Running Head: SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 1

School Funding and the Pursuit of Equity:

Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives

Anthony R. Arciero

EDUC 886

George Mason University

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 2

Abstract

There is a long history in the United States of unequal funding for public schools based on race,

ethnicity, and wealth. Brown v. Board of Education sought to provide equity in education for all

Americans, but resistance by states and citizens prohibited the achievement of the goal of equity.

A series of legal battles lasting almost 40 years brought a nearly uniform mechanism of state-

level funding, but significant inequalities remain among school districts, based on wealth, with

disproportionally negative effects on poor African American and Latino American students. The

focus of future school funding reform must be on student achievement instead of a narrow

concentration on funding. A large body of research has identified specific programs and school

supports that have been shown to positively affect the academic achievement of low-income

students. While student achievement is affected by both in-school and out-of-school factors, this

study focuses on in-school programs, activities and supports that are known to help poor students

succeed in school. Teacher and student perspectives on best practices will help inform future

policy debates with a valuable source of insight into what works best in schools serving low-

income students.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 3

Introduction

There is an inequality of educational opportunity in this country, and it is a function of

wealth (Ladson-Billings, 2013; Rothstein, 2013). Some wealthy school districts spend as much

as 15 times more per child than the poorest ones in the same state (Verstegan, 2015). As a result

of that inequity, students from more affluent families have access to higher-quality educational

opportunities than poor students, including more qualified teachers, more extensive school

support programs, extra-curricular sports and club activities, and typically, a more rigorous

curriculum (Kozol, 2005; Putnam, 2015). This lack of equity is at the root of the much-

researched opportunity gap in education (Carter & Welner, 2013).

As far back as 1965, it was recognized that poor children need additional support in

school and additional funding to help them overcome the challenges associated with poverty

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). Fifty years later, instead of receiving more

money, poor schools receive less money than their wealthier counterparts (Vance, 2009).

Examining current school funding policy, we must consider the ultimate goal. It should not be an

oversimplified search for additional funding, without clearly identifying how additional funding

will support students. It must not be pursuit of a vague notion of equity. A One hundred-plus

year history of attempting to define equity has provided dismal results. Instead, school reform

should recognize that the primary objective of schools is to educate students, and thus the goal of

any policy should be to facilitate and enhance student academic achievement.

Some scholars and policy makers argue for more money, with the underlying assumption

that increased budgets result in higher student achievement. There are authors who have

recommend a simple formula—twice as much spending per pupil for those eligible for reduced-

price meals; three times as much for those eligible for free lunch (Alexander and Wall, 2006).

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 4

These recommendations are usually based purely on statistics, and do not include descriptions of

specific programs that extra funding would support. Such recommendations must be viewed with

caution, given the numerous examples of well-funded and poorly-performing schools (Boykin &

Noguera, 2011). Those counterexamples are useful cautionary signposts as they help mediate our

zeal for a simple solution that suggests adding more money will solve all academic challenges.

Though there is a clear relationship between school district funding levels and educational

outcomes, funding is only one factor contributing to student performance. Thus, schools must

ensure there is a common understanding of how current funding is utilized. Additionally, in this

age of accountability, schools must be able to articulate specifically how additional funding

would be utilized to improve student outcomes.

If schools are to inform new school funding policy, they will have to specify programs,

activities, and school supports that have been shown to help students achieve. This level of detail

will help focus the policy debates on the common goal of improved student achievement. There

have been numerous studies to identify in-school activities that improve student academic

performance, and important innovations have been identified (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011; Fryer,

2014). However, almost none of those investigations captured students’ or teachers’ insights.

The proposed study seeks to examine the components of the relationship between school funding

and student achievement by seeking student and teacher insights on specific in-class and in-

school activities, programs, and supports that will contribute to improved student learning. This

exploration will be conducted as a qualitative investigation, seeking teacher and student

perspectives on what is needed in schools struggling to support academic achievement among

low-income students.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 5

The proposed study will use Fryer’s (2014) best practices as a framework to guide

development of the interview protocols. Fryer identified and then experimented with 5 best

practices in low-performing schools and showed positive results with students of low-income

backgrounds. The study will also utilize Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a conceptual

framework to understand and support the students and teachers as they share the lessons of their

experiences with the research team. SDT is a theory of human behavior and motivation

developed by Deci and Ryan (1985) that posits the existence of three psychological needs:

autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The application here will be to use the approach of

soliciting students’ and teachers’ perspectives on ways to improve the learning process to

enhance the participants’ fulfillment of each of these needs. The aim is not the psychological

growth or need satisfaction of the participants per se, rather, it is through this process of

enhancing basic psychological needs that we seek to facilitate teacher and student collaboration

and active engagement in the search for ways to improve the learning process.

