A Question of Educational Equity - SF Public Presssfpublicpress.org/files/pa706paper_thorsby.pdf · · 2015-02-03Running head: A QUESTION OF EDUCATIONAL EQUITY: ... and Ritter,

Running head: A QUESTION OF EDUCATIONAL EQUITY: A MEASURE OF PTA RESOURCE ALLOCATION IMPACT ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A Question of Educational Equity:

A Measure of Parent Teacher Association

Resource Allocation Impact

on Academic Achievement

Jeffrey Thorsby

San Francisco State University

Department of Public Administration

Author Note: This paper was prepared for PA 706, taught by Professor Janey Wang.

A QUESTION OF EDUCATIONAL EQUITY: A MEASURE OF PTA RESOURCE ALLOCATION IMPACT ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

2

Abstract

Educational equality and equity are fundamental expectations for public educational institutions, public administrators and the public alike. Conversely, Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) are networks of joint stakeholders at the school level that seek to enhance scholastic opportunity and, ultimately, academic achievement for students by providing resources in addition to or in substitution of public allocations. Consequently, PTA resource allocations have the potential to promote the unintended consequence of exacerbating educational inequality at the district level independent of administrative control. However, very little research exists for administrators to refer to—namely do PTA resource allocations have significant influence on academic performance? This research attempts to contribute to available research by conducting a descriptive research on 39 elementary schools and 30 corresponding PTAs, including the collection of expenditure data, academic achievement scores and student demographic data in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). Collected data is then subjected to statistical analysis to determine factors of significance; PTA program service expenditures, socioeconomic factors and district budget allocations all have a significant correlation with a school’s Academic Performance Index (API). The findings of this research suggest that school administrators should be mindful of the potential impact that PTAs can have on educational equity at the district level, and future policies should contain strategies to ensure equality for all students in public educational institutions.

1. Introduction

Public education is an important institution that affects millions of Californians daily.

Specifically, kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) currently includes more than

6,236,672 children out of 58 counties in California (California Department of Education,

2014). Out of those 58 counties, there are 35 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Districts,

which make up thousands of individual PTAs (California State PTA, 2014). PTAs are

nonprofit charitable organizations with the purpose of conducting charitable activity for

the benefit of public schools, teachers, parents, students and community members. As

such, PTAs can have profound affects on the public education system through resource

allocation, program activities and community networking.


3

While the existence and assumed benefits of PTAs are not generally contested or debated

among the general public, issues over district-wide educational equity could be of

concern for educational administrators. For example, a school superintendent who is

charged with ensuring that educational equity is roughly equal among schools within a

district may discover that educational equity is not equal throughout the district because

of resource allocations outside district control; those resources are a result of PTA

activities. This raises important and tough questions for administrators. On the one hand,

PTAs represent specific stakeholders for a school, and if they mobilize to improve their

school, this is a positive benefit. On the other hand, socioeconomically disadvantaged

stakeholders with fewer resources available to them are unable to mobilize via PTA for

the improvement of their school, and they become further disadvantaged when compared

to other schools in the district with effective PTAs. Do PTA activities and resource

allocations influence and affect student academic achievement? Do PTAs influence

educational equity at the district level? Is educational inequality exacerbated for

disadvantaged stakeholders because of PTA resource allocations?

Research pertaining to PTAs and the effects of educational equity is not cumbersome

with adequate study. Further, studies pertaining to PTAs and their influence are widely at

the individual level and not at the school-to-school and district levels. Additionally,

empirical research suggests that the benefits of parental involvement in academic

achievement are highly correlated with younger levels of education and not high school

levels. Therefore, this research is intended to contribute to the lack of available research

via a structured approach that examines the correlation between PTA activities and

academic achievement at the elementary level (K-5) in the San Francisco Unified School


4

District (SFUSD). Such research can lead to a better understanding of how educational

equity at the district level can be influenced by PTA resource allocations.

This paper shall first summarize the available literature regarding academic achievement,

educational equity, PTAs and resource allocation within the context of the San Francisco

Unified School District. Following will be an outline of the overall design, the data

elements being assessed, and an analysis of the results. Finally, this paper will conclude

with a summary of the findings, any administrative and policy implications, and the

limitations of the study.

