Chapter One: Introduction
Background of the Study
For decades, there has been an energetic debate concerning whether or not money matters
regarding education. In prior studies, there has been a close relationship between research and
policy in school finance, especially in the area of equity and adequacy (Berne, 1988). School
finance equity has been a major focus of research and legal action since the late 1960s.
Researchers and lawyers thought equalizing spending between wealthy and poor districts would
ensure disadvantaged students would benefit from as much public spending as nondisadvantaged
students (Roza & Miles, 2002). Unfortunately, they did not take account of the fact school
districts – even those receiving large amounts of state “equalization” funds – can create their own
spending pattern inequities (Roza & Miles, 2002).
Baker (2016) explains sustained improvements in the level and distribution of funding
across local public-school districts lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student
outcomes, ranging from graduation rates to educational attainment and wages. Available
research shows that a more equitable and adequate allocation of financial inputs to schooling
provides a necessary underlying condition for improving the equity and adequacy of outcomes
(Baker, 2016). Nevertheless, the traditional quest for school finance equity has not accomplished
its goal (Odden, 2000). There is a considerable amount of literature in the field of education
regarding interdistrict resource allocations. There is, however, a limited amount of research
regarding the significant differences in intradistrict resource allocations. This may be a result of
the scarcity of school-level data (Rubenstein, Schwartz, Stiefel, & Amor, 2007; Owings &
Kaplan, 2010) and the presumption district-level equity might guarantee fair distribution across
schools within districts (Woo, 2010).
Nevertheless, the existing literature consistently documents the inequity and inadequacy
of intradistrict resource allocation distribution across schools, particularly those within large
urban school districts (Iatarola & Stiefel, 2003; Rubenstein, Schwartz, Stiefel, & Amor, 2007;
Schwartz & Stiefel, 2004). Despite difficulty obtaining school-level data, there is growing
evidence of inequity in intradistrict spending. These significant inequities in resource allocation
within a school district are not fully understood and deserve additional research
(DarlingHammond & Post, 2000; Rubenstein, Schwartz, & Stiefel, 2006). What is not yet
known about intradistrict funding disparities is whether and how these disparities have changed
in recent years, and why districts would continue to have such disparities among their schools. It
should not be assumed school finance reforms directed at resolving resource inequities between
school districts will ensure those resources are equitably distributed among schools and their
students.
Statement of the Problem
The issue of school finance equity has been a long-standing topic for the past four
decades (Rodriguez, 2004). The existing literature of intradistrict resource allocations reveals an
unequal distribution pattern to schools within large districts, particularly ones serving tens of
thousands of students and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on education (Roza & Miles,
2002). Frequently, these inequities work against schools serving low-income and minority
students. Numerous researchers report that intradistrict funds are systemically directed away
from disadvantaged students and toward more advantaged students (Rubenstein, Schwartz, &
Stiefel, 2006; Woodworth & Ritter, 2012; Owings & Kaplan, 2020). Unintended funding
inequities can be caused due to the differences in allocation and distribution of resources from
the states to the districts and the districts to the schools.
Tracking money is a huge challenge for school districts for several reasons. One being,
in most states, school funding is distributed and tracked only to the district level. Additionally,
their revenues come from a variety of numerous sources, which include state, local, federal, and
philanthropic, at various times. Furthermore, school district budgeting processes create large and
hidden differences within school budgets. The fact districts are unaware of how much is spent at
one school versus another allows for major inequities often hurting the schools most in need of
resources (Roza & Hill, 2004). Instead of supplying more resources to the school districts and
schools serving populations of low-income and minority students, they provide less (Owings &
Kaplan, 2010). Low-income and minority students tend to be concentrated in low-income and
minority communities, and these students often attend schools receiving far fewer resources per
pupil despite their greater need.
No matter which fiscal equity measure is used, it is clear school districts and schools with
a high percentage of low-income and minority students are not receiving their fair share of
education funding (Epstein, 2011). The inequity and inadequacy in school funding must be
remedied so all students have access to the resources necessary to achieve at high levels (Epstien,
2011). Intradistrict analyses have the potential to yield useful information for state and local
policymakers, educators, the courts, and researchers because most educational resources are
expended at individual schools. Thus, researchers have begun to devote more attention to
intradistrict analyses (Stiefel, Rubenstein, & Berne, 1998). Illuminating intradistrict disparity
issues are extremely important because these inequities and inadequacies are further
shortchanging low-income and minority students. As a result, intradistrict disparities may be the
next “ripeness” factor for school finance litigation (Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) serves as the latest revision of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, replacing the previous revision as the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. The implementation of ESSA provides an opportunity to expose
the longstanding inequities and inadequacies among school districts and schools. Under ESSA
school districts will have to address any resource disparities to comply with the law. The first
step to advocating for equitable and adequate funding is to know where and how the money is
being spent. For the first time, states will have to report to the United States Department of
Education, and publish on state and district report cards, the per-pupil expenditure at the district
level and school level. The data must include the different sources of funds, so it can be
compared both intradistrictly and interdistrictly (ESSA, 2015). Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to measure the intradistrict distribution of educational resources of one mid-Atlantic
school district through an equity audit. In doing so, this study was to help inform the field of
education by discovering how one diverse mid-Atlantic school district currently distributes
resources across elementary, middle, and high schools within the district. Specifically, this
research looks at the processes district leaders use to allocate and distribute resources to schools
within their district and to determine whether or not the allocation and distribution of resources
are equitable and adequate.
Purpose of the Study
The struggle for school fiscal equity has been ongoing across the United States since the
beginning of public education. Strangely enough, our progress toward fiscal equity in school
financing has been slow in contrast to the beliefs and values of the American people (Johns,
1976). A majority of research on school finance equity is based on individual states (Berne &
Stiefel, 1983). Unfortunately, little research has been conducted focusing on the resource
allocations across schools within school districts. In most states, individual schools seldom
participate in any major reorganization of school-level resources. Typically, school-level funding
is distributed and tracked only to the district level. Too often, the school district budget process
begins where last year’s budget process left off. Assuming the existing resource allocations
should remain and providing no allowance for shifts in the distribution of resources. As a result,
careful investigations of this potential problem require an analysis of funding at the individual
school level.
Research Questions
The research questions driving this study are:
RQ1. Is there a difference in variation in resource allocation of per-pupil funding at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level?
RQ2. Is there a difference in variation in teacher quality at the elementary school level?
middle school level? high school level?
RQ3. What is the association between funding and academic achievement at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level?
Overview of Methodology
In this study, the researcher will utilize available school-level expenditure data to
examine the allocation and distribution of resources to students within one mid-Atlantic school
district to determine what, if any, disparities exist among different schools within the same
district. Particularly, the researcher will be looking for any disparities in per-pupil expenditures,
teacher quality, and academic achievement. Since there is no other research study like this to
date, the researcher will design and examine the findings through an a priori lens. This study
will use this a priori lens to examine and determine any inequities within the district. The
guidelines for the a priori lens suggest a 10% difference as slight, a 25% difference as moderate,
and a 40% difference as notable. The researcher will examine per-pupil expenditures and
calculate the cents per dollar spent at each school. Furthermore, the researcher will utilize
Verstegen’s suggested student enrollment subgroup category weighting to create three per-pupil
expenditure weighting groups. The per-pupil expenditures will be compared to examine vertical
equity, horizontal equity, and equal opportunity.
Conceptual Framework
The terms equity and adequacy are referenced frequently within school finance literature.
The three research questions driving this study are linked to adequacy and equity principles. The
researcher will use these two common terms to build a conceptual framework for this study
utilizing a framework developed by Berne and Stiefel (1994), examining concepts and measures
of three equity principles – equal opportunity, horizontal equity, and vertical equity. Equal
opportunity is defined in terms of the relationship between a specific school characteristic and a
second variable, where in most cases the absence of a relationship signifies equal opportunity
(Berne & Stiefel, 1994).
Horizontal equity, or the equal treatment of equals, takes on particular significance at the
school level, in terms of financial resources and output measures (Berne & Stiefel, 1994; Steifel,
Rubenstein, & Berne, 1998). Under this principle, each school within a district would receive
equal funding per-pupil, as long as the students within each school possessed the same skills,
needs, level of preparation, etc. Horizontal equity is relatively easy to compute and can provide
a valid criterion upon which to evaluate the equity of general education or basic funding.
Horizontal equity measures capture the dispersion of a distribution and assess how far the
distribution is from perfect equality. There are two important limitations of horizontal equity.
First, the assumption each school possesses the same needs equally across the board cannot be
maintained in practice. Second, numerical equality of funding should not be considered the end
all be all if every entity receives insufficient funding. Thus, horizontal equity principles can be
regarded as the starting point for an equitable system, however, adjustments are necessary (Glen,
Picus, Odden, & Aportela, 2009).
On the other hand, vertical equity, or the appropriately unequal treatment of unequals, is a
very important equity concept at the school level. Under this principle, each school within a
district would receive more funding per-pupil, to students of poverty, with learning disabilities,
and/or having a native language other than English. State legislatures have recognized the
importance of providing additional funding to educate those students affected by poverty, race,
urbanicity, limited English proficiency, and family characteristics such as low parental
educational attainment, who are at risk of academic failure (Vesley & Crampton, 2004). Vertical
equity is much more complex to measure and will assess the degree to which schools receive
more resources per pupil. There are two important limitations of vertical equity. First, there are
no consistent specific targets used to determine whether vertical equity has been reached.
Second, vertical equity measures do not take into account the effects of multiple dimensions of
student need.
Another important yet still evolving concept is school finance adequacy. It means that
school finance today encompasses not only fiscal inputs, but also their connection to educational
programs, teacher compensation, and student achievement (Odden, 2003). For a school to be
considered to have adequate funding each school would need to be provided the sufficient funds
necessary to teach the average student, plus sufficient additional funding resources for those
students of poverty, with learning disabilities, and/or having a native language other than English
to allow them to meet the state standards as well (Odden & Picus, 2004). To measure adequacy
requires an explicit connection between school funding and student achievement and thus,
addressing the concerns of teacher quality and teacher salaries.
Verstegen (2008) suggests specific populations of students cost more to educate than
others. Therefore, per-pupil expenditures are weighted for students falling into these specific
subgroup categories. Weighting these specific subgroup categories and multiplying the current
per-pupil expenditures reveals the amount of funding needed to meet the basic educational needs
of these students. Verstegen suggests different populations are weighted differently based on
student need. The researcher will apply Verstegen’s (2008) weighting to selected student
enrollment subgroup categories to measure equity as it relates to per-pupil expenditures at each
school.
Verstegen reasons, a student with a disability per-pupil expenditure would be twice as
much the district per-pupil expenditure (or 2.0), while students eligible to receive free or
reduced-price lunch and English learners per-pupil expenditure would be one and a half times as
much (or 1.5). Based on Verstegen’s suggested student enrollment subgroup category weighting,
the researcher created three per-pupil expenditure weighting groups: in order to rate the
difference in funding as slight, moderate, or notable. The researcher’s a priori lens suggests a
10% difference as slight, a 25% difference as moderate, and a 40% difference as notable.
• The first group of weights (full weight) was gathered from existing research: students
with disabilities (2.0), English learners (1.5), and students eligible for free or
reducedprice lunch (1.5)
• The second group of weights (half weight): students with disabilities (1.5), English
learners (1.25), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.25)
• The third group of weights (quarter weight): students with disabilities (1.25), English
learners (1.125), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.125). Weighting
the per-pupil expenditures for the specific subgroups will allow the researcher to examine
any discrepancies among schools at the elementary school level, middle school level, and
high school level.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
The following Limitations and Delimitations should be considered when reviewing the
results of this study:
1. Small sample sizes at the individual school levels.
2. Hidden inequities within individual schools or among specific populations of
students.
3. Not all school-level data were publicly available through the state department of
education’s school report card.
4. The a priori guidelines created were not vetted as they were created by the researcher.
5. The assumption each school possesses the same needs equally across the board
cannot be maintained in practice.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 explains the background of the study as well as what the study intends to
explore. Chapter 2 presents a detailed literature review describing the inequities in intradistrict
funding. Chapter 3 describes the quantitative research design used within the study, including
the population, data collection process, instruments, and methods used to answer the research
questions. Chapter 4 will provide a detailed analysis of the data gathered in the study. Chapter 5
will review the findings, providing conclusions based on the findings, and offering suggestions
for future research and practice related to resource variations among schools within a district.
Definition of Key Terms
Adequacy – In school finance, the term refers to providing sufficient funds for the
average school district to teach the average child to state standards, plus sufficient additional
revenues for students with special needs to allow them to meet performance standards as well
(Odden & Picus, 2004).
Adequate Funding – The amount of money schools would need to offer an “accredited”
or basic program, or meet minimum state education requirements (Equity Center, 2013).
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) – A non-pricing meal service option for schools
and school districts in low-income areas, allowing schools and districts to provide breakfast and
lunch at no cost to all students enrolled without collecting household applications (US
Department of Agriculture, 2019).
English Learners – Students whose first language is other than English and who are in a
language instruction education program for learning English (U.S. Department of Education,
2017) Also referred to as bilingual students and English language learners.
Equal Opportunity – The relationship between school objects and a second variable,
where in most cases the absence of a relationship signifies equal opportunity (Stiefel,
Rubenstein, & Berne, 1998).
Equity - In school finance, the term refers to the fair or equal distribution of resources for
schooling, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics (Equity
Center, 2013).
Horizontal Equity – “Equal treatment of equals”; examines whether students in “equal”
situations receive equal resources allocated to them for their education (Rubenstein, 2016;
Brimley & Garfield, 2005; Owings & Kaplan, 2020).
Inequity - Inequity among districts means children in lower-funded districts do not have
access to the same resources as their peers in districts with higher levels of funding (Epstein,
2011).
Intradistrict Disparity - School finance inequities among schools within the same district
(Rubenstein, et al., 2006).
Intradistrict Equality – Equity of distribution of education resources between students
enrolled in the same school district, but attending different schools (Burke, 1999).
Intradistrict Resources - The distribution of resources across schools within a district
(Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
Interdistrict Disparity - School finance inequities between different districts within states
(Rubenstein, et al., 2006).
Interdistrict Equality – The differences in the distribution of education resources between
two students within the same state, but enrolled in different school districts (Burke, 1999).
Interdistrict Resources - The distribution of resources across districts (Owings & Kaplan,
2010).
Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program – Permits a student to transfer from a school
where his or her race is the majority to a school where his or her race is in a minority if space is
available in order to complete desegregation and achieve full unitary status (United States
Department of Justice, 2017).
Resource Allocation - “The ways in which fiscal and non-fiscal resources are divided
between competing needs and expended for educational purposes” (Pan, Rudo, Schneider, &
Smith-Hansen, 2003, p. 5).
Ripeness – Refers to the readiness of a case for litigation. The United States Supreme
Court will not consider accepting disputes that do not constitute a legitimate case or controversy
(Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
Strict Scrutiny – The most rigorous level of examination for courts to apply to equal
protection clause challenges. Commonly granted for suspect classifications such as race or in
claims involving fundamental rights (Roellke, Green, & Zielewski, 2004).
Suspect Classification – Refers to a class of individuals having been historically subject
to discrimination; by race, by ethnicity, and by religion are examples (Legal Information
Institute, 1992; Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
Wealth - In school finance, “wealth” is not a measure of income – the wealth of a district
is generally measured in taxable property value per student (Equity Center, 2013).
Vertical Equity – The appropriate “unequal treatment of unequals;” stresses students with
different needs should receive different levels of resources so each may be given an equal
opportunity for success. Often systems designed for vertical equity will give students with
special needs (students with IEP's, ELL students, low-income students) a "weight" (Rubenstein,
2016; Brimley & Garfield, 2005; Owings & Kaplan, 2020).
Chapter Two: Literature Review
School finance equity and adequacy are not new to the field of research. Equity and
adequacy in school finance have been a concern of both scholars and reformers since the early
1900s and became a subject of court litigation in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Roellke, et al.,
2004). Despite intensified school finance litigation and legislation over the past several decades,
school systems in the United States continue their struggle to operate equitably and adequately.
This persistent inequity, both in terms of educational inputs and outcomes, has generated a long
and complex series of lawsuits. Beginning in the late 1960s, there had been various lawsuits
brought forward arguing state funding systems violated provisions of either the federal or state
constitution.
Scholars have divided school finance litigation into three waves. The first two waves
were dominated by equity approaches, while the third has been driven by adequacy claims. The
first wave, lasting approximately from 1969 through 1973, challenged the federal constitution,
and the second wave, lasting approximately from 1973 to 1989, challenged state education
(Roellke, et. al., 2004). Most of the school finance reforms implemented in the United States
during the 1970s and 1980s were designed to decrease the disparities in per-pupil revenue
between poor and wealthy districts (Verstegen & Salmon, 1989). Despite the litigation
surrounding school finance, significant funding disparities still exist among schools and districts
within many states (Epstein, 2011). Research over the past 25 years has begun to tease out the
nature of intradistrict spending patterns.
