Using a fixed effects model, a balanced panel data set of 6,922 schools in California from 2004 to 2011 was analyzed to see whether changes in resources would affect subgroup performance at intraschool level. Seven school resources variables previously demonstrated influential to school or subgroup achievement at interschool level were tested for their effects on Academic Performance Index (API) gains of eight subgroups. Teachers’ in-district experience had the strongest positive impacts on API gains for all subgroups, ranging from 3.367 to 8.958 points, and teachers’ total experience had the largest negative impacts on subgroup API, varying between −1.120 and −5.495 points. Increases in teachers’ in-district experience, shares of highly educated and full-time equivalent teachers all offered promising outcomes for improving APIs of disadvantaged subgroups.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In DayD. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 93-117). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causality_and_endogeneity_final.pdf
3.
BaliV. A.AlvarezR. M. (2004). The race gap in student achievement scores: Longitudinal evidence from a racially diverse school district. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 339-415. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00072.x.
BorgJ. R.BorgM. O.StranahanH. A. (2012). Closing the Achievement Gap between high-poverty schools and low-poverty schools. Research in Business and Economic Journal, 5, 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111012.pdf.
ChungJ. S. (2002). The effect of the availability of technology on teachers’ use of technology and student achievement on standardized tests (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, College Station, PA.
18.
CohenJ.McCabeE. M.MichelliN. M.PickeralT. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180-213.
19.
ColemanJ. S. (1975). Methods and results in the IEA studies of effects of school on learning. Review of Educational Research, 45, 335-386.
20.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
21.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
DoranH. C.IzumiL. T. (2004). Putting education to the test: A value-added model for California. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute.
24.
DriscollD.HalcoussisD.SvornyS. (2003). School district size and student performance. Economics of Education Review, 22, 193-201. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00002-X
25.
Easton-BrooksD.DavisA. (2009). Teacher qualification and the achievement gap in early primary grades. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(15). Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/17/17
FinnJ. D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is Next?Washington, DC: National Institute for the Education of At-Risk Students, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
29.
FinnJ. D. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Research, practice, and politics. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 551-560.
30.
FuchsT.WößmannL. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32, 433-464.
31.
GlasmanN. S.BiniaminovI. (1981). Input-output analyses of schools. Review of Educational Research, 51, 509-539.
32.
GoeL. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ667244
GreeneW. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
GrubbW. N. (2009). The money myth: School resource, outcomes, and equity. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
GrubbW. N. (2010). Correcting the money myth: Re-thinking school resources. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 51-55.
37.
GrubbW. N.AllenR. (2011). Rethinking school funding, resources, incentives, and outcomes. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 121-130.
38.
GrubbW. N.GoeL. (2002). The unending search for equity: California policy, the “new”school finance, and the Williams case. Los Angeles: The Institute of Democracy, Education and Access, University of California.
39.
HanushekE. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141-164.
40.
HanushekE. A. (1998). The evidence on class size (Occasional Paper No. 98-1). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
43.
JohnsonS. M.KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-39.
44.
KimD. Y.ZabelJ. E.StiefelL.SchwartzA. E. (2006). School efficiency and student subgroups: Is a good school good for everyone?Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 95-117.
45.
KiniT.PodolskyA. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of the research. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
46.
KruegerA. B. (2002). Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement. In MishelL.RothsteinR. (Eds.), The class size debate (pp. 7-35). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
LevačićR.VignolesA. (2002). Researching the links between school resources and student outcomes in the UK: A review of issues and evidence. Education Economics, 10, 313-331.
49.
LiD. (2011). School accountability and principal mobility: How No Child Left Behind affects the allocation of school leaders. Retrieved from http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/5437
50.
MolnarA.SmithP.ZahorikJ.PalmerA.HalbachA.EhrleK. (1999). Evaluating the Sage program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 165-177.
51.
MostellerF. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grade. The Future of Children, 5, 113-127.
52.
OddenA.PicusL. O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
PicusL. O. (1998). The collection and use of school level data. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, Washington State Legislature.
56.
PicusL. O. (2001). In search of more productive schools: A guide to resource allocation in education. Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
57.
PleckiM. L.KnappM. S.CasteñadaT. C.HalversonT.LaSotaR.LochmillerC. R. (2009). How leaders invest staffing resources for learning improvement (Research commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
58.
PowersJ. M. (2003). An analysis of performance-based accountability: Factors shaping school performance in two urban school districts. Educational Policy, 17, 558-586.
59.
PowersJ. M. (2004). High stakes accountability and equity: Using evidence from California’s public schools to address the issues in Williams v. State of California. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 763-795.
ToutkoushianR. K.MichaelR. S. (2007). An alternative approach to measuring horizontal and vertical equity in school funding. Journal of Education Finance, 32, 395-421.
62.
WenglinskyH. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center.
ZielezinskiM. B.Darling-HammondL. (2016). Promising practices: A literature review of technology use by underserved students. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
