Academic Achievement and Money - The Debate Continues

The correlation between wealth and academic achievement has been the cause of debate for a long time, and because few concrete results have been provided, the debate continues. Part of the problem comes from determining the criteria. Where does one set the bar to determine a “high-income” student? For that matter, how is a student classified as “low-income?” The parameters are different for each state, and constantly changing, as evidenced in the state court systems. Perhaps a better question is, “Does more money translate into better academic performance?”

A quartet of educators from the state of Georgia decided to examine this correlation as it played out in their state. Over a four-year period, the team of Dr. Steven Hankla of Colquitt County Schools, Dr. James L. Pate, Dr. Don Leech, and Scott Grubbs, all of Valdosta State University, examined differences in academic achievement among its school systems, and how they related to several financial factors among the various systems. Each of the 57 school systems in Georgia was studied, and the results make for a fair assessment of any relation between academics and economics, at least in the Peachtree state. It is safe to suggest that this study cannot serve as a national model, but proves to be a thorough study, at least as it is seen in one state.

Although education reform has been receiving attention since the early 1900’s, most of the debate has been shaped by studies of the past thirty years. Currently, most of the reform has become a combination of attempting to ensure financial equity as matched up against educational competence.

Some of this concern was driven by legal challenges, but it also draws on the American political system. If all men are created equal, then we are supposed to believe in equal opportunities for current and future generations. There are few arguments that the “equal opportunity” concept has been overlooked on many occasions in American history, as this ideology does exist in the minds and hearts of some of our political leaders.

Part of this concept extends to the educational systems of America.  The belief that all children are worthy of the same quality education regardless of family or socio-economic background is endorsed by many of today’s American political candidates. But, has our society been able to provide an efficient education for all students who desire one?

Four Georgian educators set out to see if education reform was working in their state. Over a four-year period, they studied the data from the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT), and measured this scoring data against the income averages of all of the school districts in Georgia. Their investigation was thorough, and loaded with data to examine.

According to the study’s purpose statement, they set out to compare Georgia’s high wealth school systems to Georgia’s low-wealth school systems. The team set out to determine if the current funding in Georgia provided all of the students with an adequate education. Also, they studied the relationships between funding formula variables as well as the relationship between free and reduced lunch percentages, high school completion rate, and percentage passing on the first attempt of the GHSGT.

     The study addressed these two questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between Georgia’s high wealth and low wealth school systems in academic performance as measured by the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) for Adequate Yearly Progress?
2. Is there a significant difference between Georgia’s high wealth and low wealth school systems in high school completion rate as measured for Adequate Yearly Progress?

Analysis/Response

Being an English teacher who studied English, while minoring in History and Social Studies, in college, it is important to note that the research techniques and standards for student separation were difficult to understand using the mathematical terms. In layman’s terms, the difference between high income and low income students came from a complicated measuring system using variables such as revenue generated from personal property tax by each county, as well as revenue generated from the Special Purpose Local Option Sales tax, or SPLOST.

The researchers took this information, and broke the school systems into five separate, but equal in number, income groups, called quintiles. While the numbers and formulas do not make complete sense to me, it is obvious that there were many factors taken into consideration, and I believe that the authors did their best to place each of the 57 school systems in the correct quintile.

I feel that the authors achieved their purpose with this study. My experiences as a REALTOR and school finance student have taught me a few things about this subject, and it is true that many localities measure their status for obtaining state money or education by the amount of personal property revenue they collect each year. There are certainly other factors, and the formula gets confusing, but in Virginia, it is no surprise when Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria have a .80 composite index, while Newport News and Hampton rate around .35. Using the financial variables that the researchers did, and measuring them against the same test (GHSGT), I think that the results are valid.

I would not agree that Georgia represents all American school systems; then again, no single state can stand as a representative of all 50. However, the study does provide a thorough examination of one state, and if the factors are solely dealing with income and test scores, then this is a fair, competent and worthwhile study.

Conclusion

     After collecting the data over four years (1998-2002) and analyzing their findings, the authors concluded that there was a pattern of increased academic achievement in the more affluent parts of Georgia. As the authors added more factors, such as free and reduced lunch percentages, dropout rates, and first time passing percentages and passing rate on subsequent tests, the results remained consistent.

     The strengths of this study are the number of students measured, the use of all 57 counties in Georgia, the complicated, but fair formula used to measure the income of each county to determine which should be consider low-income, and high-income, and the four year time window. I believe these factors led to a fair study with a valuable conclusion.

     The authors did note several weaknesses. Included on their list were history, pretest sensitivity, mortality/attrition, and instrumentation, researcher bias, statistical regression, and setting generalizability (Cohen, 1988; Gay, 1996; Huck, 2000; and Huck & Cormier, 1996.)

     Pretest sensitization (Cohen, 1988; Gay, 1996; Huck, 2000; and Huck & Cormier, 1996) may have provided an unfair advantage for subjects exposed to testing format and subject matter from pretest materials practiced. Also, the subjects may have learned to become familiar with the test format or environment, thus reducing anxiety.