Literature Review

Background

Since its inception, public education in this country has been held up as a mechanism to

grow and develop the next generation of Americans who would “be worked up into inventors

and discoverers, into skilled artisans and scientific farmers, into scholars and jurists…” (Mann,

1848, p.154). Horace Mann’s enthusiasm for the promise of public education and the hopes of

society heaped upon it have not faded during the intervening 167 years, though the promise and

hopes have not been shared equally by all Americans (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). That

disparity in educational opportunity is revealed in differential educational outcomes (Ladson-

Billings, 2013). Since those differences have often been attributed to differences in social class,

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 6

it is important to question if we as a nation are defining a future for ourselves that permanently

excludes an entire group of people based solely on the income of their parents. In other words,

are schools somehow reinforcing existing social divisions? Nations attach their hopes and

dreams of greatness and power on the world stage, technological dominance, and business

competitiveness to their schools and quite often, to students’ academic achievement (Matthis,

2011; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). As our nation grows

increasingly diverse, Darling-Hammond suggests that our continued prosperity depends on how

we educate all our citizens (2007).

Though Brown v. Board of Education (1954) outlawed separate-but-equal education, the

nation did not immediately start to integrate. African Americans and other groups saw

integration as a path toward the equality of educational opportunity that had long eluded them

(Anderson, 2006). However, states resisted change and White parents resisted integration, often

voting with their feet and moving to all-white suburbs which ensured continued segregation in

schools (Vance, 2009). In fact, there was so little progress toward integration that by 1973,

another case concerning equality of educational opportunity was brought to the Supreme Court.

This case challenged the funding scheme for a public school district in Texas. The intent was to

highlight that differences in funding caused unequal educational opportunities for a group of

children, largely defined by their ethnicity and socioeconomic status (San Antonio Independent

School District v. Rodriguez, 1973). The court rejected the case on the grounds that there is no

constitutional right to a public education (Augenblick, Myers, & Anderson, 1997; San Antonio

Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973).

Litigation then turned to focus on holding the states accountable to meet their

constitutional requirements to provide their citizens with access to education (Hirth, 1994;

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 7

Mintrom, 1993). Over the course of the next 40 years, all but 5 states had court cases involving

school funding (Moser & Rubenstein, 2002; Verstegan, 2015). The concepts of equality,

adequacy, thoroughness, and efficiency were litigated and debated repeatedly over that period

(Ostrander, 2015), and these terms eventually became part of the funding mechanisms adopted

by the states. The concepts of adequacy and efficiency become surrogates for equality, and were

eventually used to guide the development of school funding approaches (Verstegan & Jordan,

2009). Despite an apparent consolidation of funding approaches, with a guaranteed minimum

funding level per pupil (or, in some cases, per teacher), numerous loopholes and adjustments

remain (Verstegan & Jordan, 2009). The effect of these variances in state funding laws is to

allow wealthier districts to raise additional funds through property taxes or private donations.

This extra funding continues the inequities between wealthy and poor schools.

In the legal challenges to school funding formulae since the early 1970s, plaintiffs

connected unequal academic performance between poor and wealthy students with unequal

funding of their schools. This argument is based on the empirical evidence that wealthier school

districts tend to spend more money per child on education and their students tend to perform

higher on all measures of academic success. Several states actually base their funding

mechanisms on the assumption that a particular funding level results in predicted average student

achievement (Verstegan & Jordan, 2009). Additionally, studies have reported a relationship

between funding level and student performance, and as a result, projected a specific funding

level to ensure poor students perform as well as wealthier students (Alexander and Wall, 2006).

While this seems logical and almost intuitive, there are examples of well-funded and very

poorly-performing school districts (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Prince George’s County Public

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 8

Schools 2016 Master Plan). These unfortunate examples compel us to pause and seek a more

nuanced understanding of the relationship between money and educational outcomes.

