dailey's dissertation proposal powerpoint 2012 w phm edits

7/28/2019 Dailey's Dissertation Proposal Powerpoint 2012 w PHM Edits

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/daileys-dissertation-proposal-powerpoint-2012-w-phm-edits 1/35

A Doctoral Proposal Defense

James Andrew DaileySubmitted to the Graduate School

Prairie View A&M University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Delco 220 @ 11:00 p.m.

Major Subject: Educational Leadership

1



James Andrew Dailey

M.Ed. – Prairie View A&M University

(May 16, 2009)

Educational Administration

B.A. – University of Houston

(May 1997)

Major: History

B.A. –

University of Houston(August 1995)

Major: English

2



Doctoral Proposal Committee

Patricia Hoffman-Miller, Ph.D.(Dissertation Chair)

Judith Hansen, Ph.D.(Member)

William Kritsonis, Ph.D.(Member)

Solomon G. Osho, Ph.D.(Methodologist)

Pamela Freeman, Ph.D.(Member)

3



Abstract

4

WHITLOWE R. GREEN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Doctoral Pr oposal Defense

ABSTRACT

A Quantitative Causal-Comparative Study Examining the Relationship Between Per Pupil

Spending and Academic Achievement of High School Students in Select Harris County Districts

in the State of Texas.

(Fall 2012)

James Andrew Dailey, M.Ed. - Prairie View A&M University;

B.A. – University of Houston

Dissertation Chair: Patricia Hoffman-Miller, Ph.D.



Abstract (Continued)

The purpose of this study is to determine if a difference exists in student academic

achievement outcomes between high schools with low per pupil spending levels and high schools

with high per pupil spending levels as reported in the Texas Education Agency AEIS report of

2010-2011.

The causal-comparative study will explore the impact of per pupil spending on

academic achievement of high school students attending school in select Southeastern Districts in

the State of Texas. Texas school districts are faced with the dilemma of having to spend a

tremendous amount of money trying to prepare for state accountability tests, diverting limited

funds from necessary academic educational endeavors.

5



Abstract (Continued)

The available research is convoluted with regression models attempting to account for

socio-economic issues rather than focusing on whether a correlation exists between per pupil

spending levels and academic achievement levels.

According to Schenker and Rumrill (2004) causal-comparative designs often involve

derived groups to analyze differences between the derived groups on dependent variables. The

researcher will utilize a causal-comparative research method to identify and analyze the cause and

effect relationship between school’s per pupil spending rates and academic achievement rates of

high school students in select school districts in southeastern Texas.

6



Dissertation Proposal Format

Part I: Introduction

Part II: Review Of The Literature

Part III: Methodology

7



Part I

Introduction

8



Statement of the Problem

Despite decades of litigation and passage of educational reforms, there still

exists disparities in per pupil spending in educational districts across America, and

often these disparities exist between schools within the same district. According to

Rosa (2010):

The basic premise of litigation was that discrepancies in access to resources gave

some students a higher quality of public education than others, violating

individual’s right to equal protection under the law. That is, the more a district

spent per pupil, the better education it could deliver than a district that spent less

per pupil. (p. 19).

9



Statement of the Problem

The educational reforms of the past scar the landscape of the present, and

cloud the road of the future, because many of these reforms lacked equitable funding

mechanisms to insure their success. Students today are faced with a multitude of

technological advances, and a globally connected economy. A basic understanding of

per pupil spending and academic achievement is needed to lay the foundation for

analyzing how to adequately fund the reforms of a post modernistic future in the state

of Texas and nation as a whole.

10



The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this causal-comparative study is to determine if there is a

difference in student academic achievement between high schools with low per pupil

spending levels and high schools with high per pupil spending levels as reported in the

Texas Education Agency PEIMS and AEIS report of 2010-2011. This study will focus

on four areas of TAKS testing outcomes as reported in the Texas Education Agency

AEIS report of 2010-2011: 10th grade Reading/ELA, 10th grade Mathematics, 11th grade

Reading/ELA, and 11th grade Mathematics.

11



The Research Questions

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

pupil spending high schools, as reported on the Public Education Information Management

System (PEIMS) and the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA for 10th grade?



System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Mathematics for 10th grade?

12



The Research Questions




Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA for 11th grade?




Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Mathematics for 11th grade?

