Stratified scores : complexities of American education funding and interrelated mechanism effects on racial achievement gaps in standardized test scores

(1)

Stratified Scores:

Complexities of American Education Funding and

Interrelated Mechanism Effects on Racial Achievement

Gaps in Standardized Test Scores

Master’s Thesis by Hannah R. Strauss

UvA ID: 11610867

University of Amsterdam

Masters in Sociology

Social Issues and Public Policy Track

Primary Supervisor, prof. dr. H.G. van de Werfhorst

Second Reader, dhr. dr. T. Bol

4 July 2019

(2)

1

I truly couldn’t have done this without your immense support and love. Thank you so much for providing me with the space to grow, venture out into the world, and follow my passions. You’ve instilled in me the mindset that I can accomplish all of the ridiculous things I set out to do, including moving across the world to pursue my education and write this thesis. I’m forever indebted to you two crazy kids. Thank you for everything.

To dr. van de Werfhorst,

I can’t help but laugh as I try to think of the words to express my gratitude. I was completely adamant about choosing a thesis topic that would require quantitative analysis, and as a complete statistical novice (even still), I am truly grateful for your patience and guidance throughout this entire research and writing process. I would have nothing to show for my hard work if it wasn’t for you, and I am so appreciative of your critical insight and supervision over the past few months. Thank you so much!

(4)

3

Abstract: Racial achievement gaps on standardized tests are still persistent in American

elementary and secondary education despite several years of reforms targeted towards alleviating these disparities. This problem is imperative in that many gateways to greater educational opportunities—as well as peripheral aspects of the education system—are

influenced greatly by test scores themselves. However, due to the complexities of the American education institution, policies are not as effective as their intent. I look at these complexities through an intertwining theoretical framework of standardization, class analysis, cultural

capital, social fluidity, as well as other noteworthy microprocesses. Using data from the Stanford Education Data Archive and additional policy variables both across states and over time, I look at different factors that contribute to the perseverance of racial achievement gaps. In this paper, I argue that education policy in the States that regards standardization as the most effective way toward equitable education is flawed, and that racial achievement gaps in test scores are

maintained rather than alleviated by policies structured around standardization.

1. Background

Educational policy reform is a prominent topic amongst American lawmakers. Many national and statewide reforms have been enacted in recent years with the intention of narrowing the achievement gaps amongst racial minority students, generally under the framework of

implementing common standards and accountability assessments to evaluate the progress being made. These policies are not always as effective as their intention, though, and much criticism derives from the real-world effects of promoting education standardization as a pathway toward equality. Primary and secondary education reforms are intended to provide a more equitable educational setting and get the ball rolling for all students on the path towards a university degree. Concurrent with higher education institutions, the American labor market is getting more competitive and the cost of living in the United States ever increasing, so “students who do not achieve even a basic level of academic performance, or do not complete at least a high school education, are limited in their capacity to contribute to the U.S. economy and instead tend to hamper economic progress” (Gamoran, 2013:6). The necessity for a higher education has become crucial for success in the labor market (with some industries even requiring a minimum of Master’s level education for entry-level jobs). Even back in 1989, Almendinger stated that

(5)

4 “mobility processes—whether across generations or in the course of the work-life—are strongly determined by educational attainment” (p. 231), which has only proven truer in the subsequent decades.

The winding road to a degree is not without obstacles; cultural trends and socioeconomic circumstances contribute to the educational successes or failures of students even before

schooling officially begins. In this paper, I explore some of the interconnected features that all play a role in the racial achievement gaps in standardized test scores. I give a synopsis of policies that have been implemented with the intention of narrowing the achievement gap and in turn engrained standardized testing as a necessity in the American education system at all levels. I then review the conundrum of state-level education funding policies and explore the role of parental engagement in education, tying together all of these factors as they pertain to the testing achievement gap.

The overall aim of this research is to look at the relationship between education funding policies (and related accountability-based funding initiatives) and the racial gap in achievement, centering around the main research questions regarding whether or not additional funding for high testing performance maintains, reduces, or increases racial achievement gaps. I will explore the effectiveness of using standardized testing as a substantial indicator of student and school success. I incorporate economic inequality as another relevant contextual factor, given the substantial body of research on the relationship between economic inequality and racial achievement gaps (see Coleman, 1966; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008; Reardon 2009, 2013). Furthermore, in acknowledging the relationship between parental involvement in education and student

achievement, I take a look at the state policies in place for parental involvement in education and explore the possibilities of future policies in which funding might be targeted toward enhancing parental engagement in their children’s early academic careers. In several cases, I look at the interaction effects between policies and measures of inequality to explore the complicated ways that education policies can be impactful—or not—under various conditions.

This research is intended to conceptualize the standardized testing achievement gap by constructing a framework of the complicated, fractured, and multi-faceted American education system and piecing together some of the independent-yet-intertwining sections that all contribute

(6)

5 to the function of the education institution. I contribute to the current literature by investigating standardized testing achievement gaps (already calculated in the SEDA database, elaborated upon further in section 4.1), and looking to state-level differences to evaluate which policies reduce, increase, or neutrally effect racial achievement gaps at the primary and secondary school level.

2. Education Policy in the United States

2.1. A Brief History

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a nationwide legislation with the principal goal of narrowing the achievement gaps. Although the primary jurisdiction of education funding varies across state borders, the federal government plays an essential role in overseeing the state of education across the nation and ultimately has authority over state policy. President Johnson adopted ESEA as part of his War on Poverty and designated the legislation to provide categorical funds to impoverished schools with the intent of making education more equitable nationwide. The new regulations were laid out in Title I, stating that districts and schools with high percentages of low-income students who were at risk of failing to meet state standards would receive grants to get students on track for

academic success.

Though idealistic in its intent, the first few years of ESEA were not without criticism. several organizations and firms addressing the misappropriation of funds and condemning a lack of accountability from the schools and districts receiving those funds. Further amendments to the act would emphasize accountability systems to track the outcomes of Title I funds on academic improvement (Thomas & Brady, 2005). During the first full year of ESEA’s enactment—in addition to being released just a decade after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education

Supreme Court ruling in favor of desegregation—Coleman et al. (1966) published a study on the disparity of educational opportunity prevalent in America’s schools, acknowledging the

predominance of standardized testing and noting, “tests do not measure intelligence, nor attitudes, nor qualities of character. Furthermore, they are not, nor are they intended to be, ‘culture free’” (p. 20). But America persisted with standardization as the basis for school

(7)

6 effectiveness, and accountability evaluation via test scores remained one of the most determinant measures of school success (and associated funding), student intelligence, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation requirements, and college admission.

