Effects of Socioeconomic Factors on Public High School Outcomes and Rankings

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 98, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 259-271

  Toutkoushian, Robert K ^a   Curtis, Taylor ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARLETON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence from New Hampshire; Public high school outcomes and rankings; Socioeconomic factors

Indexed keywords

EID: 18844450164     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JOER.98.5.259-271     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Betts, J. (1995). Does school quality matter? Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 231-250.
3. Bracey, G. (2004). The trouble with research, part 2. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 635-636.
4. Brooks, A. (2000). The use and misuse of adjusted performance measures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 323-334.
5. Caldas, S., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 269-277.
6. Cameron, S., & Heckman, J. (1998). Life cycle schooling and dynamic selection bias: Models and evidence for five cohorts of American males. Journal of Political Economy, April, 262-333.
7. Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the characteristics of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1-40.
8. Childs, T., & Shakeshaft, C. (1986). A meta-analysis of research on the relationship between educational expenditures and student achievement. Journal of Education Finance, 12, 249-263.
9. Cobb, C. (2002). Performance-based accountability systems for public education. Unpublished manuscript, The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies.
10. Colvin, R., & Helfand, D. (2000, July 1). Millions for schools tied to Stanford 9 test scores. Los Angeles Times, p. A20.
11. Elliot, M. (1998). School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance students’ achievement? Sociology of Education, 71, 223-245.
12. Fergusen, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.
13. Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189-202.
14. Greene, W (1997). Econometric analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Hall, D. (1998). Class size and demographics: What 3rd grade test results suggest about their impact on achievement in New Hampshire public schools. Unpublished manuscript, The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies.
16. Hall, D. (2001). How states pursue public school accountability and measure performance of public schools, school year 1998-1999. Unpublished manuscript, The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies.
17. Hall, D. (2002). One in four: School drop-outs in New Hampshire. Unpublished manuscript, The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies.
18. Hanushek, E. (1981). Throwing money at schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, 19-41.
19. Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177.
20. Hanushek, E. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45-51.
21. Hanushek, E. (1991). When school finance ‘reform’ may not be good policy. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 423-456.
22. Hanushek, E. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141-164.
23. Jaggia, S., & Tuerck, D. (2000). Promoting good schools through wise spending. Unpublished manuscript, The Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University.
24. Jerald, C. (2001). Dispelling the myth revisited: Preliminary findings from a nationwide analysis of “high-flying” schools. Washington, DC: The Education Trust, Inc.
25. Kodde, D., & Ritzen, J. (1988). Direct and indirect effects of parental education level on the demand for higher education. The Journal of Human Resources, 23(3), 356-371.
26. Kolker, C. (1999, April 14). Texas offers hard lessons on school accountability. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
27. Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270.
28. Leekley, R. (1980). Multiple outputs and community choice in public education. Economic Inquiry, 18, 333-352.
29. Love, N. (2002, April 11). N.H. Supreme Court says state not doing enough to make sure students get adequate education. Boston Globe.
30. McWhirter, E., Hackett, G., & Bandalos, D. (1998). A causal model of the educational plans and career expectations of Mexican American high school girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 166-181.
31. Meyer, R. (1996). Value-added indicators of school performance. In E. Hanushek & D. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America's Schools (p. 210). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Michelson, S. (1972). Equal school resource allocation. Journal of Human Resources, 7, 283-306.
33. Minow, M. (1991). School finance: Does money matter? Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 395-400.
34. Murnane, R. (1991). Interpreting the evidence on ‘does money matter?’ Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 457-464.
35. Robelen, E. (2002). An ESEA primer. Education Week on the Web, 21(16), 28-29.
36. Rumberger, R., & Larson, K. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71, 69-93.
37. Savoca, E. (1990). Another look at the demand for higher education: Measuring the price sensitivity of the decision to apply to college. Economics of Education Review, 9(2), 123-134.
38. Shaver, K. (1997, October 14). A mixed report card on student testing: Being head of the class raises concerns in Howard County. The Washington Post, p. B01.
39. Stecher, B., & Hamilton, L. (2002). Test-based accountability: Making it work better. Education Week on the Web, 21(23), 32, 48.
40. Stiefel, L., Rubenstein, R., & Schwartz, A. (1999). Using adjusted performance measures to evaluate resource use. Public Budgeting and Finance, 19, 67-87.
41. Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. (2003). Understanding educational outcomes of students from low-income families. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(3), 591-617.
42. Summers, A., & Wolfe, B. (1976). Which school resources help learning? Efficiency and equity in Philadelphia public schools. IRCD Bulletin, 11 (3), 1-17.
43. Sutton, A., & Soderstrom, I. (1999). Predicting elementary and secondary school achievement with school-related and demographic factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 330-338.
44. Texas Education Agency. (2001, April). Manual: The 2001 accountability rating system for Texas public schools and school districts and blueprint for the 2002 through 2005 accountability systems. Unpublished report, Department of Accountability Reporting and Research.
45. Toomer-Cook, J. (2002, February 11). Testing = big business. Deseret News, p. C1.
46. Venti, S., & Wise, D. (1983). Individual attributes and self-selection of higher education: College attendance versus college completion. Journal of Public Economics, 21, 1-32.
47. Wake, B. (2001, October 17). Anger over testing sweeps the U.S. The Ottawa Citizen, p. C3.
48. Wenger, J. (2000). What do schools produce? Implications of multiple outputs in education. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 27-36.
49. 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, 269-283.