2. Literature Review

When examining how resources affect student achievement, much of the existing

research either investigates the impact of resources on student achievement across states

or quantifies the effect of resources on student achievement within states (Sherlock, 2011,

p. 333). However, studies across states tend to be limited in accessing elementary school

student achievement. Studies conducted within states show that resource allocations

positively affect younger student and higher math score achievement rates. For example,

Wenglinsky (1998) finds that resource allocation is less influential on academic

performance on higher grade levels than at younger grade levels; Downes, Dye and

McGuire (1998) conclude that resource constraints had limited, yet noticeable affects on

Illinois district lower-grade math scores. However, resource allocation is highly

associated with issues of educational equity and equality (Wong, 1994; Chambers, Levin,


5

and Shambaugh, 2010; Cooper, DeRoche, Ouchi, Segal and Brown, 2006; Miller, Kerr

and Ritter, 2008; Fernandez and Rogerson, 2003).

The definition of educational equity is often undistinguished or ill-defined from equality

in education literature, as Unterhalter (2009) makes note: “Equity might thus be thought

of as equality turned into action, a process of making equal and fair. But the academic

literature which uses the term equity in education does not stress this active dimension

separating equity from equality, but concentrates primarily on fairness in distribution,

collapsing equity into aspects of equality” (p. 416). Both terms in U.S. education

literature rest heavily on the historical Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education,

in which racial segregation was deemed unconstitutional and outlawed (Paige, 2004; and

Hunter, 2009). Brimley, Verstegen, and Garfield (2012) note that educational equity

must include the fair and competitive input of resources and academic opportunity (as

cited in Niven, 2012, p. 1). Moreover, educational inequality and equity are often

equated with socioeconomic disparity and disadvantaged student communities (Nielsen,

2013). Wong (1994) proposes a typology of equity systemic of governmental resource

allocation policies, which include social inequality of special-needs populations;

interdistrict or territorial inequality of fiscal capacity from disparities of taxable wealth;

and distributive inequality among schools and classrooms within schools (p. 259).

The notion of distributive inequality is important because it provides a framework of

analysis for concerns of equity at the school and district level with regards to resource

allocation. Further, Miller et al. (2008) adds an important distinction regarding inequality


6

borrowed from DeClue (1988) that an inequitable policy uses past degradation polices to

further oppress the disadvantaged (as cited in Miller et al, 2008, p. 104).

At the federal level, one of the first and most widely known initiatives that addressed

resource allocation for the purpose of improving education equity for socioeconomic and

disadvantaged communities was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(ESEA), which has most recently been reauthorized as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

(Kersten, 2011). At the state level, California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently passed

the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) utilizing many aspects of weighted student

funding formulas (WSF) (California Department of Education, 2014). Cooper et al.

(2006) explains that WSF polices are “meant to counter the oppressive effects of strict,

centralized resource allocation ratios. In theory, principals are better-equipped to make

decisions about the needs of their students than are central office bureaucrats” (p. 4).

More specifically, Chambers, Shambaugh, Levin, Muraki, and Poland (2008) explain that

in traditional district budgeting models, the school district central office controls staff

allocation and materials using a student-staffing ratio per the number of enrolled students;

in WSF, however, “school autonomy is intended to ensure that resource allocation

decisions are made as close as possible to where the resources are actually used” (p. 1).

Childress and Peterkin (2004) explain how the SFUSD budget uses WSF to allocate

resources to each school within the district. First, a base dollar amount is allocated for

each student using the total school enrollment (base funding factor). Second, additional

funding is provided for each student with special needs (weighted funding factor),

including socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are enrolled in free or reduced


7

lunch programs (FRL), special education students (SPED) and English language learners

(ELL). Additional restrictive funding is provided for specific uses along with resources

from the Students and Teachers Achieving Results program (STAR) and Dream Schools

program (Chambers et al., 2010, p. 286).

Funding is then submitted to the school, where the school’s principal and locally elected

school site council (SSC) determine the specific budget allocations, including funding for

specific academic programs, and teacher allocations, among others responsibilities.

However, while various school districts across the country have implemented WSF

budgetary allocation polices, Lewis and Nakagawa (1995) hesitate to promote

decentralizing budget allocation policies, because budget capacities may not meet the

required demands necessary for each school due to outside constraints (as cited in

Chambers et al, 2010, p. 285). Additionally, the ineffective allocation of funds with little

or no implementation strategy may exacerbate educational inequality between each

school.

Another important consideration when examining education equity is the performance or

academic achievement measures used. Much of educational literature on academic

performance impact and equity is at the student level and not at the school level (Miller et

al., 2008, p. 103) and subsequently fails to address distributive inequality at the district

level. General federal- and state-level measurements of performance standards are

reflective of NCLB to circumvent biases of a child’s race, ethnicity, or community

affiliation (Ibid., p. 101). Miller (2008) notes that the majority of literature suggests a


8

strong bias towards performance standards and measures of academic achievement that

entail a large degree of uniformity at the national or state level (p. 102).

