WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY? SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AN

Policy Brief

WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AN

EDUCATION FINANCE AND

POLICY SURVEY

AbstractIn the spring of 2008 the authors surveyed members ofthe American Education Finance Association (AEFA) togain insight into their views on education policy issues.The results summarize opinions of this broad groupof education researchers and practitioners, providingAEFA members and education leaders with access toviews that may be helpful as they consider policies toanalyze or pursue. This article reports the results insix areas of current policy interest. How should educa-tion aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing?Does school finance reform work? What has account-ability wrought? Can school policies close the black-white achievement gap? And how should teachers becompensated? Our findings identify areas of substan-tial agreement as well as areas where there is disagree-ment. For example, there is considerable agreement thatstate and federal governments should provide additionalfunding for disadvantaged students but disagreementon how to measure school finance adequacy.

Leanna Stiefel

(corresponding author)

Robert F. Wagner Graduate

School of Public Service and

Steinhardt School of Culture,

Education, and Human

Development

New York University

New York, NY 10012

[email protected]

Amy Ellen Schwartz


School of Public Service and

Steinhardt School of Culture,

Education, and Human

Development

New York University

New York, NY 10012

[email protected]

Anne Rotenberg


School of Public Service

New York University

Bronx, NY 10463

Editors’ note: This survey was conducted before the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) changedits name to the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). As a result, we have elected to retain theAEFA acronym throughout the article.

c© 2011 Association for Education Finance and Policy 267


INTRODUCTIONEven while academic journals and the popular media focus considerable at-tention on conflicts in education policy research and disagreements amongresearchers, policy makers must make decisions. They must decide, for ex-ample, if they should reform school finance systems and whether they shouldexpand school choice. The results of this survey will provide access to theviews on these and other issues of respondents from the American EducationFinance Association (AEFA), a professional association of researchers andpractitioners who focus on education finance and policy issues. Knowing howthese professionals view the issues may be helpful in weighing evidence ordeciding when further exploration is needed.

Unfortunately, identifying issues on which many professionals substan-tially agree—even when they do—is not straightforward. In academic reviewarticles, authors weigh the evidence (perhaps using formal tools of meta-analysis) but limit their analysis to published research.1 An alternative sourceof information comes from professionals either individually (in court proceed-ings or legislative hearings or as consultants) or in small groups charged withthe task of sifting the evidence (e.g., the What Works Clearinghouse) or thosewho support a particular point of view (e.g., New York Times 2004). But theseefforts reflect, at least to some extent, the opinions of a relatively small groupof professionals. To gain insight into the opinions of a broader group, we takea different approach, surveying the members of AEFA, the largest organiza-tion of professionals focused specifically on issues in education finance andpolicy. While it is a focused group of professionals, AEFA is also diverse in itsmembership, including professors, students, lawyers, union members, con-sultants, and employees of think tanks, many of whom do research or policyanalysis and some of whom are practitioners or even policy makers. Disci-plines represented include policy analysis, finance, economics, and others.While the survey is likely to be of interest to members and policy makers, inthe end it represents views and opinions of those from this diverse group whoresponded to the survey. The issues covered are often of a contentious nature,and the results presented here do not resolve controversies but rather presentan alternative reading of what an important group of respondents says. Alsonote that this survey was conducted independently of AEFA and is the workof the authors alone.

In this article, we report the results in six areas of current policy interest.How should education aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing? Doesschool finance reform work? What has accountability wrought? Can schoolpolicies close the black-white achievement gap? And how should teachers be

1. See, for example, Hanushek 1986; Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine 1996; Podgursky and Springer2007; or Ladd and Fiske 2008.

268

Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Anne Rotenberg

compensated? In a few cases, there are substantial differences in responsesacross disciplinary and age groups, and these cases are included in the results.

After a description of the survey itself in section 2, in section 3 we brieflypresent overviews of current debates in existing literature as they relate to thesurvey questions and then provide the results of the survey that align mostclosely with these overviews.2 In section 4, we summarize the areas whererespondents’ opinions are in substantial agreement and areas where they arenot.

THE SURVEYIn April and May 2008, electronic invitations to respond to an online surveywere emailed to all 528 then-current AEFA members.3 Fifty-seven percent ofsuccessfully contacted members responded.