There are numerous environmental factors outside of school control, that affect students’

ability to learn. For poor children, these outside influences tend to decrease a child’s

performance in school (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Rothstein, 2013; Suppovitz, 2009). Food

insecurity, inadequate and unstable housing, lack of medical care, neighborhood violence, and

family stresses all shape a students’ readiness and ability to learn (Alexander & Wall, 2006; Lee,

2012). However, there are also many components of the learning process over which teachers,

administrators, counselors, and other school support personnel can exercise significant influence

to improve learning outcomes (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Fryer, 2014). Some of those activities

require additional funding, and some may be implemented with changes in procedures or

emphasis (i.e., cost neutral). As various initiatives are raised in the course of this study, those

that drive funding requirements will be highlighted for researchers and policy advocates to

inform further empirical investigation and school funding policy debates. The cost-neutral

recommendations will be made available to school and district officials for their consideration.

Inequities Remain

Almost all states have centralized their public school funding at the state level and

distribute funding to school districts on a state-approved guaranteed amount per pupil (or per

class). While that might seem to imply that the school funding inequity issue has been

successfully addressed, inequity still pervades the system. Wealthy districts raise more money

for their schools, circumventing the goal of equalizing educational opportunity. Affluent parents

have the means to absorb higher property taxes and are likely to approve them because of the

positive effect of better schools on their home values and the opportunities for their children’s

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 9

education (Clapp, Nanda, & Ross, 2007; Mintrom, 1993). In addition to a larger tax base,

wealthier schools often have access to another source of funding—private donations. In many

wealthy school districts, parents are routinely asked for contributions to support a new program,

special tutor, or facility renovation at a public school. In some cases, these parents raise

substantial funds, bringing additional learning opportunities to their local school (Kozol, 2005).

The impacts on their children’s educational experiences and neighborhood home values are once

again strong motivators (Kozol, 2005). Unsurprisingly, across the nation there is a strong

relationship between district wealth, school funding, and student performance (Augenblick et al.,

1997; Hoffman, Wiggall, Dereshiwsky, & Emanuel, 2013).

So now, 61 years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), children from middle and

upper middle class neighborhoods go to better schools, with more rigorous programs, and less

teacher turnover than their poorer counterparts (Kozol, 2005). Wealthier children typically

perform better on all measures of academic achievement, including graduation rates,

standardized test scores, and college attendance rates (Boykin & Noguera, 2011, Reardon et al.,

2015; Rothstein, 2013). If school funding is used as a measure, our attempts to achieve equal

educational opportunity for all America’s children have largely failed. In light of that failure, we

must ask ourselves how to proceed from here. The answer could depend on whether we as a

nation believe the current inequitable arrangement holds consequences that must be addressed.

Based on the 2016 Department of Education budget request, clearly President Obama feels the

current situation needs to change. His highest priority for the Department of Education is equity

and opportunity (Fiscal Year 2016 US Department of Education budget summary and

background information).

Do Educational Inequities Matter?

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 10

Continued unequal access to high-quality educational opportunities reinforces a message

that entire communities are undeserving of the benefits of the world-class education available to

wealthy, mostly White children. Today, the population of the United States remains

approximately 70% of European descent. But the current K-12 student population is less than

50% White (US Dept of Education Common Core Data) – the nation is changing. At the same

time that marginalized communities are making up an increasing share of the population, we are

forfeiting their full contribution to the future of the nation. This effect of educational inequality

alone is compelling enough to seek equity in educational opportunity as a national goal (Darling-

Hammond, 2007; Orfield, 2014).

In addition to the effects on the nation as a whole, separating poor people from

participation in the American dream affects people on a very personal level as well. Poverty

affects children’s ability to learn in many ways. Increased stress due to poverty in early years of

life results in increased health impacts, higher levels of anxiety and lower ability to focus and

concentrate—all with direct impacts on school behavior and learning readiness. Lack of adequate

food, medical care, and housing, and higher levels of neighborhood violence can all adversely

affect students’ ability and readiness to learn (Duncan, Kalil, & Ziol-Guest, 2013; Turner, &

Lehning, 2007). The academic challenges of low income students are often reflected in poor

achievement on standardized tests, low graduation rates, and poor college attendance rates

(Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Reardon et al., 2015; Rothstein, 2013). There are obvious linkages

between poverty, poor school performance and lower quality of life. A large share of the nation’s

drop outs come from high-poverty schools (Balfanz & Letgers, 2004). Drop outs tend to earn

less, commit more crimes, and remain poor, adding significant financial burdens on society.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 11

Ladson-Billings suggests the cost to the nation of this inequity in educational opportunity could

run into the hundreds of billions of dollars annually (2013).

