I (1980 1994) With the start of a new deca de and a newly elected President, Title I began to undergo a major transformation. A new conservative political wave along with increasing resentment from educators regarding the strict federal rules and regulations tied to Title I, led to the proposal t o requirements regarding the use of such funds. 71 In 1981, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the Education Consolidation and Impr ovement Act of 1981 (ECIA), 72 which continued ESEA while restructuring federal involvement. In an attempt to eliminate many of what the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations perceived as shortcomings surrounding implementations, effectiven ess, efficiency, and accountability of the federal categorical aid system, the new Title I, which continued as Chapter 1 was streamlined to remove some of its rigidness. 73 In addition, more than forty other categorical programs were consolidated into a si ngle block grant under Chapter 2 74 Furthermore, language of Chapter 3 reduced the role of the federal government in state and local 70 Ibid. 71 Linda Darling Hammond and Ellen L. Marks, The New Federalism in Education: State Responses to the 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corpo ration, 1983), 8 9. 72 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3801 (1982). 73 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. §§ 3801 3807 (1982). 74 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3811 (1982).

PAGE 47

47 education agency decision making. 75 stated that, The Congress decl ares it to be the policy of the United States to continue to provide financial assistance to State and local educational agencies to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children, on the basis of entitlements calculated under title I of the Ele mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, but to do so in a manner which will eliminate burdensome, unnecessary, and unproductive paperwork and the free the schools of unnecessary Federal supervision, direction and control. Further, the Congress recogn izes the special educational needs of children of low income families, and that concentrations of such children in local educational agencies adversely affect their ability to provide educational programs which will meet the needs of such children. The Co ngress also finds that Federal assistance for this purpose will be more effective if education officials, principals, teachers, and supporting personnel are freed from overly prescriptive regulations and administrative burdens which are not necessary for f iscal accountability and make no contribution to the instructional program. 76 While many programs were collapsed, Title I continued under a new name: Chapter 1 Chapter 1 increased local discretion of Title I spending, as funding came via block grants, r ather than categorical grants. If the form of block grants, school districts were given large sums of money with only general provisions describing on what the funding should be spent. In the past, these funds were delivered via categorical grants, which can be spent only for narr owly defined purposes. Chapter 1 funds were disbursed according to the same basic formula as Title I funds. However, some have observed that Chapter 1 funds were substantially lower than those under Title I. 77 Chapter 1 differed from Title I in several other ways. Under Title I, eligible students were identified according to an annual needs assessment conducted by school districts. This needs assessment ensured that the most educationally needy students in the schools with the lowest 75 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money & Schools, 4 th ed., 48. 76 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3801 (1982). 77 Darling Hammond and Marks, The New Federalism in Education, 11 15.

PAGE 48

48 income students, would be selected for services. In contrast, Chapter 1 stated that the annual be serviced w ith programs funded by Chapter 1 78 This provision, which permitted, rather than required services to the most educationally needy students, seemed to increase school district flexibility in determining exactly on whom to spend Chapter 1 fund ing. 79 aid to education and heightened concern for the general performance of American public schools. Sparked by the release of A Nation at Risk 80 in 1983, American s from both the political and business sectors began to advocate for major changes in the instructional practices of American public schools and for changes in the nature of aid to elementary and secondary education. 81 Prior to the 1980s, the intent of Tit le I had been to improve the educational opportunities of poor and disadvantaged students by providing supplemental federal aid to districts which served these students. But, the law failed to outline exactly how these children should be taught, nor did t he law set expectations for the academic improvement of these students. 82 During its reauthorization in 1988, congress amended Chapter 1 to require state legislatures to set expectations for the improvement of disadvantaged students in schools 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 U.S. Departme nt of Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), accessed April 5th, 2011, http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/lan gd/Nation_at_Risk.pdf 81 Maris A. Vinovskis, The Road to Charlottesville: The 1989 Education Summit (Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel, 1999), 5 12. 82 Hughes and Hughes, Equal Education, 48.

PAGE 49

49 receiving C hapter 1 funding. The law also required that states identify schools serving disadvantaged students who were not meeting expectations and devise a system of steps that districts and states had to follow in assisting these low performing or failing schools The 1988 reauthorization also allowed for increased flexibility in the uses of Chapter 1 funds. Chapter 1 funds did not need to solely target disadvantaged students and programs geared toward only their needs; Chapter 1 funds could be used for school wi de projects benefiting all students. 83 A significant event in the history of American education occurred when the newly elected President George H. W. Bush and the state governors met at an educational summit in Charlottesville, Virginia in September of 198 9. 84 Here, government leaders decided that in order to raise the academic achievement of American students, national educational goals needed to be set. As a result of the Charlottesville Summit, the following six national education goals were set: 1) By the year 2000, every child m ust start school ready to learn; 2) The United States must increase the high school graduation rate critical subject areas will be assessed at the fourth, eighth, and twelf th grades; 4) By the year 2000, U.S. students must be first in the world in math and science; 5) Every American adult must be a skilled, literate worker and citizen; and, 6) Every school in America must be drug free. 85 As a result of the Charlottesville sum mit, Title I (then Chapter 1) began a new phase in its then twenty five year life. This third phase shaped Title I as a program which served as a vehicle for increased educational accountability based on high academic standards and greater flexibility 83 Mary Ann Milsap, Marc Moss, and Beth Gamse, The Chapter 1 Implementation Study: Final Report (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1992), 2 14. 84 Vinovski, The Road to Charlottesville, 1. 85 Ibid., 1, 44.

PAGE 50

50 in the uses of federal aid. 86 The vision created at the Charlottesville summit became clearer when President Bush released his plan for national school reform, called America 2000: an Education Strategy 87 America 2000 to move America toward the national education goals adopted by the President and the governors at the Charlottesville summit. America 2000 was based on four related themes: 1) Creating better and a new generation of American Making our communities places where learning will happen. 88 faced a great deal of opposition from Congres s and America 2000 was never enacted. 89 When President Clinton took office in 1993, he created his first educational proposal, named Goals 2000: Educate America Act 90 Goals 2000 was an Act to provide federal aid to the states to assist state legislatures in developing their own academic standards, defining levels of student mastery, and initiating testing to ascertain whether students had reached those levels of knowledge. 91 Goals 2000 laid out eight National Education Goals targeting school readiness, sch ool completion, student achievement and citizenship, teacher education and professional development, math and science, adult literacy and lifelong learning, safe schools, and parental participation. 92 Furthermore, the Goals 2000 Act called for the establish ment of a National 86 Ibid., 42. 87 U.S. Department of Education, America 2000: An Education Strategy (Washington, DC: Governm ent Printing Office, 1991), accessed June 2 nd 2010, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED327009.pdf 88 Ibid., 13 21. 89 American Journal of Education 112, no. 1 (2005): 15. 90 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801 (1994) 91 92 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5812 (1994).

PAGE 51

51 Education Goals Panel. 93 mechanism for building an national consensus for education improvement, reporting on progress toward achieving the National Education Goals, and revie wing the voluntary national content 94 An additional component of this Act gave the U.S. Secretary of Education the authority to waive federal rules and regulations for states with approved Goals 2000 plans, which, in turn, allowed for state and school districts to have increased flexibility in the use of Title I funds. 95 The ideas laid out in the discussed at the Charlottesville summit: Require states to adopt high standards and hold all proposal required states receiving funds to have high academic standards, to define levels of proposal for Title I and reauthorized The ESEA under as the of 1994 96 Title I (1994 2001) In 1994, Ch apter 1 was reauthorized under the (IASA) and reverted back to its original name: Title I. 97 Under the IASA, the new Title I program symbolized a continued commitment toward equity and meeting the educational needs 93 Goals 2000: Educ ation America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5821 (1994). 94 Ibid. 95 96 97 National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act ed. John F. Jennings (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 1995), 55.

PAGE 52

52 o f disadvantaged students. 98 Specifically, in the statutory text of the IASA, C ongress recognized the importance of closing the existing achievement gap and the urgent need for educational improvement in schools with high concentrations of children from low income families. 99 Furthermore, congress recognized that educational needs were particularly great for low poverty schools, children with limited English proficiency, and children of migrant workers, and that all children should be expected to master high, challenging standards in core academic subjects. 100 Rather than relying on isolated add on services and lower standards for the students who received such services, the new Title I called for school wide reform str ategies to enable all children to achieve high standards. 101 For example, the IASA allowed a school district to use Title I funds in combination with other federal, state, and local funds in order to upgrade the entire educational program in a school. 102 The IASA made future ESEA Title I funding contingent upon states having plans that include content standards and pupil performance standards. 103 And, through changes to the Title I allocation formula, the new Title I increased the extent to which Title I funds were targeted at relatively high poverty schools within school districts. 104 98 Ibid. 99 100 Ibid 101 6315 (1994). 102 103 Act: An overview of P.L. 103 382 8 9. 104 6303 (1004); Stedman, 8 9.

PAGE 53

53 Title I (2001 Present) In May of 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB Act), which was the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA. President George W. B ush signed the bill into law on January 8th, 2002. 105 The NCLB Act is a landmark in education reform designed 106 represents a sweeping overhaul in federal efforts to support elementary and secondary education in the United States. The NCLB Act incorporates the principl e s and strategies proposed by the former President George H. W. Bush. Included in these principl e s and strategies are increased accountability for states, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low performing schools; more flexibility for states and local education agencies in the use of federal education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest children. 107 These principl e students will meet or exceed the proficient level on state as sessments by the 2013 2014 school year. 108 NCLB Act State Requirements There are several requirements which state legislatures and individual school district officials must meet in order to receive NCLB Act funds. The NCLB Act legislation requires that sta te education officials had in place for the 2002 2003 school year, challenging academic 105 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (Supp. I 2002). 106 U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Execut ive Summary accessed December 2 nd 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html 107 President George W. Bush, emarks upon S igning The No Child Left Behind Act, accessed January 29 th http://georgewbush whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108 1.html 108 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(F ) (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 54

54 content and achievement standards for all students in reading or language arts, 109 mathematics, 110 and (beginning in the 2005 2006 school year) science. 111 By the beginning of the 2005 2006 school year, 112 state officials were required to have a state assessment system in place for student achievement standards in math and reading or lang uage arts for each of grades three through eight. 113 By the beginning of the 2007 2008 school year, state education officials were required to have an assessment system in place for evaluating every student in science at least once in each of the following grade spans: third through fifth, sixth through ninth, and tenth through twelfth. 114 State education officials are currently required to have all students attain a level of proficiency, as measured by state assessments, by the start of the 2013 2014 school y ear. 115 The NCLB Act also require s states to provide school districts assistance in developing parental involvement programs for the district and the schools 116 In regard to students with limited English proficiency, state education officials are required to take the following steps: Identify the languages spoken by all limited English Proficient students, 117 help develop an English proficiency test if local school districts are unable to do so, 118 develop instructional 109 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(1)(C) (Supp. I 2002). 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311 (b)(3)(C)(vii) (Supp. I 2002). 113 Ibid. 114 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311 (b)(3)(C)(II) (Supp. I 2002). 115 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(F) (Supp. I 2002). 116 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(d) (Supp. I 2002). 117 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(C)(6) (Supp. I 2002). 118 Ibid.

PAGE 55

55 benchmarks defining the language proficiency that students with limited English should attain, 119 and include limited English proficiency students in the academic assessment require ments of all other students. 120 Lastly, the NCLB Act requires state education officials to disseminate an annual student p erformance report card that provides parents and community representatives with comparative statewide information for all local school districts based on state assessments. 121 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Among the many current requirements of the NCLB Act is the requirement for state legislatures to develop and implement a state wide accountability system that will encourage all public school stakeholders to work toward making adequate yearly progress (AYP). 122 While the NCLB Act leaves it up to each ind ividual state legislature to devise its own accountability system, the NCLB Act does include general regulations that the states must follow. According to standard s and assessments, 123 must be the same accountability system used for all public schools throughout the state, 124 and include sanctions and rewards for schools and local school districts which do or do not make AYP. 125 The NCLB Act requires each state legislatu re to define AYP for school districts and schools, within the parameters set by NCLB statutory text. 126 In defining 119 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C) (Supp. I 2002). 120 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(C)(i) (Supp. I 2002). 121 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(h) (Supp. I 2002). 122 No Chi ld Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 123 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(A)(i) (Supp. I 2002). 124 Ibid. 125 Ibid. 126 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(B) (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 56

56 AYP, each state legislature sets the minimum levels of improvement measurable in terms of student performance that school districts and sc hools must achieve within time frames specified in the law. 127 NCLB Act legislation requires that each state legislature must set state, district, and individual school AYP goals. 128 Just as NCLB Act legislation refrains from devising an accountability system that state legislatures must implement, it leaves it up to each individual and its elementary and secondary public schools. 129 handle on accountability systems, however, the Act does include requirements that state legislatures must follow in determining AYP. 130 Included among these are the requirements to apply the same high standards of academic achievement throughout all public schools within the state, 131 to measure progress in a manner that is statistically valid and reliable, 132 to measure the progress of the state, school districts, and individual schools, based on state standardized assessments, 133 and to include separate, annual measureable goals for the achievement of all public elementary and secondary schools, as well as separate, annual measureable goals for the following subcategories: economically disadvantages students, students from major racial or ethnic groups, students with 127 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C) (Supp. I 2002). 128 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(B) (Supp. I 2002). 129 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C) (Supp. I 2002). 130 Ibid. 131 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(i) (Supp. I 2002). 132 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(ii) (Supp. I 2002). 133 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(iv) (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 57

57 disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency, and include graduation rates for public secondary schools. 134 To make AYP, the NCLB Act requires that schools must meet the annual goal for each of the subgroups previously listed and also t est at least 95 percent of the students in each subgroup. 135 When a school does not make AYP for two consecutive years, it is identified as in need of improvement. 136 The NCLB Act lays out an action plan and timetable for steps to be taken when a Title I schoo l is identified as in need of improvement. 137 Action is taken only after a school has not met AYP for two consecutive years, and is as follows: A Title I school that has not made AYP, as defined by the state, for two consecutive school years will be identif ied by the district as needing improvement before the b eginning of the next school year. 138 School officials will develop a two year school improvement plan. 139 The district will ensure that the school receives needed technical assistance as it develops and im plements its improvement plan. 140 Students attending such schools must be offered the option of transferring to another public school in the district which may include a public charter school that has not been identified as needing school improvement. 141 I f a school does not make AYP for three consecutive years, the school remain s in school improvement status. 142 Di strict s serving such schools must continue to 134 No Child Left Behind Act of 200 1, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(v) (Supp. I 2002). 135 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(I) (Supp. I 2002). 136 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(1)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 137 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C § 6316 (Supp. I 2002). 138 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(1)(B) (Supp. I 2002). 139 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(3)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 140 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(4)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 141 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(1)(E) (Supp. I 2002). 142 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(5) (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 58