13



Research Hypotheses

H1 - As measured by the PEIMS and AEIS reports, 10th grade students from high per

pupil spending schools will outperform 10th grade students from low per pupil

spending schools on the Reading/ELA TAKS assessments. H1: x1 ≠ x2



spending schools on the Mathematics TAKS assessments. H2: x1 ≠ x2



spending schools on the Reading/ELA TAKS assessments. H3: x1 ≠ x2



spending schools on the Mathematics TAKS assessments. H4: x1 ≠ x2

14



The Null Hypotheses

H01 – There is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between

low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported

on the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 10th grade. H01: µ1 – µ2 = 0


low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on

the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 10th grade. H02: µ1 – µ2 = 0


low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on

the PEIMS and AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA for 11th grade. H03: µ1 – µ2 = 0


low per pupil spending and high per pupil spending high schools, as reported on the PEIMS

and AEIS for TAKS in Mathematics for 11th grade. H04: µ1 – µ2 = 0

15



Significance of the Study

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

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

occurs at given schools and districts. This study is significant for educational reform and equal

educational opportunities with equitable funding, because it will lay a basic foundation for

understanding per pupil spending and academic achievement. This study will attempt to determine

whether students in schools with the highest level of per pupil funding outperform academically

students in schools with the lowest per pupil level of funding.

16



Limitations of the Study

1. There are encompassing socio-economic factors, not analyzed in this investigation,

which could affect testing results.

2. It is possible for specific school expenditures to vary greatly between high schools in

this study.

3. It is possible that geographical surroundings of the included high schools could affect

testing results.

4. Private, and Parochial high school per pupil spending rates were not included in the

2010-2011 AEIS reports, and therefore they are excluded from this study.

17



Delimitations of the Study

1. This was a causal-comparative quantitative study. Only public high schools were studied.

2. This study only focused on per pupil spending of the top ten high schools, and the bottom ten

high schools as reported on the AEIS report of 2010-2011for school districts within Harris

County.

3. Student achievement outcomes of the TAKS assessments were delimited to Reading/ELA and

Mathematics scores for only 10th and 11th grade.

4. Student achievement outcomes of the TAKS assessments were delimited to Reading/ELA and

Mathematics scores for 2010-2011.

5. The findings of this causal-comparative quantitative study are limited to Texas.

18



Operational Definitions

Achievement Gap: The difference between how well low-income and minority children perform on

standardized tests as compared with their peers. For many years, low-income and minority children have

been falling behind their white peers in terms of academic achievement (U.S. Department of Education,

2012).

Per Pupil Spending: Per pupil spending is calculated by dividing the current expense of education by

average daily attendance (ADA) , which is defined as the total days of student attendance divided by the

total days of instruction.

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

(TAKS) assessments are criterion-referenced achievement tests designed to measure the extent to which a

student has learned and is able to apply the defined knowledge and skills at each tested grade level. The

TAKS program was launched in 2003 and was scheduled to be replaced by the STAAR (State of Texas

Assessment of Academic Readiness) program beginning in 2011 (Texas Education Agency, 2012).

19



Part II

Review of the Literature Review

20



Highlights of Major Themes

• Separate But Equal

• Legal Jurisprudence and Texas

• State Per Pupil Funding

• Accountability Standards

• Privatization of Educational Reform

• Federal Funding and Impact on

Student Achievement

• African-Americans and Litigation

•School Finance and Texas’ MinorityPopulation

• Accountability and Equitable Funding

• Global Financial Crisis

• Per Pupil Spending and School

Expenditures

• Technology

• Teacher Efficacy and School Funding

• Educational Facilities and

Postmodernism

21



Part III

Methodology

22



Research Method

The researcher will utilize a causal-comparative research method to identify

and analyze the cause and effect relationship between school per pupil

spending rates and academic achievement rates of high school students in select

districts in southeastern Texas.

According to Schenker and Rumrill (2004) causal-comparative designs often

involve derived groups to analyze differences between the derived groups on

dependent variables.

23



Research Design

The researcher will utilize a causal-comparative design.

This type of design will allow the researcher to choose the independent variables for

which to analyze their effects on dependent variables (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009).

The rationale for the researcher selecting a causal-comparative design is to determine

how per pupil spending rates impact student academic achievement levels.

In this causal-comparative study the independent variable will be the per pupil rates for

each high school

The dependent variables will be the tenth and eleventh grade TAKS scores for

Reading/ELA and Mathematics as reported on the AEIS reports.

24



Target Population

The public high schools chosen for the quantitative research study are located

in southeastern Texas. All private and parochial schools are excluded from this study.

The high schools serve students in grades 9-12. Tenth and eleventh grade test takers

are the target population for this quantitative causal-comparative research study. The

research will include all tenth and eleventh grade student academic performance on the

summative state assessment during the 2010-2011 school year.

25



Sampling of Participants

The research will utilize purposive sampling. According to Singh (2007)

when a specific sample needs to be targeted for research the selection of the targets

becomes purposive in nature. The researcher will purposively select the top ten per

pupil spending high schools, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high schools

located within the target area. This causal-comparative research study will utilize

2010-2011 school year data from the Public Education Information Management

System (PEIMS) and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports.

