How Expenditures Affect School Accountability Scores: Implications for District Finance Policy.

Every Kentucky school is expected to achieve the goal of proficiency on the state's Accountability Index by the year 2014. Many schools may not reach the proficiency goal in time without a broad, multifaceted approach to enhance educational outcomes. This study explored the possibility that expenditures for different purposes can become a policy took to elevate accountability gains. A three-level hierarchical linear modeling equation was devised. The first level consisted of 1999-2002 Kentucky Accountability Index scores for each school in the sample. The second level consisted of characteristics that differentiated the sample of 1,111 public schools. The third level comprised 170 school districts (out of 176) and consisted of characteristics differentiating the districts. The study found only one type of expenditure (central office support) that was directly associated with the accountability scores, and its effect was negative. Following the precedent of H. Wenglinsky (1997), three types of expenditures were shown to have indirect effects when mediated by the pupilteacher ratio. Expenditures for instruction and instructional staff support revealed positive indirect effects, whereas central office support revealed a negative indirect effect (in addition to its negative direct effect). Although each of these effects were statistically significant, all were very small in magnitude. The findings suggest that school districts have only a limited ability to stimulate school performance with finance policy. (Contains 3 tables and 13 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. How Expenditures Affect Accountability Scores 1 Running head: HOW EXPENDITURES AFFECT ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES HOW EXPENDITURES AFFECT SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES: IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRICT FINANCE POLICY Edward B. Reeves Morehead State University Author's note. Edward B. Reeves is Director of The Center for Educational Research and Leadership, a research unit of The Institute for Regional Analysis and Public Policy, at Morehead State University. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, in Chattanooga, TN on November 7, 2002. Inquiries concerning the paper may be sent to the author by mail at UPO Box 785, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY 40351, or by e-mail addressed to e.reeves @moreheadst.edu. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 2 BEST COPY AWILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. How Expenditures Affect Accountability Scores 2 Abstract HOW EXPENDITURES AFFECT SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES: IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRICT FINANCE POLICYHOW EXPENDITURES AFFECT SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY SCORES: IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRICT FINANCE POLICY Every Kentucky public school is expected to achieve the goal of proficiency on the State's Accountability Index by the year 2014. Many schools may not reach the proficiency goal in time without a broad, multifaceted approach to enhance educational outcomes. The present study explored the possibility that expenditures for different purposes can become a policy tool to elevate accountability gains. The study found only one type of expenditure (central office support) that was directly associated with the accountability scores and its effect was negative. Following the precedent of Wenglinsky (1997), three types of expenditures were shown to have indirect effects when mediated by the pupil-teacher ratio. Expenditures for instruction and instructional staff support revealed positive indirect effects, whereas central office support revealed a negative indirect effect (in addition to its negative direct effect). Although each of these effects was statistically significant, all were very small in magnitude. The findings suggest that school districts have only a limited ability to stimulate school performance with finance