Funding Goals

Executive Summary

The three primary goals of desegregation funding are: 1) to maintain or promote student diversity; 2) to improve achievement for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender; and 3) to ensure equal access to schools, programs and activities, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. This evaluation was an attempt at determining how well Desegregation (Deseg) schools are doing relative to meeting these goals. Since at present there is very little or no data available on participation in school activities this initial evaluation was limited to addressing the first two goals. The wording of the first two goals implies both, a "snap-shot" comparison between Deseg and Non-Deseg schools, and a longitudinal comparison of Deseg schools in terms of academic achievement and student diversity.

The following is a comparison among the District's original 21 Desegregation (Deseg) Schools and 70 Non-Desegregation (Non-Deseg) Schools. Both Deseg and Non-Deseg schools included only elementary and middle schools. Since all Alternative Education Schools were Non-Deseg they were excluded from the analysis. Deseg and Non-Deseg schools were compared on their demographic characteristics, achievement scores, and responses to the School Quality Survey over the past two years. The comparison between Deseg and Non-Deseg schools on measures of achievement, and responses to the School Quality Survey was done using both residualized and non-residualized scores. A residualized measure has had the variance accounted for by some other related variable or variables removed.

In Effective Schools research the variance removed is usually variance accounted for by some variable or variables over which the school has no control. These variables are usually related to the demographic make-up of the student population. Removing the variance accounted for by the demographics of a school, in effect makes the schools more comparable.

For both school years (1994-95 & 1995-96) Deseg schools appeared to be more ethnically diverse than Non-Deseg schools. There was a smaller percentage of White/Anglo students and a larger percentage of minority students in Deseg schools compared to Non-Deseg schools. The only exception to this was the smaller percentage of Native American students in Deseg compared to Non_Deseg schools. However, analysis showed the percentage of Native American students in Deseg schools increased from 94-95 to 95-96.

To evaluate how Deseg funding, and enrollment diversity is affecting diversity appreciation required analysis to the Diversity Appreciation questions from the School Quality Survey. The data in these tables presented compelling evidence that Deseg schools are typically rated higher than Non-Deseg schools in terms of Diversity Appreciation. The removal of variance due to cost per student alone had a detrimental effect on measures of diversity appreciation in Deseg schools, implying that increased cost per student in Deseg schools has a positive effect on diversity appreciation.

Although Deseg schools scored a little lower on all four subscales of the ITBS, the difference was not statistically significant. Similar results were obtained when ITBS scores were broken down by ethnic group. One notable pattern was that both Native American and Asian American students' ITBS scores increased from 94-95 compared to 95-96 in Non-Deseg schools while they decreased in Deseg schools over the same period. Results of the same analysis broken down by gender indicated that in general female students out performed male students in both Deseg and Non-Deseg schools except in mathematics.

In most instances when comparisons of ITBS scores were based on residualized scores or demographic matching, Deseg schools scored higher overall than Non-Deseg schools.

When comparisons were based on raw Essential Skills scores Deseg schools scored slightly lower than Non-Deseg schools. On the other hand, when comparisons were based on residualized scores, matching, or both, Deseg schools scored higher than Non-Deseg schools.

Whether comparisons were based on residualized measures or demographic matching, Deseg schools were affected more positively than Non-Deseg schools. Since the removal of variance due to both student demographics and cost per student increased performance more in Deseg schools compared to Non-Deseg schools, it stands to reason that this variance has a more detrimental effect on performance in Deseg schools. More specifically, the lower SES, higher mobility, and higher percentage minority found in Deseg schools has a detrimental effect on achievement performance. For this reason, removal of the variance due to these same demographic factors has a positive impact on achievement performance for Deseg schools. By the same reasoning, since removal of the variance due to cost per student alone also increased performance in Deseg schools, it follows that increased cost per student has a detrimental effect on academic achievement. Since it would be hard to argue that increased cost per student (e.g., more teachers) has a detrimental affect on academic achievement the most that could be said is that cost per student (i.e., the way Desegregation funds are currently being spent) has a negligible impact on academic achievement.

Evaluation of Desegregation Funding Goals

The three primary goals of desegregation funding are: 1) to maintain or promote student diversity; 2) to improve achievement for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender; and 3) to ensure equal access to schools, programs and activities, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. This evaluation was an attempt at determining how well Desegregation (Deseg) schools are doing relative to meeting these goals. Since at present there is very little or no data available on specific programs and activities this initial evaluation was limited to addressing the first two goals. The wording of the first two goals implies both, a "snap-shot" comparison between Deseg and Non-Deseg schools, and a longitudinal comparison of Deseg schools in terms of academic achievement and student diversity.

The following is a comparison among the District's original 21 Desegregation (Deseg) Schools and 70 Non-Desegregation (Non-Deseg) Schools. Both Deseg and Non-Deseg schools included only elementary and middle schools. Alternative Education Schools were excluded from the analysis. Deseg and Non-Deseg schools were compared on their demographic characteristics, achievement scores, and responses to the School Quality Survey over the past two years.

The comparison among Deseg and Non-Deseg schools on measures of achievement, and responses to the School Quality Survey was done using both residualized and non-residualized scores. A residualized measure has had the variance accounted for by some other related variable or variables removed. In Effective Schools Research it is often desirable to remove variance that impacts on achievement scores. Usually the variance removed is variance accounted for by some variable or variables over which the school has no control. These variables are usually related to the demographic make-up of the student population. Removing the variance accounted for by the demographics of a school, in effect makes the schools more comparable. Removing extraneous variance that impacts on measures of interest is a method of statistically matching schools.

Table 1 shows a statistical profile of the District's 21 Desegregation schools. In addition to the four demographic variables used in the residualization process the table includes variables such as attendance rate, student/teacher ratio, and cost per student to name a few. Table 2 shows the results of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) comparison between Deseg and Non-Deseg schools on the same variables presented in Table 1. Only three variables were found to be significantly different at (p < .01). The average number of students per teacher was significantly greater in Non-Deseg schools compared to Deseg schools. The average number of students per teacher with advanced degrees was also significantly greater in Non-Deseg schools. Finally, the average cost per student was significantly greater for Deseg compared to Non-Deseg schools.

Table 1