Let No Child Be Left Behind: Determining the Cost of Improving Student Performance

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and recent legislation in a number of states have raised the standards for accountability in schools, with the objective of closing achievement gaps and increasing student performance overall. These new education policies, however, rarely address the way in which schools are financed. They ignore the fact that characteristics of schools and students require that some schools spend more than others to achieve any given student performance standard. To determine the characteristics that lead to variations in the costs of achieving a specified improvement in student performance, the authors estimate an educational cost function using data from elementary and secondary school districts in Texas. Results indicate that cost differences across districts can be quite large. The cost function results are summarized into a cost index that can then be used in a simple formula to guarantee that every district has sufficient fiscal resources to achieve state-imposed performance goals.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bessent, Authella M., and E. Wailand Bessent. 1980. Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 16 (spring): 57-75.

Bradford, David F., Robert A. Malt, and Wallace E. Oates. 1969. The rising cost of local public services: Some evidence and reflections. National Tax Journal 22 (June): 185-202.

Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. 2002. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning and Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bush, George W. 2001. No child left behind. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Available at www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/part1.html.

Chambers, Jay. 1995. Public school teacher cost differences across the United States. Analysis/methodology report, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95-758). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, October.

Deller, Steven C., and Edward Rudnicki. 1993. Production efficiency in elementary education: The case of Maine public schools. Economics of Education Review 12 (1): 45-57.

Duncombe, William, John Ruggiero, and John Yinger. 1996. Alternative approaches to measuring the cost of education. In Holding school accountable: Performance-based reform in education, edited by Helen F. Ladd, 327-356. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Duncombe, William, and John Yinger. 1999. Performance standards and educational cost indexes: You can't have one without the other. In Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives, edited by Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 260-297. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Duncombe, William, and John Yinger. 2000. Financing higher student performance standards: The case of New York State. Economics of Education Review 19:363-386.

10.

Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2001. Disruption versus Tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. NBER working paper 8479. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, September.

11.

Hanushek, Eric A., Steven G. Rivkin, and Lori L. Taylor. 1996. Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (November): 611-627.

12.

Ladd, Helen F., and John Yinger. 1994. The case for equalizing aid. National Tax Journal 47 (1): 211-224.

13.

McCarty, Therese A., and Suthathip Yaisawarng. 1993. Technical efficiency in New Jersey school districts. In The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications, edited by Harold O. Fried, C. A. Knox Lovell, and Shelton S. Schmidt. New York: Oxford University Press.

14.

Meyer, Robert H. 1996. Value-added indicators of school performance. In Improving the performance of America's schools, edited by Eric A. Hanushek and Dale W. Jorgeson, 197-223. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

15.

Minorini, Paul A., and Stephen D. Sugarman. 1999. Educational adequacy and the courts: The promise and the problems of moving to a new paradigm. In Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives, edited by Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, 175-208. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16.

Murnane, Richard J., and Frank Levy. 2001. Will standards-based reforms improve the education of students of color? National Tax Journal 54 (2): 401-415.

17.

National Center for Education Statistics. 1998. Digest of education statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: NCES, U.S. Department of Education.

18.

Ruggiero, John. 1996. Efficiency of educational production: An analysis of New York school districts. Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (3): 499-509.

19.

Texas Education Agency. 1998. Snapshot '97: 1996-97 school district profiles. Austin, TX: Division of Performance Reporting, Office of Policy Planning and Research. Available at www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/97/state.html.

20.

U.S. Department of Education. 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Executive summary. Available at www.ed.gov/offices/WESE/esea/exec-summ.html.