58 provide technical assistance to the schools, and continue to offer the transfer option to affected students. 143 Such districts must also initiate availability of supplemental educational services such as tutoring or remedial classes, to low income students enrolled at such schools. 144 In addition, districts serving schools failing to make AYP for three co nsecutive years must promptly notify parents of students enrolled in such schools. 145 If a school does not make AYP for four consecutive years, the school district must implement certain corrective actions to improve the school, such as replacing certain st aff or fully implementing a new curriculum, while continuing to offer public school choice for all, as well as supplemental educational ser vices for low income students. 146 I f a school does not make AYP for a fifth year, the school district must initiate pl ans for restructuring the school. 147 This may include reopening the school as a charter school, replacing all or most of the school staff, or turning over school operations either to the state or to a private company with a demonstrated record of effectivene ss. 148 NCLB Act School District Requirements The NCLB Act includes requirements for individual school districts, as well. 149 Among these is the annual requirement of each school district to submit to the state a plan, approved by the state educational age ncy, that is coordinated with the programs included under the NCLB Act. 150 151 Among these is 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(6) (Supp. I 2002). 146 No Child Left B ehind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(7) (Supp. I 2002). 147 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(8)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 148 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6316 (b)(8)(B) (Supp. I 2002). 149 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U. S.C. § 6312 (Supp. I 2002). 150 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(a)(1) (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 59

59 the provision that a school district plan must include a description of any student academic ass essments that are administered in addition to the assessments described in the state plan. 152 In addition, each school district plan must provide several assurances, 153 including assurance that the district will provide assistance and support to schools as sc hools work toward making AYP, 154 provide services to eligible students attending private schools, 155 communicate with parents in a timely and understandable manner, 156 and comply with NCLB Act requirements regarding teacher and paraprofessional qualifications. 157 School district plans must also include assertion that the district will implement effective means of outreach to parents of limited English proficient students, in an effort to involve these parents in the education of their children. 158 Current Title I C omponents Under current NCLB Act law, there are ten Titles. First among these Titles is Title I: 159 Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. Subsequently, there are nine Parts that entail Title I: Part A through Part I. 160 Each of these nine parts address es a factor affecting the education of disadvantaged students. For example, Part C, Part D, and Part H focus es on the 151 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(b) (Supp. I 2002). 152 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(b)(1)(A) (Supp. I 2002). 153 N o Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1) (Supp. I 2002). 154 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1)(C) (Supp. I 2002). 155 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1)(E) (Supp. I 2002). 156 No Child Left Behind Act o f 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1)(N) (Supp. I 2002). 157 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1)(I) (Supp. I 2002). 158 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(4) (Supp. I 2002). 159 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (Supp. I 2002). 160 Ibid.

PAGE 60

60 education of migratory children, intervention programs for children who are at risk, and school dropout prevention, respect ively. 161 Title I and t he American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) In response to the economic downturn experienced by Americans toward the end of the Twenty the American Recovery and Re investment Act of 2009 (ARRA) into law on February 17th, 2009. 162 The ARRA was an effort 163 The Act included many measures aimed at thrusting a thriving America into the Twenty First Century. 164 A mong these measures were $98.2 billion in funding aimed at expanding the educational opportunities for American students. 165 The ARRA provided $10 billion in additional fiscal year 2009 Title I, Part A funds to school districts for schools that have high con centrations of students from families that live in poverty. 166 These funds were intended to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of academic failure. 167 States and school districts were required to use ARRA Title I, Part A funds consi stent with the statutory requirements of Title I, Part A of the ESEA. 168 In addition to the Title I, Part A grants, the ARRA appropriated $3 billion dollars for 161 Ibid. 162 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 26 U.S.C. §1 (Supp. III 2006). 163 U.S. Department of Education, Overview of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act accessed January 30 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/programs.html 164 Ibid. 165 Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary. Section I: Summary of the 2010 Budget (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), accessed February 13 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite section1.html 166 Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary. Section II: The American Recovery and Reinves tment Act of 2009. (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), accessed February 13 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite sectio n2.html 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid.

PAGE 61

61 Title I School Improvement Grants, which was a program that made formula grants to states to hel p states and school districts implement statutorily specified actions to turn around low performing Title I schools that ha d been identified as in need of improvement, correction action, or restructuring. 169 In distributing allocations, state legislatures w ere required to give priority to school districts with the greatest need for additional school improvement funds and the strongest commitment to helping identified schools meet required improvement goals. 170 Education Litigation and Title I Since the origi nal ESEA of 1965 was passed, plaintiffs have launched several lawsuits at different aspects of its implementation. More than sixty one lawsuits aimed at influencing the ESEA have been decided by a court. 171 While Title I has been the object of relatively l ittle high profile litigation, cases involving Title I have been decided. Twenty nine of the more than sixty one lawsuits aimed at influencing the ESEA were aimed at deeming the ESEA in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. 172 In these cases, plaintiffs sued governmental entities for using Title I funds in violation of the constitutional precedent governing the relationship Agostini v. Felton 173 the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Cl ause does not prohibit a city from sending public school teachers into parochial schools to provide Title I education services to disadvantaged students. In twenty six of the other lawsuits aimed at the ESEA, plaintiffs attempted to enforce ESEA provision s 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid. 171 http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=1014311541&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=20179&RQT=309&VN ame=PQD 172 Ibid. 173 Agostini v. Felton 521 U.S. 203 (1997).

PAGE 62

62 regarding the way in which federal funds were to be distributed under the program. 174 For example, many of these lawsuits aimed at enforcing ESEA requirements that Title I funds ntaged students. Alexander v. Califano 175 and Department of Education v. Bell 176 are specific examples of such cases. In Lopez Perez v. Hufstedler 177 the plaintiffs aimed at remedying the insufficient implementation of Title I in regard to migrant students. I n Valdez v. Graham 178 the plaintiffs aimed at forcing the Department of Education to use 1980 census data instead of 1970 census data for the allocation of Title I funds. Equality, Equity, and Adequacy Equality versus Equity In examining educational fun ding, it is important to understand the difference between the terms equality and equity. Equality in educational funding has been interpreted to mean providing the same amount of money for each pupil who is to be educated. 179 Spending the same number of d ollars on each student is a form of equality but it may not be equitable ; some students necessitate greater expenditures, such as those with special needs. 180 Equity in school funding has come to refer to funding based on the needs of children. 181 Equity can be defined in 174 Ibid. 175 Alexander v. Califano 432 F. Supp. 1182 (1977). 176 Department of Education v. Bell 770 F.2d 1409 (1985). 177 Lopez Perez v. Hufstedler 505 F. Supp. 39 (1980). 178 Valdez v. Graham 474 F. Supp. 149 (1979). 179 Vern Brimley, Jr. and Rulon R. Garfield, Financing Education in a Climate of Change 10 th ed. (Boston: Pearson Education, 2008), 6 3 180 Ibid., 60. 181 for Journal of Educati on Finance 30, no.4 (2005): 383.

PAGE 63

63 many different ways. According to Brimley and Garfield, equity is the fair distribution and expending of available resources to schools and students, regardless of a a state. 182 Two groups have captured the attention of most equity scholars. These two groups are children, who receive educational services, and taxpayers, who defray the costs of education. 183 While there are objects of concern regarding equity for taxpayers, such as tax burdens and educational services r eceived, 184 for the purposes of this study, only school funding equity as it concerns schools and children will be discussed. Two approaches to the fair distribution of resources to schools and students are characterized as horizontal and vertical equity. Horizontal Equity equity. 185 Horizontal equity implies that students, all of whom are perceived to be equal in their right to an education, should be treated equally. 186 Un der horizontal definitions of equity, all children should receive an equally expensive (or inexpensive) education, and the school districts in a state, as the agencies that operate schools, should therefore receive equal per pupil funding. 187 Therefore, a s chool funding system that is horizontally equitable is one which 182 Brimley and Garfield, Financing Education in a Climate of Change 60. 183 Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel, The Measurement of Equity in School Finance (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984), 7. 184 Ibid., 40. 185 Ibid., 13. 186 Ibid. 187 Allen R. Odden and Lawrence O. Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4th ed (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), 66 67.

PAGE 64

64 dispenses uniform am ounts of per pupil funding among all districts. 188 A funding system that is horizontally equitable assumes that all students are alike. 189 Horizontal equity became a policy c onsideration in response to widely varying educational expenditures across school districts. 190 During most of the Twentieth Century, horizontal equity was the approach typically used to conceptualize funding equity. 191 Recent scholars, however, find this ap proach too simplistic because it does not attend to important considerations such as 192 Vertical Equity Implicit in the principal of treating equals equally is the willingness to accept the uneq ual treatment of unequals. 193 different and requires that unequals receive appropriately une qual treatment. 194 The extent of the appropriate unequal treatment is largely based on societal values. 195 Hirth and Eiler explain that in order to be afforded an equal opportunity, children with fewer resources from home (and therefore greater educational ne eds) ought to receive more educational support than children with 188 Equ Journal of Education Finance 32, no.4 (2007): 396 399. 189 Odden and Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 66. 190 Odden and Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 71 72. 191 Brimley and Garfield, Financing Education in a Cli mate of Change 79 84 192 Odden and Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 71 72. 193 David H. Monk and Brian O. Brent, Raising Money for Education: A Guide to the Property Tax, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997), 10. 194 Robert Berne and Leanna Sti efel, The Measurement of Equity in School Fincance, 13 195 Ibid.

PAGE 65

65 more resources from home (and therefore lesser educational needs). 196 Those concerned with achieving vertical equity recognize high percentages of students living below the poverty level, hig h percentages of students with limited English proficiency, high percentages of students with disabilities, and race as additional risk factors contributing to higher costs for educating. 197 Adequacy Adequacy of educational funding addresses the question: W hat level of funding is required to produce an expected level of student performance? An education system meets an adequacy standard if all schools have sufficient resources to achieve a specified outcome standard. 198 This outcome standard might be defined in terms of a given percentage of students at a proficient level. 199 200 provision of a set of strategies, programs, curriculum, and instruction, with appropriate adjustments for special needs students, districts and schools, and their full financing, that is sufficient to provide all students an equal opportunity to learn to high performa 201 196 197 Deborah Land and Nettie Legters, Educating At Risk Students: One Hundred first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II ed. Sam Stringfield and Deborah Land (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 2. 198 Education Finance and Policy 3, no. 4 (2008) : 404 405. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. 201 Odden and Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 75.

PAGE 66

66 Inequities in School Funding Inequities among Districts within States Most of the discourse on inequity in school funding has centered on the drastic disparities in funding found among school districts of varying degrees of wealth within individual states. 202 These disparities are due in large part to the significant role that local property taxes play in generating funds for school districts. 203 The U.S. system of public education was founded on the principl e s of local financing and local control. 204 In the 1920s there were over 125,000 school districts in the country, funded almost exclusively by local property taxes. 205 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton specify that in 1920, 83 percent of the total $970 million in funding fell on local districts. 206 Since this early division of costs report, the local share of education funding has dropped significantly. In 2005, the local share of public school funding was 44 percent, while the state contributed 47 percent, and the federal government contributed 9 percent. 207 Although state governments have gradually taken on a bigger share of public school financing, local funding remains a critical aspect of all state funding systems because of the disparities resulting from varying property values. Thompson, Wo od, and Crampton explain that school districts typically derive revenue by assessing taxes against each property within the 202 Where Does the Money Go?, ed. Lawrence O. Picus and James L. Wattenbarger (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press): 71. 203 Journal of Education Finance 20, no. 1 (1994): 105. 204 ribution of School Spending, and the Journal of Public Economics 83, no. 1 (2002): 49. 205 Ibid. 206 David C. Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and Faith E. Crampton, Money and Schools, 4 th ed (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 200 8): 50 51. 207 Ibid.

PAGE 67

67 district. However, no two districts contain exactly the same property value s Suburban properties are usually more valuable than r ural or inner city properties, and therefore, generate school tax revenues that are vastly higher than the revenues generated in districts comprised of less valuable properties. 208 This inequality in per pupil funding led to a wave of school finance litigat ion, resulting in State Supreme Courts overturning the state finance systems in sixteen states between 1971 and 1996. 209 As a result of such litigation, changes in state funding formulas shifted the relative amounts of state aid received by richer and poore r districts. However, these shifts in state aid do not necessarily lead to corresponding changes in district spending or increased equity among schools. 210 School districts may reduce local taxes in response to an increase in the amount of state taxes, the refore ne gating state education official s attempt at offsetting revenue disparities resulting from varying property values. 211 Hartman analyzed disparities in spending between school districts in Pennsylvania from 1991 1992 and found that districts with hi gher property values and income levels enjoyed higher per equalized funding formula. 212 More recently, analysts who have examined funding differences across school districts within states have found that a substantial equalization of school finances 208 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money & Schools 4 th ed., 51. 209 See, e.g., The American Economic Review 88, no. 4 (1998): 791 794; see Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971); Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973); Horton v. Meskill 172 Conn. 615 (1977); Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State of Montana 769 P.2d 684 (1989); Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994). 210 211 Ibid. 212

PAGE 68

68 across school districts within states was achieved in the 1990s. 213 As of 2008, within state disparities were the lowest they have been since the first documented measurements nearly thirty years ago. 214 I nequities across States Attention has also been drawn to funding disparities across states, because, in the past, between state differences have been much larger than funding differences within states. 215 During the 1980s, public education funding disparitie s between states was found to be twice as large as within state disparities. 216 Throughout the 1990s, average funding disparities across states declined by approximately 23 percent, however as of 2008, differences across states currently remain higher than d ifferences within states. 217 Research conducted during the late 1990s found that two thirds of national differences in district financing were a result of funding differences between states, with only one third resulting from funding differences within distr icts in the same state. 218 Recent research on this same topic conducted by Baird in 2008 shows that differences in per pupil funding among states remain significantly larger than differences within 213 Expenditure, and the Income Di Education Finance and Policy 1, no. 4 (2006): 397. 214 Journal of Education Finance 33, no. 3 (2008): 298. 215 William N. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16, no. 1 (1997):10 31; and, Linda Hertert, Carolyn A. s Among the States: The Problem from a National Journal of Education Finance 19, no. 3 (1994): 231 255. 216 217 218 18; and, Sheila E. Finance Reform and the Distribution of Education Resou The American Economic Review 88, no. 4 (1998): 798 799.