Informing Policy

If past school funding policy failed to facilitate improved learning outcomes for poor

students, it would seem that a new approach is required. The President has identified equity and

opportunity as high priorities for the U.S. Department of Education (Department of Education

2016 Budget Request). Can changes to school funding policies remedy the inequities in public

education opportunities between poor and wealthier children in this nation? If so, can students’

and teachers’ voices help inform policy changes?

Boykin and Noguera (2011) describe a case in which they were asked to consult with a

school district that had a large gap between the academic performance of White students and

Black and Latino students. The school was very well-funded on a per-pupil basis. When the

consultants made their recommendations, the school staff, district personnel, and parents could

only blame each other for the students’ failings. No progress was made, and money was not part

of either the problem or the solution. Prince George’s County Public School District provides

another stark example. With an average per pupil expenditure of almost $14,000 in 2014, student

progress on English and Math has decreased for three years in a row (Prince George’s County

Public Schools Financial Plan, 2015; Prince George’s County Board of Education “Bridge to

Excellence Master Plan-2016”). These examples encourage caution, and a search for deeper

understanding of the complex relationship between funding and performance.

The goal of school funding policy should not simply be additional funding. Nor should

equity be the driving goal. Forty-five years of litigation has reduced the concept of equity to the

legally-supportable notion of adequacy, with the result of segregated, unequal schools that do not

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 12

support high achievement for all students. Instead, the focus should remain on student

achievement and in that discussion, teachers and students can have an important voice.

Existing literature suggests we long ago recognized the need for additional funding to

help poor people learn. States created funding mechanisms to guarantee all students an equal

opportunity to learn. Yet educational opportunities and outcomes remain drastically different

based on wealth. In order to re-engage the funding policy mechanisms at the state and federal

levels in this era of accountability and outcome assessment, a deeper, more insightful

understanding of in-school programs that have been shown to work well is required. Teachers

and students can help provide that additional insight.

Programs that Work

Despite the tremendous impact of the environment and poverty on student readiness to

learn and on learning outcomes, excellent schools can still measurably support educational

achievement for low-income children. (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011; Fryer, 2014). The examples the

Fryer and his colleagues have found and demonstrated inspire hope and a search for

opportunities to customize and adapt those practices for other schools. This study will carry out

that search by bringing the teachers’ and students’ perspectives to the problem. To help frame the

inquiry, we will use Fryer’s 5 areas of best practices that schools can implement to improve

student achievement (2014). These five areas are: increased instructional time, more effective

teachers and administrators, tutoring, data-driven instruction, and a culture of high expectations.

Increased instruction time means adding hours to the standard school day and extra days to the

typical school year—resulting in more student time on learning tasks. Effective teachers and

administrators include extra observations, team teaching, and actionable feedback on

observations. Tutoring includes professionals hired to support struggling students. Data driven

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 13

instruction is more than just identifying the students who are not doing well. It involves going

deeper into the data to understand the individual student’s areas of weakness and designing

customized instructional strategies to assist him or her. It also means those areas are reviewed for

possible adjustments to the way they are taught in the future. High expectations continue to

remain a key contributor to student achievement (Fryer, 2014).

Method

This study seeks to build the bridge from current funding policy, based on a formula for

distributing resources to meet a criteria of ‘adequate,’ to a thoughtful approach to effectively

raising educational achievement among low-income students. It will explore specific activities,

programs, and in-school supports that may contribute to improved educational outcomes for low-

income children, by gathering students’ and teachers’ perspectives on their lived experiences.

