This article examines the implications of progress toward understanding more about the transformation of resources into educational outcomes for thinking about equity standards in educational finance. A distinction is drawn between two types of progress that are being made: (a) gains in understanding the ingredients of effective schooling and (b) gains in reaching consensus about the purpose of schooling and the ability to measure educational outcomes along multiple dimensions. The article draws attention to the potential for these developments to point in contradictory directions for thinking about equity standards and proposes steps that can be taken to resolve the difficulties. The proposed next steps involve generating a new class of performance indicators that combine elements of opportunity to learn and performance standards and the conduct of collaborative studies wherein the focus is on the discovery of site-specific solutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berne, R.
, & Stiefel, L. (1991). Fifteen years older and deeper in debt: Effects of the mid 1970's fiscal crisis on public elementary and secondary education in New York City. New York: New York University, Robert F Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
2.
Boe, E. E.
(1992). Incentive and disincentive phenomena in education: Definitions and illustrations. Philadelphia: Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.
3.
Boe, E. E.
, Boruch, R. F, Landau, R. E., & Richardson, J. A. (1993). State policies fostering the entrepreneurial restructuring of public schools: Identification and classification based on a survey of the fifty states. Philadelphia: Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.
4.
Clune, W. H.
(1992). New answers to hard questions posed by Rodriguez: Ending the separation of school finance and educational policy by bridging the gap between wrong and remedy.Connecticut Law Review, 24(3), 721-755.
5.
Clune, W. H.
(1993). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance.The World and I, 8(9), 389-405.
6.
Cooper, B. S.
(1993). School-site cost allocations: Testing a micro-financial model in 23 districts in 10 states. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Darling-Hammond, L.
(1992). Refraining the school reform agenda: New paradigms must restore discourse with local educators.School Administrator; 49, 22-27.
8.
Ferguson, R. F.
(1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465-498.
9.
Fox, J. N.
(1987). An analysis of classroom spending: Or where do all the dollars go?Planning and Changing, 18(3),154-162.
10.
Gehrke, N.
, Knapp, M., & Sirotnik, K. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 51-110). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
11.
General Accounting Office.
(1993). Student testing: Current extent and expenditures, with cost estimates for a national examination. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
Haney, W. M.
, Madaus, G. F., & Lyons, R. (1993). The fractured marketplace for standardized testing. Boston: Kluwer.
13.
Hanushek, E. A.
, Gomes-Neto, J., & Harbison, R. W. (1992). Self-financing educational investments: The quality imperative in developing countries. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, NY.
14.
Hess, G. A., Jr.
, & Monfiletto, T (1992, March). Assessing and correcting intradistrict finding inequities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, New Orleans, LA.
15.
Johnson, S. M.
(1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.
16.
King, J. A.
(1994). Meeting the educational needs of at-risk students: A cost analysis of three models.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 1-19.
17.
Kirst, M.
(1988). The internal allocation of resources within U.S. school districts: Implications for policymakers and practitioners. l D. H. Monk & J. Underwood (Eds.), Microlevel school finance: Issues and implications for policy (pp. 365-389). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
18.
Lortie, D. C.
(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Miles, K. H.
(1994, April). Finding time for improving schools: A case study of Boston public schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
20.
Millman, J.
, & Sykes, G. (1992). The assessment of teaching based on evidence of student learning: An analysis (Research Monograph No. 2). Paper prepared for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Washington, DC.
21.
Mohrman, S. A.
, Lawler, E. E. III, & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1992). Applying employee involvement in schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 347-360.
22.
Monk, D. H.
(1993). The costs of systemic education reform: Conceptual issues and preliminary estimates [typescript]. Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
23.
Monk, D. H.
(in press-a). Incorporating outcome equity standards into extant systems of educational finance. In R. Berne (Ed.), New conceptions of equity in educational finance. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
24.
Monk, D. H.
(in press-b). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review.
25.
Monk, D. H.
, & King, J. A. (1993). "Cost analysis as a tool for education reform. In S. L. Jacobson & R. Berne (Eds.), 7he reform of education (pp. 131-150). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
26.
Monk, D. H.
, & King, J. A. (in press). School and classroom influences on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary policy issues: Choices and consequences in education. Ithaca, NY: Industrial and Labor Relations Press.
27.
Monk, D. H.
, & Roellke, C. F. (in press). Emerging indicators for modern entitlement based school finance systems. In K. Wong (Ed.), Advances in educational policy (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
28.
National Council on Education Standards and Testing.
(1992). Raising standards for American education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
O'Day, J. A.
, & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Odden, A.
(1993). Redesigning school finance in an era of national goals and systemic reform. Unpublished manuscript, CPRE Finance Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
31.
Odden, A.
, & Conley, S. (1992). Restructuring teacher compensation systems. In A. Odden (Ed.), Rethinking school finance: An agenda for the 90's (pp. 41-96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Porter, A. C.
(1991). Creating a system of school process indicators.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 13-30.
33.
Stike, K. A.
(1990). Is teaching a profession: How would we know?Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 91-117.
34.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
(1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions (OTA-SET-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