PAGE 69

69 states. Yet, these differences have been narrowing and are no longer two thirds of total differences as estimated in the 1980s. 219 Inequities among S chools within Districts While research has provided us with convincing evidence that state finance reform has significantly reduced inequities in public school funding among districts, research also shows that despite such reform, inequities remain among schools within districts. Inequities in the distribution and utilization of educational resources within districts are important to understand because, ultimately, scho schools. In a 1995 study of schools and districts in California, Hertert found that despite the there was a much greater degree of variation between schools within the same district, than there was across districts. 220 In similar research, Stiefel, Rubenstein, and Berne analyzed school level data and found significant disparities in per pupil funding within four large urban districts: Chicago, Fort Worth, New York City, and Rochester. 221 Related research by Burke in 1999 estimated resource distributions at the school level, which revealed significant intra district disparities that in some states (Illin ois and New York) exceeded inter district disparities. 222 In 2007, Roza, Guin, Gross, and Deburgomaster used Texas school level expenditure data to study the funding differences at least in Texas, 219 303. 220 84. 221 Leanna Stief District Equity in Four Large Cities: Data, Methods Journal of Education Finance 23, no. 3 (1998): 447 467. 222 Journal of Education Finance 24, no.4 (1999): 435 58.

PAGE 70

70 inequalities in access to revenues across school districts. Although reforms have been successful in reducing inequalities between Texas di stricts, variation in funding within districts 223 The Shift from Equity to Adequacy School Finance Litigation Since the standards movement began in the late 1980s, the catalyst for school finance litigation has shifted from concerns regardin g equitable distribution of available resources, to the provision of sufficient resources to meet the goals for student learning articulated in state standards. 224 Evidence of this shift becomes clear when analyzing the surge of school finance litigation th at began in the early 1970s. Thro describes this surge in three waves. 225 The first Clause. 226 The first wave of this surge began in 1971 with the California case of Serr ano v. Priest 227 method of funding schools to be contrary to its constitutional guarantee of equal protection under funding plan relied primarily on revenues generated from property taxes in each school district, revenues available to students varied along with the taxable wealth of each district. This disparity in available resources per student was deemed inequitabl e and, therefore, unconstitutional. In 1973, and still within this 223 Education Next 7, no.4 (2007): 70. 224 Laura Lefkowits, School Finance: From Equity to Adequacy (Aurora, CO: Mid continent Research for Education and Learnng, 2004), 3, accessed December 30 th 2010, http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5042pi_pbschoolfinan cebrief.pdf 225 B.C. Law Review 35, no 4 (1994). 226 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. 227 Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971).

PAGE 71

71 first wave, was also the case of San Antonio v. Rodrigue z, 228 in what ultimately was an unsuccessful attempt to address school funding inequities in Texas under the Equal Protection Clause o f the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that although education is one of the most important state services, it is not within the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, the Court ruled that fundamental state taxation a nd education reforms are state matters. Since that time, all school funding suits have been tried in state courts and have Rodriguez marked the end of school finance challenges based on the federal Equal Protection Clause. The second wave in this surge of school finance litigation began in 1973 and was based on state constitutional language. This second wave began with Robinson vs. Cahill 229 In its 1973 land mark decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the New Jersey state and 230 As school finance litigation began to move into its third wave, which began in 1989 with Rose v. A Better Council for Education 231 its basis began to shift f rom equity and fairness to securing the resources necessary to provide an adequate education to all students. Adequacy lawsuits focus on how much money is needed to provide all students in a state with a constitutionally guaranteed education. Rather than resulting in a redistribution of resources from 228 San Anto nio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973). 229 Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973). 230 231 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W. 2d 186 (1989).

PAGE 72

72 high wealth to low wealth districts, which is the case with equity lawsuits, adequacy suits seek a higher level of funding for all students and thus avoid pitting districts against one another. 232 The trend to ward adequacy litigation began with the 1989 landmark decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education 233 in which the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the state ts of Kentucky school children. Subsequent reforms in Kentucky, achieved through the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) passed by the state legislature in 1990, are among the most comprehensive and revolutionary outcomes of any school finance litigation 234 Widely considered the landmark case in the third wave of school finance litigation, Rose v. Council provided a model for many of the subsequent school finance reform decisions. Rose also illustrates how this third wave of adequacy analysis litigati on can implicate several issues involving educational adequacy. In this way, Rose has influenced, in some incidences, school finance litigation dealing with a collision between adequacy and The NCLB Act Because of its relevance to the field of education finance, a thorough explanation of Rose is provided. Rose was filed in Kentucky in response to what appeared to be horrible educational conditions. During the 1980s, Kentucky ranked fiftieth among the states in adult literacy and adults with high school d iplomas, forty ninth in the rates of students continuing to college, and forty eighth in per pupil expenditures on public schools. 235 Given the state of education in Kentucky, arguments addressing adequacy, rather than just equality and equity, seemed to ma ke 232 Lefkowits, School Finance: From Equit y to Adequacy, 3. 233 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1989). 234 Lefkowits, School Finance: From Equity to Adequacy 3. 235 Journal of Law and Edu cation 28, no. 4 (1999): 486.

PAGE 73

73 sense. Therefore, the plaintiffs based their arguments on the education clause in the Kentucky 236 In order fo r an appropriate ruling to be made, the court was required to define what constitutes an efficient system of public schools. The Rose court eventually devised that the education clause requires schools to be funded in more than a de minimis fashion, and t hat all children are entitled to equal educational opportunities. Having articulated w hat Supreme Court was able to determine whether the Kentucky legislature had actually met its consti tutional burden. Based on volumes of evidence, the court ruled that the system of public schools in Kentucky was not adequate to provide to all students the level of education required by the state constitution. Therefore, the court ruled that the state legislature needed to take action in order to provide for this kind of system. In effect, the legislature not only had to provide adequate and uniform funding for all common schools, it also had to ensure that the students of Kentucky would acquire a set of knowledge and skills that would enable them to prosper, excel, Rose decision has influenced adequacy litigation and legislation by shifting the definition of an efficie nt education from one that looked at only educational inputs to one that looks at both educational inputs and outputs. Rose ruling, the Kentucky legislature enacted the Kentucky Education Reform Act 237 (KERA). KERA called for swe eping changes in the public school 236 KY. CONST. of 1890, § 183. 237 Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, ch. 476, 1990 Ky. Acts 1208.

PAGE 74

74 system of Kentucky. This new legislation required that the state legislature equalize its funding system and raise educational funding, mandated major curriculum and school governance reform, required the development of learning standards and a curriculum based on these standards, mandated student progress monitoring in relation to these standards, and required the implementation of accountability measures based on student progress. The language in the Rose decision and the reforms mandated by KERA depict the shift in focus of school finance litigation from that of inputs to outputs, and it is outputs that are the primary focus of NCLB reform. ed toward adequacy followed Rose. One of these is Campaign for Fiscal Equity Inc. v. State of New York 238 In this 1993 lawsuit, Campaign for Fiscal Equity a nonprofit advocacy organization, em of school finance. Using an system underfunded New York City public schools and failed to provide students with their for the plaintiffs and concluded that the New York Constitution indeed entitles students to ever. Instead, the state court remanded the case to trial court where an exact ng its burden of 238 Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York 86 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.1995).

PAGE 75

75 Further cases dealing with educational adequacy include McDuffy v. Secretary 239 and Montoy v. State of Kansas 240 In McDuffy Massachusetts system of school finance unconstitutional because the system failed to provide students with an adequate education. In this case, the McDuffy Court left the details of specifying exactly what constitutes an adequate education up to the state legislature. Conseq uently, the state legislature passed the Education Reform Act 241 (ERA), which specified the components of an adequate education. In Montoy v. State of Kansas 242 the plaintiffs argued that the Kansas school financing system resulted in inadequate inputs and f unding levels, which in turn failed to provide students with a constitutionally adequate education. The courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the state l egislature to change its school finance system. The N eed for Improved S tudent P erforman ce was sparked by the the U.S. Department of Education released its report titled A Nation at Risk 243 With this re port, A mericans learned that their supposedly world class system of education was not keeping pace with the progress of other nations. According to A Nation at Risk about 13 percent of seventeen year olds were functionally illiterate, SAT scores were dropping, and students needed an increased array of remedial courses in college 244 Such trends threatened both 239 McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Of fice of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993). 240 Montoy v. State of Kansas 278, 102 P.3d 1160 (2005). 241 Education Reform Act, G.L. c.69 et seq. (1993). 242 Montoy v. State of Kansas 278, 102 P.3d 1160 (2005). 243 U.S. Department of Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1983). 244 Ibid.

PAGE 76

76 and collective future. Twenty five years later, the warnings highlighted in A Nation at Risk remain relev ant and poignant recent document titled A Nation Accountable: Twenty five Years After A Nation at Risk of a typical group of twenty children who started kindergarten together in 1988, only fourteen wo uld have graduated. Of these fourteen children, ten would have started college, and only five of those ten would have a college degree by 2007. 245 Furthermore, a new group of children starting kindergarten in 2002, and tested in 2007, would have only seven proficient readers in fourth grade and eight students who are proficient in math. 246 The rising demands of a global economy, together with d emographic shifts, require that American educators instruct more students to higher levels than ever before. Since t he release of A Nation at Risk, e ducation in Ameri ca has taken a different course a course dominated by standards and accountability for all school district s and students Throughout the last twenty five years, work at both the state and federal levels has resulted in a new approach to education in America. Following the release of A N ation at Risk many state implement a standards based education system by producing content standards. 247 Sta te legislatures also began to create standardized tests that aligned with these content standards. This state level initiative was at the Charlottesville Education Sum mit and agreed to adopt national K 12 performance goals for the 245 U.S. Department of Education, A Nation Accountable: Twenty five Years After A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2008), 2, accesse d April 2 nd 2011, http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/accountable/ 246 Ibid., 9. 247 Ibid., 5.

PAGE 77

77 year 2000. 248 In 1994, Congress passed the 249 which required state legislatures to adopt content standards and tests During this same time period, Congre ss also passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act 250 which provided federal funds to aid state legislatures in writing and adopting those content standards and tests With the start of the Twenty First Century, the standards and accountability movement re ached a new level. President George W. Bush called for significant reforms at the federal level, which led to the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 251 This important law built on the foundation laid in the 1980s and 1990s by ensuring that state legislatures accepting the federal d to measure and report on results in terms of standards and accountability. 252 Most recently, President for reauthorization of the NCLB Act. 253 This plan is organized around the major goals of raising standards and rewarding success. 254 Since the release of A Nation at Risk, educational leaders and policy makers have made tudent achievement data still According to A Nation Accountable: Twenty five Years after a Nation at Risk American education outcomes on 248 Ibid., 5. 249 250 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801 (1994) 251 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002). 252 U.S. Department of Education, A Nation Accountable: Twenty five Years After A Nation at Risk 5. 253 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2 0 U.S.C. § 6301 ( Supp. I 2002). 254 U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010).

PAGE 78

78 international compari sons have not improved significan tly since the 1970s. 255 In an international comparison, the U.S. ranks twenty fourth in math scores, and twenty first in science scores. 256 On a purely domestic level, student reading and math scores are inept. According to T he Nation's Report Card: Reading 20 11 Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. 257 Similarly, T he Card: Math 20 1 1 258 Does Money Matter? In 1966, James Coleman published the Equality of Educational Opportu nity Survey more commonly known as the Coleman Report. 259 260 the findings of the Coleman Report suggest ed that school funding ha d litt le effect on student achievement, and that student backgro und and socioeconomic status were much more important in determining educational outcomes than are measured difference in per pupil spending. 261 Further studies 255 U.S. Department of Education, A Nation Accountabl e: Twenty five Years After A Nation at Risk, 9 10 256 Ibid. 257 National Center for Education Statistics, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), 2, accessed December 22 nd 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf 258 National Center for Education Statistics, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), 2, a ccessed December 22 nd 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf 259 S. Government Printing Office, 1966). 260 Ronald F. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, no 2 (1991): 467. 261 22.

PAGE 79

79 have also found that additional school funding does not necessarily produce improved student [v] ariations in school 262 In a later study, Hanushek fo und similar results, demonstrating that neither a strong nor consistent relationship between student achievement and school resources exists. 263 However, contrasting evidence on this issue also exists. One of the more comprehensive meta analysis studies on this issue was conducted by Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald in a set of carefully selected school 264 A 1991 study by Ferguson looked at the spending and the use of hiring more teachers (when students per teacher exceed eighteen), retaining experienced teachers, and attracting more teachers w ith advanced training are all measures that produce 265 Lastly, research analyzing the effects of spending equalization on student test performance found that equalization of spending leads to a narrowing of te st score outcomes across family background groups. 266 262 Eric A. Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): Educational Researcher 18, no. 4 (1989) : 45 263 Eric A. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, no. 2 (1997) : 141 264 Analysis of Studie s of Educational Researcher 23, no. 3 (1994): 5. 265 F e rgus o n, "Paying for Public Education 485 266

PAGE 80

80 Picus argues that it is not the question of whether or not money matters that is most important, but rather how money is spent that matters most. 267 Picus argues that one of the problems with existing rese arch on the effectiveness of increased funds on student achievement is that these studies do not acknowledge the vast similarities in how school districts spend available resources. 268 be remarkably similar, despite differences in total per pupil spending, student characteristics, and 269 In other words, district officials are not basing their resource allocations on the unique needs of the students within their dist ricts. Future research examining what the impact on student performance would be if school district officials were to dramatically change the way they spend available resources would be very helpful is resolving the debate over whether or not money matter s. 270 In sum, the answer to questions about the effect of money on schools is still emergent, with even the most sophisticated studies resulting only in cautious encouragement that money well placed is money better spent. 271 The D ispersion of B ase Resource A llocations Good teaching matters in determining the learning gains of students. 272 However, research shows that teacher qualifications and salaries are not spread evenly throughout schools in larger 267 Lawrence O. Picus, Selected Papers in School F inance 1995 ed. William J. Fowler, Jr., (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1997), 29, accessed May 21 st 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97536.pdf 268 Ibid. 28. 269 Ibid. 270 Ib id. 271 Thompson, Wood, and Crampton, Money and schools 4 th ed., 10, 13. 272 Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, and Steven. G. Rivkin, Teachers, Schools, and Academi c Achievement (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998), 13 14, 31 33, accessed June 1 st 2011, http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Hanushek_NBER.PDF

PAGE 81

81 urban districts. 273 While only a weak link exists between te acher salary and teacher quality, research shows that the average salary for all teachers at a given school reflects the school 274 Iatarola and Stiefel performed a study on input and output equity of expenditures, teacher resources, and performance across 840 elementary and middle schools in New York City. 275 Among their findings, the authors found that while more teachers per pupil were allocated to schools with higher per centages of students receiving free and reduced lunch, teacher salaries and other teacher characteristics were lower. To the extent that certification is an indication of teacher quality, their analyses show that lower quality teachers are located in need ier schools. 276 Iatarola and Stiefel explain that a likely explanation for this is that the system allocates more teacher resources to schools with needier students, but the union contract and regulations allow teachers with seniority the right to transfer t o desirable schools, which makes it difficult for low performing schools to retain experienced and licensed teachers. In addition, a uniform pay scale makes it difficult to hire licensed or experienced teachers to work in poorly performing schools. 277 Condr on and Roscigno performed an analysis on within district variations in spending and achievement among eighty nine public elementary schools in a large, North Carolina urban district. Their analyses reveal considerable disparities in spending within the di strict. They 273 Kati Haycok, Good Teaching Matters: How Well Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap (Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 1998) 14 18, accessed May 13th, 2011, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457260.pdf 274 Brookings Papers on Education Policy (2004): 205. 275 Economics of Education Review 22, no. 1 (2003): 69 78. 276 Ibid., 73. 277 Ibid., 77.