However, various scholars contest that uniform standards can have unintended

consequences, such as teachers teaching to the test (Meier, Cohen and Rogers, 2000;

Roach, 2014). Additionally, Harris and Herrington (2006) note that low performance

measurements can be contributed to a school’s lack of capacity and efficiency, which has

widened the achievement gap between minority students. Further, “the gap in

achievement has shifted from being an indicator of educational inequality to being a

direct cause of socioeconomic inequality” (Ibid., p. 210). Despite various debates over

performance measurements, McEwen (1995) notes that an “indicator system is a tool to

focus reform and to improve accountability by proving better information about the

education system’s performance” (as cited in Miller et al, 2008, p. 103).

At the state level, California public schools use an accountability system called the

Academic Performance Index (API), which was established in 1999 per the Public

Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) (California Department of Education, n.d.). API

cross-sectional reports are used by school districts (also referred to as local educational

agencies, “LEA”) to meet federal requirements of NCLB. Using the results of two

statewide-based test categories, the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program

and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), the API program to access

the performance progress at the school and district level. The STAR test results are a

comination of tests given to various grades which include the California Standard Tests

(grades 2-11), California Modified Assessment (CMA), and California Alternative


9

Performance Assessment (CAPA). A school’s API is ranked from 200-1000, with 1000

being the optimal performance. Each school is given a Base API with a target for

improvement at the end of each school year. The following fall, every school is given a

Growth API, which reflects the progress of the school since the preceding Base API. The

next Base API will reflect the Growth API of the preceding fall. The results of the API

test report the student sample size (not every student takes all tests) including each

student’s ethnicity and socioeconomic status, which is reflected whether the student is

FRL or ELL (Ibid.).

Performance indicators have been used by various scholars to examine the extent of the

effect that resource allocations have on academic achievement. Papke (2005) finds that

increases in resource allocations have a significant effect on student math scores, with the

largest effect on poor performing students. Meteau (2012) concludes that budget cuts due

to slow economic recovery between 2007 and 2009 negatively impacted API scores for

K-12 schools in Riverside, California.

An important factor in academic achievement for school children is the involvement of

parents and parent teacher networks or organizations (Radd, 1993). However, mixed

results have shown both positive (Jeynes, 2002) and negative correlations (McNeal,

2001; and Cheung, 2009) between academic achievement and PTAs.

Specifically, PTAs are nonprofit charitable organizations with the purpose of conducting

charitable activity for the benefit of public schools, teachers, parents, students and

community members. PTAs are valued as important resources for children, school

administrators, and teachers and parents alike; however, various studies are inconclusive


10

as to whether, how and to what degree parental involvement positively affects schools

and school districts.

Despite ambiguous findings, Domina (2005) finds that students with low socioeconomic

status are likely to be positively influenced by an increase in parental support. Various

confounding factors contribute to whether PTAs influence academic performance, such

as a child’s liking for schoolwork, a child’s wellbeing, a teacher’s expectations, family

communication and the parental experience of the child (Cheung, 2008; Epstein, 2010;

and Jeynes, 2002). Because the majority of studies regarding the relationship between

PTA and student academic achievement are at the student level and not the district level,

large disagreement over results centers over the control for confounding variables and its

influence on results. As McNeal (1999) notes regarding studies on academic

achievement at the individual level, “It is possible, and no doubt likely, that the

individual-level processes that social scientists have come to rely on will operate quite

differently once they are fully conceptualized as including various macro-level forces” (p.

306).

Cheung (2008) notes, “Parental involvement and child achievement are both likely to

arise from a set of common factors, which selects parents and children into favorable

positions” (p. 248). Identified variables that influence academic achievement include

factors for socioeconomic status, social class, martial status, and migration experience.

However, Cheung’s (2008) findings lead to the conclusion that the majority of

schoolchildren’s academic performance did not benefit from parental involvement in

PTAs (Ibid., p. 255).


11

3. Methods

PTAs are nonprofit community organizations that attempt and potentially influence

student academic achievement in various ways, both explicitly and implicitly. This

research study examined whether a correlation exists between academic achievement and

PTA resource allocations in order to better contextualize the perceived effects on

education equity at the district level.

3.1 Research Design

The research design employed to examine PTA resource allocations and their potential

correlation with academic achievement was based on a descriptive research design

through the application of cross-sectional design strategies. McNabb (2013) prescribes

cross-sectional methods as ”a one-time assessment…because the ‘picture of the sample’

usually varies—sometimes substantially—if the research is repeated at a later date or

conducted with another sample taken from the same population” (p. 106). Further, a

cross-sectional design is appropriate because of its usefulness in addressing multiple

variables.