School finance researchers are beginning to focus on resource allocation decisions at the
school-level rather than the district-level (Stiefel, et al., 1998). These studies are generally
limited to a few states or individual districts where school-site expenditure data have been
available (Baker & Welner, 2010). Determining intradistrict resource allocations can be
problematic because individual school allotments are often masked in analyses using districtlevel
averages (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). Nonetheless, studies conclude intradistrict resource
disparities are often larger than more widely recognized interdistrict disparities (Owings &
Kaplan, 2020), especially among larger districts. In this section, I will review the literature on
school finance equity and adequacy. I will focus on school finance litigation as it relates to
school finance at the federal, state, and district levels, as well as on intradistrict inequities and
inadequacies.
Equity and Adequacy Issues in School Finance
The reform of education has been at the forefront of national policy for decades. Parallel
to and closely linked with school reform is the growing concern of school finance and seems
likely to remain so for years to come (Picus, 2004). School finance reform is like a Russian
novel; it’s long, tedious, and everybody dies at the end (Yudof, 1991, p. 499; Roellke, et. al.,
2004). The focus of school finance has shifted in response to the emphasis on standards-based
education reform initiatives, including the No Child Left Behind Act, a goal that has elements of
both equity and excellence built into it (Odden, 2003). A driving question is how much money is
needed to ensure all – or almost all – students are able to meet state standards? Determining how
much money is needed to provide an adequate education has become the centerpiece of school
finance research and school finance litigation in recent years (Picus, 2004).
Despite the shift to adequacy, those who make school finance policy must remain
vigilant regarding fiscal disparities caused by unequal distribution of fiscal resources (Odden,
2003). Achieving greater equity and adequacy, in regards to school funding, continues to be an
ongoing struggle in many states (Crampton & Thompson, 2011). Rather than supplying more
fiscal resources to schools and districts serving concentrations of low-income and minority
students, they provide less (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). There currently is a significant body of
literature shedding a considerable amount of light on interdistrict funding resource allocation.
However, there is a lack of research examining intradistrict funding resource allocation. This
may be due to the lack of school-level data (Rubenstein, et. al, 2007) and the belief that
districtlevel equity and adequacy guarantees fair distribution across schools within districts
(Woo, 2010).
Nonetheless, the literature available constantly displays the unequal distribution of
resources across schools, particularly, those schools within large urban districts (Betts, Rueben,
& Danenberg, 2000; Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Stiefel, Rubenstein, & Schwartz, 2004). There is a
major concern, districts are allocating more resources to schools with fewer low-income and
fewer minority students (Owings & Kaplan, 2010; Stiefel, et. al., 2004). The outcome of these
resource allocation disparities is predictable: the further widening of the achievement gap, which
has become prevalent among schools across the United States.
School Finance Litigation: A Brief Overview
School finance equity and adequacy are the two most prominent principles in school
finance. In its broadest sense, school finance equity specifies equally situated students should be
treated equally. In contrast, school finance adequacy prescribes the level of educational
resources made available be sufficient to provide all students the opportunity to reach at a
minimum, a state-standard level of proficiency (Springer, Liu, & Guthrie, 2009). These two
principles have been a concern of scholars and reformers for the past century and became a
subject of court litigation beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Despite increased school
finance litigation and legislation over the past several decades, school systems in the United
States continue their struggle to operate equitably and adequately. This evidence is clear these
goals of equity and adequacy have been particularly elusive for schools attended primarily by
low-income and minority children (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003; Roellke & Rice, 2002).
This persistent inequity, both in terms of educational inputs and outcomes, has generated a long
and complex series of lawsuits. Scholars have divided school finance litigation into three
distinct waves, each dominated by one legal theory (Enrich, 1995; Heise, 1995; Thro, 1994;
Verstegen, 1998, Roellke, et. al., 2004). The first two waves were dominated by equity
approaches, whereas the third wave has been driven by adequacy claims.
The first wave plaintiffs challenged finance systems through the federal Constitution’s
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were influenced by the work of
Arthur Wise (1968) and Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970). Wise observed poor districts could
not provide the same level of educational funding as their wealthier counterparts, even if taxed at
a higher rate. He concluded school finance systems violated the equal protection clause because
the educational opportunity was based on the wealth of the districts in which the students lived
(Roellke, et. al., 2004). Coons, et. al. (1970) developed the concept of “fiscal neutrality”
meaning the quality of education may not be a function of wealth other than that of the entire
state. In school finance litigation, plaintiffs built upon these arguments in an attempt to establish
“wealth as a suspect classification under the United States Constitution (Roellke, et. al.
2004). The California Supreme Court accepted the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in
Serrano I (1971) and found education to be a fundamental interest and wealth was a suspect
classification. Contrarily, in the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973),
the United States Supreme Court rejected fundamental right and suspect classification claims,
abruptly ending the short-lived first-wave litigation (Roellke, et. al., 2004).
The second wave of school finance litigation immediately followed Rodriguez in 1973
and lasted approximately until 1989. The second wave plaintiffs challenged school finance
systems on the education and equal protection clauses of state constitutions. Only one month
after the United States Supreme Court rejected federal equal protection arguments, the New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Robinson v. Cahill (1973) that although education was not a
fundamental federal right, wide spending disparities among school districts violated the New
Jersey Constitution’s requirement that the state maintains a “thorough and efficient” system of
public schools (Obhof, 2004). The California Supreme Court reaffirmed Serrano in 1976, this
time because funding disparities violated the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.
By the late-1970s plaintiffs challenged more than twenty state school finance systems (Obhof,
2004). Although plaintiffs had some success, most state courts rejected second wave equality
challenges (Roellke et al., 2004).
The third wave of school finance litigation began in 1989, with the important plaintiff
victories Rose v Council for Better Education (1989) in Kentucky and Helena Elementary School
District v. State (1989) in Montana. In contrast to earlier school finance cases, which focused on
reducing spending disparities to increase equity, the adequacy-based litigation concentrated on
the sufficiency of school funding (Obhof, 2004). Plaintiffs allege school finance formulas
prevent poor school districts from providing an adequate education as defined by the state
education clauses (Obhof, 2004; Roellke, et. al., 2004). The greater promise of adequacy suits
has proven true in the courtroom. Thus, the third wave has been better for plaintiffs. Courts in a
few states that previously rejected equity challenges to their school finance systems have found
their state systems unconstitutional under the burgeoning “adequacy” standard (Obhof, 2004).
School Litigation: First Wave
The first wave of school finance litigation involved state and federal challenges to
funding schemes based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Federal Equal Protection clause (Obhof,
2004). First wave plaintiffs claimed that school finance disparities violated the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that no state “shall deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Roellke, et. al., 2004). Due to the
development of a new theory based on the variation of per-pupil spending of school districts and
the relationship between district wealth and spending, disparities were viewed as a violation of
the United States Constitution’s equal protection clause, especially if education was considered
to be a fundamental right (Augenblick, Myers, & Anderson, 1997). This wave was short-lived
beginning in 1969 with Burruss v. Wilkerson and ending in 1973 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s
rejection of this approach in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. A summary
of key first-wave cases is provided in Table 1.
Plaintiffs litigated two court cases under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection
Clause and education spending: McInnis v. Shapiro (1968), in Illinois, and Burruss v. Wilkerson
(1969), in Virginia. Both cases challenged the constitutionality of state education across the
various school districts under the Equal Protection clause, citing large disparities in the districts’
ability to fund education within their respective states (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). The funding
disparity resulted in wealthy school districts spending more money to meet students’ needs than
did poorer districts that had a greater educational need than the affluent districts (Owings &
Kaplan, 2020). In both cases, the plaintiffs argued school finance systems relying heavily on
local property taxes, which are inherently unevenly distributed, create systems that treat
individuals differently. The State, by not providing for equalization of school funding, deprived
children in poor school districts access to equitable educational resources (Alexander & Salmon,
1995; Owings & Kaplan, 2010; McInnis v. Shapiro, 1969; Burruss v. Wilkerson, 1970).
Plaintiffs identified alternatives that would be less discriminatory to poor school districts
(Roellke, et. al., 2004). However, in both cases the federal district courts ruled against the
plaintiffs and for the existing funding practices in Illinois and Virginia, saying that the Fourteenth
Amendment did not require equal expenditures. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were unable to
define a court-requested reasonable standard to assess and measure educational needs.
At that time little consensus or research existed to answer the court’s questions about measuring
need. Because the court could not address these ideas concerning educational needs; thus, it
refused to declare the states’ finance systems to be unconstitutional (Owings & Kaplan, 2020).
Both cases were appealed by the plaintiffs and summarily affirmed without an opinion or
statement by the United States Supreme Court; McInnis in 1969, and Burruss in 1970. The
vagueness left many legal and finance scholars unclear about the Court’s rationale in the
decisions (Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
Two years after the McInnis v. Shapiro (1968) and Burruss v. Wilkerson (1969) decisions,
the California Supreme Court in Serrano I (1971) applied strict scrutiny to hold the state’s school
finance system violated the federal and state equal protection clauses and found strict scrutiny
was applicable because wealth was a suspect classification (Roellke, et. al. 2004). The
California Supreme Court ruling found the school finance system was not fiscally neutral,
considered education as a fundamental right and the state’s property tax-based funding system
violated that right by creating vast spending disparities between school districts (Obhof, 2004,
Roellke, et al., 2004). This standard was an adaptation of Coons, et al.’s (1970) concept of fiscal
neutrality: The quality of education should not be a function of district wealth but of state wealth.
The case was remanded back to the trial court to enforce an alignment between the United States
and California State Constitutions.
Their rationale began with the acknowledgment that education was of fundamental
interest to the government such that it created an educated electorate capable of exercising the
right to vote and the State of California had made education compulsory. The California
Supreme Court continued to say the method of funding schools was, “mandated in every detail
by the California Constitution and statutes”, and that the state has the burden of providing equal
protection by its own laws. Conclusively, while the Court acknowledged differences in
financing are inevitable as long as districts maintain local control and voters determine their own
tax rates, the differences in property wealth between school districts were so large as to make the
concept of local determination of per-pupil expenditure a “cruel illusion” (Serrano v. Priest,
1971). The California Supreme Court also found that wealth, whether looked at on an individual
or group basis, cannot become a basis for unequal treatment of individuals. Unfortunately, this
was a short-lived victory for poor communities and their schools.
These school-funding cases paved the way for the 1973 San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez case – arguably the most famous Supreme Court school finance litigation.
The plaintiffs argued, on behalf of several Mexican-American parents, that the Texas education
funding model made educational quality a function of the local property tax base and that state
funding was insufficient to correct the inherent inequalities (Owings & Kaplan, 2013, Owings &
Kaplan, 2020). Following the logic and ruling of Serrano v. Priest (1971), the Texas Supreme
Court three-judge panel concluded that the finance model denied equal protection of the law
since education is a state function, the equality of education should not be determined by the
locality’s wealth, but by the state’s overall wealth (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). The three-judge
federal court panel concluded that the Texas funding model assumed incorrectly that property
wealth in the school districts was sufficiently equal to allow for comparable spending throughout
be based on the state’s – not the district’s wealth (Owings & Kaplan, 2013; Owings & Kaplan,
2020). The United States Supreme Court accepted the appeal from the school district in San
Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) overturning the lower court’s ruling,
deciding that it was not unconstitutional, which became the federal landmark decision in school
finance litigation. Contrarily, because of the Supreme Court ruling that access to free public
education is not a fundamental right under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, in the landmark case of San Antonio Independent
School District v. Rodriguez (1973), all further challenges of school finance inequity at the
federal level came to a halt. The Rodriguez decision absolved the federal government of any
obligation to rectify inequities existing in the provision of educational services (Burke, 1999)
stating education is not a fundamental federal right and that states are free to balance the values
of local control and equality of educational resources (Obhof, 2004, Roellke, et al., 2004). This
struck at the heart of the Serrano ruling. As a result, education is not viewed as a fundamental
right, therefore, property wealth is not a “suspect classification” and the inequities in school
spending do not violate the federal Constitution (Obhof, 2004). Litigation for school finance
reform under the federal Equal Protection clause umbrella ended with Rodriguez and all future
funding litigation would be restricted to state courts and state equal protection provisions in state
constitutions (Owings & Kaplan, 2013). After the United States Supreme Court decision
litigation moved from federal to state courts making the case for fiscal neutrality, that is the level
of resources available to students should not be a function of the district’s wealth, rather the
wealth of the state as a whole since education, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, is a state
function.
Table 1
First-Wave School Finance Litigation
McInnis v. Shapiro (IL)
Burruss v. Wilkerson (VA)
1968
1969
The plaintiffs, in this case, argued that the Illinois
state school finance system was unconstitutional
because of the wide disparities in per-pupil
educational spending. They argued that because
education is a fundamental right, any spending
differences need to be related to educational needs
and not property wealth. The court, however,
ruled the cases were nonjusticiable because the
court had no standard for educational need to
assess the claims of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, in this case, argued that the Virginia
state school finance system was unconstitutional
because of the wide disparities in per-pupil
educational spending. They argued that because
education is a fundamental right, any spending
differences need to be related to educational needs
and not property wealth. The court, however,
ruled the cases were nonjusticiable because the
court had no standard for educational need to
assess the claims of the plaintiffs.
Serrano v. Priest (CA)
1971
The plaintiffs in the case argued that disparities in
per-pupil spending across various school districts
violated the equal protection clause of the U.S.
Constitution, particularly if education was
considered to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed
by the Constitution. The California Supreme
Court agreed and ruled education a fundamental
constitutional right and remanded the case for
trial.
San Antonio Independent
School District v.
Rodriguez (TX)
1973
The plaintiffs claimed that Texas’s system for
financing public education violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
because it discriminated based on wealth. The
Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a federal
district court and upheld the Texas system stating
wealth is not a suspect classification and the state’s
funding system was rational and constitutional.
Any future attacks on states’ methods of funding schools would have to be on state constitutional
grounds rather than on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (Alexander & Alexander,
2009; Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
School Litigation: Second Wave
The second wave of school finance litigation, which lasted from about 1973 to 1989,
immediately followed San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973). Plaintiffs
turned to state courts and focused on state constitutional provisions to invalidate finance schemes
result in “savage inequalities” among interdistricts within a state (Verstegen, 1994). The results
of this stage were mixed (Obhof, 2004; Minorini & Sugarman, 1999). These court cases were
based on claims of the state’s funding system violating the state constitution’s equal protection
clause or the state’s constitution education clause (Obhof, 2004; Roellke, et al., 2004). As a
result, school finance systems in seven states were found to be unconstitutional. This required
those states to change the structure of their system (Augenblick, Myers, & Anderson, 1997). A
summary of key second wave cases is provided in Table 2.
Only one month after the United States Supreme Court rejected federal equal protection
arguments, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that although education was not a fundamental
right, wide spending disparities among school districts violated the New Jersey Constitution’s
requirement that the state maintains a “thorough and efficient” system of public schools in the
case of Robinson v. Cahill (1973) (Obhof, 2004). In 1976 Serrano v Priest (Serrano II), the
California Supreme Court reaffirmed Serrano I (1971), this time because funding disparities
violated the California Constitution’s equal protection clause (Obhof, 2004; Roellke, et al.,
2004). Plaintiffs in other states quickly followed, by the late 1970s more than twenty states
faced challenges to their school finance systems some due to political pressures, and some as a
result of judicial decisions and orders (Obhof, 2004). By 1980, roughly thirty states had been
involved in some form of school finance litigation. Although some cases were successful, most
Table 2
Second-Wave School Finance Litigation
Robinson v. Cahill (NJ)
Olsen v. State ex rel.
Johnson (OR)
Serrano v. Priest II (CA)
Horton v. Meskill (CT)
1973
1976
1977
1977
The plaintiffs claimed that the state’s system of
financing elementary and secondary schools failed to
meet the state constitution’s requirement of a
“thorough and efficient” system of education because
of discrepancies in per-pupil spending. The New
Jersey Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the
state’s funding system violated New Jersey’s
Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. The plaintiffs
in the case argued that Oregon’s funding system
violated Article VIII, section 3 of the Oregon
Constitution, which states that, “(t)he Legislative
Assembly shall provide by law for the establishment
of a uniform, and general system of Common
schools.” The Oregon Supreme Court rejected this
argument, holding that the state satisfies its
obligation if it requires and provides for a minimum
of educational opportunities in local school districts
and permits the districts to exercise local control over
what they desire, and can furnish, over the minimum.
The California Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior
decision in Serrano I and affirmed the lower court’s
finding that the wealth-related disparities in perpupil
spending generated by the state’s education finance
system violated the equal protection clause of the
California constitution.
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the right to
education in Connecticut is so fundamental that any
intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized.
Public school students are entitled to equal
enjoyment of the right to education, and a system of
school financing without regard to disparities in
town wealth and that lacked significant equalizing
state support was unconstitutional.
Board of Education of
Cincinnati v. Walter (OH)
1979
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected challenges based
on the state equal protection clause and education
clause because the legislature has discretion in
educational matters and the courts will not interfere
with such discretion where education appears
adequate.
Washakie County School 1980 District v.
Herschler (WY)
The Wyoming Supreme Court found that the state
education funding system violated the state
constitution’s equity requirement, noting that “until
the equality of financing is achieved, there is no
practicable method of achieving the equality of
quality.” The Court ruled that public education is a
fundamental right under the Wyoming Constitution
and matched “equality of financing” with “equality
of quality.”