Despite the forewarnings from the 1960s, standardized testing is still strongly engrained in the American education system and has been at the forefront of accountability policy reforms. ESEA has seen many regenerations over the past few decades. In 2001, President George W. Bush enacted No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a piece of legislation intended to close the racial achievement gaps by further strengthening standardized testing and performance goals across the entire nation. NCLB allotted additional federal funding for schools that performed highly on these benchmark tests and restructured the way that states regulated accountability in their own jurisdictions. NCLB was the first policy of its kind to formally redirect the focus of federal authority over state education systems specifically using test-based accountability as a major determinant of student and school efficiency. By enveloping state-level education systems in overbearing federal mandates, one of the biggest influences to education policy that NLCB introduced was the redistribution of school resources to tested subjects and detracting them from other aspects of education (Dee & Jacob, 2011). Evaluative tests became ever more high-stakes as bonus funding to disadvantaged schools became more dependent on teacher and

administrative accountability, highly influenced by the testing performance of their students. Critics of NCLB addressed the potholes of requiring schools of unequal capacity, demography, and resources to live up to same expectations of schools in rich, affluent,

predominantly white parts of the country (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Issues with NCLB became prominent during the transition period of implementing new standards. States such as Texas, Georgia, and Minnesota failed to modify their policies to federal standards and were financially sanctioned, drawing criticism about the counter-intuitiveness of raising accountability standards and then decreasing funding to the states who were struggling (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Additionally, at a time when teacher salaries relied heavily on the testing performance of their students—as opposed to being based on multi-faceted and relative evaluations—even the most dedicated teachers at low-performing schools were reprimanded and were less likely to remain or seek work at schools with the highest need students (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Lastly, concerns about the practice of “teaching to the test” were discussed among educational stakeholders and

(8)

7 researchers alike, all of whom note the detrimental effects on students’ long-term learning, cognitive skills, and knowledge retention. With the looming possibility of sanctions influencing new teaching practices, “teaching to the test” became commonplace in schools nationwide. Volante (2004) found that even in cases where test scores increased, crucial skills such as critical thinking and problem solving were outstandingly lacking. The pitfalls of NLCB provided a grey area where testing performance was not always reflective of student learning and academic development, but rather a misrepresentation of targeted teaching practices that did not fully portray how successful a school environment actually was. Gamoran (2013) summarizes this predicament in which the “average performance levels of students, the focus of NCLB’s evaluation metrics, are not under the control of educators, because student achievement is affected by many other conditions including students’ home lives, opportunities in their neighborhoods and communities, and the effectiveness of schooling in previous years” (p. 9). Furthermore, Dee and Jacob (2011) explain that “the failure of NCLB and earlier accountability reforms to close achievement gaps reflects a flawed, implicit assumption that schools alone can overcome the achievement consequences of dramatic socioeconomic disparities” (p. 334). Even well-intentioned policies have potholes and reforms that rely heavily on improving one area of a multi-faceted issue—in this case attributing all problems with the education system to a lack of standards—leave other unaddressed areas detract from these policies’ potential successes.

With aims to modify NCLB’s downsides, the Obama administration began its tenure of education reforms with the Race to the Top Initiative (RTT) in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated $4.35 billion to “encourage and reward” states that were working to implement effective and accountable public education systems which fostered educational innovation, improved graduation rates, as well as high achievement on test scores (USDE, 2009). This was a first step in shifting towards multifaceted ways of running school districts with a greater consideration of social and economic factors that contributed both student and school success. First steps are often baby steps, though, and while the Obama administration aimed towards shifting the weight of accountability away from test scores, the initial granting of federal money would still take them into consideration. States that applied for Race To The Top would be rewarded proportional money based on their ranking on a 500-point scale in which no less than 100-points were dependent on “success” factors rooted in standards

(9)

8 and assessments for teachers and students alike (USDE, 2009). Between $75- and 700 million dollars in grant money was allocated to 181_{states, but less than only a quarter of the country was}

being served. Furthermore, the Obama administration followed up by amending NCLB with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015 2_{, the most current large-scale}

modification to federal education policy.

A major reform that ESSA embodied was the reduction of the federal government’s role in imposing national standards and assessments: downsizing nearly 50 federal education

programs, scaling back the authority of the Secretary of Education when it comes to upholding national accountability standards, and essentially giving more power to the individual states to determine the best ways to address the needs of their own schools, teachers, and students (Klein, 2016). ESSA drew away from relying so heavily on standardized evaluation systems across the nation and provided individual states with the opportunity to incorporate new integrated means of determining accountability for its public schools (Blad, 2016) as well as drawing back on the reliance on test scores as a measure for teacher effectiveness (Sawchuk, 2016). Additionally, in terms of testing, ESSA required states to test in English-language proficiency (a category previously overlooked in NCLB), but also outlined how states can and cannot use testing information shaped to their benefit, such as grouping together students in ways that often mask the achievement gap (Klein, 2016:3). In light of the many flaws that came along with NCLB that harmed racial minority and low-SES students, the overall goal of ESSA was to scale back federal oversight on the minute details of district-level functions with hopes that the states would be better equipped to create more equitable school systems in their own jurisdictions.

2.1.1. The Role of Standardized Testing in American Education

In America, standardized testing is a double-edged sword; scores are used for

accountability purposes and measuring student performance and improvement, but the incentives

1_{Washington, DC was also granted federal money in Phase II of Race to the Top but is being excluded from this} research as it does not possess proper statehood (and therefore state funding) and is a singular school district. 2_{ESSA was passed in December of 2015 but did not go into full effect until the 2017-2018 school year. While it} would be interesting to note the changes in the achievement gap following the passage of ESSA, the data used in this research only incudes testing information through the 2014-2015 school year. Noting ESSA as an important federal policy, however, is important in contextualizing this research as it pertains to future policy reform.