PAGE 82

82 found that the quality of teachers appears to be influenced by the amount of investments made in both classrooms and schools. Their results indicated that as instructional per pupil spending increases, so does the percentage of teachers with 278 While this result in higher instructional spending, further analyses show a negative correlation between the percentage of stud ents who receive free or reduced lunch and the percentage of teachers with a 279 Additionally, the researchers found that schools spending more on operations gree. 280 These findings suggest that to the extent that there is within district migration of teachers, particularly those with seniority and higher credentials, it will be toward more affluent schools. 281 There exists an extensive amount of research examinin g the relationship between teacher quality and student characteristics at the school level. A common finding among research examining the distribution of teachers is that high poverty schools have more teachers relative to pupils, but that these teachers are generally more inexperienced and less educated, and thus, lower paid. As early as the 1970s, Owen found lower per pupil expenditures on teacher salaries and less experienced teachers in poor and high minority neighborhoods within nine large cities. 282 S ummers and Wolfe found significantly lower education levels and teacher exam scores 278 Dennis J. Condron and Vincent J R Sociology of Education 76, no.1 (2003): 29 33. 279 Ibid. 280 Ibid., 30. 281 Ibid. 282 Jo urnal of Human Resources 7, no. 1 (1972): 26 38.

PAGE 83

83 in schools with higher poverty and higher proportions of black students in Philadelphia. 283 More recent research suggests that these patter n s of higher paid teachers migrati ng toward more affluent schools still exist. A 1998 study of intra district resource allocation in four large U.S. cities reported lower teacher salaries in high poverty schools than in low poverty schools. 284 A report released in 2000 compared California schools in 1997 1998 and found large differences in teacher qualifications, as measured by experience, education, and credentials. 285 Not yet peer reviewed, yet still relevant to the body of education finance literature, is a 2005 study of y largest districts, which showed that thirty one of the districts have significantly lower average teacher salaries in schools with the most African American and Latino students. 286 Another relevant, but not yet peer reviewed, 2003 report by Roza and Hill examined within district differences in dollars spent per school in four large U.S. cities and found that teachers in low poverty, high performing schools tend to have higher average salaries that do teachers in high poverty, low performing schools. 287 A stu dy released in 2007 by Rubenstein, Schwartz, Stiefel, and Amor reported that after exploring the resource allocations in New York City, Cleveland and Columbus during the late 1990s, it was found that schools with a higher proportion of poor children have 283 district Distribution of School Inputs to the Disadvantaged: The Journal of Human Resources 11, no. 3 (1976): 328 342. 284 Leanna Stief District Equity in Four Large Cities: Data, Methods Journal of Education Finance 23, no. 4 (1998):447 467. 285 Julian R. Betts, Kim S. Reuben, and Anne Danneberg, Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? T he Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2000), 141, accessed June 14 th 2011, http://www.ppic.org/ content/pubs/report/R_200JBR.pdf 286 Education Trust West, Shortchange Poor and Minority Students and Their Schools (Oakland, CA: The Education Trust West, 2005), 4 10, a ccessed July 19 th 2011, http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/CAHiddenTeacherSpendingGapReport.pdf 287 Margu Brookings Papers on Education Policy (2004): 209 211.

PAGE 84

84 teachers serving at such schools are paid less, on average. 288 A 2002 study by Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff which explored teacher sorting across all of New York state found that urban areas general ly have less qualified teachers than non urban areas and that, within large urban districts, low performing, poor, and non white children are more likely to have teachers who are not certified and who have failed certification exams. 289 In a paper which has yet to be peer reviewed, Rubenstein, Schwartz, and Stiefel explain that because all schools within a district are supported by the same tax base, within district allocation formulas do not distribute resources to offset wealth or income differences among s chools. 290 Most districts use a formula for calculating base teacher allocations that are based on student enrollment and maximum class sizes. 291 Under the base teacher allocation, schools receive positions rather than a budget to hire teachers. Therefore, schools with higher paid teachers do not face a tighter budget constraint than those with lower paid teachers. Moreover, the base teacher allocation formula does not distribute base resources relative to the need characteristics of the student body served by each school. 292 Therefore, vertical inequities arise. The policy response to this concern has been to layer on additional funds to counteract these inequities. 288 : The Economics of Education Review 26, no. 5 (2007): 538. 289 Descriptive Analysis Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24, no.1 (2002): 37 62. 290 Ross Rubenstein, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Leanna Stiefel. Rethinking the Intradistrict distribution of school inputs to disadvantaged students. Law, Berkeley, CA, April 2006, 12, accessed, July 5 th 2011, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.161.5391 291 Ibid., 13. 292 Ibid., 14.

PAGE 85

85 A prominent example of such policy is the Title I program. The Title I program for disadvan taged students was designed to provide high poverty schools with extra resources above and beyond what the district spends in state and local dollars. Language of the Title I program insists that the extra federal dollars supplement funds from state and l ocal sources. Title I funds are supposed to be added only after poverty schools receive at least an equal share of the state and local funds. However, current Title I legislation allows districts to use average salary figures when comparing expenditures among schools. 293 Therefore, comparability measures based on average teacher salaries may result in inaccurate reports concerning base resource allocation s between Title I and non Title I schools. In sum, the existing studies on school level reso urce disparities have reached similar conclusions. First, the resource disparities found across schools within districts are often large and, in some cases, may be larger than the more widely recognized disparities across districts. Second, these dispari ties are generally the result of attributes related to school and student characteristics. More specifically, schools with greater student needs are often at a disadvantag e relative to other schools in the same district, particularly in terms of the quali ty of teachers. However, these patterns are not caused by the intentional targeting of resources to lower need schools. Instead, these resource disparities are often the result of intra district funding formulas that allocate positions, rather than dolla rs, to schools, which may increase the quantity of teachers at high need schools, but fails to consider the quality of teachers at such schools. The Fund Structure of Florida School Districts Florida statute requires that the financial records and accou nts of each local school board be maintained in accordance with regulations prescribed by the state board for a uniform system 293

PAGE 86

86 of financial records and accounts for the schools of the state. 294 Further, Florida statute requires that each school district kee p adequate records and accounts of all financial transactions in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Education in the publication titled Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001) 295 This publication is throughout the remainder of this paper. The primary purpose of the Florida Department of for budgeting and financial reporting. 296 This chart of accounts is adapted from the United States Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems. 297 Financial Accounting for Local and State School Syste ms is a document published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that provides state and local education agencies with guidance for financial accounting and reporting by highlighting best practices in data collection and reporting to the s chools, school districts, and state agencies. 298 For governmental entities, such as state and local education agencies, to ensure the proper should be organi zed and operated on a fund basis. 299 The basic fund structure for Florida school districts includes three categories of funds: Governmental funds, Proprietary funds, and 294 FLA. STAT. § 237.01 (1997). 295 FLA. STAT. §1010.01 (2011). 296 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reportin g for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001) (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 2001), 1 1, accessed February 19 th 2011, http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/redtoc.asp 297 Ibid. 298 G.S. Allison, S.D. Honegg er, and F. Johnson, Financial Accounting for Local and State Schoo l Systems: 2009 Edition (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics 2009), accessed August 1 st 2011, http://nces.ed.go v/pubs2009/2009325.pdf 299 Ibid., 26

PAGE 87

87 Fiduciary funds. 300 Governmental funds are those through which most governmental functio ns financial resources are accounted for through governmental funds. Included within this category of governmental funds are six subcategories of funds: The Ge neral Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Projects Funds, and Permanent Funds. 301 For the purposes of this study, expenditures within only The General Fund (a subcategory of Governmental Funds) were analyzed. The General Fund is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. 302 This fund accounts for the vast majority of operational expenditures that support district education systems. General fund revenue proportions for the school district targeted in this study are consistent with those for most school districts across the state of Florida. More specifically, the majority of general fund revenue for the school district targeted in this study comes from local sources, a smaller por tion comes from state sources, and a minimal amount comes from federal sources. 303 According to the latest Funding for Florida School Districts Statistical Report published by the Florida Department of Education, Florida school districts in 2008 2009, on a verage, received 54 percent of financial support from local sources, 36 percent from state sources, and 10 percent from federal sources. 304 300 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001), 1 1. 301 Ibid. 302 Ibid., 4 1. 303 Published material provided by the selected school district: Final Budget Book for Fiscal Year 2011 2012 15. 304 The Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts Statistical Report: 2010 2011 (Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting), 1, accessed September 22 nd 2011, http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf

PAGE 88

88 Summary shaping public education has taken a variety of forms, which have been influenced mainly by the combination of the sociopolitical climate and prominent federal and state court rulings of each decade. Such combinations have created challenging and highly complex contexts for scho ol funding. An extensive review of education literature reveals equity and adequacy of educational inputs and the resulting outputs, in the form of student performance, to be the most prominent elements comprising this complex context. On a national and global scale, student achievement data suggest that the American education system has room for improvement. Education scholars are still grappling with the idea that increased money is the key to improving student performance. While some research sugges ts that increased resource inputs, in the form of money, have little effect on student achievement, conflicting research suggests a positive correlation between expenditure amounts and student achievement. Yet, others argue that it is not the amount of mo ney spent that effects student achievement. This suggestion that how money is spent influences student achievement more greatly than the amount of money spent s concept that the skill level and effectiveness of classroom teachers has the most profound influence on student achievement. In C hapter 2 an in depth review of the legislation, court rulings, and research relevant to this study was given. Included in such relevant research were studies targeting equity and adequacy within and across districts, the effectiveness of increased resource inputs and teacher characteristics, and common resource allocation practices employed amon g school districts. A brief overview of the fund structure of Florida school districts w as also given. In Chapter 3 an

PAGE 89

89 explanation of the methods used in carrying out the research of this study was given, as well as an in depth explanation of program co st accounting and reporting in Florida.

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The purpose of this study was to identify per pupil expenditure disparities between Title I and non Title I schools both before and after accounting for teacher salaries in a selected Florida sch ool district. In C hapter 2 the literature relevant to this study was reviewed. C hapter 3 include d a discussion of the research design method with which per pupil expenditure disparities were identified. Specifically, C hapter 3 described the steps taken and the statistical methods used in identifying the effect that teacher salaries ha d on per pupil expenditure disparities between Title I and non Title I schools within one Florida school district. This study includes analyses of the extent to which requi rements of the Comparability provision of the Federal Title I Program are being met within one Florida school district. In other words, this study analyzes the level of equalization of state and local funding among all schools within the selected district Ensuring equalization of state and local funding among all schools within a district, will, in turn, ensure that Federal Title I, Part A dollars are serving the intended purpose of Title I legislation: to augment services for poor students, enabling suc h students to overcome the disadvantages that result from poverty. In order to carry out the intent of this study, school and district level data concerning nine K 5 elementary Title I schools and fifteen K 5 elementary non Title I schools for fiscal year s 2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 20 08, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010 were collected and analyzed. This research was designed to provide answers to the following three questions: 1. Was there a significant difference in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state an d local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, before accounting for teacher salaries? 2. Was there a significant difference in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, after accounting for teacher salaries? 3. What do the differences in per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, both before and after accounting for teacher

PAGE 91

91 salaries, reveal about the extent to which the requirements of the Federal Title I Comparability provision are being met? Research Design The purpose of this study was to identify levels of per pupil expenditure disparity between Title I and non Title I schools both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. I n order to do this, several steps were taken. First, twenty four elementary schools in the selected school district were identified as having expenditure report data for all five years observed in this study. These twenty four schools were then assigned t o one of two groups: Title I or non Title I. Once the two groups were established, per for each school within the two groups were calculated for each of the five fiscal years included in this stud y. This first calculation included direct instructional expenditures within the following three categories: purchased services, materials and supplies, and other expenses. Next, per pupil expenditures amounts from the general fund for each school were a gain calculated for each fiscal year, however, this second calculation accounted for teacher salaries and benefits too Specifically, this second calculation included direct instructional expenditures within the following five categories: purchases servi ces, materials and supplies, other expenses, salaries, and benefits. Program Cost Accounting and Reporting in Florida The expenditures of school districts are classified into functional categories. Functions are group related activities aimed at accompl ishing a major service or regulatory responsibility of the organization, and functional categories indicate the overall purpose or objective of an expenditure. The activities of a school district are classified into five broad areas: Instruction, Instructi onal Support, General Support, Community Services, and Non program Charges (Debt

PAGE 92

92 Service and Transfers). 1 Four character function codes identify each functional category, with sub functional categories listed below certain major functions. For the purpos es of this study, only expenditures within the instruction functional category were considered. Instruction functions are labeled with the function code 5000. Expenditures classified within this instruction category (function 5000 category) include activ ities dealing directly with the teaching of pupils, or the interaction between teacher and pupils. Included in this category are the activities of aides or assistants of any type who assist in the instructional process. Within the function 5000 category are five instruction subcategories: Basic K 12, Exceptional, Vocational Technical, Adult General, and other Instruction, with sub function codes 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, and 5500, respectively. For the purposes of this study, only Basic K 12 program expen ditures, function 5100 expenditures, that is, were considered. Programs for academically at risk students (ESOL students) are included in function 5100 expenditures ; however due to higher cost factors for academically at risk students, expenditures on pr ograms for students at risk were excluded from this study. Analyzed in this study are Basic K 12 program expenditures, which are categorized as function 5100 activities, a sub function of the major functional category of instruction (function 5000). Funct ion 5100 expenditures are a significant topic to analyze considering that these expenditures comprise the majority of expenditures from the General Fund, and the General Fund is the largest of all funds in a school district because most annual instructiona l expenditures are paid from it, including but not limited to teacher and administrator salaries, teaching supplies, insurance and utilities, and purchased services. 2 1 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001), 4 10. 2 Thompson, Wood, Cra mpton, Money and Schools 4 th ed., 111.

PAGE 93

93 Expenditures are first classified by fund. As discussed in C hapter 2 th e overarching fund structure consists of three broad categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Each of these funds is comprised of individual funds. The category of governmental funds is comprised of five individual funds: T he General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Project Funds, and Permanent Funds. The individual fund on which this study focuses is the General Fund. 3 Expenditures within the General Fund, as with expenditures within all categorie s of the overarching fund structure, are then classified by function. Finally, expenditures are classified by object. An object breaks a function into various sub codes and refers to the goods purchased or the service acquired. 4 There are eight major ob ject categories which indicate the type of goods or services obtained as a result of a specific expenditure. These major objects are considered direct cost elements and are therefore considered function 5000 (instruction) activities, as opposed to indirec t cost elements which are considered functions outside of the 5000 category, and are therefore outside the scope of this study. The eight major object categories for direct costs are as follows: salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, energy serv ices, materials and supplies, capital outlay, other expenses, and transfers. 5 These broad categories are further subdivided to capture more detailed expenditure information. Direct salaries and benefits are the largest cost elements within the objects of function 5000, with the remaining function 5000 objects serving as a relatively small part of the total Basic K 12 program costs. 3 revenues come almost entirely from state and local sources. Federal Title I funding expenditures are ac counted for Revenues Fund were not analyzed in this study. 4 Thompson, Wood, Crampton, Money and schools 4 th ed., 117. 5 The Florida Department of Education, Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001), 1 2.