Board of Education,
Levittown Union Free
School District v. Nyquist
(NY)
1982
The New York Court of Appeals held that despite the
unequal education, New York State had acted
constitutionally in its financing structure because
the state constitution does not refer to equal
education and equitable funding and also because
the plaintiffs made no claim that the quality or
quantity of education in these poor districts was
below that of the minimum set by the New York
State Board of Regents.
Lujan v. Colorado State
Board of Education (CO)
DuPree v. Alma School
District No. 30 of Crawford
County (AR)
1982
1983
The Supreme Court of Colorado concluded that the
state’s education clause did not require “absolute
equality in educational services or expenditures.”
Also, the court ruled that the goal of local school
control was a legitimate state purpose, which
justified the state’s school financing system under
the equal protection clause.
The Arkansas Supreme Court found that the state’s
school funding system unconstitutional under the
equal protection clause of the state constitution
holding that “no legitimate state purpose” and “no
rational relationship” to “educational needs” in the
state’s method of financing public schools. This
equity ruling rejected “local control” as justification
for the disparities of funding and educational
opportunities in the state’s school districts.
Hornbeck v. Somerset
County Board of Education
(MD)
1983
Maryland’s State Supreme Court held that the state
constitution did not mandate equality in per-pupil
spending among the state’s school districts.
However, the court also held that the education
clause of the Maryland constitution embodies a
right to “an adequate education measured by
contemporary educational standards.”
state courts rejected second-wave equality and equity challenges. State supreme courts heard
only ten school finance cases from 1980 to 1988 and of those only two state courts invalidated
their states’ school funding schemes, while eight upheld their systems as constitutional (Minorini
& Sugarman, 1999).
Overall, the first- and second-wave litigation has not been seen as successful for several
reasons. Roellke (2004) identified six factors for the first- and second-wave litigations’ failure.
Many courts have been unwilling to give education fundamental rights status and classify wealth
as a suspect classification. Additionally, courts have found education clauses do not require
equal educational opportunities. Lastly, equity is a deceptively difficult concept to measure.
A Nation at Risk
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a report, A
Nation at Risk, emphasizing the need for a careful examination of excellence and equity as we
approached the end of the second-wave of school finance litigation. A Nation at Risk exposed
American society and its educational institutions for truly having lost sight of the fundamental
purposes of schooling and the expectations and disciplined effort required to achieve them
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Some educators were offended,
whereas others were enthusiastic, embracing the opportunity for improvement. The initial
responses were often accompanied by the assumption of mutual exclusivity of excellence and
equity (Rodriguez, 2004). Unfortunately, even though desegregation brought together students
of varying backgrounds in addition to the significant studies made to equalize basic funding in
numerous states, inequitable academic outcomes persisted among racial, gender, and class lines
(Rodriguez, 2004). Many considered A Nation at Risk to be a turning point in American
education policy, challenging the established perspective on the role of school finance in broader
educational policy reform. School finance researchers continued efforts to conceptualize and
operationalize equity more clearly within the field (Berne, 1988; Rodriguez, 2004). Despite the
critiques contained in A Nation at Risk and the associated call for excellence in education, school
finance researchers persisted in their attempts to articulate the equity implications of the various
formula innovations offered at the time. As a result of A Nation at Risk, state legislators
responded by directing their attention toward “achieving excellence in education” often by
changing education standards, graduation requirements, and teacher certification requirements
and compensation.
School Litigation: Third Wave
By the last 1980s, it had become clear most state courts would not uproot a school
funding system based on spending disparities alone (Obhof, 2004). Thus, beginning the third
wave of school finance litigation, which began in 1989 and has lasted to the present time,
plaintiffs have argued that school finance systems prevent poor districts from providing their
students with an adequate education as defined by state education clauses following the Nation at
Risk report (Roellke et al., 2004; Augenblick, et al., 1997). In contrast to earlier school finance
cases, which focused on reducing spending disparities to increase equity, the adequacy-based
litigation concentrated on the sufficiency of school funding (Obhof, 2004). The greater promise
of adequacy suits has proven true in the courtroom. In 1989 and 1990, five state high courts
ruled on the constitutionality of state funding systems. One court, in Wisconsin, upheld the
existing system, but in Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas, the court rulings upset
existing systems and upheld major new legal claims (Augenblick, et al., 1997). A summary of
key third wave cases is provided in Table 3.
This third wave began in 1989 with two important victories in Kentucky and
Montana. One pivotal third wave case is Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989). In this
case, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the state’s educational system violated its education
clause by failing to provide its students with an adequate education. The court overturned
Kentucky’s entire education system and then identified several capacities the state had to fulfill
to reach its constitutional mandate, including the provision of sufficient oral and written
communication skills as well as academic or vocational skills (Roellke, et al., 2004; Owings &
Kaplan, 2013). This decision required the General Assembly to develop a new schooling
organization that would receive constitutional approval and adequate funds (Owings & Kaplan,
2020). “Adequate” school funding in the courts as a school finance issue began here.
Table 3
Third-Wave School Finance Litigation
Rose v. Council for Better 1989
Education (KY)
Helena Elementary School 1989
District v. State (MO)
Edgewood v. Kirby (TX) 1989
The plaintiffs argued that Kentucky’s system of
school finance was inadequate and violated the
state’s education clause as well as the equal
protection clause and due process of the law
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution by failing to provide its students with
an adequate education. The Kentucky Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs ruling that the
existing system of finance did not satisfy the
requirement of an efficient educational system and
created a standard of an “efficient system of
common schools.”
The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the State’s
education funding system was unconstitutional
both because it resulted in inadequate funding and
because the spending disparities among the State's
school districts “translate into a denial of equality
of educational opportunity.” The Court concluded,
“the plain meaning of the second sentence of
subsection (1) is that each person is guaranteed
equality of educational opportunity.”
The Edgewood court held that Texas’s public
education financing did not ensure an efficient
education for all schoolchildren because the
system failed to address the differences in
revenue-raising ability among districts. As a
result, the court found the financing system to be
unconstitutional and invalidated the state funding
system three times over the course of 28 months.
Kukor v. Grover (WI)
Abbott v. Burke (NJ)
McDuffy v. Secretary of the
Executive Office of
Education (MA)
1989
1990
1993
Wisconsin’s high court, upheld the finance plan,
stating “Our deference would abruptly cease
should the legislature determine that it was
‘impractical’ to provide to each student a right to
attend a public school at which a basic education
could be obtained, or if funds were
discriminatorily disbursed and there was no
rational basis for such a finance system.”
The court held the New Jersey finance system
unconstitutional only as it related to a specific
class of districts. The court’s order required the
legislature to fund poor urban districts at a level
commensurate with wealthy districts and to
provide additional funding to accommodate
special needs students.
The plaintiffs in the case, Massachusetts students,
claimed their less wealthy school districts were
unable to provide them with an “adequate”
education. The Massachusetts Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs holding that “‘the
duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future
periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish…public
schools and grammar schools in the towns’
includes the duty to provide an adequate education
to the young people of the State, and that this duty
is ‘an enforceable obligation of the
Commonwealth.’”
Roosevelt Elementary
School District No. 66 v.
Bishop (AZ)
Scott v. Commonwealth
(VA)
DeRolph v. Ohio (OH)
1994
1994
1997
The court found that Arizona had failed to provide a
“general and uniform” education and declared
unconstitutional the finance statutes relating to
capital outlay provisions, because “a district’s
property value largely determines its ability to
construct new buildings and to buy computers and
textbooks.”
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the state
system was constitutional. Despite concluding,
“education is a fundamental right under the
Constitution,” the court nonetheless held that
“equal, or substantially equal, funding, or
programs” were not mandated by the Virginia
Constitution.
In 1991, a combination of plaintiffs filed suit
claiming the education provided in their Ohio
schools was constitutionally inadequate. The trial
court ruled for the plaintiffs, relying heavily on the
Kentucky court’s prior articulation of adequacy
Campaign for Fiscal Equity 2003
v. State (NY)
standards in elaborating the Ohio
Constitution’s requirements. On
appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court,
in 1997, upheld the trial court’s
decision and found the state’s
education finance system was unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs charged New York State was failing
in its constitutional duty to provide the
opportunity for a sound basic education to
hundreds of thousands of its schoolchildren. The
New York Court of Appeals ruled that every
public school student is entitled to the opportunity
for meaningful high school education. The Court
ordered the state to implement major education
funding and accountability reforms to allow
students to meet this constitutional standard.
In 1985, a coalition of school districts and parents filed a lawsuit claiming the State of
Montana deprived students of equal educational opportunity under the state education article. In
1989, the Supreme Court of Montana declared, in Helena Elementary School District v. State,
(1989), the state’s education finance system was unconstitutional. The Montana Constitution’s
strong education clause provides that “It is the goal of the people to establish a system of
education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of
educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state.” It also provides that “the
state recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is
committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity.” The Supreme
Court in Helena (1989) said, “We specifically affirm…the spending disparities among the
State’s school districts translate into a denial of equality of educational opportunity.” The
Montana legislature responded in 1989 by adopting a foundation program with higher payments
from the state to local districts and, in 1993, overhauled the formula, this time benefiting smaller
districts.
In 1991, eleven public school students and seven local school boards brought suit claiming
that Virginia’s system of funding public schools denied some children “an educational opportunity
substantially equal to that of children who attend public school in wealthier divisions.” In Scott v.
Commonwealth, (1994) the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled the state system was constitutional.
Despite concluding, “education is a fundamental right under the Constitution,” the Court
nonetheless held that “equal, or substantially equal, funding or programs” were not mandated by
the Virginia Constitution. Since the plaintiffs did not contend that inadequate funding kept the
schools from meeting state quality standards, the court did not analyze the adequacy of Virginia’s
schools. There have been no further equity or adequacy litigations filed in Virginia since 1991
(Center for Educational Equity, 2020).
Intradistrict Funding Inequities
A majority of school finance litigation has focused on the distribution of resources
equitably and adequately across school districts, there are only a few court cases concerned with
differences in spending between schools in a single district. Hobson v. Hansen (1967) is often
cited as a landmark case, achieving educational equality. The case examined the funding
disparities from school to school, in addition to the distribution of inexperienced and lesseducated
teachers to high-need minority schools (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). In 1967, the Hobson
v. Hansen ruling found the superintendent and school board of Washington D.C. guilty of
discriminating both racially and economically. The school district was required to develop a plan
to balance intradistrict expenditures within a five percent variation.
Another major intradistrict equity case, Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Unified Schools District
(1992), resulted in a 1992 consent decree, focused on the distribution of teachers across schools.
Schools in the Los Angeles Unified Schools District (LAUSD) serving higher percentages of
low-income and minority students had less-experienced and educated teachers and therefore had
lower teacher salaries and per-pupil expenditures, as compared to schools serving higher-income
and non-minority students. Thus, the case charged, low-income and minority students were
deprived of California’s equal protection laws (Rubenstien, et al., 2006). The LAUSD agreed to
equalize non-categorical per-pupil spending in 90 percent of schools within $100 of the district
average (Bradley, 1994) and cut funding in schools with per-pupil spending well above the
district average as a part of the consent decree (Roos, 2000). Sugarman (2002) reports the
district has substantially equalized spending across schools, however, schools serving low-
income students continue to have higher percentages of less-experienced teachers.
It is critical to move beyond interdistrict analyses to more accurately assess the
intradistrict resources available to students since the federal No Child Left Behind Act holds
schools accountable for improving student achievement performance (Rubenstein, et al., 2007).
Almost 75% of school districts in the United States have fewer than five schools, the largest 100
school districts enroll almost one-quarter of the total public school students, averaging 163
schools each (Owings & Kaplan, 2010; Rubenstein, et al., 2007). Disparities across those schools
within small districts are likely to be relatively modest – however, intradistrict disparities among
large districts can be sizeable (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). The Thomas B. Fordham
Institute released a report in 2006 signed by former Secretaries of Education Rod Paige and
William Bennett along with many others, asserting “even within school districts, there are often
vast disparities among schools – disparities that generally favor schools with savvier leaders and
wealthier parents” (p.2).
Studies consistently show less experienced and educated teachers along with lower average
teacher salaries in high-poverty, high minority, and low-performing schools (Rubenstein et al.,
2007). Veteran teachers seek positions in more advantaged schools, leaving lowperforming
schools with novice teachers (Roza & Hill, 2004). Intradistrict allocation is a key factor of overall
resource distribution and to ensuring fiscal equity (Rubenstein, et al., 2007; Owings & Kaplan,
2010). Furthermore, there is some concern that the within-district variation is pernicious, for
example, allocating more resources to schools with fewer poor and minority students, and fewer
immigrants (Rubenstein, et al., 2007). Intradistrict analyses are capable of revealing patterns of
equity or inequity. As resources within districts around the country become increasingly
constrained and new ways of financing schools grow (e.g. vouchers and charter schools), the
equity of resource allocation patterns among schools as well as districts will be of critical
importance (Stiefel, et al., 1998).
Conceptual Issues in the Assessment of Intradistrict Funding Equity
Berne and Stiefel (1994) developed concepts and measures of three equity principles –
equal opportunity, horizontal equity, and vertical equity. In their early work, these principles are
measured with district-level data. Research utilizing districts as a unit of analysis implicitly
assumes each school within the district receives the average level of resources available to schools
within the district (Stiefel, et al., 1998). This assumption may be reasonable for smaller districts
with relatively few schools. However, in large school districts with many schools, it is important
to determine whether or not resource allocation disparities occur between schools within the same
district and to explore the factors linked to such disparities (Stiefel, et al., 1998).
Equal opportunity is defined in terms of the relationship between school characteristics
and a second variable, where in most cases the absence of a relationship signifies equal
opportunity (Stiefel, et al., 1998). School characteristics can be broadly conceptualized to include
inputs, outputs, and outcomes as possibilities. At the district level, equal opportunity concerning
the ability to pay is a dominant political and fiscal issue (Berne & Stiefel, 1994;
Stiefel et al., 1998). Since individual schools do not have revenue-raising responsibilities or
individual tax bases on which to draw, a new series of equal opportunity issues is important at the
school level. These might include relationships between resources and student characteristics, or
between resources and a school’s geographic location within a district (Berne & Stiefel, 1994;
Stiefel et al., 1998). Within districts, there are renewed concerns about the distribution of resources
for race or ethnicity. Similarly, it is often claimed certain areas within a given district favored with
additional resources (Berne & Stiefel, 1994; Stiefel, et al., 1998).
Horizontal equity refers to the equal treatment of individuals of equal backgrounds and
circumstances. Horizontal equity as a concept is concerned with measuring equal levels of equality
among distributed resources (Houck, 2011; Rubenstein, 2016; Owings and Kaplan,
2020). When there is no inequality in funding, there is perfect horizontal equity (Owings &
Kaplan, 2013). Funding streams coming into the school often can be separated into general
education resources, intended to provide an equal base for all students, and special education or
compensatory education resources, which are meant to be used differentially across students
(Berne & Stiefel, 1994). Intradistrict horizontal equity assumes each school within a district
would receive equal per-pupil expenditures based on equality. Because it focuses on equality,
horizontal equity is the easiest to identify and measure. However, students rarely have the same
needs or circumstances and therefore it is often the least useful concept for policymaking
(Rubenstein, 2016). Thus, horizontal equity could provide a valid criterion upon which to evaluate
the equity of general education funding and not for special education or compensatory education
resources.
Vertical equity recognizes that students and schools are different, and refers to the
appropriately unequal treatment of individuals of varying backgrounds and circumstances
(Owings & Kaplan, 2013; Stiefel et. al., 1998). Vertical equity is conceptually linked to the
proportionality of distributed resources as related to the specific district, school, or student-level
characteristics. Vertical equity is present when characteristics deemed to merit additional resources
are significantly and positively related to additional funding (Houck, 2011). A few variables likely
to serve as characteristics again which to measure whether or not there are more financial resources
available are poverty, learning disabilities, and English as a second language (Berne & Stifel,
1994). Intradistrict vertical equity takes into account that not all students are equal. Vertical equity
stresses students with different needs should receive different levels of resources (Rubenstein,
2016). The spirit of vertical equity is to make public schools more responsive to the varying needs
of students. In turn, schools that are more responsive to the varying educational needs of students
are more likely to realize the intended impact of the additional resources allocated in accordance to
needs (Rodriguez, 2004). Vertical equity measures will assess the degree to which schools receive
more resources per pupil (Berne &
Stiefel, 1994).
Intradistrict Educational Spending and Student Achievement
The debate over whether or not educational spending affects student achievement has
persisted for decades, largely because of methodological and analytical limitations associated
with the use of district-level data (Condron & Roscigno, 2003). Some studies have suggested
there is no correlation between educational spending and student achievement, while others
found otherwise. The best evidence shows that money spent wisely has a significant impact on
positive student outcomes (Baker, 2016; Owings and Kaplan, 2020). Nonetheless, some continue
to question this finding based upon research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s that seemed to
suggest that money does not improve student achievement (Baker, 2016). However, these
debates and research are limited for numerous reasons, some of which are the reliance on district-
level data on spending (Farland, 1997; Picus 1997) in addition to the methodological flaws
(Baker 2016).