(10)

9 and sanctions that coincide with testing performance can be detrimental to students’ long-term academic careers from a very early stage. The average American student takes 112 mandated standardized tests throughout their primary and secondary education paths at both a state and national level (Layton, 2015; Sproull & Zubrow, 1981). Tangentially, high stakes testing was centerfold in the No Child Left Behind era not only as a measure of student achievement but as a measure of teacher efficiency as well. Baker et al. (2010) exert that “there is broad agreement among statisticians, psychometricians, and economists that student test scores alone are not sufficiently reliable and valid indicators of teacher effectiveness to be used in high-stakes personnel decisions” (p. 2), and further address the drawbacks of how “tying teacher evaluation and sanctions to test score results can discourage teachers from wanting to work in schools with the neediest students” (p. 4). The matter of districts hiring and evaluating ‘highly qualified teachers’ was also called into question. By cracking down on test-based teacher accountability, poorer districts struggled to maintain efficient faculty. This system was largely unfavored by teachers nationwide, sparking lawsuits and igniting a national “opt out” movement among parents and teachers who advocated for parents to have more agency than the state over their child’s participation in standardized testing (Sawchuk, 2016). Though ESSA initially outlined a deviation from high-stakes testing as dictating teacher effectiveness, the longevity of

standardized testing in American education is still a huge factor in school accountability politics today (Wong, 2019).

2.1.2. Higher Education and Beyond

A complementary but nonetheless important benchmark of student achievement is the importance of standardized test scores as a strong, if not the strongest, determining factor of university admission, where institutions seek to admit the highest scorers and therefore continue the cycle of disadvantage for those of minority and low-SES backgrounds. Tests such as AP exams and the SAT I and IIs are all used to evaluate the level of competence of a student wishing to access higher education, with even more exams likes the GRE, GMAT, LSAT, and MCAT for post-graduate degrees. A student’s admission to an American university—and in turn, their chances to earn a necessary degree to successfully enter the labor market—rely heavily on these test scores. Grodsky, Warren and Felts (2008) strongly exert that “our society is stratified along

(11)

10 the lines of race and [socioeconomic status]; standardized test scores reflect that fact” (p. 399). The intensely competitive and overcrowded higher education system, both public and private, has fostered a culture in American society that students are only good enough if they test well, because if they test well they will get into college, and if they get into college they’ll find success in the labor market and live a happy life. However, as Almendinger asserts, “test scores are not…culturally neutral, and they disadvantage certain students” (1989:237). The established formula of academic—and life—success fits nicely into the deceptive narrative of the ‘meritocratic-but-equal’ nature of the American Dream (Alon & Tienda, 2007).

Accordingly, attaining a degree comes down to achieving admissions test scores good enough to gain access to a university; achievement on standardized admissions tests is dependent on early-level academic support in classes that attend to students’ needs, and the level of

academic support is relative to the amount of dollars spent on schools (Mackenzie, 2006). The socioeconomic politics of educational attainment run deeper, though, as the road to the SAT begins in the earliest phases of formal schooling. Reardon (2013) found that income inequality is one of the biggest determinants of school preparedness for kindergarten-aged students entering the school system; while it is nothing new that money begets resources, he found that although there has been an increase in educational investment from parents on all levels of the

socioeconomic spectrum in recent years, the racial achievement gap is widening. What cannot be addressed with standardization can be targeted with policy reforms to “ensure that all children have similar cognitively stimulating early childhood experiences” (Reardon, 2013) which can level the academic playing field both in and outside of formal schooling institutions. This early-onset inequality sets the tone for future test-taking, getting the ball rolling on a twelve-year road of conditioning leading up to the SAT.

First developed in 1926 as an offshoot of an Army IQ test, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was originally adopted by the board of presidents of Ivy League colleges to “standardize college admissions procedures and increase access to higher education” by assessing “aptitude for learning rather than the received knowledge” (Manhattan Review, 2018). This motive is seemingly misaligned with the actual teaching structure in lower-level schools today. Furthermore, as with many trends found in standardized testing practices, the SAT has a

(12)

11 determining the likelihood of university success is nice in theory, in practice this is not so

humble. When the SAT started gaining momentum as a merit-based admissions criterion, some universities would adopt the benchmark under the pretext that race and intelligence were correlated and would hope that their ‘objective’ admissions decisions based on scores alone would really just entail whiteness3_.

With whiteness often comes affluence, and the economic factors that influence SAT scores are not to be overlooked. In a 2001 study, Marchant and Paulson found that the lowest scoring test-takers in the lowest-scoring states were more likely to be first-generation college applicants, a status that often connotes a significantly different socioeconomic profile than students from households where even one parent has attained a college degree. The researchers expand on these differences by pointing out:

“The bottom 10 SAT-scoring states had more than 31 times as many test takers with parents with only a high school diploma and had more than 60 times as many test takers whose parents did not even graduate from high school. In addition, the bottom 10 SAT-scoring states had more than 41 times as many test takers from families with incomes under $10,000” (p. 68).

Another monetary aspect of testing can be found in the market of test preparation. SAT test prep is a huge American industry, raking in millions of dollars from private tutoring institutions, prep classes, practice tests, and various study resources each year (Buchmann, Condron & Roscigno, 2010). On top of the fact that just taking the SAT itself costs somewhere between $47 and $654_,

individual SAT test prep textbooks can range from $20 to $45 while online courses can range from $500 to $2,000 (Kaplan, 2019). Testing services market themselves on proficient scoring guarantees, appealing to parents that their student can get accepted to any university they desire should they partake in the ‘necessary’ preparation. But access to these resources is not attainable for every test-taker and the gray area between the essential function test scores play in college admission and the extraneous expenditures needed to compete with affluence detracts from the

3_{This practice of course would later be argued in court and reconciled with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other} affirmative action pushes.

4_{College Board reports that the baseline SAT for the 2018-2019 school year with math and evidence-based writing} and reading is $47.50 while a test with the ‘optional’ essay costs $64.50 (https://blog.collegeboard.org/how-much-does-sat-and-sat-subject-test-cost, retrieved June 20, 2019).

(13)

12 equity that standardized testing was developed for in the first place. And while the test prep industry is not as focused on lower-level state-wide testing, early testing practices and performance set the tone for future high-stakes testing.