Conceptual Framework

In addition to using Fryer’s 5 categories of best practices within the school to focus the

interview questions, we will utilize the concepts contained within Self-Determination Theory

(SDT) to encourage student and teacher participation in developing recommendations for school

improvement. SDT recognizes three psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and

autonomy. Satisfaction of these needs results in higher motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As a

recognition of their knowledge about what works in the learning environment, asking

participants for their opinion supports their sense of competence. This study also supports

teacher and student autonomy, as they have a choice to participate, as well as having a say in

which future activities and programs are pursued. It also conveys empathy, and as such, it

supports their relatedness. While enhancing the psychological needs of students and teachers is

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 14

not a goal of this research, by enhancing competence, relatedness, and autonomy, students and

teachers will be motivated to support the search for ways to improve the learning process.

Teachers and students are often the object of the reform—new reform ideas are ‘done to’

them, or ‘presented to’ them to implement. Instead, we will seek to provide students and teachers

a pathway to exercise their voice and become more invested in shaping future school funding

policy discussions. By asking students and teachers for their opinions on the learning process,

this study intends to inform future education reform policy debates with insight gained from the

people who live and work within the learning environment every day.

Participants

Sixteen Male and Female students from grades 9 through 12 at a high school in

Washington, D.C. will be interviewed, along with a sample of teachers from the same school.

The student participants will include 2 boys and 2 girls from each grade. Students will be

selected from across grades 9-12 and from a range of academic performance levels, based on

GPA and teacher recommendations. It is assumed that high-performing students and low-

performing students will have different perspectives of their school experiences (Miron &

Lauria, 1998), so the variety of students will provide a cross-section of perspectives. Eight

teachers will be selected from a variety of subjects and grades. Two English teachers and two

math teachers will be included as those subjects are the primary areas of focus for standardized

tests and are seen as fundamental. We will include one science and one history teacher on the

participant team, as well as two additional teachers. Interviews will be semi-structured to allow

participants to provide fuller explanations of their experiences. Seeking student perspectives is

supported by Howard (2001; 2003), who developed valuable insights into academic issues by

asking high school students about their experiences.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 15

Data Collection Approach

A phenomenological approach will be used to explore ways to improve learning and

academic achievement in a school primarily serving low-income students in an urban

environment. Johnson and Christenson (2014, p.144) defined the key question of

phenomenological research as, “What is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived

experience of this phenomenon by an individual or by many individuals?” This study will

explore the lived experience of the students and teachers within the school. As such, the research

team will spend several days each week in the school for a full school year.

Individual interviews and focus groups will be held with groups of students and with the

teachers. The focus group interviews will be developed based on the results of the individual

interviews in order to explore the areas raised by the participants in more depth. Several select

students and teachers will be chosen for follow-up interviews based on answers and insights

provided. Additionally, classroom observations and interviews with the school support staff will

be used to augment the students’ and teachers’ data and provide support for the follow-up

interviews and focus groups. Student demographic information will be collected to help compare

performance level in school to perspective on challenges and ways to improve.

Researchers will accompany the teachers to staff meetings, professional development

sessions, parent-teacher meetings, informal discussions among peers, and classroom

observations. Researchers will also accompany students to club and sports activities, visit with

them in the cafeteria and the library, and observe them during class activities. The first few

weeks of the semester will be devoted to establishing relationships between the research group

and the student and teacher participants. Researchers will work to gain the trust and confidence

of the participants and reduce their concerns over the potential uses of the information provided

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 16

over the course of the study. Researchers will try to establish their honest concern with the well-

being and academic success of the students.

Interview Protocols

The areas of discussion during the individual interviews will be different for teachers and

students. Utilizing Fryer’s best practices categories, teachers will be asked for their views on

lengthening the school day and school year; their experiences with classroom observations,

giving and receiving feedback on teaching practice, use of student data and experience with

tutors. Teachers’ sense of the role of their expectations on students’ success and how they

incorporate that understanding into their practice will also be explored. The researchers will then

ask about teachers’ perceptions of low and high performing students, and how the support they

need and receive differs. We will explore the role of school supports and look for specific

examples of how they have been utilized in conjunction with pedagogical techniques, and other

interventions to help students succeed. We will ask teachers to reflect on their students who did

not succeed, and how they might have intervened differently, or if any lack of resources

prevented them from helping those students achieve. We will also ask teachers to describe

changes to their school that would be most helpful in supporting student academic achievement.