Global resource variables such as per-pupil expenditures show strong and consistent
correlations with achievement. Data show increased spending on teacher quality, staff
professional development, reduced class size and school size, increased teacher salaries, and
improved school facilities produce a significant return on investment for fostering student
achievement gains (Owings & Kaplan, 2013; Baker 2016). Also, variables that attempt to
describe the quality of teachers, including teacher ability, teacher education, and teacher
experience, show very strong correlations with student achievement (Baker 2016). Research
shows that teacher qualifications are not spread evenly throughout schools in larger urban
districts (Roza & Hill, 2004;). Within districts fixed salaries, experienced teachers make no more
money if he or she chooses a challenging position at a high-poverty school over a less demanding
position in a high-performing school.
Typically, teachers within a school district receive salaries from a salary scale with
increased monies paid for increased years of teaching experience and additional academic
credentials (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). Teachers with little to no experience and fewer advanced
degrees receive low salaries. As a result, schools with higher average teacher salaries tend to have
more experienced and well-educated teachers. Schools with lower average teacher salaries tend to
have newcomers with the fewest years of professional experience (Owings & Kaplan,
2010). The result is a “salary gap” and teacher “experience gap” between teachers in affluent
schools and teachers in low–income schools (Roza & Hill, 2004; Owings & Kaplan, 2020).
Therefore, it is not surprising, teachers with enough seniority to make choices seek the positions in
the more advantaged schools (Roza & Hill, 2004). With research affirming carefully targeted
school funding, focusing on enhancing teacher quality, designing appropriate school organization,
and providing safe and comfortable facilities makes a measurable difference in student
achievement (Owings & Kaplan, 2013).
Every Student Succeeds Act
School district budgets are in the news. Few districts know precisely how much money
they have, and surprise surpluses are also possible (Roza & Hill, 2004). Tracking money is a
huge challenge for school districts for many reasons: their revenues come from many sources
(state, local, federal, and philanthropic) at different times (Roza & Hill, 2004). Funders require
separate record-keeping for each program, and their rules about cost accounting differ. Therefore,
districts maintain separate accounting systems for funds from different sources, and information
is often kept on separate computer systems, bought and programmed at different times, so they
cannot talk to one another (Roza & Hill, 2004). To assist with the inequities within school
districts, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is now requiring school districts, for the first
time, to break out school-level funding, causing stress for district administrators and financial
personnel, state lawmakers, and civil rights activists.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), enacted in 2015, requires all states to publish
per-pupil expenditures for each local education agency (LEA) and school on the annual state
report card. Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended by ESSA, requires the state to report, “The per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and
local funds, including actual personnel expenditures and actual no-personnel expenditures of
Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds, for each local education agency
and each school in the State for the preceding fiscal year.” Publishing per-pupil expenditure data
for each school and each LEA will give the public useful information about how much federal
and local dollars are spent in every school within each district in each state. Additionally,
reported expenditures must include actual teacher salaries rather than average salaries. This is
important because teacher salaries make up approximately 60 percent of the average district
budget (United States Department of Education, 2017). Under the new reporting guidelines,
actual teacher salaries may reveal inequitable distributions of more experienced teachers across a
district, as these teachers often earn higher salaries (Woods, 2018).
While this requirement may cause substantial challenges for states, districts, and schools.
ESSA does not provide details on how to implement it. Proposed, but ultimately rescinded,
regulations would have provided additional details for states on how to implement this new
provision. Non-regulatory guidance released in January 2017 relied on those proposed
regulations; it is now only applicable in as much as it reflects what is in ESSA itself (United
States Department of Education, 2017). The United States Department of Education has said that
it plans to revise non-regulatory guidance on report cards, including on per-pupil expenditure
reporting (Woods, 2018).
Summary
To date, resource equity research has focused primarily on inequities across districts or
states (Roza, 2002). Since students learn in schools, and schools are accountable for improving
academic achievement, it is essential to look beyond district-level assets to more accurately assess
the resources available to students within their schools (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). Looking
within districts at how resources are distributed among schools is extremely important, to identify
intradistrict inequities. However, determining intradistrict resource allocations is problematic.
Individual school allotments are often masked in analyses using district-level averages (Owings
& Kaplan, 2010). Many urban districts have enormous budgets. The allocation of these
resources has real implications for some of the nation’s poorest-performing
students (Roza, 2002).
School finance systems do not need to be repaired. They need to be radically redesigned
and aligned with change and improvement across all facets of the education system, in an effort
to achieve both excellence and equity for all students and all schools (Verstegen, 1994).
Redesigned finance systems would rest on a conception of high-quality education for all students,
not basic or minimum education. Equity without excellence is not the goal. This is the challenge
presented by the leading court cases and their progeny. It is also the opportunity (Verstegen,
1994). Today, the evidence is clear that money that is thoughtfully and equitably spent does
matter (Baker, 2016). Schools and districts with more money are able to provide higher quality,
broader, and deeper educational opportunities to the children they serve (Baker, 2016). Greater
equity in funding means special education, low income, vocational, and ESL students, requiring
more resources to learn would receive them (vertical equity) and all students characterized
identically would be funded identically (horizontal equity), (DeLuca, Takano,
Hinshaw, & Raisch, 2009).
Chapter Three: Research Method
Purpose of the Study
While resource allocation across school districts is well studied, relatively little attention
has been paid to how resources are allocated to individual schools within those districts (Owings
& Kaplan, 2010). While fiscal disparities across schools within small districts are likely to be
relatively modest, intradistrict fiscal disparities in large districts with many schools can be
sizeable (Rubenstein, et al., 2006; Owings & Kaplan, 2010). Intradistrict disparities are linked to
local patterns of racial and class stratification and concentration and have negative consequences
for student achievement (Condron & Rodcigno, 2003; Owings & Kaplan, 2010). Districts make
the fiscal inequities between high- and low-poverty schools worse by how they choose to disperse
the financial resources they do have (Owings & Kaplan, 2020). Resource allocation is a key
factor in ensuring fiscal equity within a district. Inequitable distribution of fiscal resources across
schools within a district represents a lack of vertical equity and equal opportunity in the
distribution of teacher resources (Iatarola & Stiefel, 2003; Owings & Kaplan, 2010).
Persistent achievement gaps by race and class within districts and schools as a result of
fiscal disparities are educationally and ethically deplorable and, thus, need to be eliminated. One-
way to understand the intradistrict spending disparities first-hand is to conduct an equity audit
(Owings & Kaplan, 2010). An equity audit is a tool that can be utilized to uncover, understand,
and change inequities that are internal to schools and districts into three categories – teacher
quality, educational programs, and student achievement (Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly,
2004). These three categories are comprised of a set of 12 key indicators that together form a
straightforward delimited audit of equity (Skrla, et al., 2004).
• Teacher quality equity: including teachers’ years of experience, the highest level of
education, the number teaching outside of their certification, and average teacher turnover
(Sparks, 2015; Skrla, et al., 2004).
• Programmatic equity: the proportion of students disciplined or assigned to special
education, gifted and talented programs, and bilingual education (Sparks, 2015; Skrla, et
al., 2004).
• Achievement equity: including state assessment performance, dropout rates, the
proportion of students on college-preparatory tracks, and the participation and
performance of students on college entrance exams such as the ACT or SAT (Sparks,
2015; Skrla, et al., 2004).
Skrla, et al. (2004), acknowledge there are many other areas of potential application and each has
significant importance in a given context, however, they framed some specific variables, where
data are widely available, to get started in each of the three categories. There unquestionably are
inequities within our districts and schools, such as inequitable distributions of teacher quality or
inequitable distributions of students in programs such as special education or AP courses that must
be addressed if the achievement gaps are to be removed (Skrla, et al., 2004). Thus, the purpose of
this study is to measure the intradistrict distribution of educational resources of one mid-Atlantic
school district through an equity audit.
Figure 1:
A Simple Formula for Equity Auditing
Source: Skrla, et al (2009), p. 24.
Methodology
Over time, equity studies of state public education finance systems have been performed
although the methodology has been varied, with few studies incorporating key principles of equity
as a guide (Verstegen, 2015). There are several ways to conceptualize and measure intradistrict
equity, however, this study adapted Berne and Stiefel’s (1984) interdistrict framework in which
three equity concepts were analyzed: horizontal equity, vertical equity, and equal opportunity.
Berne and Stiefel’s conceptualization and measurement of equity in school finance were
elucidated in their seminal work (Verstegen, 2015). Today, more than 33 years later, these
measures continue to be utilized in most studies addressing horizontal and vertical equity. In
determining methods of equity, horizontal equity recognized every student is equal, however,
vertical equity is the opposite and recognizes every student is not equal, and therefore requires
unequal funding (Rubenstein, 2016; Brimley & Garfield, 2005; Owings & Kaplan, 2020). The
premise of being unequal lies in the fact students with varying backgrounds and experiences than
those without them. Therefore, vertical equity is evident when the analysis yields unequal
amounts of funding per-pupil. Consequently, it is logical to assume horizontal equity and vertical
equity are mutually exclusive.
Equity is a multidimensional concept thus multiple measures are utilized to evaluate the
equity and wealth neutrality of the finance system, based on research and best practice (Verstegen,
2015). To determine horizontal equity, vertical equity, and equal opportunity, the research method
chosen for this study was a quantitative analysis, using an a priori lens designed by the researcher.
As stated in Chapter 1, the guidelines for the a priori lens used in this study were a 10% difference
as slight, a 25% difference as moderate, and a 40% difference as notable.
Additionally, the researcher will use Verstegen’s suggested student enrollment subgroup
category weighting to create three per-pupil expenditure weighting groups:
• The first group of weights (full weight) was gathered from existing research: students with
disabilities (2.0), English learners (1.5), and students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch
(1.5)
• The second group of weights (half weight): students with disabilities (1.5), English
learners (1.25), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.25)
• The third group of weights (quarter weight): students with disabilities (1.25), English
learners (1.125), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.125).
Weighting the per-pupil expenditures for the specific subgroups allow the researcher to examine
any discrepancies among schools at the elementary school level, middle school level, and high
school level. Moreover, the researcher will analyze Skrla, et al.'s (2004) set of 12 key indicators
categorized into three classifications: teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement
equity.
Research Questions
The research questions driving this study are:
RQ1. Is there a difference in variation in resource allocation of per-pupil funding at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level?
RQ2. Is there a difference in variation in teacher quality at the elementary school level?
middle school level? high school level?
RQ3. What is the association between funding and academic achievement at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level?
Site and Sample Selection
In order to measure intradistrict equity, one mid-Atlantic school district was chosen for
this study. The decision to choose this district was due to its uniqueness. One attribute
contributing to its uniqueness is its majority-to-minority transfer program. The majority-
tominority transfer program is in place to enhance desegregation due to an open federal court
desegregation order from the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
(United States Department of Justice, 2014). Beginning in 1954, the United States Department of
Education’s Office of Civil Rights mandated federal court desegregation orders to 769 districts
across the United States. Of those 769 districts, 330 districts still have open mandated federal
court desegregation orders, this district being one of them. The majority-to-minority transfer
program permits a student to transfer from a school where his or her race is the majority to a
school where his or her race is in a minority if space is available in order to complete
desegregation and achieve full unitary status (United States Department of Justice, 2017).
The school district is approximately 430 square miles and is comprised of 11 elementary
schools, five middle schools, and three high schools. The district is geographically referred to as
having three distinct areas: Northside, Southside, and Downtown. The Northside area is suburban,
the Southside area is rural, and the Downtown area is urban. The district serves approximately
14,265 students with varying socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. The overall
demographic makeup of the student population is 54.98% Black, 31.63% White, 5.58% Hispanic,
5.81% Two or more races, 1.57% Asian, 0.22% American Indian, and 0.17% Native Hawaiian.
48.69% of those who are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, 12.66% of who are
categorized as students with disabilities, and 0.65% of who are labeled as students who are
English learners. This study will provide an opportunity to explore the research questions entirely,
measuring for horizontal equity, vertical equity, and equal opportunity.
Data Collection and Analysis Sequence
The researcher thoroughly examined the budgets of each school in one mid-Atlantic school
district. The individual schools within the district were broken into three groups:
elementary level, middle level, and high level. The 11 elementary schools, five middle schools,
and three high schools were compared across each level. The data was collected from sources
publicly available in the field, such as the state report cards, and information obtained from the
State Department of Education as well as the National Center for Education Statistics. The
calculations included only district funds – PTA or parent-generated funding was not included due
to the variance increase among schools from the additional resources, nor were that data publicly
available.
To fully examine horizontal equity, vertical equity, and equal opportunity the researcher
collected specific data from each school within the district. The researcher identified which of the
19 schools within the district were identified as Title I schools as well as which schools were
participating in the majority-to-minority transfer program. Additionally, the researcher collected
specific categorical data on students, administrators, and professional staff. This data allowed the
researcher to calculate the total spending, total spending per student, and cents spent per dollar.
A summary of the data collected from each school is provided in Table 4.
Furthermore, the researcher examined the three categories of teacher quality equity,
programmatic equity, and achievement equity. Within each of the three categories are key
indicators, which assisted in the identification and determination of equity (Skrla, et al., 2004).
The key equity categories and indicators are provided in Table 5.
Table 4
School Budget Audit
Students
Student Enrollment
Percentage of Student Race/Ethnicity
Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price
Lunch
Percentage of Students with Disabilities
Percentage of English Learners
Administrators
Principals
Assistant Principals
Number of Administrators
Teachers
Number of Teachers
Student to Teacher Ratio
Highest Level of Education
Average Teacher Salary
Total Spending
Total Per Pupil Spending
Cents Spent per Dollar
The researcher was unable to examine all 12 indicators as not all data were publicly
available through the state department of education’s school report card. Therefore, when
examining teacher quality, the researcher focused on the highest level of education and the
number of teachers teaching outside of their certification. When examining programmatic equity,
the researcher focused on the percentage of students with disabilities and the percentage of
English learners. Lastly, when examining achievement, the researcher focused on state
assessment performance, dropout rates, and the percentage of students on college-preparatory
tracks.
Table 5
Key Equity Categories and Indicators
Teacher Quality
Highest Level of Education
Number Teaching Outside of Certification
Programmatic
Percentage of Special Education Students
Percentage of Bilingual Education Students
Achievement
State Assessment Performance
Dropout Rates
Percentage of Students on College-Preparatory Tracks
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the research methodology utilized for this
study, describe the procedures used for collecting the data, and describe the procedures used to
analyze the data. The Berne and Stiefel (1984) methodological framework was used as a guide for
the intradistrict equity analysis of 11 elementary schools, five middle schools, and three high
schools. The intradistrict equity analysis addressed horizontal equity, vertical equity, and equal
opportunity by examining Skrla, et al.’s (2004) three classifications: teacher quality equity,
programmatic equity, and achievement equity.
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to measure the intradistrict distribution of educational
resources of one mid-Atlantic school district through an equity audit. Since there are no other
studies like this to date, the researcher designed and examined the findings through an a priori
lens. The researcher’s a priori guideline suggested a 10% difference in resource allocation as
slight, a 25% difference in resource allocation as moderate, and a 40% difference in resource
allocation as notable. The results of the data analysis for this quantitative study will be explained
throughout this chapter. Chapter 4 includes a comprehensive review of descriptive data. The
data used were compiled from two primary sources, the state department of education and the
National Center for Education Statistics. The researcher collected the data and any available
information from the 2018-2019 school year to support this study. Public data for each category
were not available for all areas for the 2018-2019 school year. When data were not available for
the 2018-2019 school year, 2019-2020 data were used as a substitute. In this chapter, the results
of the research are presented in a narrative format and include figures as evidence of the findings.
The results in chapter 4 are separated by the research question and subdivided by each school
level, elementary, middle, and high. Each research question will be answered for each school
level. The following research questions guided this study:
RQ1: Is there a difference in resource allocation of per-pupil funding at the elementary
school level? middle school level? high school level?
RQ2: Is there a difference in teacher quality at the elementary school level? middle school
level? high school level?
RQ3: What is the association between funding and academic achievement at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level?
Population and Descriptive Findings
The population of this study included 19 different schools, 11 elementary, five middle,
and three high, within the same school district. The school district was approximately 430 square
miles. The district had three distinct geographical areas: Northside, Southside, and Downtown.
The Northside area was considered suburban, the Southside area was considered rural, and the
Downtown area was considered urban. The district served approximately 14,265 students with
varying socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds. The overall demographic makeup of the
student population for the entire district was 54.98% Black, 31.63% White, 5.58% Hispanic,
5.81% Two or more races, 1.57% Asian, 0.22% American Indian, and 0.17% Native Hawaiian.
48.69% of those who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, 12.66% of who were
categorized as students with disabilities, and 0.65% of whom were labeled as English learners.
Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
Elementary School Level
There were 11 elementary schools across the district. Due to the uniqueness and variation
of geographical areas within the district, the elementary school’s student enrollment varied from
school to school. The student enrollment by race and ethnicity results at the elementary school
level are displayed in Figure 2. Bear Mountain, Green Meadows, and Eastwood all had similar
student enrollment percentages in regards to student race and ethnicity, students with disabilities,
and English learners. This was also the case for Oak Park, Coral Coast, and Edgewood. North
Ridge and Blue River also had similar student enrollment percentages of race and ethnicity,
students with disabilities, and English learners. Additionally, North Ridge and Blue River were
the only two non-Title I schools. Therefore, they had the lowest percentages of students eligible
to receive free or reduced-price lunch. Neither Heritage nor Southview had similar enrollment
percentages to any other elementary school. Southview had the lowest percentage of black
students, students with disabilities, and English learners. Whereas, Heritage had the highest
percentage of black students and students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch.