PAGE 94

94 Three character object codes identify each object category, with sub codes listed below certain major objects. For the purpos es of this study, expenditures within only five object categories were considered: salaries, benefits, purchased services, materials and supplies, and other expenses, with object codes 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700, respectively. Direct salaries and benefit s are the largest cost elements among the objects of instruction. Salaries (object 100) refer to amounts paid to employees of the school system who are considered to be in positions of a permanent nature. Benefits (object 200) refer to amounts paid by th e school system on behalf of unemployment compensation, and other employee benefits. Purchased services (object 300) refer to amounts paid for personal services ren dered by personnel who are not on the payroll of the district school board, and other services which the board may purchase. Examples of purchased services include professional and technical services, (i.e., architects, engineers, auditors, and lawyers) i nsurance and bond premiums, such as property and liability premiums, and expenses associated with business travel. Materials and supplies (object 500) refer to amounts paid for items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use, such as workbooks, paper, periodicals, and paper towels. Other expenses (object 700) refers to amounts paid for goods and services not accounted for elsewhere, such as payments of interest, retirement of debt, and payment of dues or fees. FTE, Cos t Factors, and Weighted FTE For purposes of the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), a full time equivalent (FTE) student is one student in membership in one or more FEFP programs for a school year. These FEFP programs include Basic K 12 Programs, Pr ograms for Exceptional Student Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Programs, and grades 9 12 Career Education Programs. Basic Programs and Programs for Exceptional Student Education are

PAGE 95

95 broken into subcategories. Each of these subca tegories and each of the ESOL and Career Education Programs are assigned program cost factors. Program cost factors assure that each program receives an equitable share of funds in relation to its relative cost per student. Multiplying the FTE students f calculation weights the FTE to reflect the relative costs of the programs as represented by the program cost factors. Accordingly, increased numbers of FTE students enrolled in programs with h igher cost factors will result in larger amounts of funds budgeted to schools serving such students, and, in turn larger per pupil expenditure amounts for such schools. In an effort to avoid skewed data resulting from increased funding to schools serving students enrolled in programs with relatively high cost factors, only expenditures on Basic Programs were considered in this study. More specifically, because only K 5 elementary schools were included in this study, only two of the three subcategories und er Basic Programs were considered: Basic Programs 101 Kindergarten through third grade, and Basic Programs 102 fourth through eighth grade (the third Basic program is 103 ninth through twelfth grade). Analyzing funding disparities between these cate gories serves to level the playing field for all schools considered, regardless of the composition of the student body. Once the initial calculations were complete, descriptive statistics were used to compare the level of per pupil resources avail able for each group of schools. Lastly, inferential statistics were used to further compare the level of resources available to each of these two groups and draw inferences about the achievement of equality in state and local dollar spending across the st ate and country. These findings offered evidence for judging the successfulness of the Title I, Part A program in providing supplemental resources to disadvantaged students.

PAGE 96

96 Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in this study. Three mai n descriptive statistical measures were used to examine the resource accessibility to students served by either a Title I or non Title I school within the selected district: The mean, median, and standard deviation. These three measures were used because each measures the disparity of an expenditure distribution differently and because each are widely accepted measures of disparity within the field of education finance. In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per pupil expe nditures of state and local funds at Title I and non Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two sample Test was employed. The Wilcoxon Two sample Test is a nonparametric statistical hypothesis test for assessing whether two independent samples of observations have equally large values. 6 It is one of the most well known and powerful of the nonparametric tests for comparing two populations. 7 Descriptive Statistical Measures Mean The mean is a measure of central tendency. It is a descriptive statistic and provi des a numerical index of the average score in the distribution. 8 The mean is a fairly unsophisticated measure and by itself does not provide any substantial information about the level of equity of a distribution. 9 Nonetheless, a calculation of the mean serves as a useful initial method in assessing funding inequities because wide differences from the mean could suggest inequity. 10 6 Schuyler W. Huck, Reading Statistics and Research (Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2008), 484. 7 Ibid. 8 Huck, Reading Statistics and Research 30. 9 Kern Alexander and Richard G. Salmon, Public S chool F inance (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1995), 240. 10 David C. Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and David D. Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools: Concepts and Practices (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1994), 247.

PAGE 97

97 However, since the mean uses the values of all the data points in the population, it is influenced by outliers that may be at the extremes of the data set. 11 The mean was calculated with the following formula: X i N where: X i is the value of a given variable in school I and N is the number of schools. 12 Median The median is another measure of central tendency and is determined by sorting the data set from the lowest to highest valu es and taking the dat um point in the middle of the sequence. There are an equal number of points above and below the median. Like the mean, the median may be used to compare the level of funding between schools. Unlike the mean, the median is not influe nced by outliers at the extremes of the data set, and therefore, is less distorted by a skewed distribution. For this reason, the median may be a more reliable source than the mean when analyzing the distribution of a data set, especially when extreme val ues exist. 13 Standard Deviation The standard deviation simply indicates the degree of the dispersion among the scores. The standard deviation measures spread by looking at how far each score deviates from the mean. 14 The advantage of the standard deviation is that all observations are included in the 11 Huck, Reading Statistics and Research, 31 32. 12 Thompson, Wood, and Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools 247. 13 Alan Agresti and Barbara Finlay, Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, 3rd ed (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997), 48. 14 Huck, Reading Statistics and Research, 37.

PAGE 98

98 calculation. However, it is sensitive to outliers that may skew the distribution. 15 The standard deviation is defined simply as the square root of the variance and is calculated by the formula i ( X p X i ) 2 i where: P i is the sum of pupils within school i ; X p is the mean of some tested variable for all pupils; and X i is the same tested variable for pupils within school i 16 Inferential Statistics In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I and non Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two sample Test was employed. The Wilcoxon Two sample Test is a nonparametric statistica l hypothesis test for assessing whether two independent samples of observations have equally large values. 17 It is one of the most well known and powerful of the nonparametric tests for comparing two populations. 18 While parametric statistical procedures a re based on the assumptions that samples have been drawn from normally distributed populations with equal variances, nonparametric statistical procedures are not concerned with population parameters and are valid under very general assumptions. 19 Nonparame tric procedures are appropriate when the hypothesis to be tested does not involve a population parameter, and when the assumptions necessary for the valid use of a parametric test are not met, such as the assumption that the samples have been drawn 15 Thompson, Wood, and Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools 249. 16 Ibid. 17 Huck, Reading Statistics and Research, 483. 18 Ibid. 19 Wayne W. Daniel, Applied Nonparametric Statistics, 2 nd ed. (Boston, MA: PWS Ke nt Publishing, 1990), 18.

PAGE 99

99 from a normally distributed population. 20 Nonparametric techniques are commonly used in the physical, biological, and social sciences. 21 The Wilcoxon Two sample Test is used to test the null hypothesis that the re is no statistically significant difference between the median values of two populations As with all nonparametric tests, the Wilcoxon Two sample Test does not require the assumption that the differences between the two samples are normally distributed. 22 The Wilcoxon Two sample Test, as with all nonparam etric tests, involves ranked, or ordinal, data. 23 The primary reason for converting raw scores into ranks and using ranked data is related to the issue of sample size. When the samples being compared differ in size or are small, nonnormality and /or heter ogeneity of variance in the populations can cause parametric tests to function differently than intended. 24 Because the number of samples within the Title I and non Title I groups differ and are small, nonparametric methods were used. Carrying out t he Wilcoxon Two sample Test requires a series of steps. First, the two comparison groups are temporarily combined and each observation within the combined sample is assigned a rank: the smallest has rank one, the second smallest has rank two, and so on. This is done so that each observation can be ranked to reflect its standing within the combined group. After the ranks have been assigned, the sum of ranks for each group is then calculated, therefore producing a linear rank statistic S If the two sample s being compared came from identical population, then S in one group ought to be approximately equal to S in the other group. The S in 20 Ibid., 19 20. 21 Ibid., 19. 22 SAS Institute, 2 nd ed (Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.), 291 293, accessed July 28 th 2011, http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/PDF/default/statug.pdf 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.

PAGE 100

100 the sample group containing the fewest number of observations serves as the statistic used to test the null hypothesis. 25 Next, an asymptotic test of the null hypothesis is taken. To compute an asymptotic test for S the standardized test statistic is used. This standardized test statistic is computed as: 26 where E o [S] is the expected value of S under the null hypothesis, and Var o [S] is the variance under the null hypothesis, shown as follows: where n 1 is the number of observations in the sma ller sized sample, n 2 is the number of observations in the other sample, and where is the average score, A one sided asymptotic p value for each S was then computed. When the test statistic is greater than its nul l hypothesis expected value of zero, a right sided p value is calculated, which is the probability of a larger value of the statistic occurring under the null hypothesis. When the sided p value is cal culated, which is the probability of a smaller value of the statistic occurring under the null hypothesis. 27 25 Ibid., 124, 291 292. 26 Ibid., 4467 4476. 27 Ibid.

PAGE 101

101 Data Sources This study utilized data from fiscal years 05 06, 06 07, 07 08, 08 09, and 09 10. This study required school level data that w as available through sources associated with the accounting and student projections departments of the targeted school district. 28 Since the ion system, including funds targeted for direct instruction, only disparities regarding the use of state and local dollars from wit were considered in this study. Further, calculations of disparities were limited to that of funds expended on the direct instruction of students at each school. Total direct instructional Annual General Fund Expenditure R eport for each fiscal year observed in this study. These reports are no n published documents obtained 29 Data depicting the number of FTE students per FTE Historical Data Report which is a non published document obtained from personnel ass projections department. 30 Summary C hapter 3 detailed the design and statistical analyses that were applied in this study. al accounting and reporting used by Florida school districts. Within this description, function categories and codes, 28 Non published material provided by the selected school district: Full time Equivalent Hist orical Data Report for fiscal years 2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 2008, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010 ; Non published material provided by the selected school district: District Annual General Fund Expenditure Reports for fiscal years 2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 20 08, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010. 29 Non published material provided by the selected school district: District Annual General Fund Expenditure Reports for fiscal years 2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 2008, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010. 30 Non published material provided by the selected school district: Full time Equivalent Historical Data Report for fiscal years 2005 2006, 2006 2007, 2007 2008, 2008 2009, and 2009 2010.

PAGE 102

102 along with object codes used within this uniform system of accounting and reporting were defined and explained. Program cost factors and weighed FTE calculations were briefly discussed. Descriptive statistical measures used to compare per pupil expenditures were also discussed. Additionally, uses of nonparametric statistical tests, used to test the null hypothesis that two groups have id entical medians, was explained. Finally, data sources were outlined. Results of the data analysis were discussed in C hapter 4

PAGE 103

103 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF RESU LTS The purpose of this study was to identify per pupil expenditure disparities between Title I and non Title I schools both before and after accounting for teacher salaries in a selected Florida school district. Descriptive statistical measures for examining the degree of per pupil expenditure equality between the two groups of schools were appl ied. Inferential statistics were applied to test for statistically significant differences in the per pupil expenditures between Title I and non Title I schools. This study analyzed data for fiscal years 2005 2006 through 2009 2010. To conduct this study, all twenty four schools involved were assigned to one of two groups: Title I or non Title I. This resulted in nine Title I schools, and fifteen non Title I schools. Once the two groups were established, per pupil expenditure amounts from the selec ted fiscal years included in this study. This first calculation did not account for teacher salaries and benefits, and included only direct instructional ex penditures within the following three categories: purchased services, materials and supplies, and other expenses. In order to complete this first calculation, district expenditures on purchased services, materials and supplies, and other expenses for each school for each fiscal year were totaled and then divided by the total number of full time equivalent (FTE) students enrolled at that school for that fiscal year. This resulted in a per pupil expenditure value for each Title I and non Title I school, be fore accounting for teacher salaries. Next, this same procedure was taken; however, this second calculation included total teacher salary and benefit expenditures. Therefore, in order to complete the second calculation, direct instructional expenditures including expenditures on purchased services, materials and supplies, other expenses, salaries, and benefits for each school

PAGE 104

104 for each fiscal year were totaled and then divided by the total number of FTE students enrolled at that school for that fiscal yea r. This derived a per pupil expenditure value for each Title I and non Title I school, after account ing for teacher salaries and benefits. Once the initial calculations were complete, descriptive statistics were used to compare the level of per pupil res ources available for each group of schools. Lastly, inferential statistics were used to further compare the level of resources available to each of these two groups and draw inferences about the achievement of equality in state and local dollar spending a cross the state and country. These findings will offer evidence for judging the successfulness of the Title I, Part A program in providing supplemental resources to disadvantaged students. C hapter 3 included a discussion of the methods that were utilize d to measure the equality of per pupil expenditures of state and local resources. C hapter 4 present ed the results of the analys e s beginning with results from the descriptive analysis and continuing with the results from the statistical hypothesis test. R esults were reported through a combination of the following mechanisms: presented within text, summarized in tables, and displayed in figures. Descriptive Statistics Results Mean and Standard Deviation The mean per pupil expenditure amounts before accounti ng for teacher salaries varied sporadically for both groups of schools throughout the FYs observed. For FY 05 06, mean per pupil expenditures without teacher salaries was $216 for non Title I schools (SD = $17), as compared to $214 (SD = $18) for Title I schools. The mean per pupil expenditures without accounting for teacher salaries for the remaining four FYs observed in this study were as follows: $342 (SD = $43) at non Title I schools compared to $369 (SD = $33) at Title I schools (FY06 07), $303 (SD = $30) at non Title I schools compared to $326 (SD = $78) at Title I schools (FY 07 08), $316 (SD = $26) at non Title I schools compared to $327 ($36) at Title I

PAGE 105

105 schools (FY 08 09), and $285 (SD = $25) at non Title I schools compared to $298 (SD = $36) at T itle I schools (FY 09 10). The mean per pupil expenditure amounts after accounting for teacher salaries also varied sporadically for both groups of schools throughout the FYs observed. For FY 05 06, mean per pupil expenditures with teacher salaries was $4,008 (SD = $300) for non Title I schools, as compared to $4,004 (SD =$284) at Title I schools. The mean per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries and benefits for the remaining four FYs observed in this study were as foll ows: $4,619 (SD = $363) at non Title I schools, compared to $4,673 ($279) at Title I schools (FY 06 07), $4,963 (SD = $313) at non Title I schools compared to $5,101(SD = $552) at Title I schools (FY 07 08), $4,869 (SD = $199) at non Title I schools compar ed to $4,607 ($324) at Title I schools (FY 08 09), and $4,280 (SD = $202) at non Title I schools compared to $4,236 (SD = $324) at Title I schools (FY 09 10). The mean is a fairly unsophisticated measure and by itself does not provide any su bstantial information about the level of equity of a distribution. 1 Nonetheless, a calculation of the mean serves as a useful initial method in assessing funding inequities because wide differences from the mean could suggest inequity. 2 A summary of mean per pupil expenditures and standard deviations before accounting for teacher salaries is depicted in Table 4 1 and Figure 4 1; a summary of mean per pupil expenditures and standard deviations after accounting for teacher salaries is depicted in Table 4 2 a nd Figure 4 2. 1 Kern Alexander and Richard G. Salmon, Public S chool F inance (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1995), 240. 2 David C. Thompson, R. Craig Wood, and David D. Honeyman, Fiscal Leadership for Schools: Concepts and Practices (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1994), 247.