Students will be asked to describe the types of programs, activities and school supports

that help them learn best. They will be encouraged to describe their experiences with teachers

and school support personnel who helped them achieve and those who did not. Students will be

asked for their perspectives on adding time to the school day and days to the school year, as well

as tutoring. The researchers will probe for examples of success and failure and explore students’

perceptions of the determinants of those experiences. Finally, we will encourage students to

explore and comment on changes in the school they feel would help them learn better.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 17

Data Analysis

Data collected during the interviews will be reduced to the “common core or essence of

the experience” (Johnson and Christenson, 2014, p.447). During data analysis, we will look for

significant statements that clearly identify either specific activities that can be implemented to

improve educational outcomes, or highlight areas where better programs would be helpful. Data

analysis will also involve searching the significant statements for themes that might indicate

important, recurring ideas. These will be further explored during the focus groups.

Conclusion

The urgency of providing equal educational opportunity is highlighted by the ongoing

detrimental effects of marginalizing entire communities based on wealth—high rates of dropout,

low high school graduation rates, school-to-prison pipeline, high unemployment, etc. This

urgency is reflected in the President’s budget request for the Department of Education, which

identifies equity and educational opportunity as its highest priority (2016 Department of

Education budget submission).

As scholars seek to understand the causes of, and potential solutions to the long-standing

issue of differential academic achievement based on socioeconomic status, the subject of school

funding is an important component of the discussion. Many authors argue that low-income

children need additional funding to help overcome the detrimental effects of poverty on learning

(Alexander & Wall, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kozol, 2005; Orfield, 2014; Weiston-

Serdon, 2009). This is consistent with the original intent of Title 1 of the ESEA of 1965

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). The apparent underfunding situation has

persisted over time and supports the impressions of unequal educational opportunity based on

differences in wealth.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 18

The study of school funding tends to be separate from the extensive research on

programs, activities and school supports that are effective, even in schools that serve low-income

students, at raising student achievement levels (Fryer, 2014). The federal government has

identified some of these same categories of best practices as areas where they are seeking to

encourage innovation, exploration and implementation. Funding is available and the federal

government has prioritized efforts to improve the academic performance of poor students—

specifically in the areas to be explored in this study. Listening to the students and teachers who

deal everyday with the challenges of teaching and learning in neighborhoods and schools

affected by concentrated poverty could provide important insights to inform the next school

funding policy debates.

On the whole, this is solid work, Tony. I do want to push you to clarify your focus and to think more about the relationship between race and class. In addition, you need to do more with the literature. What you offer here does not constitute a literature review. You are certainly on the right track, but you need to be more systematic in your discussion. Refer to my notes throughout for specific comments. 33/

References

Alexander, K. & Wall, A. (2006). Adequate funding of educational programs for at-risk children:

An econometric application of research-based cost differentials. Journal of Education

Finance, 31(3), 297-319.

Anderson, J.D. (2006). Chapter 1 A tale of two Browns: Constitutional equality and unequal

education. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Wiley-

Blackwell), 105(2), 14-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2006.00073.x

Augenblick, J.G., Myers, J.T. & Anderson, A.B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in school funding.

The Future of Children: Financing Schools, 7(3), 63-78.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 19

Balfanz, R., & Letgers, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which High Schools Produce the

Nation’s Dropouts? Where Are They Located? Who Attends Them? Center for Social

Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.

Boykin, A.W. & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research

to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Carter, P.L., & Welner, K.G. (Eds.). (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do

to give every child an even chance (pp. 11-22). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Clapp, J.M., Nanda, A., & Ross, S.L. (2007). Which school attributes matter? The influence of

school district performance and demographic composition on property values. Journal of

Urban Economics, 63(2), 451-466.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to

equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.

Deci E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.

New York: Plenum.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M., (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,

NY: University of Rochester Press.

Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). High stakes accountability in urban elementary schools:

Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.

Dobbie, W. & Fryer, R.G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement

among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic

Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158-187.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 20

Duncan, G.J., Kalil, A. & Ziol-Guest, K.M. (2013). Early childhood poverty and adult

achievement, employment, and health. Family Matters, 93, 27-36.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 70 (1965).

Fryer, R.G. (2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools:

Evidence from field experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1355-

1407. doi: 10.1093/qje/qju011.