Affirmative action in higher education was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, shortly before the Johnson presidency and subsequent unveiling of ESEA. Affirmative action was intended to even the collegiate playing field for minority students who wished to gain access to higher education, maintaining that public universities would have admissions quota for applicants of racial minority backgrounds. However, more than 50 years later, a 2017 New York Times analysis found that Black and Hispanic college-aged Americans are still significantly underrepresented in universities nationwide, with the percentage of black enrolled students being almost constant over the past 30 years (Ashkenas, Park & Pierce, 2017). For both populations, in fact, the gap between enrolled freshman and the entire college-aged population has been

widening. The numbers can also be deceptive, though: where Black and Hispanic Bachelor’s degree completion rose by 41.6% and 115.3%, respectively, in the decade between 2005 and 2015, only 10% of Black students and 11% of Hispanic students graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in 2015 compared to 63% of white students (McFarland et al., 2017). 46 out of 50 states’ 2015 enrollment statistics for their flagship universities provides that the percentage of white students compared to any minority population is higher than 20%, with some states even surpassing a 50% gap in enrollment representation (Ashkenas, Park & Pierce, 2017). The pathway to a degree begins in kindergarten, and the long-politicized process within the elementary and secondary education systems has a domino effect on student performance and success throughout higher education and into adulthood.

2.1.3. Not Mandatory, but Advantageous: The AP Example

Advanced Placement (AP) exams are a good example in demonstrating the

“not-mandatory-but-advantageous” tests that are crucial for university admission and how these types of tests can be tied in with familial wealth. AP exams are subject-specific standardized exams that are administered annually to high schoolers nationwide. The exams correspond with a nationally standardized curriculum framework as well, designed to format high school classes with college-level knowledge and cater to high achievement on the yearly exams (a fine callback

(14)

13 to “teaching to the test” critiques). As previously noted, these are non-compulsory tests;

however, proficient scoring on AP exams is equivalent to college class credit and recognized by most universities. Hypothetically, if a student takes four AP courses throughout high school and scores proficiently on all of the exams, that student is likely to stand out on a college application compared to a student with fewer achievements. Furthermore, entering college with almost a semester’s worth of college credit already completed is likely to lead to early graduation, which also entails a semester less of tuition, housing fees, and other expenditures that can be highly beneficial for students who work their way through college and face years and years of paying off student loans. As with both the SAT and ACT, dozens of tutoring organizations and private tutors are available for additional preparation for these exams but are available only to those who can afford these extra expenditures (not to mention the fact that each AP test costs an absurd $945_{just to take in the first place).}

In schools that do offer AP courses, students are generally funneled in based on their scores on statewide exams from previous grades, often being placed in ‘advanced’ level classes in both elementary and middle school as well. In terms of equity, there is surely a disconnect along that trajectory somewhere: in 2012, 56% of AP exam test takers were white, while only 14% were Hispanic and 8% were black. Furthermore, the mean test scores (out of a possible 56₎

across all subjects was 2.95 for white students, 2.36 for Hispanic students, and only 1.88 for black students (College Board, 2012). The achievement gap persistent in our current system of standardized testing is prominent across all grades and at the state and national level.

The biggest downside of tests like these is that they are not even compulsory, but they are exceptionally privileged; only those who have access to these resources have a leg up when it comes to university admission and all the socioeconomic bonuses that come along with attaining a degree. States and universities are merely clients, and the testing industry is booming. While standardized testing requirements are outlined in both national and state policies—for purposes that encompass aptitude, assessment, and accountability—the actual development of these tests

5_{Figure for 2019 exams (apcentral.collegeboard.org).}

6_{AP exams are scored on a scale from 1 to 5 where 3 is a passing grade. Scores of 3 often equate one college-level} course credit, but some universities may have higher standards where only a score of 4 or 5 will equate school credit.

(15)

14 is by independent organizations and publishing companies that have partly monopolized the testing industry.

2.2. State-Level Differences and the Performance-Based Funding Debate

One of the biggest struggles for schools in the NCLB era was the implementation of federal standards and accountability criteria that were to be uniform across all districts in all states; frustratingly, along with accountability standards also came intervention sanctions. NLCB’s loosely-mandated sanctions were adopted differently from state-to-state but generally involved several intervention steps such as formal improvement plans, professional development seminars for teachers, administrative replacements, and allowing students to transfer to

adequately-performing schools before eventually folding or reconstituting long-term underperforming schools (Gamoran, 2007). Thus, to incentivize schools to avoid state

intervention and to reward the schools that were reaching their accountability targets, more and more states began adopting outcomes-based funding strategies into their already complicated education funding formulas.

A 2017 Urban Institute report breaks down the nuances of state education funding formulas and addresses some of the drawbacks of the fractured funding system. When it comes to funding itself, the federal government accounts for less than 10% of K-12 Education (Chingos & Blagg, 2017:1), and yet the federal government was dictating practices that tied in with

financial incentives and sanctions. Complaints arose amongst the individual states considering the wide and inconsistent range of state-specific funding allocated for education; in the 2013-2014 school year, state-only funding accounted for 28% percent of K-12 education funding in Illinois but a whopping 90% in Hawaii. Where the distribution of funds from various sources differentiated, though, criticisms regarding national standards and accountability were directed at a federal level. Another issue that arises in this bureaucratic system is problem definitions, where a state and district could differentiate on the conception of a certain issue, leading to departures between state-level intention and district-level execution; proposed ‘equity’ in a legislative amendment does not necessarily liken ‘equity’ in practice at a lower-level (2017:3).

Woßmann (2003) explains that differences in educational institutions can lead to differences in the structure, incentives, and resource allocation involved in educational

(16)

15 production, and can thus lead to differences in student performance. Since the American

education system is controlled primarily on a state-level basis, with nuances that run on deeper county and district sub-levels, each level encompasses its own jurisdiction of standards, local tax revenue collection, accountability procedures, and decisions about money and resource

allocation. In the case of No Child Left Behind, “unlike most countries that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest US public schools spend at least 10 times more than the poorest schools—ranging from over $30,000 per pupil to only $3,000; and these disparities contribute to a wider achievement gap than in virtually any other industrialized country” (Darling-Hammond, 2007:247). NCLB did not control for this state-level disparity, holding all schools in all districts to the same standards despite any consideration of within-state income disparity or per-pupil spending differences. In 2001, the year of its enactment, state-level inequality ranged from the lowest in Utah (GINI=.39) to New York (GINI=.51)7_{, while average}

per-pupil education spending in that same year ranged from $5,294 to $12,3438_{, respectively}

(USCB, 2017).