26



Description of the Instrumentation

Creswell (2009) argues that the validity of the instruments to collect data is

paramount when conducting quantitative research. The instrumentation for this

quantitative causal-comparative research study will be the Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills 2010-2011test, which is validated by the Texas Education

Agency (2012). The per pupil spending rates of each high school selected will be

recorded from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) report.

27



Statistical Technique(s)

• An independent T- Test will be utilized in this causal-comparative research study.

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

comparative research.

•The results of the T-Test will be utilized to determine whether there is a statistically

significant difference in the comparisons , and therefore, if the null hypothesis are rejected

(Creswell, 2009).

• Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 20 software will be utilized by the

researcher to analyze the collected data of the causal-comparative research study.

28



Summary of Research Procedures

A quantitative causal-comparative research study will be conducted by the

researcher to identify and analyze the cause and effect relationship between a

school’s per pupil spending rates and academic achievement in high schools in

school districts located in southeastern Texas.

The researcher will purposively select the top ten per pupil spending high schools

located within Harris County Texas, and the bottom ten per pupil spending high

schools located within Harris County Texas.

The research will utilize purposive sampling.

The instrumentation for this quantitative causal-comparative research study will be

the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills 2010-2011 test, which has been

validated by the Texas Education Agency (2012).

An independent T- Test will be utilized in this quantitative causal-comparative

research study.

29



References

Ajilore, O. (2006). Econometric Issues in Education Finance. Review Of Regional

Studies, 36(2), 192-204.

Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on Educational Resources That Do Affect

Student Achievement. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(4),

23-42. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8104_2

Battaglino, T., Haldeman, M., & Laurans, E. 2012-01-10 The Costs of Online Learning. Creating

Sound Policy for Digital Learning: A Working Paper Series from the Thomas B.

Fordham Institute. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000,

Washington, DC.Bernstein, S. (2004). Teaching and Learning in Texas: Accountability Testing, Language, Race,

and Place. Journal Of Basic Writing, 23(1), 4-24.

Boswell, C. (2010). State Education Finance and Governance Profile: Texas.

Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 85(1), 101-103.

doi:10.1080/01619560903524001

Carr, M. J., Gray, N. L., & Holley, M. J. (2007). Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students:

An Analysis of Intra-District Spending Patterns in Ohio. Journal Of Educational

Research & Policy Studies, 7(1), 36-53.

Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep Your Eye on Texas and California: A Look at Testing, SchoolReform, No Child Left Behind, and Implications for Students of Color. Journal Of Negro

Education, 74(4), 332-343.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Sage Publications: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore.

30



References

Dills, A. K. (2004). Do Parents Value Changes in Test Scores? High Stakes Testing in Texas.

Contributions To Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), 1-32.

Downes, T. A., & Shah, M. P. (2006). The Effect of School Finance Reforms on

the Level and Growth of Per-Pupil Expenditures. Peabody Journal Of

Education (0161956X), 81(3), 1-38. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_1

Earthman, G. (2009). Planning Educational Facilities: What Educators Need To Know.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Eaton, S., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Is Desegregation Dead? Parsing the Relationship between

Achievement and Demographics. Education Next, 10(4), 50-59.Emery, K. (2007). Corporate Control of Public School Goals: High-Stakes Testing in Its

Historical Perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 25-44.

Everhart, R. (2006). Why Are Schools Always Begging for Money? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1),

70-75.

Financial Allocation Study for Texas (2010). Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.

The Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.

Glen, W. J. (2006). Separate But Not Yet Equal: The Relation Between School Finance

Adequacy Litigation and African American Student Achievement. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 81(3), 63-93.doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_3

Greene, J. P., & Trivitt, J. R. (2008). Can Judges Improve Academic Achievement?. Peabody

Journal Of Education (0161956X), 83(2), 224-237. doi:10.1080/01619560801997010

Grubb, Norton W. (2009). The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity. Russell

Sage Foundation: New York, New York.

Hart, P. (2004). Hood Riddance. Texas Monthly, 32(3), 58-88.

31



References

Hedman, C. (2011). SCHOOL LAW--THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PROLONGS EDUCATIONAL

INEQUALITIES IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS. SMU Law Review, 64(2), 779-785.

Hines, M., Conner, J., Campano, G., Damico, J., Enoch, M., & Nam, D. (2007). National

Mandates and Statewide Enactments: Inquiry in/to Large-Scale Reform. English

Teaching: Practice And Critique, 6(3), 76-91.

Hoff, D. J. (2005). Texas School Finance Ruling Draws National Attention. Education

Week, 25(14), 25-27.

Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high – stakes testing in the USA: accountability, markets and the

decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.

doi:10.1080/01411920500240767

Imazeki, J., & Reschovsky, A. (2005). Assessing the Use of Econometric Analysis in Estimating

the Costs of Meeting State Education Accountability Standards: Lessons from

Texas. Peabody Journal Of Education, 80(3), 96-125.

Ishaq, K., & Kritsonis, W. (2009). Applying Postmodernism: Solutions to all our Educational

Problems. ERIC Online Submission.

Janssen, J. J. (2000). Public School Finance, School Choice, and Equal Educational Opportunity

in Texas: The Enduring Importance of Background Conditions. Review Of Litigation,

19(1), 1.

Jimenez-Castellanos, O. (2010). Relationship Between Educational Resources and School

Achievement: A Mixed Method Intra-District Analysis. Urban Review, 42(4), 351-371.

doi:10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6

Johnson, P. & Kritsonis, W.A. (2010) Greener Schools, Greater Learning, and the LEED Value.

Doctoral Forum: National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 7 (1).

32



References

Lee, J. (2010). Dual Standards of School Performance and Funding? Empirical Searches of

School Funding Adequacy in Kentucky and Maine. Education Economics, 18(2), 207-

228.

Lips, D., Watkins, S. J., Fleming, J., & Heritage, F. (2008). Does Spending More on

Education Improve Academic Achievement? Backgrounder. No. 2179. Heritage

Foundation.

Liu, G. (2008). Improving Title I Funding Equity Across States, Districts, and

Schools. Iowa Law Review, 93(3), 973-1013.

Mcfadden, L. (2009). Miami's "Zone" Teaches Lessons About Low-Performing Schools.

(Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 557-562.

Miles, K., & Roza, M. (2006). Understanding Student-Weighted Allocation as a

Means to Greater School Resource Equity. Peabody Journal Of Education

(0161956X), 81(3), 39-62. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8103_2

Moore, S. D., Kochan, F. K., Kraska, M., & Reames, E. H. (2011). Professional Development

and Student Achievement in High Poverty Schools: Making the

Connection. International Studies In Educational Administration (Commonwealth

Council For Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 39(2), 65-79.

Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight. Phi

Delta Kappan, 93(1), 42-48.

Picus, L. O., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the Relationship

Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence From

Wyoming. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 80(3), 71-95.

33



References

Preuss, G. (2009). The "Father" of Texas Education: A.M. Aikin and the

Modernization of Texas Public Schools. East Texas Historical Journal,

48(2), 17-25.

Ram, R. (2004). School expenditures and student achievement: evidence for the

United States. Education Economics, 12(2), 169-176.

Richwine, J., & Heritage, F. (2011). The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding.

Backgrounder. No. 2548. Heritage Foundation.

Roza, M. (2010). Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go? Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute Press.

Russo, C. J. (2009). ASBO at 100: A Supreme Court Retrospective on Equal Educational

Opportunities. School Business Affairs, 75(1), 36-39.

Ryan, K. & Cooper, J . (1995). Those Who Can, Teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Salinas, C. S., & Reidel, M. (2007). The Cultural Politics of the Texas Educational Reform

Agenda: Examining Who Gets What, When, and How. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 38(1), 42-56.

Schachter, R. (2010). The Price of a Good Education. District Administration,

46(9), 39-54.

Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, J. D. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 117-121.

Sharp, W. L. (1993). School Spending: Is There a Relationship between Spending and

Student Achievement? A Correlation Study of Illinois Schools.

Shelly, B. (2011). Money, Mandates, and Local Control in American Public Education. The

University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. Sage Publications: Los Angeles,

London, New Delhi, Singapore.

34



References

Smith, M. (2011, December 2). Robin Hood an Accepted Reality for Texas Schools. The Texas

Tribune, p. A1.

Smith, C. (2012, April 5). State comptroller says health care bill will reduce education spending.

The Bryan College Station Eagle, p. A1.

Stutz, T. (2012). School finance trial to start in late October. Dallas News April 16, 2012.

Texas Education Agency (2012). An Overview of the History of Public Education in

Texas.http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=148

Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The Walls Speak: The Interplay of Quality Facilities,School Climate, and Student Achievement. Journal Of Educational Administration,

46(1), 55-73.

Uline, C. L., Wolsey, T., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Lin, C. (2010). Improving the Physical and

Social Environment of School: A Question of Equity. Journal Of School Leadership,

20(5), 597-632.

United States Census Bureau (2011). Public Education Finances: 2009. U.S. Department of

Commerce, May 2011.U.S. Department of Education (2012).

Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., & Maniotis, L. (2005) the Educator's Guide to Texas School

Law. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Whitney, A. (2012, April 3). Districts Avoid School Finance Lawsuits, Cite Finances. The Texas

Tribune, p. A1.

35

dailey's dissertation proposal powerpoint 2012 w phm edits

Documents