3.2 Data Collection

Primary data was collected for 39 elementary schools in the SFUSD and 30 PTA

organizations corresponding to the 39 elementary schools within the sample. First, school

demographic data was collected through DataQuest, a statistical search engine developed

and maintained by the California Department of Education (CDE). This included school


12

total enrollment, FRL enrollment, ELL enrollment, full-time teaching equivalent total and

base academic performance index (API). Second, each school on-site budget allocation

was obtained through document analysis of SFUSD Proposed Budgets that are made

available by SFUSD (San Francisco Unified School District, 2014). Third, PTA resource

allocation data was collected through document analysis of each PTA’s nonprofit

informational tax return, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990.

PTA organizations were identified through the California PTA website directory and

cross-referenced through the SFUSD PTA website directory. Please note that this study

only includes chapter PTAs of the California and National Parent Teachers Association

with tax-exemption under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3) and does not include

Parent Teacher Organizations (PTO) or other informal parent teacher groups or networks.

However, due to IRS tax regulations, only organizations with annual revenues of $50,000

or more are required to file IRS Form 990-EZ; otherwise, IRS Form 990 E-Postcard may

be filed, which does not obtain any information. Moreover, an organization is only

required to file one tax return within a period of three years without penalty. As such,

there was no applicable data to be discovered for seven PTAs. Additionally, two of the

schools did not have PTAs. All IRS Form 990s used for document analysis were

obtained through GuideStar at www.guidestar.org and the National Center for

Charitable Statistics at www.nccs.urban.org. All other IRS Form 990-EZ tax returns that

were unavailable were requested by letter and calls to the PTA organization, as IRS Form

990 is considered a public document that should be made available by the organization

upon request. However, none of the PTAs that were contacted responded to the request.

Therefore, the corresponding schools with PTAs but no information were coded as such,


13

but were given zero expenditure. This allowed the ability to control for the presence of a

PTA organization but also to control for the abandonment and possible pre-dissolution of

the PTA.

Data was collected for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The data

that was collected from IRS Form 990 and IRS Form 990-EZ included the annual

revenue, annual expense and annual program service expense. In IRS Form 990, these

items are located in Part I Line 12, Part I Line 18 and Part III Line 4e, respectively. In

IRS Form 990-EZ, these figures are located in Part I Line 9, Part I Line 17 and Part III

Line 32, respectively.

3.2.1 Variables

Figure 1 identifies the variables used within the study including the dependent variable,

primary independent variable and other independent variables of concern.

Figure 1

Dependent Variable • Base API Score

Primarily Independent Variable • PTA Program Service Expense

Other Independent Variables • Total Enrollment

• Free and Reduced Lunch Enrollment

• English Learner Enrollment

• Full-Time Teacher Equivalent

• Onsite SFUSD Budget Allocation


14

The unit of analysis is the school. The Base API was used as the dependent variable

because it accounts for a constant measure of academic achievement for each school

across the entire sample. The PTA program service expense per student was used as the

primarily independent variable. The program service expense was used instead of the

annual revenue or annual expense in order to control for organizational expenses that did

not directly contribute as resource allocations to schools. Specifically, a program service

expense is defined as any expense used to promote the “organization’s primary exempt

purpose” (Internal Revenue Service, Form 990, 2014). As a result, this excluded

fundraising expenses, PTA workshops or other nonrelated program expenses.

Other important independent variables included total enrollment, FRL enrollment, ELL

enrollment, full-time teacher equivalent and onsite SFUSD budget allocation per student.

Total enrollment, which is the number of students enrolled during the school year, was

included to measure whether the size of the school contributed to academic achievement.

FRL and ELL enrollments were included to account for socioeconomic factors. Further,

full-time teacher equivalent is the total percentage of teachers working full-time and was

included to measure whether student-teacher ratios contributed to academic achievement.

Last but not least, the onsite SFUSD budget allocation was included to measure the total

resource allocation provided to the school.

Figure 2 shows a chart for each variable’s mean, median, mode and standard deviation.

Please see Appendix 1 for a histogram of each variable. All variables are interval data

except for the Base API, which is ratio data.