According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), state-level per-pupil funding in the United States has almost quadrupled since 1960, and yet achievement gaps remain persistent across the nation. They outline the dissociated relationship between financial policy reforms and education policy, where more money is aimlessly funneled into an already-fractured system instead of being used in progressive ways. School funding formulas and related state-level policies are complex, and due to the bureaucratic nature of the American education system itself, well-intentioned grant money and reform initiatives can frequently get lost in the long trek down the hierarchy from state legislature to classroom (Chingos & Blagg, 2017). Coleman’s 1966 study blatantly states, “the achievement of minority pupils depends more on the schools they attend than does the achievement of majority pupils” (1966:22). This statement is largely entangled in money, where the quality of school facilities, academic resources, and even teacher salaries are more likely to be outdated or spread thin at schools in low-socioeconomic districts. Jackson et al. (2015) further exemplify the importance of increased per-pupil spending, suggesting that school finance reforms have a significant positive effect on “educational attainment, wages, family

7_{GINI indices are calculated based on gross household income before taxes and transfers.} 8_{Per-pupil spending dollars not adjusted for inflation.}

(17)

16 income, and reductions in the annual incidence of adult poverty” (p. 212). The authors identify some of the mechanisms in the education system that are affected by increased funding and could be potential direct indicators of a narrowing achievement gap; smaller class sizes, increased teacher salaries, and longer instructional time, all have been shown to positively influence student achievement.

In additional to federal and state funding (and the discrepancies that coincide), the last source of money contributing to the total education budget is local level tax revenue, where predominantly district-level property taxes contribute to the education budget for said districts. Mackenzie (2006) found that of all the sources that fund schools, local-level revenues have the greatest standalone impact on academic performance. Therefore, in terms of equity, even if the state were to allocate ‘equitable’ funding to each district, affluent areas with greater property value will still generate more revenue for their local school system than those of a lower socioeconomic district, and that subset of funding has enormous impact on a school’s environment. Although states take these discrepancies into consideration and often aim to counter-balance these funding gaps, most of these actions are not without their faults. For example, state policy that addresses school funding needs by evaluating student attendance at any given point in time compared to enrollment could have drastically varying results; a high-need school where enrollment is adequate but attendance is low could lose out on integral funding simply on a measurement technicality (Chingos & Blagg, 2017:7).

Among the widely debated issues of education finance is the divisive topic of performance-based funding. In the wake of No Child Left Behind, increased weight on

standards, assessments, and performance-based funding—and its consequent criticisms—rose to prominence in public discourse. Onosko (2011) summarizes the conundrum quite well:

“Schools with higher performance will receive a greater allocation of funding…

[Conversely], low performing schools receive less funds. The low performing schools are the ones with predominant urban and migrant demographics, full of children who face particular difficulties and require more support. As these schools lose funding for low performance, it becomes even more difficult for these schools to perform well. It is a self-perpetuating cycle” (p. 278).

(18)

17 The funding challenge was not only exclusive to general funding for schools but applied to teacher salaries tangled up in the accountability and assessment standards as well. If students were not performing up to standard, the teacher’s effectiveness was called into question. Title I funds allocated to minority-dense and low-socioeconomic schools also became contingent on a school’s testing performance, regardless of how reliant a school might have been on such funds. Although the majority of education funding comes from the state and local level, Title I funds greatly impact the schools that they aim to assist and the loss is surely felt when those funds are no longer available (Williams, 2008).

To conclude, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) propose an amended version of what successful performance-based funding can look like for future reform: their plan encompasses interlocking facets to help insure that not only are schools receiving the funding and resources they need, but rigorous standards are also being maintained and evaluated at a local level. With the implementation of ESSA, steps were already being taken to pass down the majority of education decisions from a federal to a state level. This ideology is crucial, and if the largest portions of a singular school’s funding comes from district and local tax revenues, then these lower-level bodies should be in charge of determining large-scale decisions based solely on the needs of the students directly impacted by those funds. Undoubtedly, funding does impact academic achievement and be a large determinant of student and school success; however, the influence that money has over educational conditions, and thus achievement, is not independent of other factors at work (Mackenzie, 2006; Jackson et al., 2015; LaFortune et al., 2018).

2.3. Parental Role in Education and Policy

In a 2009 research initiative review for the Campaign for Educational Equity at Columbia University, Weiss et al. explore the importance of—and problems with—parental involvement in children’s education, focusing on the ways in which parental involvement is conceived and implemented in education policy. Familial engagement, as outlined in policies all over the country, is scattered, vague, and not addressed in a coherent way to ensure its integral part in a child’s well-rounded educational experience. Public discourse often reflects this as well,

(19)

18 instead of searching for intervention methods to effectively get families—particularly those of disadvantaged backgrounds—to engage with their child’s education in its early stages (2009:7).

Parental involvement in education has a complicated history in America that can be traced back to the era of desegregation when civil rights advocates placed a great weight on the function of schools to provide the younger generations with the resources necessary to surpass the social mobility restrictions of their parents. However, the American public generally takes on a deficit view of poverty and research on this matter has taken on the same philosophy. Back in the 1990’s, most research on the relationship between families and education was focused on white middle-class families and set up a ‘standard’ of what successful parental involvement looked like. In reference to their white counterparts, alternative parenting styles taken up by minority parents was deemed “less-than” and little contextual leniency was given to the ways in which the lives of minority/low-SES families differ from their white, affluent counterparts (2009:10-11). The subsequent decades saw a much-welcome shift from this perspective and social research on childrearing and parental educational involvement began to consider the social, economic, and psychological burdens that disadvantaged families face and how those factors can seep into various facets of life.

Identified as a huge pitfall in education policy, Weiss et al. call for future reforms “to champion and strengthen family involvement efforts…because these are essential elements in efforts to increase educational equity [and] close achievement gaps” (2009:7). There is a parental engagement clause in the original outline of ESEA’s Title I requirements for schools and

parental engagement requirements were written into NLCB’s 2001 guidelines as well; however, to further exemplify the difficulties that states faced when implementing NCLB’s mandates, eleven states9_{still had no formal legislation}10_{pertaining to family engagement nine years after}

NCLB was enacted (Belway et al., 2013). A 2013 national PTA report also makes clear to highlight state policies that are most incisive to identifying potential reforms in other states.

9_{These eleven states include Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island,} South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. However, four states have enacted legislation outlining parental engagement initiatives since the PTA report’s publication: Hawaii in 2011, Rhode Island in 2012, Idaho and Oklahoma in 2014 (Education Commission of the States, 2019).