Figure 2:
Elementary School Level Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (RACE/ETHNICITY)
Middle School Level
There was also a variation of student enrollment across the middle school level. This
disparity was also a result of the difference in geographical areas across the school district. The
student enrollment by race and ethnicity results at the middle school level are displayed in Figure 3.
Pleasant Valley and Maple Park had similar enrollment percentages of race and ethnicity and
English learners. This was also true for East Shores and Queen’s Grant. On the other hand, South
Central did not have similar student enrollment to any other school. South Central had the highest
percentage of black students and students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch. The
student enrollment percentages of students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch and
students with disabilities differed from school to school.
Figure 3:
Middle School Level Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (RACE/ETHNICITY)
High School Level
At the high school level, there was not as much variation of student enrollment from school
to school. Being that there were only three high schools across the district, many students from
different geographical areas were mixed together at the high school level. The student enrollment
by race and ethnicity results at the high school level are displayed in Figure 4. Queen Lake and
Clearwater had similar enrollment percentages of race and ethnicity, students with disabilities, and
students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch. Elk Creek had the
lowest percentages of black students, students with disabilities, and students eligible to receive free
or reduced-price lunch.
Figure 4:
1.6
%
%
0.4
%
1.1
%
0.2
%
1.8
%
56.5
39.3
%
64.6
%
76.
5
%
37.9
%
%
8.3
4.6
%
5.0
%
3.6
%
6.6
%
%
25.4
%
51.6
23.5
%
15.9
%
%
46.7
%
7.5
%
3.5
%
.6
5
3.4
%
6.8
%
EAST SHORES
MAPLE PARK
QUEEN'S GRANT
SOUTH CENTRAL
PLEASANT VALLEY
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Multiple Races
High School Level Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
Poverty Level
The state Department of Education defines the poverty levels as follows: a school having
fewer than 25% of the students in poverty would be considered a low-poverty school, a school
having between 25% and 75% of the students in poverty would be considered a medium-poverty
school, and if a school has over 75% of the students in poverty would be considered a highpoverty
school. At the elementary school level, a majority of the schools were considered to be medium-
poverty schools. These schools include Eastwood, Oak Park, Southview, Edgewood,
Blue River, and Coral Coast. North Ridge was the only school considered a low-poverty school.
While Heritage, Central Valley, Bear Mountain, and Green Meadows were considered to be high-
poverty schools. Blue River and North Ridge were the only two elementary schools not considered
Title I. The remaining nine elementary schools were considered Title I.
At the middle school level, the majority of the schools were considered medium-poverty
schools. These schools include Queen’s Grant, Maple Park, and East Shores. Pleasant Valley
was the only school considered to be low-poverty. While South Central was the only school
.7
%
2
1.7
%
0.6
%
%
49.5
%
61.6
64.8
%
%
6.4
5.3
%
%
2
.5
%
35.7
26.2
%
%
29.0
5.2
%
4
.7
%
3.
%
0
ELK CREEK
QUEEN LAKE
CLEARWATER
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (RACE / ETHNICITY)
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Multiple Races
considered to be high-poverty. At the high school level, a majority of the schools were
considered to be medium-poverty schools, including Queen Lake and Clearwater. Elk Creek was
considered a low-poverty school. There were no high-poverty schools at the high school
level.
Majority-to-Minority Transfer Program
Due to a long-standing federal court order requiring desegregation of schools, the U.S.
Department of Justice was obliged to review and approve the zoning plan for the district. In
addition to the district adopting a voluntary Majority-to-Minority transfer option. A majority is
defined by the largest percentage of students by race. For example, a school with 60 percent of
white students would be considered a “majority-white” school, and a school with 60 percent of
black students would be considered a “majority-black” school. Students attending a majority
school would be allowed the opportunity to attend a school where they would be in the minority.
For example, black students at Heritage, Central Valley, and Bear Mountain would be
allowed to attend Southview, and white students assigned to Southview would be allowed to
attend Heritage, Central Valley, or Bear Mountain. Furthermore, the district would provide free
transportation and ensure reasonable travel time on a school bus for those students participating in
the voluntary Majority-to-Minority transfer option. Students who chose to participate in the
voluntary majority-to-minority transfer program at the elementary school level would be allowed
to attend the respective middle school. Students who choose to attend Heritage, Central Valley, or
Bear Mountain would be allowed to attend South Central, and students who chose to attend
Southview would be allowed to attend Maple Park. However, students also would have the
option to attend the middle school in which they are zoned.
Research Question 1
The first question of this study included: Is there a difference in resource allocation of per-
pupil funding at the elementary school level? middle school level? high school level? Beginning
with data for the 2018-2019 school year, the Every Student Succeeds Act required states to
publish annual school-level per-pupil expenditures on their online school report cards. The report
required school districts to report the total per-pupil expenditures at the individual school level
broken down to show how much each school received at the school level and the district level in
local, state, and federal per-pupil funding. Therefore, the researcher collected data from the state
department of education school report cards for each school. Data included school-level
expenditures per pupil, district-level expenditures per pupil, and total per-pupil expenditures. To
answer this research question, the researcher examined the per-pupil expenditures at each school
then calculated the cents per dollar spent at each school. Lastly, the researcher calculated
weighted per-pupil expenditures by weighting specific student enrollment subgroup categories
into three weight groups.
Elementary School Level
At the elementary school level, the total per-pupil expenditures at each of the 11 individual
schools ranged from $8,731 to $13,267. The Δ of the elementary school with the lowest per-pupil
expenditure and the highest per-pupil expenditure was $4,536. The mean perpupil expenditure
was $10,217, while the median per-pupil expenditure was $10,291. To further examine the
variation in total per-pupil expenditures, the researcher calculated the actual cents per dollar spent
at each school. In order to calculate the actual cents per dollar, the researcher took each school’s
per-pupil expenditure and divided it by the highest school’s per-pupil expenditure. The results for
the elementary school level are displayed in Figure 5. The actual cents per dollar shows for
every $1.00 spent at the school with the highest per-pupil expenditure, how many cents on the
dollar were spent at each school in comparison. For every $1.00 spent per pupil at Heritage,
$0.66 was spent per pupil at Blue River. Thus, resulting in a $0.34 per
$1.00 difference per pupil. The Δ of cents per dollar at the elementary level ranged from $0.16 to
$0.34.
After investigating the variation in per-pupil expenditures, the researcher examined the
student enrollment, specifically focusing on the subgroups of students with disabilities, students
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, and English learners. Percentages of the student
enrollment data by subgroup at each elementary school can be found in Figure 6. The percentage
of English learners at the elementary school level ranged from 0% to 1.3%. Overall, there was
not a large percentage of English learners across all elementary schools. Meanwhile, some
elementary schools had a large percentage of students eligible to receive free or reducedprice
lunch, whereas other elementary schools had a much lower percentage. The percentage of
students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch at the elementary school level ranged
from 23.29% to 99.74%.
Figure 5:
Elementary School Level Actual Cents Per Dollar Spent
Heritage, Central Valley, and Bear Mountain had the highest percentage of students
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch and were operating under the USDA Community
Eligibility Provision (CEP). The CEP is a special school meal funding option of the National
School Lunch Act enabling schools to provide free meals to all students. To be eligible to operate
CEP, a school within a district must have an Identified Student Percentage (ISP) of 40% or
higher. To calculate ISP, a school must count all of the students who are categorically eligible for
free lunch and divide by total student enrollment. Furthermore, Heritage, Central Valley, and
Bear Mountain had the smallest percentage of English learner students. On the other hand,
North Ridge and Blue River had the lowest percentage of students eligible for free or
reducedprice lunch and had the highest percentage of English learner students.
Figure 6:
Elementary School Level Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (SUBGROUPS)
Students with Disabilities English Learners FRPL Eligibility
Lastly, the researcher examined the percentage of students with disabilities. The
percentage of students with disabilities at the elementary school level ranged from 8.45% to
12.73%. Coral Coast and Central Valley had the highest percentage of students with disabilities at
the elementary school level. Blue River and Southview had the lowest percentage of students
with disabilities at the elementary school level. The researcher collectively examined the
percentage of students classified into each of the student enrollment categories. Overall,
Northridge had the lowest collective percentage of students classified into any of the student
enrollment subgroup categories with 33.88%. On the other hand, Central Valley, Heritage, and
Bear Mountain each had the highest collective percentage of students classified into any of the
student enrollment subgroup categories with over 100%. Having a collective percentage of over
100% indicated some students fell into more than one student enrollment subgroup category.
Next, the researcher applied Verstegen’s (2008) weighting to the selected student enrollment
subgroup categories to measure equity as it relates to per-pupil expenditures at each school.
Verstegen reasons, a student with a disability per-pupil expenditure would be twice as much as a
student without a disability, while students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch and
English learners per-pupil expenditure would be one and a half times as much. For example, if the
actual per-pupil expenditure at a school was $10,000, the weighted per-pupil expenditure of a
student with a disability would be $20,000 and the weighted per-pupil expenditure of a student
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch or an English learner student would be $15,000.
Furthermore, students could fall into more than one student enrollment subgroup
category. Unfortunately, the individual student data were unavailable, thus leaving the researcher
to have stacked weighting calculations of students falling into multiple student enrollment
subgroup categories. For example, a student who was eligible to receive free or reduced-price
lunch could also be a student with a disability and therefore have a weighted perpupil expenditure
of $35,000 as a result of stacked weightings. Since individual student data were unavailable and
weight stacking could occur, the researcher wanted to take a more conservative approach when
examining equity with per-pupil expenditure weighting. The researcher took Verstegen’s (2008)
weightings and halved it, and then also quartered it.
Therefore, the researcher examined three groups of per-pupil expenditure weighting:
• The first group of weights (full weight) was gathered from existing research: students with
disabilities (2.0), English learners (1.5), and students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch
(1.5)
• The second group of weights (half weight): students with disabilities (1.5), English
learners (1.25), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.25)
• The third group of weights (quarter weight): students with disabilities (1.25), English
learners (1.125), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (1.125).
The results of the per-pupil expenditure weighting at the elementary school level are shown in
Figure 7. Weighting the per-pupil expenditures for the specific subgroups allowed the researcher to
examine any discrepancies among schools at the elementary school level, middle school level, and
high school level. At the elementary school level, Heritage had the highest per-pupil expenditure.
After the researcher weighted the student enrollment subgroup categories, Heritage remained to
need the highest per-pupil expenditure based on the weighting in each of the three groups of
weights. However, Central Valley had the third-highest per-pupil expenditure. When the
researcher weighted the per-pupil expenditure as a result of the student enrollment subgroup
categories the weighted per-pupil expenditure exposed Central Valley as needing the secondhighest
per-pupil expenditure in each of the three groups of weights.
Figure 7:
Elementary School Level Per Pupil Expenditures
After weighing the per-pupil expenditures of each elementary school based on the three
weighting groups, the researcher examined the inadequacies of per-pupil funding at each school.
The discrepancies in the actual per-pupil expenditures versus each weight group were examined
$-
$2,500
$5,000
$7,500
$10,000
$12,500
$15,000
$17,500
$20,000
$22,500
Heritage
Central
Valley
Bear
Mountain
Oak Park
Coral
Coast
Edgewood
Green
Meadows
Eastwood
North
Ridge
Southview
Blue River
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES
Actual PPE
Weighted PPE
Half Weighted PPE
Quarter Weighted PPE
using the a priori guidelines. The results are displayed in Table 6. The discrepancies ranged from
slight to notable across the three weight groups. Heritage, Bear Mountain, and Green
Meadows had the highest inadequacy concerns among the elementary school level.
Table 6
Discrepancies in Actual PPE versus Weighted PPE Based on the A Priori Suggestions at the
Elementary School Level
Elementary School
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Heritage
Notable
Moderate
Slight
Oak Park
Moderate
Slight
-
Central Valley
Moderate
Slight
-
Bear Mountain
Notable
Moderate
Slight
Coral Coast
Moderate
Slight
-
Edgewood
Moderate
Slight
-
Green Meadows
Notable
Moderate
Slight
Eastwood
Slight
Slight
-
North Ridge
Moderate
Slight
-
Southview
Moderate
Slight
-
Blue River
Moderate
Slight
-
Middle School Level
At the middle school level, the total per-pupil expenditures at each of the 5 individual
schools ranged from $9,306 to $11,739. The Δ of the middle school with the lowest per-pupil
expenditure and the highest per-pupil expenditure was $2,433. The mean per-pupil expenditure was
$10,712. While the median per-pupil expenditure was $10,753. In order to further examine the
variation in total per-pupil expenditures, the researcher calculated the actual cents per dollar spent
at each school. The results for the middle school level are displayed in Figure 8. For every $1.00
spent per pupil at Pleasant Valley, $0.79 was spent per pupil at East Shores. Thus, resulting in a
$0.21 per $1.00 difference per pupil. The Δ of cents per dollar at the middle school level ranged
from $0.03 to $0.21. After investigating the variation in per-pupil expenditures, the researcher
examined the student enrollment, specifically focusing on the subgroups of students with
disabilities, students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, and English learners.
Percentages of the student enrollment data by subgroup at each middle school can be found in
Figure 9.
Figure 8:
Middle School Level Actual Cents Per Dollar Spent
ACTUAL CENTS PER DOLLAR
$0.97
$1.00
$0.89
$0.92
$0.79
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S GRANT SOUTH CENTRAL PLEASANT
VALLEY
The percentage of English learners at the middle school level ranged from 0% to 1.05%. Overall,
there was not a large percentage of English learners across all middle schools. The percentage of
students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch at the middle school level ranged from
19.61% to 80.66% and the percentage of students with disabilities at the middle school level
ranged from 10.94% to 17.51%. South Central and Queen’s Grant had the highest percentage of
students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch and students with disabilities. On the
contrary, East Shores and Pleasant Valley had the lowest percentage of students eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch and students with disabilities. Lastly, the researcher collectively
examined the percentage of students classified into each of the student enrollment categories.
Overall, Pleasant Valley had the lowest collective percentage of students classified into any of the
student enrollment subgroup categories with 31.92%. On the other hand, South Central had the
highest collective percentage of students classified into any of the student enrollment subgroup
categories with 96.61%.
Figure 9:
Middle School Level Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (SUBGROUPS)
Students with Disabilities English Learners FRPL Eligibility
19.61%
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S GRANT SOUTH CENTRAL PLEASANT VALLEY
Next, the researcher applied Verstegen’s weighting to the selected student enrollment subgroup
categories to measure equity as it relates to per-pupil expenditures at each middle school. The
results of the per-pupil expenditure weighting at the middle school level are shown in Figure 10.
At the middle school level, East Shores had the lowest per-pupil expenditure. After the researcher
weighted the student enrollment subgroup categories, East Shores remained to need the lowest
per-pupil expenditure based on Verstegen’s weighting in each of the three groups. However,
South Central had the second-highest per-pupil expenditure. When the researcher weighted the
10.94
%
1.05
%
33.77
%
15.40
%
0
%
47.36
%
17.51
%
1.00
%
56.18
%
15.04
%
0.91
%
80.66
%
11.72
%
0.59
%
per-pupil expenditure as a result of the student enrollment subgroup categories the weighted per-
pupil expenditure exposed South Central as needing the highest per-pupil expenditure in each of
the three groups of weights.
Figure 10:
Middle School Level Per Pupil Expenditures
After weighing the per-pupil expenditures of each middle school based on the three
weighting groups, the researcher examined the inadequacies of per-pupil funding at each school.
The discrepancies in the actual per-pupil expenditures versus each weight group were examined
using the a priori guidelines. The results are displayed in Table 7. The discrepancies ranged from
slight to notable across the three weight groups. South Central, Queen’s Grant, and Maple Park
had the highest inadequacy concerns among the middle school level.
Table 7
Discrepancies in Actual PPE versus Weighted PPE Based on the A Priori Suggestions at the Middle
School Level
Middle School
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Pleasant Valley
Slight
Slight
-
South Central
Notable
Moderate
Slight
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
South Central
Pleasant Valley
Queen's Grant
Maple Park
East Shores
MIDDLE SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES
Actual PPE
Weighted PPE
Half Weighted PPE
Quarter Weighted PPE
Queen’s Grant
Notable
Slight
Slight
Maple Park
Notable
Slight
Slight
East Shores
Moderate
Slight
-
High School Level
At the high school level, the total per-pupil expenditures at each of the 3 individual schools ranged
from $10,286 to $10,985. The Δ of the high school with the lowest per-pupil expenditure and the
highest per-pupil expenditure was $699. The mean per-pupil expenditure was $10,595 while the
median per-pupil expenditure was $10,513. In order to further examine the variation in total per-
pupil expenditures, the researcher then calculated the actual cents per dollar spent from each
school. The results for the high school level are displayed in Figure 11.
Figure 11:
High School Level Actual Cents Per Dollar Spent
ACTUAL CENTS PER DOLLAR
$1.00
$0.96
$0.94
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
For every $1.00 spent per pupil at Clearwater, $0.94 was spent per pupil at Elk Creek resulting in a
$0.06 per $1.00 difference per pupil. The Δ of cents per dollar at the high school level ranged
from $0.04 to $0.06.