15

Figure 2

Variable

(N=117) Base API

PTA Total Program Revenue Per Student

Total Enrollment FRL ELL FTE

SFUSD Onsite Budget Per Student

Mean 838.81 $212.53 404.81 220.18 140.64 20.62 $4836.7

Median 854 $137.39 394 204.99 129 20.1 $4737.6

Mode 882 $0 240 52 30 24 $3996.64

Standard Deviation

73.851 $265.75 112.96 107.32 88.04 5.49 $591.89

Variance 5453.96 70626.27 12761.361 11516.81 7752.26 30.14 350334.015

3.2.2 Hypothesis

After reviewing the existing literature as it relates to the topic of this research, it is the

hypothesis of this study that PTA program service expenditures per student (resource

allocation) significantly correlate with higher academic achievement scores at the school

level as reflected in the Academic Performance Index. Alternatively, the null hypothesis

to be tested is that PTA program service expenditures per student (resource allocation) do

not have a significant correlation with academic achievement scores at the school level as

reflected in the Academic Performance Index. The proposed hypothesis to be tested can

be written algebraically as follows:

H1: β6 ≠ 0 H0: β6 = 0

3.2.3 Analytic Methods and Inferential Statistics


16

To examine the hypothesis that academic performance is correlated with PTA program

service expenditures, a multiple linear regression analysis is conducted. The regression

equation can be written out as follows: Ŷ = α + β1Χ1 + β2Χ2 + β3Χ3 + β4Χ4 +β5Χ5 + β6Χ6 .

A multiple linear regression is appropriate for two reasons. First, a multiple regression

analysis allows use of the data that was collected, which is interval and ratio. Second, a

multiple regression expands the explanatory power of the analysis by including other

explanatory variables. As Meier, Brudney and Bohte (2012) note, one “can have more

faith in the idea that a particular independent variable explains variation in a dependent

variable if, after generating a multiple regression that includes other relevant explanatory

variables, the original independent variable remains statistically significant” (p. 392). In

the equation above, Ŷ represents the Base Academic Performance Index. Χ1 , Χ2, Χ3,

Χ4, , Χ5, and Χ6 represent the total enrollment, FRL enrollment, ELL enrollment, full-

time teacher equivalent, SFUSD budget allocation per student, and PTA program service

expenditure per student, respectfully.

Figure 3 depicts the six variables postulated within the regression analysis. The

regression equation therefore is Ŷ = 1148.84 – .351(FRL) – .065(SFUSD Budget)

+ .038(PTA $).

Figure 3

Variable Parameter Estimate (β) t Score Confidence Interval

(constant) 1148.84 17.815 1021.02 1276.655

PTA $ .038 2.216* .004 .072

Total Enrollment .233 1.9 -.01 .476

FRL -.351 -3.327** -.559 -.142


17

ELL .173 1.399 -.072 .418

FTE -2.176 -1.126 -6.004 1.653

SFUSD Budget -.065 -5.944** -.087 -.044

R2; .69; Adjusted R2: .673 *p<.05, **p<.01; F- statistic: 40.426

The combination of the variables PTA

program service expenditures per student,

total enrollment, FRL, ELL, FTE and

onsite SFUSD budget allocations explained

69% of the variance regarding PTA

programs service expenditure as a factor of

academic achievement. 1 Further, the F

statistic is 40.426, which provides a

significant p value at a 95% confidence level. However, three variables had t scores that

corresponded with insignificant p values with less than a 95% confidence level. These

variables are total enrollment, ELL and FTE. As such, these variables have been

excluded from the explanatory equation as listed above. Moreover, the significant

variables of the model included the PTA program service expenditures, FRL and SFUSD

budget allocation with β values of .038, -.351 and -.065, respectively. Figure 4 shows the

scatter plot of the primary variable with a coefficient of determination of .109, which

explains approximately 11% of the variance. However, the scatter plot does show that

there is a positive correlation with academic achievement as measured by the Base API.

Additionally, scatter plots for the other two significant variables can be found in

1 This is denoted by the coefficient of determination, R2: .69.

Figure 4


18

Appendix 2.

4. Results

The results of the multiple regression research show that PTA activities, FRL enrollment

and onsite SFUSD budget allocations are all significant factors of influence for academic

achievement as measured by the Base API. Specifically, PTA program service

expenditures per student have a positive correlation with academic achievement with a

positive slope of .038. This means that for every dollar per student that is provided to a

school by PTAs, the Base API will raise by .03. It should be noted that this relationship is

small, yet still significant.

However, the other two significant variables, FRL enrollment and the onsite SFUSD

budget allocations per student, have negative correlations. The negative correlation for

FRL of -.351 is consistent with pre-existing research because those students represent

socioeconomically disadvantaged students that tend to perform worse. Therefore, for

every socioeconomically disadvantaged student, the Base API will lower by .351. More

surprisingly, the SFUSD budget allocation per student also had a negative correlation.

Research can help explain this as well. If a school has lower academic achievement, then

Federal NCLB policy provides additional financial assistance to those schools. As such,

this could explain the negative correlation.