10_{As of May 2019, the remaining seven states identified in Footnote 9 had yet to enact any state-level legislation} addressing parental engagement in education. Each state’s government website had links to resources and research on the topic, but the matter was only addressed in terms of Title I and/or ESSA requirements. However, some district-level websites outlined parental engagement practices that are commonplace in said districts.

(20)

19 Conceivable steps forward include the importance of schools and districts to provide access to engagement opportunities, increased communication with families who are unable to attend school functions during normal working hours, as well as steering away from deficit-based policies and moving towards incentives-based ones. Research has shown that disengaged parents are always eager to become more involved in their students’ schooling should more expansive opportunities present themselves; effective policies should be considerate of this reality (Weiss et al., 2009:12). Thirty-three states have grant programs written into their statewide education policies that directly contribute towards the implementation of parental engagement initiatives on a district and school level, ranging from regularly-scheduled PTA meetings to one-off programs and seminars on ‘family literacy,’ with topics ranging from effective homework help to good nutrition habits (Belway et al., 2013:112-113).

Finally, reflecting the interconnectedness of different parties and policies throughout the entire education process, a final area of noteworthy parental engagement can be identified in peripheral policies, such as a state’s labor policies. Only fifteen states have explicit protection for employed parents who wish to take time off work for school-related engagements (Belway et al., 2013: 147). Like most other state-variant policies, the language ranges from ultra-specific to exceptionally vague, and are written in a way that frames them distinctly and unrelated to other pertinent policy areas. States need to formulate multi-sector policies in a more cohesive way to ensure each policy, particularly those that explicitly revolve around parents and families, is implemented in the best way.

2.4. Tying It All Together

The innerworkings of United States institutions are complex in almost every way; state-to-state variance in racial demographics, economic inequality, and policies makes for difficulty in effectively employing standardized federal changes to state-level institutions. In the context of education, the disconnect between federal policy and the feasibility of state implementation is vast; furthermore, the implementation of such policy in one state may not be as efficient or even necessary in another. For the purpose of this research, I am evaluating the current structure of the American education system to determine if performance-based funding policies are related to widening the achievement gap instead of benefiting the students they are intended to help. If

(21)

20 gaps widen instead of shrink and the demonstrated relationship persists in designs allowing for causal inference, shifting these policies to target other sociological factors that affect education disparity could be an important step towards actually making education more equitable.This research is intended to explore the effectiveness of standardized testing as a means for closing in on the achievement gap among primary and secondary school students, where socioeconomic status differentiation is still pertinent along racial lines.

3. Theoretical Framework

There are several underlying mechanisms that can determine the success or failure of certain initiatives that are sometimes overlooked when policy is developed and implemented. Often times, education reforms are developed by advocates and lawmakers with good intentions; however, good intentions do not always embody the nuanced complexities of society that both contribute to and are affected by such policies. In the following section, I present a variety of sociological theories to better construct a framework through which I can analyze the various features that impact the racial achievement gaps in standardized testing.

3.1. Standardization

Due to the nature of a bureaucratic legislative system, the way in which standardization is incorporated into education policy at both a national and state level provides an avenue for dissociation between the intent of such policies and the reality of their implementation. Standardization refers to the “degree to which the quality of education meet[s] the same standards nationwide” (Almendinger, 1989:233), and exists in educational systems as a means for accountability and corresponding performance incentives (Wößmann, 2003). By setting the same standards for all schools across the nation, there is little consideration of the variety of demographic and systematic differences within the vast national education system that can prevent these types of policies from being equitable for all students. Coleman’s (1966) landmark findings that school condition had a lesser effect on achievement than socioeconomic status sparked a large debate in the field of educational sociology about schools as institutions, the extent to which schools “matter,” and, if so, in what ways these institutions uphold and

(22)

21 reproduce inequalities (Downey & Condron, 2016). If outside factors were larger contributors to inequality of academic achievement than school-based ones, educational policies should be focused on standardizing conditions outside of school as well. But when it came to school policy reforms following the Coleman report, policymakers shifted their focus to schools themselves, employing a rationale that funding begets resources, and equality of resources and standardized curricula should ideally lead to a narrowing achievement gap. In turn, accountability plans were placed on schools to track performance and thus determine future funding to ensure funds are being utilized fairly.

Some research has shown standardized testing to alleviate some of the inequalities that exist within educational institutions that combine testing with accountability incentives or practice curricular tracking (Bol et al., 2014). The ways in which testing is utilized to improve performance gaps are nuanced, though, and may not translate applicably to the extremely

disenfranchised American school system in which accountability incentives, testing composition, and resource allocation vary within districts within counties within states, thus offering a gray area with unintended consequences that standards cannot necessarily alleviate. The deviation between the intention of standardization to create equity and the realities of standardization as a practice is worth noting. One such effect is the oft-criticized practice of “teaching to the test” in which curricula are organized so that students will score highly on tests, but often lack well-rounded teaching strategies that include critical thinking, problem solving, and emotional

intelligence needs that are crucial developments in the education process (Posner, 2004; Grodksy & Warren, 2009; Onosko, 2011; Dee & Jacob, 2011). Another area where education

standardization often lacks is that of standardizing circumstances outside the classroom. Where assessments and accountability standards aim to create a more equitable plane in one area of social life, similar potholes can appear when this concept of standardization is applied to real life policy, particularly those of varying problem definitions within policies across states. Watson et al. (2012) explain that even with discrepancies in definitions, parental engagement in education is highly relational to student success and that parental resources and involvement may even be more impactful on a student’s academic performance than other factors. National policies could benefit by shifting their infatuation with standardization from testing to other policy areas, like

(23)

22 creating national problem definitions, state standards, and specific allocation of money for

resources that promote standardized conditions outside the classroom.

3.2. Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Class Stratification

Though standardization theory focuses on the uniform contexts in which children are educated and is applicable to the study of standards and accountability for schools, stratification theories also provides an interesting and useful lens to understand the importance (or lack thereof) of educational institutions and determine patterns of inequality within such institutions. Furthermore, if the ultimate societal goal of education is sociocultural knowledge reproduction and to create generations of incoming economic players, then framing education as a means to an end is not too dissociative. If achievement gaps remain persistent along racial lines, the end “goal” of successful employment in a neoliberal market is lesser than its fullest potential. The meritocratic farce of “The American Dream,” which upholds that anyone regardless of race or creed can ‘pick themselves up by their bootstraps,’ is a toxic ideology that masks the reality of institutions that inhibit or accelerate social mobility for particular groups.