PAGE 106

106 Median The median is determined by sorting the data set from the lowest to highest values and taking the dat um point in the middle of the sequence. The median is not influenced by outliers at the extremes of the data set, and therefore, was a useful measure of central tendency. In terms of per pupil expenditures before accounting for teacher salaries, the median scores were slightly less than the mean scores for both groups of schools throughout the five years observed. These results sugge st a positively skewed distribution. In addition, median per pupil expenditure differences between Title I and non Title I schools were slightly greater than the mean differences for each of the five years observed. For FY 05 06, median per pupil expen ditures without teacher salaries was $215 for non Title I schools, as compared to $209 at Title I schools. The median per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries and benefits for the remaining four FYs observed in this study were as follo ws: $319 at non Title I schools, compared to $372 at Title I schools (FY06 07), $294 at non Title I schools compared to $326 at Title I schools (FY 07 08), $317 at non Title I schools compared to $326 at Title I schools (FY 08 09), and $280 at non Title I schools compared to $291 at Title I schools (FY 09 10). In terms of per pupil expenditures medians after accounting for teacher salaries, the median scores were again slightly less than the mean scores for both groups of schools throughout the five years o bserved. These results also suggest a distribution that was skewed to the right. Similar to the findings described, differences between the per pupil expenditure medians after accounting for teacher salaries are slightly greater than those means. For FY 05 06, median per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries was $3,998 for non Title I schools, as compared to $4,005 at Title I schools. The median per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries and benefits for the remain ing four FYs

PAGE 107

107 observed in this study were as follows: $4,600 at non Title I schools, compared to $4,680 at Title I schools (FY 06 07), $4,932 at non Title I schools compared to $5,119 at Title I schools (FY 07 08), $4,866 at non Title I schools compared to $4,526 at Title I schools (FY 08 09), and $4, 254 at non Title I schools compared to $4, 526 at Title I schools (FY 09 10). A summary of median per pupil expenditures before accounting for teacher salaries is depicted in Table 4 1 and Figure 4 3; a summary o f median per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries is depicted in Table 4 2 and Figure 4 4. Statistical Hypothesis Test Results In order to test for a statistically significant difference between the per pupil expenditures of state and l ocal funds at Title I and non Title I schools, the Wilcoxon Two sample Test was employed. The Wilcoxon Two sample Test is a nonparametric statistical hypothesis test for assessing whether two independent samples of observations have equally large values. It is one of the most well known and powerful of the nonparametric tests for comparing two populations. It is used to te st the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the medians of two populations In the case of t his study, the two medians being compared reflect median per pupil expenditures for both Title I and non Title I, across two variables: 1) Direct instructional expenditures of state and local funds before accounting for teacher salaries, and 2) Direct inst ructional expenditures of state and local funds after accounting for teacher salaries. The medians for each group and across both variables were compared for fiscal years 05 06 through 09 10. Considering that the Comparability provision of Title I requi res school districts to use state and local funds to provide comparable services to needy Title I schools and less needy non Title I schools, it should be expected that the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds for both

PAGE 108

108 groups of school and acros s both variables are equal. Therefore, the following null hypothesis was addressed for both variables and across all five years observed in this study: Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the median per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds at Title I schools, and the median per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds at non Title I schools, i.e., Ho: 1 = 0, where 1 = median value for per pupil expenditures at Title I schools; and, 0= median value for per pup il expenditures at non Title I schools. A significance level of .05 was used for all statistical analyses. Results from the Wilcoxon Two sample Test show a statistically significant difference in per pupil expenditure medians between Title I and non Title I schools in t hree of the ten instances observed in this study. In FY 07, a significant difference at the .05 level was found regarding per pupil expenditure amounts before accounting for teaching salaries ( p =.0184) ; in FY 09 a significant difference wa s found regarding per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries ( p =.0245) ; and, in FY 10, a significant difference was found after accounting for teacher salaries ( p = .0036) In each of these t hree instances, H o was rejected; In all other instances across both variables and over the course of the years observed, no significant differences were found, and H o was accepted. Tables 4 3 and 4 4 depict exact Wilcoxon Two sample Test results before and after accounting for teacher salaries, resp ectively. Summary The descriptive analyses revealed that mean per pupil expenditure amounts before and after accounting for teacher salaries varied sporadically for both groups of schools throughout the five fiscal years observed. In terms of per pupil e xpenditure medians, calculations both before and after accounting for teacher salaries reflected medians slightly less than the mean scores for both groups of schools throughout the five years observed. Results from the Wilcoxon

PAGE 109

109 Two sample Test show a sta tistically significant difference in per pupil expenditure medians between Title I and non Title I schools in t hree of the ten instances observed in this study. In each of these t hree instances, H o was rejected; In all other instances across both variable s and over the course of the years observed, no significant differences were found, and H o was accepted.

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 1. Descriptive Statistics for State and Local Expenditures per Pupil on direct instruction at both Title I and non Title I schools, wi thout accounting for teacher salaries for fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. Statistic FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Mean non Title I $216 $342 $303 $316 $285 Title I $214 $369 $326 $327 $298 SD non Title I $17 $43 $30 $26 $25 Title I $18 $33 $78 $36 $26 Median non Title I $215 $319 $294 $317 $280 Title I $210 $372 $326 $326 $291 a N = 24 elementary schools Table 4 2. Descriptive Statistics for State and Local Expenditures per Pupil on direct instruction at both Title I and non Title I schools, after accounting for teacher salaries for fiscal years 2006 to 2010. Dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar Statistic FY 2006 FY 200 7 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Mean non Title I $4,008 $4,619 $4,963 $4,869 $4,280 Title I $4,005 $4,673 $5,101 $4,607 $4,236 SD non Title I $300 $363 $313 $199 $202 Title I $284 $279 $552 $324 $414 Median no n Title I $3,998 $4,600 $4,932 $3,866 $4,254 Title I $4,005 $4,680 $5,119 $4,526 $4, 526 a. N = 24 elementary schools

PAGE 111

111 Figure 4 1. The mean state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I before a ccounting for teacher salaries schools for FYs 2006 to 2010. Figure 4 2. Mean state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I schools after accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010.

PAGE 112

112 Figure 4 3. Median state and local expenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I schools before accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010. Figure 4 4. Median state and local e xpenditures per pupil for both Title I and non Title I schools after accounting for teacher salaries for FYs 2006 to 2010.

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 3. Wilcoxon Two sample Test results for per pupil expenditures before accounting for teacher salaries. Dollar amounts refle ct median per pupil expenditures, and have been rounded to the nearest dollar. FY Median Wilcoxon Statistic b ( S ) Expected S Under H O c One Sided P Value 2006 non Title I $209 109 112.5 0.4290 Title I $215 2 007 non Title I $372 148 112.5 0.0184 Title I $319 2008 non Title I $326 128 112.5 0.1855 Title I $294 2009 non Title I $326 124 112.5 0.2559 Title I $317 2010 non Title I $2 80 1 30 112.5 0. 1554 Title I $291 a. N = 24 elementary schools. b The Wilcoxon statistic is equivalent to the ranked sum of scores for the sample group containing the lesser amount of observations. c. The "Expected S Under H o statistic reflects the value of S if H o were true. Denot es a significant value at the .05 level

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 4. Wilcoxon Two sample Test results for per pupil expenditures after accounting for teacher salaries. Dollar amounts reflect median per pupil expenditures, and have been rounded to the nearest dollar. FY Median Wilcoxon Statistic b ( S ) Expected S Under H O c One Sided P Value 2006 non Title I $3,998 114 112.5 0.4726 Title I $4,005 2007 non Title I $4,600 116 112.5 0.4298 Title I $4,680 2008 non Title I $4,932 121 112.5 0.3167 Title I $5,119 2009 non Title I $4,866 79 112.5 0 .0245 Title I $4,526 2010 non Title I $4,254 1 58 112.5 0. 0036 Title I $4, 526 a N = 24 elementary schools. b The Wilcoxon statistic is equivalent to the ranked sum of scores for the sample group containing the lesser amount of observations. c. The "Expected S Under H o statistic reflects the value of S if H o were true. *Denotes a significant value at the .05 level

PAGE 115

115 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION When it comes to educational opportunity in the U nited S tates few issues have received as much attention as that of inequities of educational resources available to all students. Recent research has illustrated that districts fell by approximately 30 percent from 1972 to 1997. 1 However, recent research has found significant variation in resources across schools within districts, and in some cases bet ween school disparities within districts were greater than between school disparities across districts. 2 Furthermore, research on the distribution of teacher resources has found that average teacher salaries in high poverty, low performing schools were lo wer than the teacher salaries at schools serving more affluent student populations. 3 Accordingly, the analyses presented in this study served to answer the following research questions: 1. Was there a significant differenc e in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, before accounting for teacher salaries? 2. Was there a significant difference in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, after accounting for teacher salaries? 3. What do the differences in per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries, reveal about the extent to which the requirements of the Federal Title I Comparability provision are being met? 1 The C hanging D istribution of E ducation F inance : 1972 Social Inequality e d. Kathryn Neckerman (New York: Russell Sage, 2004), 433 466. 2 Education Next 7, no.4 (2007): 70. 3 Ross Rubenstein, Amy Ellen Schwartz, Leanna Stiefe Economics of Education Review 26, no. 5 (2007): 533.

PAGE 116

116 Conclusion The analyses presented herein illustrate that within one Florida school district the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds at Title I schools, as compared to non Title I schools, are generally equal, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. These findings suggest that the Federal Title I Comparability provision requirement that school districts distribute state and local funds equally before laye ring on Title I funds was being met within one Florida school district. Specific results from the descriptive and inferential analyses carried out in this study provide answers to each of the three research questions posed. Regarding the first question, which questions whether there is equality in the per pupil expenditures of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools before accounting for teacher salaries, the statistical analyses suggest overall equality by illustrating a significant difference in expenditure totals in only one of the five years observed. Specifically, in FY 07, a significant difference at the .05 level was found regarding per pupil expenditure amounts before accounting for teaching salaries (p=.0184); in this instan ce, H o was rejected. In terms of per pupil expenditure equality before accounting for teacher salaries for the remaining FYs (06, 08, 09, 10), no significant differences were found, and H o was accepted. From these results, it is logical to conclude that in at least one Florida school district, supplementary Title I funds for disadvantaged students were not being offset by decreased state and local funding. Regarding the second question, which questions whether there was equality in the per pupil expenditu res of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools after accounting for teacher salaries, the statistical analyses again suggested overall equality by illustrating a significant difference in expenditure totals in only two of the five yea rs observed. Specifically, in FY 09, a significant difference was found regarding per pupil expenditures after

PAGE 117

117 accounting for teacher salaries ( p =.0245); and, in FY 10, a significant difference was found after accounting for teacher salaries ( p = .0036). I n both of these instance s H o was rejected. In terms of per pupil expenditure equality after accounting for teacher salaries for the remaining FYs (06, 07, and 08), no significant differences were found, and H o was accepted. Based on these results, it is logical to conclude that in at least one Florida school district, the allocation of teacher resources was generally equitable, and that the distribution of higher paid, more educated, and more experienced teachers allows for an equal mix of teachers bet ween Title I and non Title I schools. The third research question inquired into the extent to which the Federal Title I Comparability provision was being met, based on answers to and conclusions made from the first two research questions. The Federal Titl e I Comparability provision requires that a school district equalize its distribution of state and local funding between Title I and non Title I schools prior to layering on Title I funds. The findings presented herein illustrate that, overall, there were little to no differences in the per pupil expenditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools either before or after accounting for teacher salaries. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that at least for one Florida school district, the meet Title I Comparability requirements. It is also reasonable to conclude that higher paid, more educated, and more experienced tea chers do not always drift toward more advantaged schools. Implications The purpose of this study was two fold. Its first purpose was to determine if there were significant differences in the amounts of state and local funds expended on student s served by Title I schools, as compared to those served by non Title I schools, both before and after accounting for teacher salaries. Secondly, this study aimed at analyzing the influence that

PAGE 118

118 bility to meet Federal Title I Comparability requirements. The results of the statistical analyses determined that over all, state and local funds were being distributed equally between Title I and non Title I schools, both before and after accounting fo r teacher salaries. The results of this study serve as one example where it has been determined that higher paid, more educated, more experienced teachers do not drift heavily toward more advantaged schools. This being the case, per pupil expenditure tot als Comparability requirements. As described in C hapter 2 research conducted during the past fifteen years has identified disparities in the distribut ion of educational resources within school districts. Moreover, existing school finance literature suggests that some school districts are not in compliance with the Comparability provision laid out in the NCLB Act, due to the practice of offsetting the e ffects of Title I funds resulting from a failure to share state and local funds equally among all schools. However, the results presented within the context of this study do not support the body of literature depicting intra district inequalities, nor the practice of offsetting Title I funds. Instead, based on the present results, it is logical to infer that, in general, school districts may be using state and local funds to equally distribute educational resources between high and low poverty schools, an d school districts may be in compliance with NCLB Act legislation. A common finding in research examining the distribution of teachers is that schools serving high poverty students have more teachers relative to pupils, but that these teachers are genera lly more inexperienced and less educated and, and thus, lower paid. While an analysis of student teacher ratios is beyond the realm of this study, this study does disconfirm the notion that high poverty students (Title I schools) are served by lower paid teachers. Rubenstein, Schwartz

PAGE 119

119 and Stiefel explain that the common pattern of lower paid teachers serving high poverty students is not caused by the intentional targeting of resources to lower need schools. Instead, these resource disparities are frequen tly the result of intra district funding formulas that allocate positions, rather than dollars to schools. 4 However, the school district observed in this study indeed implements a staffing allocation formula that allocates positions, rather than dollars, yet this district is able to reflect a generally equal distribution of qualified teachers. Ensuring that school district officials are doing their very best to address the needs of disadvantaged students and provide such students with the supplementa l resources they are entitled to, as required in NCLB Act legislation, is an ethical and legal responsibility of school district decision makers. 5 The results of this study support the concept that such decision makers may be meeting this responsibility. Recommendations for Future Research The findings of this study have several implications for future research. This study determined that state and local funds may be distributed equally between Title I and non Title I schools, therefore creating a level playing field upon which supplementary Title I funds can be layered. Given the determination that Title I resources were indeed serving as supplementary resources, resulting in increased funding for underprivileged schools, future research addressing whet her such schools do indeed experience improved student performance would contribute valuable information to the large body of conflicting literature concerned with the effects of increased funding. 4 Ross Rubenstein, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Leanna Sti e fel. Rethinking t he Intradistrict distribution of school inputs to disadvantaged students. Law, Berkeley, CA, April 2006 12, accessed, July 5 th 2011, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.161.5391 5 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §6321 (Supp. I 2002).