Surprisingly, the full-time teacher equivalent was insignificant. This may be attributed to

how the full-time teacher equivalent is calculated. It is the sum of the percentage of

teachers or instructional staff of the school where a full-time individual represents 1, a


19

part-time individual represents .5, and an individual who works quarter-time

represents .25 (California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2014). As such, a school

may employee numerous part-time teachers and no full-time teachers, thereby skewing

the relationship of the variable. Total enrollment was also not a significant factor. This

means that academic achievement is not influenced in a significant way by the amount of

students but rather by the types of students (socioeconomic factors).

Therefore, the null hypothesis that PTA program service expenditures per student

(resource allocation) do not have a significant correlation with academic achievement

scores at the school level as reflected in the Academic Performance Index must be

rejected. As such, the alternative hypothesis that PTA program service expenditures per

student (resource allocation) significantly correlate with higher academic achievement

scores at the school level as reflected in the Academic Performance Index must be

accepted. PTA program expenditures do have significant influence on academic

achievement, even if slight.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this research study has attempted to address whether or not PTA activities

correlate with academic achievement at the school level. First, by identifying key

concepts, a number of variables were operationalized by the collection of school

demographic data, API scores and PTA expenditures. These were then analyzed utilizing

a multiple linear regression analysis. The results of the research demonstrate that there is

a significant relationship between PTA program service expenditures and academic


20

achievement as measured in the Base API for each school. Additionally, a significantly

negative correlation was found between FRL enrollment and onsite SFUSD budget

allocations. These findings can be explained by socioeconomically disadvantaged

students having fewer resources and by schools with lower-performing students being

allocated additional money in order to minimize the negative impact of this.

5.1 Limitations

This research study has various limitations. First, PTA expenditures were collected

through IRS tax documents that were signed under oath; however, many of the

documents analyzed were handwritten and contain various mistakes. Further, no data

was made available from PTAs with expenditures of less than $50,000. This raises issues

of external validity. Additionally, this study was unable to include all elementary schools

in the SFUSD because of merging schools, insignificant API sample sizes and school

closures. Other limitations to the study were the years of data collected: 2009-2010,

2010-2011 and 2011-2012. A more robust analysis should include as many years as

possible. Initially, an attempt was made to collect data for all schools from 2002-2013,

but due to the lack of available data and missing information, this study narrowed its

sample size in order to maintain a clean and consistent sample.

5.1.2 Policy Implications

This research leads to the logical conclusion that if PTA resources correlate with a

school’s overall academic performance, then school administrators are justified in the

assumption that educational equity can be influenced and made unequal at the district


21

level due to PTA activities. This can have various policy implications for and impacts on

school administrators attempting to minimize education inequality throughout a school

district. And, while this study did not address the actual educational equity of SFUSD at

the elementary level, it stands to reason that the schools with larger socioeconomically

disadvantaged student populations will have less PTA involvement and will have

decreasing levels of educational equality when compared to better-performing schools in

their district. Future research should further investigate the correlation between PTA

activity and academic performance with regards to educational inequality at the school

district level.

References

California Department of Education. (2014). DataQuest: Enrollment Report. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=StEnrGrd2&cYear=2013-14&cLevel=State&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B.

California Department of Education. (2014). DataQuest. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

California Department of Education. (2014). Local Control Funding Formula Overview: Information bout Local Control Funding Formula funding and accountability provisions. Retrieved from California Department of Education: Allocations & Apportionments: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp.

California Department of Education. (n.d.) Executive Summary Explaining the Academic Performance Index. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/.

California State PTA. (2014). PTA District Office Locations. Retrieved from http://www.capta.org/sections/basics/district-offices.cfm.

Chambers, J., Shambaugh, L., Levin, J., Muraki, M., Poland, L. (2008). A tale of two districts: A comparative student of student-based funding and school-based decision making in San Francisco and Oakland Unified School Districts. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.


22

Chambers, J.G, Levin, J.D., Shambaugh, L. (2010). Exploring weighted student formulas as a policy for improving equity for distributing resources to schools: A case study of two California school districts. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 283-300.

Cheung, C. (2009). Evaluating the benefit from the help of the parent-teacher association to child performance. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 247-256.

Childress, S. Peterkin, R. (2004). Pursuing educational equity at san Francisco Unified School District. Public Education leadership Project at Harvard University. Boston, MA: Harvard University.

Cooper, B. S., DeRoche, T.R., Ouchi, W.G., Segal, L.G., Brown, C. (2006). Weighted student formula: putting funds where they count in education reform. Education Working Paper Archive. Retrieved from http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/EWPA/Research/School_Finance/1781.html.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78(3), 233-249.