There is a substantial body of research on connections between socioeconomic status, wealth, educational attainment, academic performance, meritocracy, and labor market outcomes. It is common knowledge that wealth in both money and resources begets greater life chances, providing the fortunate with a societal upper hand compared to low-socioeconomic citizens. Almendinger summarizes this predicament by explaining how “individual choices about schooling are significantly shaped and constrained by the opportunities [one’s] environment offers” (1989:231), where such choices are available only within the confines of socioeconomic boundaries. Educational resources and labor market opportunities available to those who come from wealthier backgrounds are significantly higher than the prospects of those in the lower echelons of the social hierarchy.

De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp (2000) explore Bourdieusian cultural capital theory in an education context, suggesting the strong influence of parental cultural capital on their children’s educational attainment. Cultural capital embodies aspects of nonmaterial social life such as norms, attitudes, and behaviors that often differentiates socioeconomic subgroups within populations. The authors concisely state, “Not only parental economic resources, but parental

(24)

23 cultural resources matter in children’s educational careers” (p. 94). Economic capital refers to wealth and assets and is directly related to educational privilege as children from wealthier families have greater access to better schools, additional educational support, extracurricular activities, and likely come from household environments conducive to developmental and academic learning outside the classroom (Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Reardon, 2003, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2007).

Minority and low-socioeconomic students who come from households with less cultural and economic capital are at a societal disadvantage in several ways and these disadvantages can be passed on to the next generation depending on the role that education plays in fostering class mobility. Parental involvement in their child’s academic careers can come in many forms, ranging from homework help to correspondence with teachers to participation in non-academic activities. Low-socioeconomic and minority parents encounter several limitations in their day to day lives that could prevent them from actively engaging with their children’s academic

participation. Multiple jobs and inconvenient working hours, language and knowledge barriers, and the nuanced psychological stresses of poverty can stand in the way of academic involvement at home while economic constraints could prevent students from receiving tutoring or additional academic help outside of school. Differences in parenting strategies amongst marginalized families can also contribute to the at-home psychological development of students and can affect the way students see themselves in relation to academia and success (Weiss et al., 2009). All of these discrepancies can be considered snags in the realm of parental capital in comparison to more affluent families, and these obstacles are often situated along racial and class lines. The nuances of cultural differences will be expanded upon further in section 3.3.

I refer to the work of Breen and Jonsson (2007) as well as Goldthorpe and Marshall (1992) to position this research in the theoretical context of stratification and class analysis in order to expand upon the greater sociological forces looming outside of institutions that uphold certain social inequalities. I also explore alternative explorations of class analysis to help explain some of the nuanced disconnects that arise when discussing race and class in contemporary America. Breen and Jonsson formulate a theory of “social fluidity” as an index for determining class mobility in terms of the association between class origins and destinations. The authors evaluate fluidity trends with regards to education as it is “one of the major channels through

(25)

24 which intergenerational class reproduction occurs” (2007:1776-1777). They identify processes related to education that can affect social fluidity (class mobility) in which class origins have an influence on educational attainment and educational attainment has influence on class

destinations. Where parental assets provide filial returns, institutional arrangements and reforms dictate the potency of this transmissibility, further emphasizing the impact of educational attainment is often the transmissible asset likely to influence cohort fluidity (pp. 1778-1781). They provide that education is a significant mediating variable in weakening the association between class origins and destinations and further conclude that the expansion of educational systems can increase social fluidity as educational qualifications eclipse qualities of social origin when competing in the labor market (p. 1806). Though conducted in Sweden, this research leads to further questions about whether or not such trends could be found in more fragmented

education and economic systems like that of the United States; that is, if policies shifted their aim away from creating equality of educational condition towards equality of educational attainment, what would academic and economic achievement look like? Furthermore,

“educational systems” do not necessarily entail institutions alone, but a network of interrelated non-institutions as well. Schools may be the primary setting in which educational standards can be implemented, but learning is not simply contained to the confines of a classroom.

Building off of social fluidity as it relates to class differentiation, the theoretical field of class analysis is another pertinent lens through which to frame this research. According to

Goldthorpe and Marshall, class analysis looks at the interconnectedness of class-based structures, action, mobility, and inequality, emphasizes that class is defined by one’s employment

relationship in the labor market (1992:382). As primary and secondary students have yet to form their own relationship with the labor market, their identifiable class status is that of their parents. Weiss et al. (2009) also provide that familial involvement in children’s early education is one of the biggest determining factors for academic success. The authors acknowledge the sporadic nature of family engagement policies across the states and call for a more “coherent,

comprehensive, continuous, and equitable approach to involvement” (p. 4). The relationship between parental class status—including the aforementioned parental sociocultural capital as well as various social and institutional barriers—and early educational involvement is

(26)

25 low socioeconomic status are involved in their children’s education (p. 6). Therefore, class as a concept of categorization possesses several qualities pertinent to this research design. Just as national economies and labor markets are fluctuating, so too are one’s class position and potential for social mobility. However, as class mobility pertains to educational attainment, Goldthorpe and Marshall note that even if equitable education derives a more meritocratic labor market, there is no indication that this relationship alone will affect more equitable class

mobility, further emphasizing the need to uncover underlying processes that inform both class mobility and, alternatively, trends in class resistance to change (1992:389-394).

3.3. Other Microprocesses and the Reproduction of Inequality

Additional micro-level social processes function under the greater umbrella of the above theories. Elaborating on the previous section on social fluidity and some aforementioned issues within the American education system that contribute to the “vicious cycle” of educational inequality, I draw on some aspects of cumulative advantage theory to better contextualize some of the microprocesses and complicated nuances of this research. The core concept of cumulative advantage is that certain beneficial characteristics of one’s (or a group’s) life make it difficult for individuals and groups to alleviate themselves from their disadvantageous position (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006:272). The plights that some minority and low-SES students face in schools are solely due to structural and systematic difficulties that have been reproduced in American institutions for generations. Theories about cumulative (dis)advantage vary from strictly mechanistic and causal to conceptually lenient. I use the concept here as theorized by Blau and Duncan (1967) in which ‘status variables’ do not necessarily provide for the expansion of disadvantage over time as much as the persistence of it; where advantage and disadvantage in a society are upheld by social structures, institutions and policy. The variables of cumulative advantage embody between-group differences rather than within-group ones, and can thus help us understand different mechanisms contributing to reproduced inequality over time.

