Per Pupil Expenditures and School District Accreditation: What Does the Total Per Pupil Expenditure Indicator in the 1993 Mississippi Report Card Really Mean?.

The 1993 Mississippi Report Card was the result of legislative and accountability processes. The state's Education Reform Act of 1982 created a mandata to establish a performance-based school-accreditation system. This paper presents findings of a study that disaggregated and analyzed the total per-pupil expenditure indicators in the 1993 Mississippi Report Card in order to clarify the relationship between financial indicators and accregitation ratings. The study population consisted of all 149 school districts in Mississippi. Findings indicate that the total per-pupil expenditure indicator is not clear and comparable as mandated by state statutes; does not present an accurate assessment of the relationship between school-district accreditation and financial factors; and does not discriminate sufficiently in assigning school districts into accreditation levels 1-5. It is recommended that the evaluation use additional financial-indicator variables, such as school district transportation funding and free-lunch funding. Another suggestion is to conduct further studies to find out why districts in accreditation levels 1 and 2 are not spending an equivalent per-pupil expenditure on instruction, compared to districts in levels 3 and 5. Nine tables are included. (Contains 22 references.) (LMI) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Per Pupil Expenditures and School District Accreditation: What Does the Total Per Pupil Expenditure Indicator in the 1993 Mississippi Report Card Really Mean? Jerry G. Mathews College of Education Idaho State University Gary P. Johnson Department of Educational Leadership Mississippi State University Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association U S DEPAHTMENI OF EDUCATION Lnu,aona, 4,1 Imen,ement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERICI This document has been repmduced as received trore the itet,,, orct.tril,Ihnn ririgin,iting it El Minor changes have been made to improve reproducbon quality Roots of aro* or opinions statecl in this document do not necessarily represent offtc..al OF Ri position or pohcy Biloxi, Mississippi November 8-10, 1995 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)" Mathews/Report Card Indicators Per Pupil Expenditures and School District Accreditation: What Does the Total Per Pupil Expenditure Indicator in the 1993 Mississippi Report Card Really Mean? INTRODUCTION Kirst (1990) reported that beginning in the 1980s school reformers introduced accountability legislation at both the national and state levels which focused on merit schools, outcome-based accreditation, interstate achievement comparisons, and state school report cards. Presently, approximately 40 states have (1.eveloped and disseminated report cards to the public. Student and School Indicators of Accountability Student and school indicators (variables) have become the latest focus in school reform efforts and legislative accountability mandates (Brown, 1990). Student, school, and school district indicators include a wide range of variables such as revenues, qualifications of personnel, curriculum program schedules, dropout and graduation rates. These indicators and others are now included in different public school accountability programs across the country. Emergence of the Mississippi Report Card In Mississippi, accountability emerged as a statewide issue in 1975 when the Mississippi legislature expressed a concern about the quality of education in its school districts (Prince, 1985). The Mississippi legislature subsequently required statewide testing in grades 4, 6, and 8 and the publishing of test score results. Saterfield and Woodruff (1984) have stated that Mississippi "joined the push for quality improvements in education with the passage of the Education Reform Act (ERA) of 1982" (p. 2). The Phil Hardin Foundation (1983) has characterized the Education Reform Act of 1982 as a comprehensive strategy for the improvemeat of public education in Mississippi. The Foundation noted that