Downes, T.A., Dye, R.F., McGuire, T.J. (1998), Do limits matter? Evidence on the effects of tax limitations on student performance. Journal Of Urban Economics, 43(3), 401-417.

Epstein, J. (2010). School, Family, and Community Partnerships (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO; Westview Press.

Fernandez, R., Rogerson, R. (2003). Equity and resources: An analysis of Education Finance Systems. Journal of Political Economy, 3(4), 858-897.

Harris, D.N., Herrington, C.D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past-half century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209-238.

Hunter, R.C. (2009). Public school administration and Brown v. Board of Education. Education and Urban Society, 41(5), 575-594.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 3747 Alamo Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/942605294/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Alice Fong Yu Parent Association. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/77-0439991/alice-fong-yu-parents-association.aspx.


23

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Alvarado Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/942569531/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Argonne Council of Empowerment. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-3344282/argonne-council-empowerment.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: 5410 Bessie Carmichael PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Claire Lilienthal Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/942954256/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Parent Advisory Council Japanese Bilingual Bicultural Program. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-2783933/parent-advisory-council-japanesethe-bilingual-bicultural-program.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 304 Cleveland Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Commodore Sloat School Fund. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-1677648/commodore-sloat-school-fund.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Dianne Feinstein Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/711015710/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Dr. George Washington Carver Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/900850574/popup/1.


24

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. E R Taylor Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Fairmount Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/237038038/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Francis Scott Key Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/942569531/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Friends of Harvey Milk. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/20-5481914/friends-harvey-milk.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 5974 George Peabody Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/711004773/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 309 Grattan Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/942967138/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Guadalupe Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Hillcrest Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/371540114/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Jefferson Elementary PTA. Retrieved from


25

http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946172271/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 4977 Jose Ortega Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/943190930/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Junipero Serra Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-3115659/pta-california-congress-parents-teachers-students.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 4977 Lafayette Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946172049/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 4977 Lawton Alternative School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/134265192/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 306 Leonard Flynn Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/562587473/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Longfellow Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946172144/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 5901 Marshall Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/542173518/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Miraloma Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from


26

http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946184034/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Monroe Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/260084079/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Friends of New Traditions School. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/943220822/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Parents Club West Portal School. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-3069763/parents-club-west-portal-school.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Paul Revere PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Robert Louis Stevenson Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946174525/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Rooftop Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/237349936/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Rosa Parks PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Sherman PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/943351039/popup/1.


27

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Spring Valley Science School PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 5945 Starr King Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/134317993/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Sunnyside Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/911812161/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Families of Sunset PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946174545/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 4185 Sutro Elementary PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 337 Ulloa Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/943281678/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. Visitacion Valley PTA. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: PTA California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc. 5943 William McKinley Elementary School PTA. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/946174545/popup/1.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009, 2010, 2011). Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax: Yick Wo Parent Teacher Organization. Retrieved from


28

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/94-3204138/yick-wo-parent-teacher-organization.aspx.

Jeynes, W. (2002). Does parental involvement eliminate the effects of parental divorce on the academic achievement of adolescents? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37(1-2), 101-115.

Kersten, T. (2011, June 20). Historical Basis for Public School Funding. Retrieved from the OpenStax-CNX Website: http://cnx.org/content/m18332/1.7.

McNabb, D. E. (2013). Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

McNeal, R. B. (1999). Participation in high school extracurricular activities: Investigating school effects. Social Science Quarterly, 80(2), 291-309.

McNeal, R. B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behavior outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 171-179.

Meier, D., Cohen, J., Rogers, C. (2000). Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon.

Meier, K. J., Brudney, J. L., Bohte, J. (2012). Applied Statistics: For Public ad Nonprofit Administration. (8th ed). Boston, MA: Wadsworth CENGAE Learning.

Meteau. R. (2012). Impact of the California State Budget on Public Policy: Budget Cuts and Student Achievement. n.p.: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Miller, W.H., Kerr, B., Ritter, G. (2008). School performance measurement; Politics and equity. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(1), 100-117.

Nielsen, N. (2013). Education, equity, and the big picture. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(3), 76-82.

Niven, J. (2012). The Relationship of the Texas School Foundation Program Equity to Student Performance and Socioeconomic Status. n.p.: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Paige, R. (2004). The legacy of Brown versus Board of Education. SOCIETY, 41(5), 7-11.

Papke, L.E. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates; evidence from Michigan. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 821-839.

Radd, T. R. (1993). Restructuring parent-teacher organizations to increase parental influence on the educational… Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 27(4), 280.

Roach, R. (2014). Teaching to the test. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 31(3), 32.