PAGE 120

120 This study found few to no differences in the per pupil ex penditure amounts of state and local funds between Title I and non Title I schools either before or after accounting for teacher salaries. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that for the school district observed, higher paid teachers do not always drift toward more advantaged schools. Considering the large body of research contradicting these findings, the field of education would be well served to know the attributes of school districts experiencing such success in equally distributing all categor ies of teachers. Research analyzing the compensation practices and staffing policies implemented in such districts would be an asset to those interested in increasing the equality of educational inputs, in the form of teachers, available to underprivilege d students and should be considered. It is often assumed that higher paid teachers are more effective teachers. The results of this study imply that higher paid teachers were distributed equally between Title I and non Title I schools, in turn suggesting that the most effective teachers are distributed equally between both types of schools. Further research analyzing the attributes and student outcomes of both high and low paid teachers in order to determine whether higher paid teachers do in fact reflect the qualities of the most effective teachers would add to the wealth of literature concerned with reaching equity in educational inputs. By analyzing the monetary expenditures on students enrolled in Kindergar t en through fifth grade B asic P rograms, this pa per focused mainly on the principal of horizontal equity: students who are alike should be treated the same. 6 One recommendation for further study is to analyze expenditure disparities across schools within a school district after accounting for district expenditures on schools serving students enrolled in Exceptional Student Education or English for Speakers of Other Languages Programs. It would be worthy to take such research one step 6 Odden and Piccus, School Finance: A policy perspective 66 67.

PAGE 121

121 further and identify whether any disparities positively associated wi th poverty rates exist across school districts. Data presented in this study reveal that minimal to no state and local fund expenditure disparities exist within the district observed and during the years analyzed. In turn, it is logical to assume that Tit le I funds are in fact serving as supplemental resources to disadvantaged students. However, The U.S. Department of Education released its most recent assessment of Title I In 2007, titled A National Assessment of Title I, Final Report 7 This report stat es that there has been no statistically significant change in the achievement gap between 1999 and 2004, based on long term trend data for reading and math. 8 A separate report prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics, titled Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 9 shows that significant gains in closing the achievement gap are lacking, at best. Long term data depicted in this report show that from 1999 2007 the achievement gap for reading has narrowed slightly, while the gap for math has shown no significant change. 10 Considering that there is evidence suggesting that Title I funds are in fact serving as supplemental resources, yet, an achievement gap b etween disadvantaged and non disadvantaged students remains, perhaps researchers and policymakers need to consider sources 7 St ephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary, Policy and Program Studies, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: Implementation (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 2 007), accessed January 3 rd 2011 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084012_rev.pdf 8 Ibid., 45. 9 Allen Vanneman, Linda Hamilton, Janet Baldwin Anderson, Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 2009), accessed February 1 st 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf 10 Ibid., 1.

PAGE 122

122 other than increased funding as a means for closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and non disadvantaged students.

PAGE 123

123 APPE NDIX A FTE HISTORICAL REPOR T

PAGE 124

12 4 2005 2006 2006 07 2007 08 2008 09 2009 2010 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 0121 101 130.50 128.00 258.50 132.00 126.00 258.00 128.50 122.00 250.50 133.00 130.00 263.00 130.50 133.50 264.00 LPE 102 48.00 47.50 95.50 43.50 45.50 89.00 52.50 49.50 102.00 51.50 48.00 99.50 52.00 53.00 105.00 178.50 175.50 354.00 175.50 171.50 347.00 181.00 171.50 352.50 184.50 178.00 362.50 182.50 186. 50 369.00 0131 101 175.50 176.00 351.50 179.50 183.00 362.50 185.50 178.00 363.50 175.50 168.00 343.50 181.50 187.00 368.50 TBE 102 97.50 98.50 196.00 89.00 87.50 176.50 82.00 82.00 164.00 82.00 83.00 165.00 74.50 75.00 149.50 273.00 274.50 547.50 268.50 270.50 539.00 267.50 260.00 527.50 257.50 251.00 508.50 256.00 262.00 518.00 0141 101 135.00 136.05 271.05 136.00 131.00 267.00 109.00 103.00 212.00 106.00 106.37 212.37 81.00 85.00 166.00 SLE 102 66.00 65.50 131.5 0 53.50 55.50 109.00 49.50 48.00 97.50 40.00 41.50 81.50 37.50 42.00 79.50 201.00 201.55 402.55 189.50 186.50 376.00 158.50 151.00 309.50 146.00 147.87 293.87 118.50 127.00 245.50 0161 101 92.50 96.00 188.50 103.00 115.00 218.00 119.0 0 122.00 241.00 88.50 93.00 181.50 90.50 96.00 186.50 PCR 102 40.50 43.00 83.50 42.00 43.00 85.00 43.00 43.00 86.00 49.00 48.00 97.00 52.62 54.50 107.12 133.00 139.00 272.00 145.00 158.00 303.00 162.00 165.00 327.00 137.50 141.00 278.50 143.12 150.50 2 93.62 0171 101 207.50 207.50 415.00 188.50 186.50 375.00 196.50 195.00 391.50 198.50 194.50 393.00 197.00 194.00 391.00 SGE 102 79.50 79.50 159.00 90.50 92.00 182.50 108.00 103.50 211.50 104.50 106.00 210.50 94.50 95.00 189.50 287.00 287.00 574.00 279.00 278.50 557.50 304.50 298.50 603.00 303.00 300.50 603.50 291.50 289.00 580.50 0181 101 104.00 102.50 206.50 103.50 107.00 210.50 97.50 94.00 191.50 99.00 99.00 198.00 102.50 105.00 207.50 HLE 102 48.50 53.50 102.00 50.50 50.50 101.00 43.00 40.50 83.50 74.00 78.50 152.50 76.69 86.25 162.94 152.50 156.00 308.50 154.00 157.50 311.50 140.50 134.50 275.00 173.00 177.50 350.50 179.19 191.25 370.44 0191 101 176.50 178.50 355.00 173.50 183.50 357.00 202 .00 208.50 410.50 104.00 109.00 213.00 115.00 121.00 236.00 LTE 102 73.50 71.00 144.50 65.50 69.50 135.00 77.00 80.50 157.50 66.50 74.50 141.00 78.04 80.55 158.59 250.00 249.50 499.50 239.00 253.00 492.00 279.00 289.00 568.00 170.50 183.50 354.00 193.0 4 201.55 394.59 0201 101 100.00 95.50 195.50 102.50 95.50 198.00 93.00 92.00 185.00 109.00 101.50 210.50 90.00 88.00 178.00 AVE 102 47.00 44.50 91.50 47.00 49.00 96.00 40.50 44.00 84.50 38.00 40.00 78.00 41.00 41.50 82.50 147.00 140. 00 287.00 149.50 144.50 294.00 133.50 136.00 269.50 147.00 141.50 288.50 131.00 129.50 260.50 0221 101 137.50 131.50 269.00 139.00 138.50 277.50 139.00 134.00 273.00 122.00 127.00 249.00 123.50 123.50 247.00 PES 102 57.00 55.50 112.50 5 8.50 58.00 116.50 61.00 60.50 121.50 64.00 66.50 130.50 65.00 65.50 130.50 194.50 187.00 381.50 197.50 196.50 394.00 200.00 194.50 394.50 186.00 193.50 379.50 188.50 189.00 377.50 0231 101 160.00 158.50 318.50 150.50 148.50 299.00 167 .50 169.00 336.50 161.00 164.50 325.50 148.50 144.00 292.50 GGE 102 58.50 53.50 112.00 54.00 53.50 107.50 66.00 62.00 128.00 61.00 59.00 120.00 67.00 68.50 135.50 218.50 212.00 430.50 204.50 202.00 406.50 233.50 231.00 464.50 222.00 223.50 445.50 215.5 0 212.50 428.00

PAGE 125

125 2005 2006 2006 07 2007 08 2008 09 2009 2010 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 0241 101 216.42 214.92 431.34 220.50 212.46 432.96 144.50 136.00 280.50 149.00 146.50 295.50 142.00 145.00 287.00 NPE 102 116.50 118.00 234.50 98.50 96.50 195.00 61.00 61.00 122.00 69.50 70.50 140.00 72.00 77.00 149.00 332.92 332.92 665.84 319.00 308.96 627.96 205.50 197.00 402.50 218.50 217.00 435.50 214.00 222.00 436.00 0331 101 251.96 247.46 499.42 232.00 228.00 460.00 239.00 229.50 468.50 227.00 224.00 451.00 232.50 237.50 470.00 BCE 102 136.50 141.00 277.50 127.00 127.00 254.00 119.50 120.00 239.50 106.50 107.50 214.00 114.50 116.50 231.00 388.46 388.46 776.92 359.00 355.00 714.00 358.50 349.50 708.00 333.50 331.50 665.00 347.00 354.00 701.00 0341 101 98.50 92.50 191.00 83.00 76.00 159.00 91.00 91.50 182.50 82.50 84.00 166.50 88.00 85.00 173.00 VOE 102 40.46 41.46 81.92 46.00 45.00 91.00 42.00 42.00 84.00 61.50 61.00 122.50 54.59 52.60 107.19 138.96 133.96 272.92 129.00 121.00 250.00 133.00 133.50 266.50 144.00 145.00 289.00 142.59 137.60 280.19 0351 101 242.50 234.50 477.00 225.00 222.00 447.00 211. 50 203.50 415.00 184.00 179.00 363.00 175.00 182.50 357.50 GTE 102 95.50 95.50 191.00 94.50 98.00 192.50 94.00 92.50 186.50 87.00 89.00 176.00 82.50 86.10 168.60 338.00 330.00 668.00 319.50 320.00 639.50 305.50 296.00 601.50 271.00 268.00 539.00 257.50 268.60 526.10 0371 101 229.50 221.50 451.00 227.50 227.00 454.50 215.00 210.00 425.00 185.50 186.50 372.00 196.50 193.50 390.00 VES 102 126.00 127.00 253.00 110.50 111.00 221.50 98.50 98.00 196.50 99.00 102.50 201.50 99.00 97.50 196.50 355.50 348.50 704.00 338.00 338.00 676.00 313.50 308.00 621.50 284.50 289.00 573.50 295.50 291.00 586.50 0381 101 189.50 187.00 376.50 184.50 183.00 367.50 184.00 179.00 363.00 149.00 146.00 295.00 150.50 148.00 298.50 LES 102 85.50 84.00 169.50 81.00 85.50 166.50 84.00 85.50 169.50 72.00 68.00 140.00 71.50 67.50 139.00 275.00 271.00 546.00 265.50 268.50 534.00 268.00 264.50 532.50 221.00 214.00 435.00 222.00 215.50 437.50 0391 101 327.50 327.00 654.50 338.00 33 3.50 671.50 238.00 237.50 475.50 245.50 246.50 492.00 247.50 246.00 493.50 LOE 102 170.50 169.50 340.00 159.00 159.50 318.50 115.00 117.00 232.00 124.00 125.00 249.00 115.00 117.00 232.00 498.00 496.50 994.50 497.00 493.00 990.00 353.00 354.50 707.50 3 69.50 371.50 741.00 362.50 363.00 725.50 0421 101 109.50 116.50 226.00 124.00 115.00 239.00 67.50 67.50 135.00 63.50 70.50 134.00 72.00 71.50 143.50 MES 102 75.00 75.00 150.00 69.50 66.00 135.50 34.00 33.50 67.50 46.00 49.50 95.50 49.50 48.50 98.00 184.50 191.50 376.00 193.50 181.00 374.50 101.50 101.00 202.50 109.50 120.00 229.50 121.50 120.00 241.50 0431 101 204.50 202.00 406.50 195.48 197.00 392.48 191.00 187.00 378.00 190.00 192.50 382.50 206.50 203.50 410.00 P ME 102 101.00 98.50 199.50 104.50 104.50 209.00 108.00 108.00 216.00 99.50 99.50 199.00 99.00 99.00 198.00 305.50 300.50 606.00 299.98 301.50 601.48 299.00 295.00 594.00 289.50 292.00 581.50 305.50 302.50 608.00 0441 101 187.00 191.50 378.50 199.50 203.00 402.50 236.50 233.00 469.50 187.50 187.50 375.00 177.50 174.00 351.50 CES 102 110.50 111.50 222.00 121.50 122.50 244.00 122.00 121.50 243.50 101.00 101.50 202.50 99.00 98.50 197.50 297.50 303.00 600.50 321.00 325.50 646.50 358.50 354.50 713.00 288.50 289.00 577.50 276.50 272.50 549.00 0451 101 204.50 201.00 405.50 219.00 209.00 428.00 205.00 199.00 404.00 177.50 176.00 353.50 192.50 187.00 379.50 OES 102 90.00 86.00 176.00 87.00 82.00 169.00 101.00 96.00 197.00 90.00 90.00 180.00 89.00 95.00 184.00 294.50 287.00 581.50 306.00 291.00 597.00 306.00 295.00 601.00 267.50 266.00 533.50 281.50 282.00 563.50

PAGE 126

126 2005 2006 2006 07 2007 08 2008 09 2009 2010 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 2 Survey 3 0461 101 305.50 298.00 603.50 278.00 274.00 552.00 244.00 235.50 479.50 203.00 195.00 398.00 220.50 221.00 441.50 CPE 102 109.50 110.00 219.50 117.50 116.00 233.50 110.50 105.50 216.00 100.00 98.50 198.50 108.50 110.50 219.00 415.00 408.00 823.00 395.50 390.00 785.50 354.50 341.00 695.50 303.00 293.50 596.50 329.00 331.50 660.50 0471 101 228.00 223.50 451.50 233.00 236.00 469.00 227.00 218.00 445.00 129.50 127.00 256.50 119.50 112.50 232.00 SPE 102 102.00 101.50 203.50 106.00 105.00 211.00 123.50 121.00 244.50 60.00 59.00 119.00 65.00 65.00 130.00 330.00 325.00 655.00 339.00 341.00 680.00 350.50 339.00 689.50 189.50 186.00 375.50 184.50 177.50 362.00 0511 101 155.00 156. 50 311.50 151.50 153.00 304.50 157.50 153.50 311.00 116.00 109.50 225.50 106.00 104.50 210.50 EES 102 81.00 86.50 167.50 85.50 87.50 173.00 75.50 73.00 148.50 56.00 56.50 112.50 67.00 67.50 134.50 236.00 243.00 479.00 237.00 240.50 477.50 233.00 226.50 459.50 172.00 166.00 338.00 173.00 172.00 345.00

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX B ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REPORTS Expenditure reports from the selected school district are available upon request from the author.