Hirth, M.A. (1994). A multistate analysis of school finance issues and equity trends in Indiana,

Illinois, and Michigan, 1982-1992: The implications for 21st century school finance

policies. Journal of Education Finance, 20(2), 163-190.

Hoffman, M.J., Wiggall, R.L., Dereshiwsky, M.I., & Emanuel, G.L. (2013). State school finance

system variance impacts on student achievement: Inadequacies in school funding.

eJournal of Education Policy, Fall 2013, 1-8. Retrieved from:

http://nau.edu/coe/ejournal/_forms/fall2013/hoffmanwiggalldereshiwskyandemanuel_edit

ed/

Howard, T.C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African-American students’ perceptions of

culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131-149.

Howard, T.C. (2003). “A tug of war for our minds:” African American high school students’

perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations. High School Journal,

87(1), 4-17.

Johnson, R.B. & Christenson, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Kozol, J. (2005). Shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New

York, NY: Crown Publishing.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 21

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity. In P.L. Carter & K.G.

Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child

an even chance (pp. 11-22). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lee, J. (2012). Educational equity and adequacy for disadvantaged students: School and teacher

resource gaps toward national mathematics proficiency standard. The Journal of

Education Research, 105(64), 64-75.

Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report to the board of education. Boston, MA: Dutton &

Wentworth.

Matthis, W. J. (2011). Is education the key to global economic competitiveness? The Teacher

Educator, 46(2), 89-97.

Mintrom, M (1993). Why efforts to equalize school funding have failed: Towards a positive

theory. Political Research Quarterly, 46(4), 847-862.

Miron, L.F. & Lauria, M. (1998). Student voice as agency: Resistance and accommodation in

inner-city schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 189-213.

Moser, M., & Rubenstein, R. (2002). The equality of public school district funding in the United

States: A national status report. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 63-72.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for

educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Orfield, G. (2014). Tenth annual Brown lecture in educational research: A new civil rights

agenda for American education. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 273-292.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 22

Ostrander, R.R. (2015). School funding: Inequality in district funding and the disparate impact

on urban migrant school children. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal,

2015(1), 271-295.

Prince George’s County Public Schools Financial Plan 2016. (2015). Retrieved from:

http://www1.pgcps.org/uploadedFiles/Offices/Business_Management_Services/Budget/

FY_2016_Budget_Development/02%20-%20Financial%20Plan%20FY16%20APP.pdf

Prince George’s County Public Schools Bridge to excellence master plan-2016. (2015).

Retrieved from: http://www1.pgcps.org/masterplan/

President’s 2015 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/index.html

President’s 2016 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget16/index.html

Putnam, R.D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster.

Reardon, S.F., Robinson-Cimpian, J.P., & Weathers, E.S. (2015). Patterns and trends in

racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In H.A. Ladd & M.E.

Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 491-509).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Rothstein, R (2013). Why children from lower socioeconomic classes, on average, have lower

academic achievement than middle-class children. In P.L. Carter & K.G. Welner (Eds.),

Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do To Give Every Child an Even

Chance (pp. 61-74). New York: Oxford University Press.

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

SCHOOL FUNDING AND EQUITY 23

Suppovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from

the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change,

10(2-3), 211-227. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2.

Turner, K. & Lehning, A.J. (2007). Psychological theories of poverty. Journal of Human

Behavior in the Social Environment, 16(1-2), 57-72. doi: 10.1300/J137v16n01_05.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data.

(2014). State non fiscal survey of public elementary and secondary education, 2012–13

(NCES 2014-098). Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014098.pdf

Vance, S.D. (2009). Beyond segregation: The continuing struggle for educational equity 50 years

after Brown v. Board of Education. In L.C. Tillman (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of

African American education (pp. 465-480). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Verstegan, D.A., & Jordan, T.S. (2009). A fifty-state survey of school finance policies and

programs: An overview. Journal of Education Finance, 34(3), 213-230.

Verstegan, D.A. (2015). On doing and analysis of equity and closing the opportunity gap.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(41), 1-17. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1809

Weiston-Serdon, T.L. (2009). A radical redistribution of capital. Journal for Critical Education Policy

Studies, 7(2), 394-417.