After investigating the variation in per-pupil expenditures, the researcher examined the
student enrollment, specifically focusing on the subgroups of students with disabilities, students
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, and English learners. Percentages of the student
enrollment data by subgroup at each high school can be found in Figure 12. The percentage of
English learners at the high school level ranged from 0.19% to 1.07%. Overall, there was not a
large percentage of English learners across all high schools. The percentage of students eligible to
receive free or reduced-price lunch at the high school level ranged from 27.96% to 52.57% and the
percentage of students with disabilities at the high school level ranged from 11.54% to
17.80%.
Figure 12:
High School Level Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
STUDENT ENROLLMENT (SUBGROUPS)
Students with Disabilities English Learners FRPL Eligibility
46.27%
52.57%
27.96%
11.54%
16.80%
17.80%
0.70%
1.07%
0.19%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
Clearwater had the highest percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch
and students with disabilities and the lowest percentage of English learner students. Contrarily, Elk
Creek had the lowest percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and students
with disabilities. Subsequently, the researcher collectively examined the percentage of students
classified into each of the student enrollment categories. Overall, Elk Creek had the lowest
collective percentage of students classified into any of the student enrollment subgroup categories
with 40.20%. On the other hand, Clearwater had the highest collective percentage of students
classified into any of the student enrollment subgroup categories with 70.56%.
Lastly, the researcher applied Verstegen’s (2008) weighting to the selected student enrollment
subgroup categories to measure equity as it relates to per-pupil expenditures at each high school.
The results of the per-pupil expenditure weighting at the high school level are shown in Figure
13. At the high school level, Elk Creek had the lowest per-pupil expenditure. After the researcher
weighted the student enrollment subgroup categories, Elk Creek remained to need the lowest per-
pupil expenditure based on the weighting in each of the three groups of weights. Furthermore,
Clearwater had the highest per-pupil expenditure and when the researcher weighted the per-pupil
expenditure as a result of the student enrollment subgroup categories the weighted per-pupil
expenditure confirmed Clearwater as needing the highest per-pupil expenditure in each of the three
groups of weights.
Figure 13:
High School Level Per Pupil Expenditures
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Elk Creek
Queen Lake
Clearwater
HIGH SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES
Actual PPE
Weighted PPE
Half Weighted PPE
Quarter Weighted PPE
After weighing the per-pupil expenditures of each high school based on the three
weighting groups, the researcher examined the inadequacies of per-pupil funding at each school.
The discrepancies in the actual per-pupil expenditures versus each weight group were examined
using the a priori guidelines. The results are displayed in Table 8. The discrepancies ranged from
slight to notable across the three weight groups. Clearwater and Queen Lake had the highest
inadequacy concerns among the high school level.
Table 8
Discrepancies in Actual PPE versus Weighted PPE Based on the A Priori Suggestions at the High
School Level
High School
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Clearwater
Notable
Slight
Slight
Queen Lake
Notable
Slight
Slight
Elk Creek
Moderate
Slight
-
Research Question 2
The second question of this study included: Is there a difference in teacher quality at the
elementary school level? middle school level? high school level? In order for the researcher to
examine any differences in teacher quality, data were collected on student/teacher ratio, teacher
level or attainment, teacher licensure and experience, and average teacher salary. The researcher
collected available data from the state department of education school report cards for each school.
However, the state department of education did not have data on teacher licensure and experience
from the 2018-2019 school year. Therefore, the researcher used the available 20192020 data on
teacher licensure and experience. The researcher assumed the data collected from the 2019-2020
school year would be comparable to the data of the 2018-2019 school year.
Elementary School Level
The researcher collected data on the student/teacher ratio to determine teacher equity. The results
of the student/teacher ratio at the elementary school level are displayed in Figure 14. The
student/teacher ratio at the elementary level ranged from 12.73 to 17.98 students per teacher.
Southview and North Ridge had the highest student/teacher ratio with over 17 students per
teacher. While Blue River, Central Valley, and Heritage had the lowest student/teacher ratio with
under 14 students per teacher.
Figure 14:
Elementary School Level Student/Teacher Ratio
STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO
17.98
17.18
15.98
16.06
15.88
14.28
14.12
14.62
13.05
13.35
12.73
Next, the researcher examined the teacher level of attainment at each school. The results of
the teacher level of attainment at the elementary level are displayed in Figure 15. The researcher
assumed that not all attainment levels were reported on the state department of education school
report cards due to each school’s percentages not adding to 100%. Of the data collected, North
Ridge, Eastwood, and Heritage are the only elementary schools having reported teachers who
earned a Doctorate. Bear Mountain and Southview had the highest reported teachers having
earned a Master's.
After investigating the teacher attainment level, the researcher examined teacher licensure
and experience, specifically focusing on the percentage of all teachers who were teaching with a
provisional license, the percentage of special education teachers who were teaching with a
provisional license, the number of inexperienced teachers, having less than one year of
experience, and the percentage of all teachers who were teaching outside of their certification
field. The results of the teacher licensure and experience at the elementary school level are
displayed in Figure 16.
Figure 15:
Elementary School Level Highest Level of Education
TEACHER LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT
Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree
2% 2% 2%
55%
60%
51%
46%
49%
49%
51%
74%
46%
53%
57%
51%
49%
46%
48%
41%
44%
39%
43%
40%
35%
23%
Central Valley and Eastwood had the highest percentage of all teachers and special
education teachers who were teaching with a provisional license. Central Valley and Bear
Mountain were the only two elementary schools with inexperienced teachers having less than one
year of teaching experience. Bear Mountain had the highest percentage of teachers, 4.2%,
teaching outside of their certification. Subsequently, the researcher collectively examined teacher
licensure and experience. Overall, Heritage and Edgewood had reported 0.0% of the teachers as
inexperienced, teaching outside of their certification field, or teaching with a provisional license.
On the other hand, Central Valley had the highest collective percentage, 23%, of inexperienced
teachers, teachers teaching outside of their certification, and teachers with a provisional license.
Figure 16:
Elementary School Level Teacher Licensure and Experience
TEACHER LICENSURE & EXPERIENCE
Provisional Sp Ed Provisional Inexperienced (<1yr) Out of Field
The average teacher salary at the elementary school level ranged from $52,065 to
$57,814. The Δ of the elementary school with the lowest average teacher salary and the highest
average teacher salary was $5,749. The results of the average teacher salary at the elementary
school level are displayed in Figure 17. Heritage had the highest average teacher salary of more
than $57,000. While Bear Mountain, Green Meadows, Eastwood, and Southview had the lowest
average teacher salary of less than $53,000.
Figure 17:
Elementary School Level Average Teacher Salary
Middle School Level
At the middle school level, the student/teacher ratio ranged from 11.16 to 14.8 students per
teacher. The results of the student/teacher ratio at the middle school level are displayed in Figure
18. East Shores and Maple Park had the highest student/teacher ratio with over 14 students per
teacher. While South Central had the lowest student/teacher ratio with under 12 students per
teacher.
Figure 18:
Middle School Level Student/Teacher Ratio
STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO
14.8
14.38
12.57
12.41
11.16
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S SOUTH
PLEASANT GRANT CENTRAL VALLEY
The results of the teacher level of attainment at the middle school level are displayed in
Figure 19. The researcher assumed that not all attainment levels were reported on the state
department of education school report cards due to each school’s percentages not adding to 100%.
Of the data collected, Queen’s Grant, South Central, and Pleasant Valley are the only middle
schools having reported teachers who earned a Doctorate. Queen’s Grant and Pleasant Valley had
the highest reported teachers having earned a Master’s.
Figure 19:
Middle School Level Highest Level of Education
TEACHER LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT
Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree
1%
2%
2%
45%
53%
46%
57%
48%
52%
51%
43%
41%
39%
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S SOUTH PLEASANT
GRANT CENTRAL VALLEY
The researcher examined, teacher licensure and experience, the results of the middle school
level are displayed in Figure 20. East Shores and Queen’s Grant had the highest percentage of all
teachers and special education teachers who were teaching with a provisional license. East Shores
had the highest percentage of inexperienced teachers having less than one year of teaching
experience. Maple Park had the highest percentage of teachers, 5.1%, teaching outside of their
certification field. The researcher collectively examined teacher licensure and experience.
Overall, Pleasant Valley collectively had the lowest percentage of the teachers as inexperienced,
teaching outside of their certification field, or teaching with a provisional license.
On the other hand, Queen’s Grant had the highest collective percentage, 19.8% of inexperienced
teachers, teachers teaching outside of their certification, and teachers with a provisional license.
Figure 20:
Middle School Level Teacher Licensure and Experience
TEACHER LICENSURE & EXPERIENCE
Provisional Sp Ed Provisional Inexperienced (<1yr) Out of Field
8.1%
4.7%
2%
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S GRANT SOUTH CENTRAL PLEASANT VALLEY
The average teacher salary at the middle school level ranged from $52,113 to $57,566.
The Δ of the middle school with the lowest average teacher salary and the highest average teacher
salary was $5,453. The results of the average teacher salary at the middle school level are
displayed in Figure 21. Pleasant Valley had the highest average teacher salary of more than
$57,000. While South Central and East Shores had the lowest average teacher salary of less than
$53,000.
Figure 21:
Middle School Level Average Teacher Salary
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY
$57,566
$56,179
$55,584
3.6
%
8.9
%
3.6
%
1.8
%
0
%
5.1
%
2.6
%
5.1
%
3.5
%
3.5
%
1.8
%
7
%
1.8
%
1.8
%
2
%
3.5
%
4.7
%
$52,113
$52,070
EAST
SHOR
ES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S
SOUTH GRANT CENTRAL
PLEASANT
VALLEY
High School Level
At the high school level, the student/teacher ratio ranged from 13.58 to 15.64 students per
teacher. The results of the student/teacher ratio at the high school level are displayed in Figure
22. Elk Creek had the highest student/teacher ratio with 15.64 students per teacher. While
Clearwater had the lowest student/teacher ratio with under 13.58 students per teacher.
Figure 22:
High School Level Student/Teacher Ratio
STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO
15.64
14.3
13.58
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
The results of the teacher level of attainment at the high school level are displayed in
Figure 23. The researcher assumed that not all attainment levels were reported on the state
department of education school report cards due to each school’s percentages not adding to 100%.
Of the data collected, Clearwater was the only high school to report not to have any teachers who
earned a Doctorate. Queen Lake and Elk Creek had the highest reported teachers having earned a
Master's.
The researcher examined, teacher licensure and experience, the results of the high school
level are displayed in Figure 24. Elk Creek had the highest percentage of all teachers and special
education teachers who were teaching with a provisional license. Otherwise, the three high schools
had similar percentages of inexperienced teachers having less than one year of teaching experience
and teachers who were teaching outside of their certification field.
Figure 23:
High School Level Highest Level of Education
TEACHER LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT
Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree
3% 2%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
52%
50%
43%
48%
42%
44%
The researcher collectively examined teacher licensure and experience. Overall,
Clearwater had collectively the lowest percentage of the teachers as inexperienced, teaching
outside of their certification field, or teaching with a provisional license. On the other hand, Elk
Creek and Queen Lake had the highest collective percentages, of inexperienced teachers, teachers
teaching outside of their certification, and teachers with a provisional license.
Figure 24:
High School Level Teacher Licensure and Experience
TEACHER LICENSURE & EXPERIENCE
Provisional Sp Ed Provisional Inexperienced (<1yr) Out of Field
9.5% 9.2%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
4.3%
3.4%
4.3%
3.4%
3.4%
4.2%
0.0%
4.5%
The average teacher salary at the high school level ranged from $54,081 to $56,132. The
Δ of the high school with the lowest average teacher salary and the highest average teacher salary
was $2,051. The results of the average teacher salary at the high school level are displayed in
Figure 25. Elk Creek had the highest average teacher salary of more than $56,000.
While Queen Lake had the lowest average teacher salary of $54,081.
Figure 25:
High School Level Average Teacher Salary
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY
$56,132
$55,534
$54,081
5.7
%
2.3
%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
Research Question 3
The third and final question of this study included: What is the association between
funding and academic achievement at the elementary school level? middle school level? high
school level? In order for the researcher to examine any associations between funding and
academic achievement, data were collected on English and mathematics state assessment pass
rates. Additionally, for the high school level, the researcher collected college and career readiness
data, specifically focusing on graduation rates, dropout rates, and advanced program enrollment.
The researcher collected available data from the state department of education school report cards
for each school. The state department of education school report cards utilized a combined rate to
evaluate academic achievement in English and mathematics at the elementary and middle
schools. The combined rate included students who passed state assessments in English and
mathematics and non-passing students who showed significant improvement, including non-
passing English learners making progress toward English. For high schools, the combined rate
used to evaluate academic achievement in English included students who pass state assessments
and English learners making progress toward English. Mathematics academic achievement at the
high school was evaluated based on the percentage of students who passed the end-of-course
assessments in mathematics.
Elementary School Level
English and mathematics academic achievement as reported by the state department of
education for the elementary school level can be found in Figure 26. Central Valley and Heritage
had the lowest academic achievement in both English and mathematics at the elementary school
level. Additionally, Heritage had the highest per-pupil expenditure of $13,267 and Central Valley
had the third-highest per-pupil expenditure of $10,848. On the other hand, North Ridge had the
highest academic achievement in both English and mathematics and had the third-lowest per-
pupil expenditure of $9,105.
Figure 26:
Elementary School Level English and Mathematics Academic Achievement
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Middle School Level
At the middle school level, South Central had the lowest academic achievement in both
English and mathematics. Additionally, South Central had the second-highest per-pupil
expenditure of $11,371. Pleasant Valley had both the highest academic achievement in English
and the highest per-pupil expenditure of $11,739. East Shores had the highest academic
achievement in mathematics and had the lowest per-pupil expenditure of $9,306. English and
mathematic academic achievement as reported by the state department of education for the middle
school level can be found in Figure 27.
Figure 27:
Middle School Level English and Mathematics Academic Achievement
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
English Mathematics
90%
93%
84%
81%
85%
85%
83%
82%
77%
73%
EAST SHORES MAPLE PARK QUEEN'S SOUTH
PLEASANT GRANT CENTRAL VALLEY
High School Level
English and mathematic academic achievement as reported by the state department of
education for the high school level can be found in Figure 28. Clearwater had the lowest
academic achievement in both English and mathematics at the high school level. Also,
Clearwater had the highest per-pupil expenditure of $10,985. Elk Creek had the highest
academic achievement in both English and mathematics and had the lowest per-pupil expenditure
of $10,286.
Figure 28:
High School Level English and Mathematics Academic Achievement
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
English Mathematics
91%
90%
88%
86%
83%
80%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
At the high school level, the researcher examined additional college and career readiness
data, specifically focusing on graduation and dropout rates. The state’s on-time graduation rate
was based on four years of longitudinal student-level data. The formula recognized some
students with disabilities and English learners were allowed more than the traditional four years
to earn a diploma to still be counted as an “on-time” graduate. Each high school’s graduation and
completion results are displayed in Figure 29.
Figure 29:
High School Level Graduation and Completion Rate
GRADUATION & COMPLETION
Graduation Rate Four Year Average
96.9%
95.2%
91.3%
90.6%
89.5%
84.1%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
The high school’s four-year dropout rate was based on performance during the most recent
year. The high school dropout rate of each high school can be found in Figure 30. Of the three
high schools, Clearwater had the lowest graduation rate of 89.5% and the highest dropout rate of
5.56%. Elk Creek has the highest graduation rate of 96.9% and the lowest dropout rate of
0.80%.
Figure 30:
High School Level Dropout Rate
DROPOUT RATE
5.51%
5.56%
0.80%
ELK CREEK QUEEN LAKE CLEARWATER
Summary
The results of the data analysis for this quantitative study were explained in a narrative
format including figures as evidence throughout this chapter. A comprehensive review of
descriptive data was given as each research question was answered. The researcher examined the
findings of each research question through an a priori lens. The researcher’s assumptions
suggested a 10% difference as slight, a 25% difference as moderate, and a 40% difference as
notable. The first research question was created to examine any inequities in resource allocation
of per-pupil expenditures at the elementary school level, middle school level, and high school
level. The researcher examined the per-pupil expenditures at each school and also calculated the
cents per dollar spent per pupil. According to the a priori lens created, the researcher found
several slight differences and a few moderate differences among elementary schools spending
when looking at the actual cents per dollar spent per pupil. At the middle school level when
examining actual cents per dollar spent per pupil, the researcher noted a few slight differences.
While at the high school level there were no distinguished differences when examining actual
cents per dollar spent per pupil.
Additionally, the researcher used Verstegen’s (2008) weighting recommendations for
specific student enrollment subgroup categories and created three weight groups to compare
perpupil expenditures and uncover any inequities. When examining the difference in per-pupil
expenditures with Verstegen’s (2008) weighting of specific student enrollment subgroup categories
of students with disabilities, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and English learners,
the researcher found several disparities. In each of the three groups of weights, the researcher
found moderate and notable differences at the elementary school level, slight and moderate
differences at the middle school level, and slight differences at the high school level. After
examining the weighted per-pupil expenditures in each of the weight groups, the researcher
exposed several inequities. At the elementary school, Bear Mountain and Central Valley had a
higher per-pupil expenditure than Oak Park. Furthermore, at the middle school level, Pleasant
Valley no longer had the highest per-pupil expenditure. South Central became the middle school
with the highest per-pupil expenditure.