29

San Francisco Unified School District. (2009). San Francisco Unified School District: Recommended Budget For Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Second Reading). Retrieved from http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/about-SFUSD/files/budget-fy-09-10-recommended.pdf.

San Francisco Unified School District. (2010). San Francisco Unified School District: Recommended Budget For Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Second Reading). Retrieved from http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/about-SFUSD/files/budget-fy11-2nd-reading.pdf.

San Francisco Unified School District. (2011). San Francisco Unified School District: Recommended Budget For Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (Second Reading). Retrieved from http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/about-SFUSD/files/FY12%20Recommended%20Budget.pdf.

Sherlock, M. (2011). The effects of financial resources on test pass rates; Evidence from Vermont’s equal education opportunity act. Public Finance Review, 39(3), 331-364.

Unterhalter, E. (2009). What is equity in education? Reflections from the capability approach. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25(5), 415-424.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Finance equalization and within-school equity: The relationship between education spending and the social distribution of achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 269-283.

Wong, K.K. (1994). Governance structure, resource allocation, and equity policy. Review of Research in Education, 20, 257-289.


30

Appendix 1

Statistics Base API Score

N Valid 117

Missing 1 Mean 838.81 Median 854.00 Mode 882 Std. Deviation 73.851

Statistics Total Enrollment


31

N Valid 117

Missing 1 Mean 404.81 Median 394.00 Mode 240a Std. Deviation 112.966

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Statistics PTA Total Program Expense Per Student

N Valid 117

Missing 1 Mean $212.5394 Median $137.3983 Mode $0.00 Std. Deviation $265.75604 Variance 70626.272

Statistics Free and Reduced Lunch

N Valid 116



32


Statistics Full Time Teacher Equivalent Total

N Valid 117

Missing 1 Mean 20.626

Median 20.100

Mode 24.0

Std. Deviation 5.4905

Variance

Statistics English Language Learner Total Enrollment

N Valid 117




33

Appendix 2

Statistics SFUSD School Budget Allocation Per Student

N Valid 117

Missing 1 Mean $4,836.7014 Median $4,737.6113 Mode $3,996.64a Std. Deviation $591.89020 Variance 350334.015



34


35

Appendix 3

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F Change

1 .831a .690 .673 42.225 .690 40.426 6 109 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), SFUSD School Budget Allocation Per Student, Free and Reduced Lunch, PTA Total Program Expense Per Student, Full Time Teacher Equivalent Total, English Language Learner Total Enrollment, Total Enrollment

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 432463.526 6 72077.254 40.426 .000b

Residual 194341.681 109 1782.951

Total 626805.207 115 a. Dependent Variable: Base API Score b. Predictors: (Constant), SFUSD School Budget Allocation Per Student, Free and Reduced Lunch, PTA Total Program Expense Per Student, Full Time Teacher Equivalent Total, English Language Learner Total Enrollment, Total Enrollment

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Base API Score 838.16 73.827 116 Total Enrollment 405.97 112.762 116 Free and Reduced Lunch 220.18 107.316 116 English Language Learner Total Enrollment 141.02 88.334 116 Full Time Teacher Equivalent Total 20.691 5.4678 116 PTA Total Program Expense Per Student $214.3716 $266.16577 116 SFUSD School Budget Allocation Per Student $4,838.2536 $594.21887 116


36

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

95.0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations

Collinearity Statistics

B Std.

Error Beta Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Zero-order

Partial Part

Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 1148.840

64.489 17.815

.000 1021.026

1276.655

Total Enrollment .233 .123 .356 1.900 .060 -.010 .476 .322 .179 .101 .081 12.351 Free and Reduced Lunch

-.351 .105 -.510 -3.327

.001 -.559 -.142 -.332 -.304

-.177 .121 8.245

English Language Learner Total Enrollment

.173 .124 .207 1.399 .165 -.072 .418 -.112 .133 .075 .130 7.712

Full Time Teacher Equivalent Total

-2.176 1.932 -.161 -1.126

.263 -6.004 1.653 .108 -.107

-.060 .139 7.196

PTA Total Program Expense Per Student

.038 .017 .138 2.216 .029 .004 .072 .340 .208 .118 .736 1.359

SFUSD School Budget Allocation Per Student

-.065 .011 -.525 -5.944

.000 -.087 -.044 -.761 -.495

-.317 .364 2.746

a. Dependent Variable: Base API Score

Documents

A Question of Educational Equity - SF Public Presssfpublicpress.org/files/pa706paper_thorsby.pdf · · 2015-02-03Running head: A QUESTION OF EDUCATIONAL EQUITY: ... and Ritter,