Other noteworthy aspects of class analysis are explored by Warikoo and Carter (2009), who identify possibilities of expanding outdated conceptions of class to better incorporate race and culture, effectively calling for a new measure of cultural class analysis that exists at the intersection of class and race. They posit that in the modern globalized world, the relationship

(27)

26 between race and class is not as neatly defined as it once was; racial lines are blurring, especially in America, and therefore previous conceptions of identifying certain groups and trends are not as effective in accurately analyzing society particularly when it comes to analyzings education inequality. Thus, though empirically related, racial inequalities embody differences that cannot merely coincide with class identities. When race is used as a solo lens to view education

inequality, there is a disconnect between attributing cultural mechanisms, racial stereotypes, and systemic explanations of the academic achievement gap evenly to all identified racial groups. Asian Americans—a group that excels equally to, if not outperforms, white students in academic achievement—are often labeled as “hardworking immigrants” and derive from a culturally-constructed ethos of hard work. Sue and Okazaki (1990) explore this idea that Asian immigrants expect the same kinds of mobility obstacles as native minorities, so they are likely to overachieve in academics as it is their only feasible means for mobility. Conversely, the achievement gap that greatly disadvantages Hispanic and black students is often ascribed to racially stereotypical deficits, blaming a ‘culture of school-negativity’ rather than attributing shortcomings to institutional or policy factors (p. 367).

Following similarly with the aforementioned Bourdieusian theories of cultural

reproduction via cultural capital, Warikoo and Carter expand further on various explanations of the power of “peer culture” and “oppositional culture” as driving forces for the persistence of systemic inequality, where the former embodies the significant influence that cultural peers have on youth and the latter emphasizes the reproduction of oppositional attitudes that clash with hegemonic “whiteness” which is often framed as a rejection of academic achievement (p. 368-369). A cultural-ecological explanations of class analysis, particularly that of Ogbu and Simons (1998) propose that differences in attitudes regarding education and success derive from

embodied historical ideals about one’s own (or a particular culture’s “own”) minority status and the social capabilities that coincide with that status. They categorize minority groups and identify them based on their “voluntary” or “involuntary” identity, those that have come to America on their own free-will in search of success versus those who have cultural, familial, or personal histories of stateside oppression. Voluntary minorities see white middle-class standards as aspirational, something worth adapting to if they, too, can partake in upwards mobility and achieve the same academic, social, and economic accolades. Conversely, involuntary minorities

(28)

27 reject these standards, viewing them as oppressive and feeling the need to hold on to their

identifying cultural markers, even if that means embracing underachievement (Warikoo & Carter, 2009:370). While an oppositional theory doesn’t really explain differences in the institution of education and the policies that dictate it, it does provide an interesting look at the ways that inequality can be embodied and consequently reproduced within the institution.

Lastly, looking at the ways in which cultural class analysis embodies aspects of parental cultural capital, some researchers look to see where culturally-distinctive family-level processes can account for the achievement differences of the filial generation. Pong et al. (2005) note that differences in migrant parenting styles may influence, but do not directly translate to the

academic performance of their children. They conclude that parenting styles alone do not account for the achievement of Asian students, but that “first-generation Hispanic students’ disadvantaged family background completely accounts for the achievement gap between the first-generation Hispanic students and native whites” (2005:946). Though parental capital plays some mediating role in their child’s academic successes, culturally-defined racial stereotypes in education can embodied by minority students and can dictate how their self-perception manifests in academic performance. While Asian students often feel the pressure of adhering to the “model minority” stature, high-performing black students can also take on a “raceless” identity as a way of defying societal expectations, drawing more questions about the relationship between racial identity and achievement (Fordham, 1998; Warikoo & Carter, 2009). Many other complicated micro-processes can contribute to racial achievement gaps, exemplified above in the conception of label embodiment, parenting styles, class status, and perhaps even a variety of alternative explanations that have not been explored here.

3.4 Hypothesis

With reference to the theoretical framework explored above, I aim to contribute to the existing literature of education inequality by determining trends in state-level variation in the United States at the intersection of test scores, social makeup of students, and federal funding aid to pinpoint areas of improvement for future policies to truly target areas of need in the early stages of the academic trajectory. Are current policies addressing the areas where improvement is most needed and, if so, are these policies doing what they are supposed to? I look to see if

(29)

28 markers of economic inequality are in fact telling of racial inequality as well; I expect that they are not, and therefore policies that target economic inequality will in fact miss the mark in alleviating the racial achievement gaps. Perhaps this research will provide an avenue towards a more effective framework that Warikoo and Carter aspire to, one that embodies soft cultural explanations in combination with hard policy implementation to better explain the role that racial and cultural differentiation plays in education. My hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis I: Funding Policies

Chmielewski and Reardon (2016) note the consistency in various research that

socioeconomic status factors into early educational quality and the racial achievement gaps that develop which are strongly related to future income attainment and upwards mobility. Drawing from Breen and Jonsson (2007), I will look into the cycle of performance-based funding bonuses on influencing the achievement gaps. Additionally, I will incorporate contextual economic measures as well, which have been independently shown to contribute to the racial achievement gap and subsequent income gap (Coleman, 1966; Reardon, 2011; Roscigno &

Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). Based on past findings, I predict that that high-performance funding bonuses can negatively affect racial achievement gaps for both black and Hispanic students, funneling money to already well-equipped schools instead of reallocating money to do greater good elsewhere. I will also look at the effects of low-income funding policies, where some states provide additional money to underperforming schools if they fit a certain socioeconomic profile. These policies are in place to target underperforming schools specifically with the overall goal of improving test scores before further intervention action is taken. I will explore the interaction effects of these policies together as well. Lastly, I will take a look at interaction effects of the funding policies and indicators of socioeconomic status to determine if these policies have a greater effect on the achievement gaps when income inequality is accounted for.

Hypothesis II: Funding Source

Though there are mixed conclusions about which source of funding has the greatest direct effect on school achievement outcomes, there is general agreement in the literature that increased school spending in any regard does have a positive effect on academic performance (Coleman,

Stratified scores : complexities of American education funding and interrelated mechanism effects on racial achievement gaps in standardized test scores