The second research question was created to examine any inequities in teacher quality
across schools at the elementary school level, middle school level, and high school level. The
researcher studied teacher licensure and experience, average teacher salaries, student to teacher
ratios, and teacher attainment to compare teacher quality at each school. At the elementary school
level, the school with the highest per-pupil expenditure and highest percentages of students
eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, Heritage, had the highest average teacher salary, lowest
student to teacher ratio, and had 0.0% of the teachers teaching with a provisional license,
inexperienced teachers, and teachers teaching outside of their certification area.
However, this was not the case for two other similar high-poverty schools, Bear Mountain and
Central Valley. These two schools had among the lowest average teacher salaries and the
highest percentage of all teachers and special education teachers teaching with a provisional license
and teachers teaching outside of their certification area. These two schools were also the only two
schools to have inexperienced teachers at the elementary school level.
At the middle school level, Pleasant Valley, the only low-poverty middle school, had the
highest per-pupil expenditure, the lowest percentage of students eligible to receive free or
reduced-price lunch, and was the school with the highest average teacher salary. It also
collectively had the lowest percentage of the teachers as inexperienced, teaching outside of their
certification field, or teaching with a provisional license. While the only high-poverty middle
school, South Central, had the highest percentage of students eligible to receive free or
reducedprice lunch, the lowest average teacher salary, and the lowest percentage of teachers who
earned a Masters or Doctorate. At the high school level, Elk Creek, the only low-poverty high
school, had the highest average teacher salary and the highest percentage of teachers who earned
a Master's or Doctorate. Contrarily, Elk Creek also had the highest student to teacher ratio and the
highest percentage of all teachers and special education teachers teaching with a provisional
license.
The third and final research question was created to examine if there was any association
between funding and academic achievement across schools at the elementary school level, middle
school level, and high school level. In order to answer this question, the researcher studied the
English and mathematic academic achievement rates as reported by the state department of
education for the elementary school level and middle school level. At the high school level, the
English and mathematic academic achievement rates as reported by the state department of
education were used in addition to college and career readiness data, specifically focusing on
graduation and dropout rates. The researcher found across all school levels, the schools with the
lowest academic achievement rates were the high-poverty schools in need of the highest per-pupil
expenditures. Additionally, at the high school level, the school with the lowest academic
achievement, Clearwater, also had the lowest graduation rate and highest dropout rate. After
examining all three research questions, the researcher collectively found the most inequities at the
middle school level and the least inequities at the high school level. Furthermore, the data
analysis for this quantitative study revealed results worthy of future investigation and provide
implications for school district resources allocation practices. Chapter 5 will discuss the meaning
of these findings in detail, the limitations, the delimitations, and recommendations for further
research.
Chapter Five: Conclusions
In this chapter, the researcher discussed the findings, limitations, and assumptions of the
study and provided recommendations for future research. The purpose of this study was to
measure the intradistrict distribution of educational resources of one mid-Atlantic school district
through an equity audit. This quantitative study utilized an a priori lens designed by the researcher
and analyzed the following research questions guiding this study.
RQ1: Is there a difference in resource allocation of per-pupil funding at the elementary
school level? middle school level? high school level?
RQ2: Is there a difference in teacher quality at the elementary school level? middle school
level? high school level?
RQ3: What is the association between funding and academic achievement at the elementary
school level? middle school level? high school level?
The researcher’s a priori guideline suggested a 10% difference as slight, a 25% difference as
moderate, and a 40% difference as notable. This study aimed to add to the body of literature by
addressing the gap in research related to intradistrict equity and adequacy of educational funding.
The researcher’s findings of this study are presented in this chapter separated by school level.
Each research question is answered within the school level findings.
Elementary School Level
At the elementary school level, the researcher found slight, moderate, and notable
differences in resource allocation of per-pupil funding addressing the first research question. The
total per-pupil expenditures at each of the 11 individual schools ranged from $8,731 to
$13,267 with a Δ of $4,536. Heritage had the highest per-pupil expenditure followed by Oak
Park with the second-highest per-pupil expenditure. In order to further examine any differences in
resource allocation of per-pupil funding, the researcher broke down the per-pupil expenditures into
actual cents per dollar spent at each elementary school and found the Δ of cents per dollar ranged
from $0.16 to $0.34. Figure 5 illuminated these per-pupil spending disparities at the elementary
school level.
After examining the per-pupil expenditures and cents per dollar at the elementary school
level, the researcher utilized the a priori guidelines. The a priori guidelines designed by the
researcher suggested there were slight and moderate differences in per-pupil spending at several
elementary schools. Heritage, having the highest per-pupil expenditures, had a moderate difference
in funding with five other elementary schools as well as a slight difference in funding with the
remaining five other elementary schools. Furthermore, the researcher used the student enrollment
subgroup category weighting groups and found even more resource allocation discrepancies. These
adjusted per-pupil expenditures based on the weighting groups were presented in Figure 7.
Table 9
Elementary School Level Per Pupil Expenditures Ranking Highest to Lowest
Actual PPE
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
Oak Park
Central Valley
Central Valley
Central Valley
Central Valley
Bear Mountain
Bear Mountain
Bear Mountain
Bear Mountain
Oak Park
Oak Park
Oak Park
Coral Coast
Coral Coast
Coral Coast
Coral Coast
Edgewood
Edgewood
Edgewood
Edgewood
Green Meadows
Green Meadows
Green Meadows
Green Meadows
Eastwood
Eastwood
Eastwood
Eastwood
North Ridge
Southview
Southview
North Ridge
Southview
Blue River
North Ridge
Southview
Blue River
North Ridge
Blue River
Blue River
When the researcher weighted the per-pupil expenditures based on student enrollment
subgroup categories, the funding affected the top four schools. Heritage remained the neediest
school in all three weighting groups. This affirmed to the researcher, Heritage had the greatest lack
of funding. However, once weighted, Central Valley and Bear Mountain had a greater need than
Oak Park in all three weighting groups. This confirmed Central Valley and Bear Mountain required
more per-pupil funding than Oak Park. The data showed Heritage, Central Valley, and Bear
Mountain should have been similarly funded based on the student enrollment subgroup categories.
Furthermore, when weighted in the first and second weight groups, Southview displayed a need for
higher per-pupil funding than North Ridge. The adjusted per-pupil expenditures of the elementary
schools ranked based on need are displayed in Table 9.
Table 10
Discrepancies Between Per Pupil Expenditures at the Elementary School Level
Elementary School
Slight
Moderate
Notable
Full Weighted
Central Valley
Bear Mountain
Oak Park
Coral Coast
Edgewood
Green Meadows
Eastwood
North Ridge
South River
Blue River
Half Weighted
Bear Mountain
Central Valley
Oak Park
Eastwood
Green Meadows
Edgewood
Coral Coast
Blue River
Southview
North Ridge
Quarter Weighted
Central Valley Oak
Park
Bear Mountain
Blue River
Southview
North Ridge
Eastwood
Green Meadows
Edgewood
Coral Coast
-
After weighting the per-pupil expenditures, the researcher found slight, moderate, and
notable differences in per-pupil funding among the elementary schools when using the a priori
guidelines. The results are displayed in Table 10. Using the weighting groups allowed the
researcher to uncover a number of inequities in per-pupil spending. Notable discrepancies were
prominent in the first and second weighting groups. Whereas, moderate differences were common
in the third weighting group. All elementary school level variations in per-pupil expenditures based
on weighted student enrollment subgroup categories are displayed in Table
11.
When addressing the second research question, the researcher found slight and moderate
differences in teacher quality across the elementary school level when examining teacher
licensure and experience, average teacher salaries, student to teacher ratios, and teacher
attainment. Bear Mountain had the highest percentage of teachers earning at least a Master’s
degree. The researcher found a slight difference in six schools and a moderate difference in four
schools. Central Valley had the lowest percentage of teachers earning at least a Master’s degree.
The researcher assumed since Bear Mountain had the highest percentage of teachers earning at
least a Master's, it would have had one of the highest average teacher salaries. Contrarily, Bear
Mountain had one of the lowest average teacher salaries at the elementary school level. Overall,
the researcher did not discover much variation in average teacher salaries at the elementary
school level. There was a slight disparity between the highest average teacher salary at Heritage
and the lowest average teacher salary at Green Meadows.
Heritage had the lowest student/teacher ratio while Southview and North Ridge had the
highest student/teacher ratio. The researcher discovered a slight difference in student/teacher ratio
at six schools and a moderate difference in student/teacher ratio at two schools. Lastly, Heritage
and Eastwood had 0.0% of all teachers and special education teachers teaching with a provisional
license. Additionally, Heritage and Eastwood had 0.0% of their teachers who were inexperienced
or teaching outside of their certification area. The researcher uncovered a slight
88
Table 11:
Elementary School Level Variations in Per Pupil Expenditures Based on Weighted Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
School
Actual
PPE
Cents
Per
Dollar
Full
Weighted
PPE
Cents
Per
Dollar
Δ
Half
Weighted
PPE
Cents
Per
Dollar
Δ
Quarter
Weighted
PPE
Cents
Per
Dollar
Δ
Blue River
$8,731
$0.66
$11,197
$0.52
$2,466
$9,964
$0.57
$1,233
$9,348
$0.61
$617
Southview
$8,867
$0.67
$11,625
$0.54
$2,758
$10,239
$0.59
$1,372
$9,556
$0.63
$689
North
Ridge
$9,105
$0.69
$11,082
$0.52
$1,977
$10,093
$0.58
$988
$9,599
$0.63
$494
Eastwood
$9,234
$0.70
$12,280
$0.57
$3,046
$10,757
$0.62
$1,523
$9,995
$0.65
$761
Green
Meadows
$9,645
$0.73
$13,542
$0.63
$3,897
$11,593
$0.67
$1,948
$10,619
$0.69
$974
Edgewood
$10,291
$0.78
$13,703
$0.64
$3,412
$11,997
$0.69
$1,706
$11,144
$0.73
$853
Coral Coast
$10,446
$0.79
$14,280
$0.67
$3,834
$12,363
$0.71
$1,917
$11,405
$0.75
$959
Bear
Mountain
$10,806
$0.81
$16,834
$0.79
$6,028
$13,820
$0.80
$3,014
$12,313
$0.81
$1,507
Central
Valley
$10,848
$0.82
$17,632
$0.82
$6,784
$14,240
$0.82
$3,392
$12,544
$0.82
$1,696
Oak Park
$11,156
$0.84
$15,230
$0.71
$4,074
$13,193
$0.76
$2,037
$12,175
$0.80
$1,019
Heritage
$13,267
$1.00
$21,394
$1.00
$8,127
$17,330
$1.00
$4,063
$15,281
$1.00
$2,014
95
difference in the percentage of all teachers and special education teachers teaching with a
provisional at three elementary schools. There was no difference found based on the a priori
guidelines with inexperienced teachers or teachers teaching outside of their certification area.
Furthermore, the researcher found an association between funding and academic
achievement at the elementary school level when addressing the third research question. The
four high-poverty elementary schools, Heritage, Bear Mountain, Central Valley, and Green
Meadows, had the lowest academic achievement percentages. These four schools also had the
largest student enrollment populations of subgroup categories. Additionally, three of those four
schools were identified in research question one as needing the highest per-pupil expenditures
across all three weight groups. On the other hand, the two schools, North Ridge and Blue River,
with the highest academic achievement percentages when identified in research question one as
needing the lowest per-pupil expenditures according to the first and second weight groups.
These two schools were also the only two non-Title I elementary schools in the district.
Moreover, these two schools also had the smallest student enrollment populations of subgroup
categories. One of the two schools was identified as the only low-poverty school in the district.
When examining the three research questions for the elementary school level, the
researcher found slight, moderate, and notable differences when utilizing the a priori guidelines
for this study. The researcher assumed the high-poverty schools with similar student enrollment
subgroup categories would have similar per-pupil expenditures. Additionally, the researcher
assumed the one low-poverty school with the lowest student enrollment subgroup category
would have had the lowest per-pupil expenditures. This was not the case for either assumption.
96
However, when the researcher weighted the student enrollment subgroup categories the
assumptions reflected accurately based on the needs of the schools in all three weight groups.
The four high-poverty schools had the greatest Δ in funding discrepancies. While on the other
hand, the low-poverty school had the smallest Δ in funding discrepancies. It looked as if the
district had well intentions of focusing the per-pupil funding needs on Heritage. Unfortunately,
they missed the mark when it came to Bear Mountain and Central Valley. The researcher’s
findings exposed a number of inequities and inadequacies of per-pupil distribution at the
elementary school level.
Middle School Level
Addressing the first research question, the researcher found slight and moderate
differences in resource allocation of per-pupil funding at the middle school level. The total
perpupil expenditures at each of the 5 individual middle schools ranged from $9,306 to $11,739
with a Δ of $2,433. Pleasant Valley had the highest per-pupil expenditure, followed by South
Central. In order to further examine the variation in total per-pupil expenditures, the researcher
calculated the actual cents per dollar spent at each middle school and found a Δ of cents per
dollar ranged from $0.03 to $0.21. The results for the middle school level are displayed in
Figure 8.
After examining the per-pupil expenditures and cents per dollar at the middle school
level, the researcher utilized the a priori guidelines. The a priori guidelines designed by the
researcher suggested there were slight differences in per-pupil spending at a few middle schools.
Pleasant Valley had a slight difference in funding with two other middle schools. Furthermore,
the researcher utilized the student enrollment subgroup category weighting groups and found
97
more resource allocation disparities. The middle school per-pupil expenditures were adjusted
based on the three weighting groups. These expenditure variations were presented in Figure 10.
Table 12
Middle School Level Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking Highest to Lowest
Actual PPE
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Pleasant Valley
South Central
South Central
South Central
South Central
Queen’s Grant
Queen’s Grant
Pleasant Valley
Queen’s Grant
Maple Park
Pleasant Valley
Queen’s Grant
Maple Park
Pleasant Valley
Maple Park
Maple Park
East Shores
East Shores
East Shores
East Shores
Once the researcher weighted the per-pupil expenditures according to the student
enrollment categories, the adjusted funding affected Pleasant Valley the greatest. Pleasant Valley
no longer had the highest per-pupil expenditures and as the weighting groups increased the need
decreased. This confirmed Pleasant Valley was receiving more per-pupil expenditures than its
needier counterparts. South Central revealed needing the highest amount of funding in all three
weighting groups. The middle schools ranked as a result of the adjusted per-pupil expenditures
are displayed in Table 12.
Table 13
Discrepancies Between Per Pupil Expenditures at the Middle School Level
Middle School
Slight
Moderate
Notable
Full Weighted
Maple Park
Queen’s Grant
Pleasant Valley
East Shores
-
Half Weighted
Maple Park
Pleasant Valley
East Shores
-
98
Quarter Weighted
Maple Park
East Shores
-
-
After weighting the per-pupil expenditures, the researcher found slight and moderate
differences in per-pupil funding across the middle schools when utilizing the a priori guidelines.
The results are displayed in Table 13. Utilizing the three weighting groups illuminated funding
disparities among the middle schools. Moderate disparities were discovered in the first and
second weighting groups. While slight differences were found in the third weighting group. All
middle school level variations in per-pupil expenditures based on weighted student enrollment
subgroup categories are displayed in Table 14.
The second research question examined differences in teacher quality across the middle
school level. Slight differences were found in teacher quality when examining teacher licensure
and experience, average teacher salaries, student to teacher ratios, and teacher attainment. The
researcher discovered a slight difference in teacher attainment at three middle schools. Pleasant
Valley had the highest percentage of teachers earning at least a Master’s degree. As well as the
highest average teacher salary at the middle school level. Overall, there was a slight variation
between the middle school with the highest average teacher salary and the lowest average
teacher salary.
South Central had the lowest student/teacher ratio while Maple Park had the highest
student/teacher ratio. When examining the student/teacher ratio, the researcher discovered a
slight difference between three schools and a moderate difference at one school. Lastly, Pleasant
Valley had the lowest percentage of all teachers and special education teachers teaching with a
provisional license while East Shores had the highest percentage. Additionally, Pleasant Valley
99
and Queen’s Grant had the highest number of inexperienced teachers and teachers teaching
outside of their certification area while South Central had the lowest percentage. However, the
researcher found no discrepancies in teacher licensure and experience based on the a priori
guidelines.
93
Table 14:
Middle School Level Variations in Per Pupil Expenditures Based on Weighted Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
Cents Cents Half Cents Quarter Cents
Weighted
School PPE Per PPE Per Δ Weighted Per Δ Weighted Per Δ
Dollar Dollar PPE Dollar PPE Dollar
East Shores
$9,306
$0.79
$11,936
$0.67
$2,630
$10,621
$0.73
$1,315
$9963
$0.77
$657
Maple Park
$10,391
$0.89
$14,516
$0.82
$4,125
$12,453
$0.86
$2,062
$11422
$0.88
$1,031
Queen's
Grant
$10,753
$0.92
$15,680
$0.89
$4,927
$13,217
$0.91
$2,464
$11985
$0.93
$1,232
South
Central
$11,371
$0.97
$17,685
$1.00
$6,314
$14,528
$1.00
$3,157
$12949
$1.00
$1,578
Pleasant
Valley
$11,739
$1.00
$14,307
$0.81
$2,568
$13,023
$0.90
$1,284
$12381
$0.96
$642
102
Furthermore, the researcher found an association between funding and academic
achievement at the middle school level when addressing the third research question. South
Central had the lowest academic achievement percentages and was the only high-poverty middle
school. South Central also had the largest student enrollment population of subgroup categories
and was identified in research question one as needing the highest per-pupil expenditures across
all three weight groups. While Pleasant Valley had the highest academic achievement
percentages and the smallest student enrollment population of subgroup categories. Additionally,
Pleasant Valley was identified as the only low-poverty middle school in the
district.