PAGE 128

128 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, Alan and Ba rbara Finlay. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. 3rd, ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. Alexander, K. and Richard G. Salmon. Public School Finance. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1995. Alexander, Kern and Alexander, David M. American P ublic School Law. 7th ed Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009. Allison, G.S., S.D. Honegger, and F. Johnson. Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems: 2009 ed. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2009. Accessed August 1 st 201 1. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009325.pdf American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 26 U.S.C. §1 (Supp. III 2006). es, 1990 Journal of Education Finance 33, no. 3 (2008): 297 310. Berne, Robert and Leanna Stiefel. The Measurement of Equity in School Finance. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984. Betts, Julian R., Kim S. Reuben, and Anne Dannen berg. Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2000. Accessed June 14 th 2011. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_200JBR.pdf Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18, no. 4 (1996): 309 326. Brimley, Jr., Vern and Rulon R. Garfield. Financing Education in a Climate of Change. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2008. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Journal of Education Finance 24, no. 4 (1999): 435 58. Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York 86 N.Y.S. 2d 307 (1995). Spending, an Journal of Public Economics 83, no. 1 (2002): 49 82.

PAGE 129

129 Center for American Progress. Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education: How Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantages Students, and What Federal Policy Can Do About it. Washington, DC: Center for America Progress, 2008. Accessed December 28 th 2010. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/compara bility.pdf Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Condron, Denn Sociology of Education 76, no.1 (2003): 18 36. Chan ging Distribution of Education Finance: 1972 Social Inequality edited by Kathryn Neckerman, 433 466. New York, NY: Russell Sage, 2004. Cowen, Esq., Kristen Tosh and Charles J. Edwards. The New Title I: The Changing Landscape of Accountability. 6 th ed. Washington, DC: Thompson Publishing Group, 2009. Daniel, Wayne W. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: PWS Kent Publishing, 1990. Darling Hammond, Linda and Ellen L. Marks. The New Federalism in Education: State Responses to the 198 1 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1983. Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3801 (1982). Education Trust. The Funding Gap 2005: Low Income and Minority Students Shortchanged by Most States Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 2005. Accessed March 9th, 2011. http://hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/educationfunding/FundingGap2005.pdf Education Tru st West. Budgeting Practices Shortchange Poor and Minority Students and Their Schools. Oakland, CA: The Education Trust West, 2005. Accessed July 19 th 2011. http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/CAHiddenTeacherSpendi ngGapReport.pdf Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 821 (Supp. I 1966). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16, no. 1 (1997):10 31. Ferguson, Ronald F. "Paying for Public Education: New Eviden ce on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard Journal on Legislation 28, no 2 (1991): 465 498.

PAGE 130

130 Florida Statutes: FLA. STAT. § 237.01 (1997) FLA. STAT. § 237.02 (1997). FLA. STAT. §1010.01 (2011). FLA. STAT. §1012.01 (2011). Florida Department of Education. Financial and Program Cost Accounting and Reporting for Florida Schools (Redbook 2001). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, 2001. Accessed February 19 th 2011. http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/redto c.asp Florida Department of Education. Funding for Florida School Districts Statistical Report: 2010 2011. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Funding and Financial Reporting. Accessed September 22 nd 2011. http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. §5801 (1994). Journal of Public Economics 88, (2004): 1771 1792. Graham, Hugh. The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 460 46 9. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, no. 2 (1997): 141 164. Ed ucational Researcher 18, no. 4 (1989): 45 62. Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Acheivement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998. Accessed June 1 st 2011. http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Hanushek_NBER.PDF Journal of Education Finance 20, (1994): 88 106. Haycok, Kati. Good Teaching Matters: How Well Qualified Te achers Can Close the Gap. Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 1998. Accessed May 13 th 2011. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457260.pdf

PAGE 131

131 Hayward, Gerald C. and Charles S. Benson. Vocational Technical E ducation: Major Reforms and Debates 1917 Present. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1991. Accessed December 1 st 2010. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDF S/ED369959.pdf Educational Researcher 23, no. 3 (1994): 5 14. Helena Elementary Schoo l District No. 1 v. State of Montana 769 P.2d 684 (1989) Journal of Education Finance 19, no. 3 (1994): 231 255 In Where Does the Money Go? Resource Allocation in Elementary and Secondary Schools, edited by Lawrence O. Picus and James L. Wattenbarger, 71 84. Thousand Oak s, CA: Corwin Press Inc, 1996. Reward for Journal of Education Finance 30, no.4 (2005): 382 398. Horton v. Meskill 172 Conn. 615 (1978). (Horton I) Huck, Schuyler W. Reading Statistics and Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2008. Hughes, John F. and Anne O. Hughes. Equal Education: A New National Strategy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1972. Public Engagement and Educational Reform in Journal of Law and Education 28, no. 4 (1999): 485 516. Hussar, William and William Sonnenberg. Trends in Disparities in School District Level Expenditures Per Pupil. Washington, DC: National Center f or Education Statistics, 2000. Accessed January 13 th 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000020.pdf district Equity of Public Education Resources and Per Economics of Education Review 22, no. 1 (2003): 69 78. Kentucky State Constitution § 183 (1890). Ed ucation Finance and Policy 3, no. 4 (2008): 402 423.

PAGE 132

132 Educating At Risk Students: One Hundred first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II edited by Sam Stringfield and Deborah Land, 1 28. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Educational Evaluatio nand Policy Analysis 24, no.1 (2002): 37 62. Lazerson, Marvin, ed. American Education in the Twentieth Century: A Documentary History. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1987. Lefkowits, Laura. School Finance: From Equity to Adequacy. Aurora, CO: Mid co ntinent Research for Education and Learnng, 2004). Accessed December 30 th 2010. http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5042pi_pbschoolfinancebrief.pdf Luebchow, Lindse y. Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools: Teacher Equity and the Federal Title I Comparability Requirement. Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 2009. Accessed July 10 th 2011. http://www.newamerica.net/files/Equitable_Resources_in_Low_Income_Schools.pdf Ensuring Equal Opportun ity in Public Education, edited by The Center for American Progress, 9 31.Washington, DC: The Center for American Progress, 2008. Accessed March 29 th 2011. http://broadeducation.org/asset/1128 ensuring%20equal%20opportunity.pdf#page=15 Milsap, Mary Ann, Marc Moss, and Beth Gamse. The Chapter 1 Implementation Study: Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1992. Review of Educational Research 51, no. 2 (1981): 215 236. Monk, David H. and Brian O. Brent. Raising Money for Education: A Guide to the Property Tax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1997. Murray, Shei The American Economic Review 88, no. 4 (1998): 789 812. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Is It Helping Poor Ch ildren? Title I of ESEA. A Report. New York, NY: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1969. Accessed December 2 nd 2010. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pdf National Ce nter for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009. Accessed December 22 nd 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/nat ionsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf

PAGE 133

133 National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2009. Accessed December 22 nd 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Acc essed November 17 th 2010. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/langd/Nation_at_Risk.pdf No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (Supp. I 2002). Odden, Allen R., and Lawrence O. Picus. School Finance: A Policy Perspective. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. Orlofsky, Greg F. The Funding Gap: Low Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars. Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 2002. Accessed April 5 th 2011. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED468550.pdf Journal of Human Resources 7, no. 1 (1972): 26 38. arison of Interschool and Inter district Funding Journal of Education Finance 24, no. 4 (1999): 503 518. National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act edited by John F. Jennings, 55 76. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 1995. Picus, Lawrence O. Selected Papers in School Finance, 1995 edited by William J. Fowler, Jr. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1997. Accessed May 21 st 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97536.pdf Education Week 7, no. 44 (2008): 28 32. President George W. Busch. Remarks upon signing The Child Left Behind Act Accessed January 29 th 2011. http://georgewbush whiteho use.archives.gov/news/releases/ 2002/01/20020108 1.html Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963 64 Volume I, entry 91, 112 118. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1965. Accessed December 1 st 2010. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom /640108.asp Robinson v. Cahill 63 NJ 196 (1973). Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W. 2d 186 (Ky 198 9).

PAGE 134

134 District Spending Inequities Help Some Brookings Papers on Education Policy (2004): 201 218. Schools Education Next 7, no.4 (2007): 68 73. Roza, Marguerite. A New Look at Inequalities in School Funding: A Presentation on the Resource Variations within Districts. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2002 Accessed March 22 nd 2011. http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_sfrp_anewlook_may02.pdf Roza, Marguirite. Strengthening Title I to Help High Poverty Schools: How Title I Funds Fit into District Allocation Patterns. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, 2005. Accessed February 11 th 2011. http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_crpe6_title1_aug05.pdf Rubenstein, Ross, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Leanna Stiefel. Rethinking the Intradistrict distribution of school inputs to disadvantaged students. Paper prepared for t he conference July 5 th 2011. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.161.53 91 districts to schools: The distribution of resources across schools in big city school Economics of Education Review 26, no. 5 (2007): 532 545. San Antoni o Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973). SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute. 2 nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Accessed July 28 th 2011. http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/PDF/default/statug.pdf Serrano v. Priest 5 C3d 584 (1971). ( Serrano I) Agricultural History 37, no. 2 (1963): 103 111. National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act edited by John F. Jennings, 3 18. Bloomington, IN: Phi D elta Kappa International, 1995. Snyder, Thomas and Linda Shafer. Youth Indicators, 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996. Accessed March 25 th 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/p ubs98/yi/youth.pdf Spring, Joel. Conflicts of Interest: The Politics of American Education. 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1988.

PAGE 135

135 Stedman, James. 382, CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: Gov ernment Printing Office, 1994). Accessed November 11 th 2010. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED379792.pdf District Equity in Four Large Cit ies: Journal of Education Finance 23, no. 3 (1998): 447 467. Stullich, Stephanie, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary. National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume I: Implementation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007. Accessed January 3 rd 2011. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084012_rev.pdf district Distribution of School Inputs to the Disadvantaged: The Journal of Human Resources 11, no. 3 (1976): 328 342. Mi chigan, 2005). Accessed February 11 th 2011. ProQuest document ID: 1014311541. (UMI No. 3192789). American Journal of Education 112, no. 1 (2005): 10 43. Thom as B. Fordham Institute. Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2008. Accessed May 1 st 2011. http://www.eric.ed. gov/PDFS/ED502976.pdf Thompson, David C., R. Craig Wood, and David D. Honeyman. Fiscal Leadership for Schools: Concepts and Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1994. Thompson, David C., R. Craig Wood, and Faith E. Crampton. Money and Schools. 2nd ed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2001. Thompson, David C., R. Craig Wood, and Faith E. Crampton. Money and Schools. 4th ed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2008. Boston College Law Review 35, no 4 (1994): 597 618. Journal of Education Finance 32, no.4 (2007): 395 421. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

PAGE 136

136 U.S. Department of Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1983. Accessed April 5 th 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html U.S. Department of Education. America 2000: An Education Strategy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991. Accessed June 2 nd 2010. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED327009.pdf U.S. Department of Education. Non Regulatory Guidance: Title I Fiscal Issues. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2008. Accessed February 18 th 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf May, 9 th Accessed January 12 th 2011. www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite section1.html th 2011. h ttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/impactaid/whatisia.html U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary. Section I: Summary of the 2010 Budget (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), accessed February 13 th 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite section1.html U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary. Section II: The American Recovery an d Reinvestment Act of 2009 May 7 th 2009 Accessed February 13 th 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/edlite section2.html U.S. Accessed January 30 th 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/ programs.html U.S. Departm ent of Education. A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010. Accessed April 2 nd 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf U.S. Department of Education. A Nation Accountable: Twenty five Years After A Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008. Accessed April 2 nd 2011. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/accountable/ U.S. Department of Education. History of Title I ESEA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. Accessed November 8 th 2010. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED033459.pdf U.S. Department of Education. NCLB Executive Summary. Accessed December 2 nd 2010. http://www2.ed.gov/ nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf

PAGE 137

137 U.S. Department of Education. No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. Accessed December 3 rd 2010. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf Economics of Education Review 19, no 4 (2000): 245 259. Vanneman, Allen, Linda Hamilton, and Janet Baldwin Anderson. Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Natio nal Center for Education Statistics, 2009. Accessed February 1 st 2011. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf Vinovskis, Maris A. The Road to Charlottesv ille: The 1989 Education Summit. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel, 1999. Educational Expenditure, and the Income Distribution: Equal Dollars or Equal C hances Education Finance and Policy 1, no. 4 (2006): 396 424.

PAGE 138

138 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Danielle Lee Chaprnka was born in Flint, Michigan. She grew up in Millington, Michigan, and in 1996 she graduated from both Millington High School and th e Flint School of Performing Arts, the later at which she studied classical ballet for 15 years. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in e lementary e ducation from Saginaw Valley State University in 2001. In 2002, she began her career in education as a k in dergarten teacher at Woodland Park Academy, in Grand Blanc, Michigan. She relocated to Naples, Florida in 2003, where she continued her career in education as a k indergarten teacher at Manatee Elementary School in Collier County. In 2006, she received a M aster of Education degree in r eading e ducation from Florida Gulf Coast University. She then went on to earn a Specialist of Education degree in e ducational l eadership and a Doctor of Education degree in e ducational l eadership, both from the University of Florida in 2010 and 2012, respectively. Danielle began her career in Collier County as a k indergarten teacher. She then moved on to teach first grade at Mike Davis Elementary, and then became the reading coach at Golden Terrace Elementary. Soon thereaf ter, she became the Dean at Golden Terrace Elementary School, in Naples, Florida. In addition to her work for the Collier County Public School system, Danielle has also served as an adjunct instructor at Southwest Florida College, in Fort Myers, Florida, where she taught courses in early childhood literature and early childhood literacy instruction. She also spent several years teaching classical ballet at the Flint School of Performing Arts, in Flint, Michigan, and at Etudes de Ballet, in Naples, Florida. While teaching at the Flint School of Performing Arts, Danielle met her husband, Frank. She and Frank have been married for six years. In 2009, they welcomed their daughter, Paloma, into their family. Danielle, Frank, and Paloma reside in Naples, Flori da, and Danielle is

PAGE 139

139 in public school administration, and eventually beginning a career as a University professor.