When examining the three research questions for the middle school level, the researcher
found slight and moderate differences when utilizing the a priori guidelines for this study. The
researcher assumed the school with the lowest student enrollment subgroup category would have
had the least per-pupil expenditures. In this case, it was the exact opposite. Pleasant Valley had
the lowest need but received the highest per-pupil expenditures, had the highest average teacher
salary, and had the highest academic achievement percentages. The researcher’s finding
illuminated various inequities and inadequacies of per-pupil distribution at the middle school
level.
High School Level
Addressing the first research question, the researcher found slight differences in resource
allocation of per-pupil funding at the high school level. The total per-pupil expenditures at each
of the 3 individual high schools ranged from $10,286 to $10,985 with a Δ of $699. Clearwater
had the highest per-pupil expenditure, followed by Queen Lake. In order to further examine the
variation in total per-pupil expenditures, the researcher calculated the actual cents per dollar
95
spent at each high school and found a Δ of cents per dollar ranged from $0.04 to $0.06. The
results for the high school level are displayed in Figure 11.
The researcher utilized the a priori guidelines when examining the per-pupil expenditures
and cents per dollar at the high school level. The a priori guidelines designed by the researcher
suggested there were slight differences in per-pupil spending at the high school level. Slight
differences in per-pupil funding remained when the researcher applied the student enrollment
subgroup category weighting groups. The high school per-pupil expenditures were adjusted
based on the three weighting groups and the results were presented in Figure 13.
When the researcher weighted the per-pupil expenditures based on the student enrollment
categories, Clearwater remained to need the most per-pupil expenditures as Elk Creek remained
needing the least. However, what did vary, was the amount of per-pupil expenditures needed
based on the student enrollment subgroup categories. Elk Creek has a smaller student enrollment
population of the subgroup categories, while Clearwater and Queen Lake have a higher student
enrollment population of the subgroup categories. Thus, the Δ of the actual per-pupil
expenditures and the needed per-pupil expenditures for the first group were notable for both
Clearwater and Queen Lake. While the Δ of actual per-pupil expenditures and the needed
perpupil expenditures for the second and third weight groups were slight. The high schools
ranked as a result of the adjusted per-pupil expenditures are displayed in Table 15.
Table 15
High School Level Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking Highest to Lowest
Actual PPE
Full Weighted
Half Weighted
Quarter Weighted
Clearwater
Clearwater
Clearwater
Clearwater
Queen Lake
Queen Lake
Queen Lake
Queen Lake
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
104
The researcher found only slight differences in per-pupil funding across the high school
level after weighting the per-pupil expenditures when using the a priori guidelines. The results
are displayed in Table 16. Utilizing the three weighting groups illuminated funding disparities
among the high schools. Slight differences were found in all three weighting groups. All high
school level weighted student enrollment subgroup category variations in per-pupil expenditures
were displayed in Table 17.
Table 16
Discrepancies Between Per Pupil Expenditures at the High School Level
High School
Slight
Moderate
Notable
Full Weighted
Elk Creek
-
-
Half Weighted
Elk Creek
-
-
Quarter Weighted
Elk Creek
-
-
Teacher quality differences at the high school level were examined by the second
research question. The researcher found slight differences in teacher quality when examining
teacher licensure and experience, average teacher salaries, student to teacher ratios, and teacher
attainment. Elk Creek had the highest percentage of teachers earning at least a Master’s degree
while Clearwater had the least percentage. The researcher discovered a slight difference in
teacher attainment at the high school level between Elk Creek and Clearwater. Elk Creek had the
highest average teacher salary, while Queen Lake had the lowest average teacher salary.
However, no disparities in average teacher salary were found according to the a priori guidelines
at the high school level.
Clearwater had the lowest student/teacher ratio while Elk Creek had the highest
student/teacher ratio. A slight difference in the student/teacher ratio was found between
Clearwater and Elk Creek. Furthermore, Clearwater had the lowest percentage of all teachers
and special education teachers with a provisional license whereas Elk Creek had the highest
97
Table 17:
High School Level Variations in Per Pupil Expenditures Based on Weighted Student Enrollment Subgroup Categories
Cents Cents Half Cents Quarter Cents
Weighted
School PPE Per PPE Per Δ Weighted Per Δ Weighted Per Δ
Dollar Dollar PPE Dollar PPE Dollar
Elk Creek $10,286 $0.94 $12,948 $0.82 $2,662 11617 0.87 $1,331 10951 0.90 $665
Queen
$10,513 $0.96 $14,739 $0.93 $4,226 12626 0.94 $2,113 11569 0.95 $1,056
Lake
Clearwater $10,985 $1.00 $15,827 $1.00 $4,842 13406 1.00 $2,421 12196 1.00 $1,211
107
percentage. Furthermore, Elk Creek had the highest number of inexperienced teachers and
teachers teaching outside of their certification area while Clearwater had the lowest percentage.
However, the researcher found no discrepancies in teacher licensure and experience based on the
a priori guidelines.
Furthermore, the researcher found an association between funding and academic
achievement at the high school level when addressing the third research question. Clearwater
had the lowest academic achievement percentages at the high school level. Clearwater also had
the largest enrollment population of subgroup categories and was identified in research question
one as needing the highest per-pupil expenditures across all three weight groups. Furthermore,
Clearwater had the highest dropout rate and the lowest graduation rate. On the other hand, Elk
Creek had the highest academic achievement percentages and the smallest student enrollment
population of subgroup categories. Elk Creek was identified in research question one as needing
the lowest per-pupil expenditures across all three weight groups and was identified as the only
low-poverty high school in the district. Moreover, Elk Creek had the lowest dropout rate and the
highest graduation rate.
When examining the three research questions for the high school level, the researcher
found slight differences when utilizing the a priori guidelines for this study. The district funded
the three high schools with slight variation. However, the researcher assumed there would have
been a larger disparity at the low-poverty school. Based on need, Queen’s Lake and Clearwater
had the greatest Δ in funding discrepancies. While on the other hand, Elk Creek school had the
smallest Δ in funding discrepancies. The researcher’s finding showcased several inequities and
inadequacies of per-pupil distribution at the high school level.
108
District Recommendations
In order to ensure intradistrict equity across the school levels, the district should consider
inspecting the individual school per-pupil expenditures to determine whether or not funds are
dispersed fittingly to warrant growth of academic achievement, particularly examining those
schools with high per-pupil expenditures and low academic achievement. Additionally, the
district should consider examining the student enrollment subgroup categories at each school to
ensure per-pupil expenditures are dispersed across school levels equitably. Weighting student
enrollment subgroup categories for individual schools will assist the district in ranking schools
based on need. Once individual schools are ranked based on need the district should consider
making equitable decisions regarding the allocation of fiscal resources. Moreover, the district
should consider exploring the distribution of staffing resources across school levels, to ensure the
inexperienced teachers, teachers teaching outside of their certification, and provisional licensed
teachers are not staffed at the neediest schools. Additionally, the district should consider
adjusting accordingly to increase teacher salaries to have more experienced teachers at the
needier schools. Lastly, the district should consider examining the amount of money suggested
to educate those student enrollment subgroup category populations to ensure they receive
adequate funding per-pupil. Specific recommendations for the elementary school level, middle
school level, and high school level in the district follow.
Elementary School Level
The researcher found slight, moderate, and notable disparities at the elementary school
level. To improve intradistrict equity across the elementary schools the researcher has the
following recommendations for the district to consider. The district should consider focusing
109
specifically on the neediest schools, Heritage, Central Valley, Bear Mountain, and Green
Meadows. The district prioritized Heritage and appears to be making strides in the right
direction, as Heritage was the school with the greatest need and received the highest per-pupil
expenditures. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Central Valley, Bear Mountain, and Green
Meadows. These three schools had notable and moderate discrepancies when utilizing the
researcher’s a priori lens. Additionally, the district needs to consider further examining how
resources are being dispersed within those needy schools as these schools had the lowest
academic achievement rates.
Furthermore, the district should consider focusing on teacher quality. Specifically
looking at reducing the number of inexperienced teachers, teachers teaching outside of their
certification, and provisionally licensed teachers at both Central Valley and Bear Mountain. The
district should consider examining the voluntary transfer policy in addition to increasing teacher
salaries. Adding stipends or increasing the base salary at those neediest schools would assist
with incentivizing and retaining high-quality experienced teachers coming to and staying at
highneeds schools to increase student academic achievement. Examining the district’s voluntary
transfer policy would prevent teachers from transferring from the neediest schools, thus leaving
those schools with high teacher turnover rates.
Lastly, the district must take time to examine how per-pupil expenditures are allocated at
the individual school level. Heritage had the highest per-pupil expenditures, yet it had the lowest
academic achievement rate. This should signal the district to further examine where the
resources are being allocated to optimize opportunities for student academic achievement. The
four neediest schools, Heritage, Central Valley, Bear Mountain, and Green Meadows had the
110
lowest academic achievement rates among the elementary school level and the district would
need to be intentional with how and where resources are allocated to increase student academic
achievement.
Middle School Level
When examining per-pupil expenditure through the a priori lens, there was less variance
in per-pupil expenditures at the middle school level than at the elementary school level.
Although there was less variance, the researcher still found slight, moderate, and notable
disparities at the middle school level. As a result of these variations, the researcher has the
following recommendations for the district to consider to improve intradistrict equity across the
middle school level. The district would benefit from focusing on the needier middle schools,
South Central, Queen’s Grant, and Maple Park. These three schools had the highest student
enrollment subgroup categories population and the lowest student academic achievement.
Additionally, these three schools had moderate and notable discrepancies when utilizing the
researcher’s a priori guidelines.
The district should consider prioritizing per-pupil expenditures to target those neediest
schools to provide additional resources and support to increase student academic achievement.
Providing those needier schools additional resources could level the playing field for
disadvantaged students as identified in the student enrollment subgroup categories. Additionally,
the district should be deliberate with how resources are to be allocated within the individual
schools in order to focus on improving academic achievement. Therefore, it is recommended the
district identifies where specific funds and resources are to be allocated. Additional resources
must not be just allocated without a specific plan in place.
111
Furthermore, the district should consider examining teacher quality. It is recommended
that the district looks at reducing the percentage of provisionally licensed and inexperienced
teachers, in addition to reducing the percentage of teachers teaching outside of their certification.
One way for the district to attract and retain high-quality teachers would be to increase base
salaries or provide stipends for teachers at those needier schools. Increasing base salaries or
providing stipends could incentivize teaching at schools with large percentages of disadvantaged
and at-risk students. The district should consider examining its voluntary transfer policy and
making any necessary adjusts to reduce the number of teachers transfer out of those needier
schools to reduce and prevent high teacher turnover.
High School Level
The high school level had the least variance in per-pupil expenditures across all school
levels when utilizing the researcher’s a priori guidelines. The researcher found slight disparities
in per-pupil expenditures at the high school level. This was surprising as the researcher
discovered the schools served vastly different student enrollment subgroup category populations
when the researcher further examined the high schools. The researcher expected to see a greater
variance in per-pupil expenditures rather than similar funding to all high schools as a result.
However, this was not the case and in order to improve intradistrict equity across the high
schools, the researcher made the following recommendations for the district to consider.
The district would benefit from focusing on the two needier high schools, Clearwater and
Queen Lake. The two needier high schools had the lowest achievement rates and graduation
rates, in addition to the highest dropout rates. It is recommended the district should consider not
only providing more per-pupil expenditures and resources to these needier high schools but also
112
be intentional on how the expenditures and resources are allocated to increase academic
achievement and graduation rates. The district would need to be deliberate about how and where
fiscal resources are allocated across schools to be vigilant in improving academic achievement,
graduation rates, and reducing the dropout rates for these schools.
Furthermore, the researcher suggests the district consider examining teacher quality. The
district should consider reducing the number of provisionally licensed teachers, inexperienced
teachers, and teachers teaching outside of their certification. Additionally, the district should
consider implanting policies that ensure high-quality teachers are teaching at those needier
schools. Reducing the number of provisional, inexperienced, and teachers teaching outside of
their certification would provide a higher quality education for students who need it the most.
Furthermore, the district should consider increasing teacher’s base salaries or providing stipends
to those teachers at the needier schools serving the higher student enrollment subgroup category
populations. Increasing teacher salaries or providing stipends for teachers at the needier schools
would also assist with recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. Lastly, the district should
consider examining its voluntary transfer policy to include limitations for teachers transferring
from those needier schools.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Despite this study’s findings, several limitations and delimitations need to be addressed
to fully appreciate the depth of the results. First, the district chosen for this study had a small
sample size of only nineteen schools. Furthermore, when looking at each school level, there
were only three high schools. Due to the relatively small sample size, some inequities may have
remained hidden. Determining funding inequities across a small sample size are more difficult
113
than those with a large sample size. Having a larger sample size allows the researcher to
compare and examine a variety of variables with a more accurate measure and also the
identification of outliers that could skew data of a small sample as well as provide a smaller
margin of error.
The elementary school level had the largest sample size and revealed the most inequities
and inadequacies. The high school level had the smallest sample size and presented the least
inequities and inadequacies. Additionally, hidden inequities within schools or among specific
populations of students were unknown. Hidden inequities such as access to high-quality
teaching, academic rigor, personalized time and attention, and quality of instructional resources
were unable to be accounted for. Additionally, household incomes, parent involvement, and
accessibility to school supplies play a role in student success and could not be accounted for thus
remain hidden.
Even though ESSA required school districts to report school-specific data on the school
report card, not all data were readily accessible. Not all data were found on the school report
card nor were all data available for the 2018-2019 school year. Specific student-level data were
also unavailable, which left the researcher to stack student enrollment subgroup category weight
groups. Moreover, the researcher was unable to identify the breakdown of school-specific
categorical spending. This left the researcher to assume all schools across each level spent their
school level funding similarly.
There were also a few delimitations the researcher needed to consider when conducting
this research study. First, since no other research study of its kind had been conducted to date,
the researcher created a set of suggested a priori guidelines to measure equity and adequacy.
114
Unfortunately, being that the a priori guidelines were created by the researcher, they are not yet
vetted. Thus, the a priori guidelines serve as suggestions as there was no baseline for what was
considered to be a slight, moderate, or notable disparity.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study’s findings, limitations, and delimitations provided points of reference for
recommendations for future research to expand upon this study. For this study, the sample size
contained only nineteen schools across all levels in the school district leaving as little as 3
schools to be compared. Further research may consider increasing the sample size by examining
larger school districts with more schools at each level. This would give the study a larger sample
size to examine intradistrict inequities and inadequacies.
Additionally, future research may consider including school-level student-specific data.
This would allow the study to focus on the specific needs of each school and uncover any
inequities and inadequacies among similar student populations. Also, unfortunately, the data for
gifted and talented students were not publicly available for the researcher to examine. Future
research including the percentage of gifted and talented student populations would help examine
further inequities among student enrollment subgroup populations.
Furthermore, further research may consider examining specific school-level spending.
Money matters to student achievement, sometimes. As a consequence, more recent work has
shifted from the question of whether money matters to how money may promote achievement
through the purchase of specific resources (Owings & Kaplan, 2010). School districts make the
fiscal inequities between high-poverty and low-poverty schools worse by the ways they choose
to spend the funds they do have. This shows true in this study, as the schools with some of the
115
highest per-pupil spending, have the lowest academic achievement. Thus, the researcher
recommends further research to examine the breakdown of per-pupil spending to determine
where the funds are being spent. This will further guide how resource allocation can improve
academic achievement.
Lastly, the a priori lens guidelines were designed by the researcher. The guidelines for
the a priori lens suggest a 10% difference as slight, a 25% difference as moderate, and a 40%
difference as notable. The researcher recommends further research to examine these a priori
guidelines. Since there was no other research study like this to date the a priori guidelines were
not able to be vetted in practice warranting further research. Further research may reveal the a
priori guidelines need to be adjusted to accurately measure inequities across schools.
116
Conclusion
Unfortunately, dollars do not tell the whole story. Previous research demonstrates
students eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, students with disabilities, and English
learners require more resources to educate. Although existing literature shares no consensus
regarding exactly how much more, Verstegen’s suggestions are a good starting point. One issue
is clear, the importance to bridge the gaps of intradistrict inequity and inadequacy. Inequity and
inadequacy in school funding must be quantified for all students, especially those in greatest
need, to have access to the resources necessary to achieve academically. The days of Alpha and
Omega intradistrict funding cannot continue in meeting all students’ needs (Owings and Kaplan,
2010). Consequently, intradistrict resource allocation is a key factor in ensuring fiscal equity.
Utilizing the a priori guidelines, the researcher’s findings of this study did reveal slight,
moderate, and notable differences in allocation disparities, teacher quality, and an association
between funding and academic achievement among the elementary school level, middle school
level, and high school level.