The survey covered a range of policy areas, including school finance, schoolchoice, and accountability. Most questions asked that respondents indicatestrength of agreement in one of five categories: strongly disagree (coded 1 foranalysis purposes), disagree (coded 2), neutral (coded 3), agree (coded 4), andstrongly agree (coded 5). Other questions provided a list of options. One setof questions on vouchers was taken from a previous survey of economistsbelonging to the American Economic Association (Klein and Stern 2007). Atable of all survey questions with survey takers’ responses is available from theauthors.

Table 1 displays characteristics of survey respondents with comparisons,where possible, with the AEFA membership.4 As shown, the respondent sam-ple is roughly similar to the AEFA membership in the percentage male (roughly60 percent) but has a higher percentage of PhDs compared with the rostergroup (61 percent versus as low as 40 percent). Some members, however, didnot include the honorific title of “Dr.” in the roster, which led to an undercountof the PhDs.5

RESULTSResults are displayed in bar and pie charts. Note that bar charts report meanscores as well as the percent of respondents that agree or strongly agree andthe percent that disagree or strongly disagree to provide a sense of both central

2. We provide citations to the AEFA Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (Ladd andFiske 2008) where relevant.

3. AEFA membership was defined as members listed in the 2008 printed membership roster; 518surveys were successfully delivered.

4. The membership characteristics were not available from the AEFA executive director and weregathered where available from information in the printed membership roster.

5. We classified individuals with PhDs according to self-appellation as “Dr.” in the roster, but at leastfifteen members, known by authors to have PhDs, did not list themselves as such. Had they beenincluded in the PhD category, the percent with PhDs would have increased to 45.1 percent.

269


Table 1. Comparison Demographics of Survey Respondents (N = 295) and 2008 AEFA Members (N =528)

Demographic Group Survey Respondentsa 2008 AEFA Roster

Sex Male 60% 60%

Female 40% 40%

Education Doctoral degreeb 61% 40%

Master’s degree 21% –

Professional degree 14% –

Bachelor’s degree 4% –

Professional role Faculty 41% –

Researcher 25% –

Student 10% –

Practitioner 9% –

Consultant 7% –

Other 5% –

Retired 4% –

Discipline Policy analysis 30% –

Economics 28% –

Finance 24% –

All other 18% –

Age Under 30 6% –

30–39 26% –

40–49 17% –

50–59 24% –

60 and over 26% –

aPercent of 518 successfully delivered surveys.bBased on authors’ count of members in roster with “Dr.” before their name.

tendencies and dispersion.6 For some questions, respondents were asked tocheck all options with which they agreed; where applicable, these questions arenoted in the figure. Finally, to conserve space, some results are summarizedin the text but not shown in a chart. These are available from the authors onrequest.

6. A table available from the authors includes all results for all questions. Charts by discipline or agedo not include dispersion due to space and because there is less dispersion to show when subgroupresults are reported.

270


How Should Education Aid Be Distributed?

School finance experts have devoted a great deal of attention to the distributionof education aid, including both the design of state school aid formulas (e.g.,Schwartz, Stiefel, and Rubenstein 1998 and Picus, Goertz, and Odden 2008for summaries and overviews) and aid for colleges and college students (e.g.,Baum 2008). While there is broad agreement in principle on the importanceof adjusting for differences in costs and revenue-raising capacity in allocatingstate school aid, there is much continuing debate about how costs should bedetermined and exactly how adjustments should be made. To some extent,there are differences in which methods should be used, say, in measuringadequacy in school finance (e.g., Downes and Stiefel 2008; Duncombe andYinger 2008). But there are also concerns about potential responses to for-mulae that incorporate such adjustments. As an example, Cullen (2003) notesthat school district responses may lead to inefficiencies in resource allocation.Similarly, Fischel (2008) notes a potential reduction in government efficiencywith larger state and smaller local shares in education finance. Interestingly,the disagreements do not seem to reflect differences in theory (what mighthappen) but in empirics (what does happen). In the end, while some scholarsurge the adoption of specific finance mechanisms, such as district foundationformulae implemented nationwide, others see the virtues of local and statecontrol and unconstrained public choice.

In another vein, there is a smaller but now growing literature on educationfinance in higher education that considers whether, to what extent, and in whatform aid should be given in support of a college education. As an example,current research examines whether price, loans, or aid changes will have thelargest impact on student attendance and attainment, generally finding aid tobe most effective (e.g., Dynarski 2003; Kane 2004; Long 2007).

What are the views of AEFA survey respondents about these policy issues?Turning first to considerations of how costs and cost adjustments should bemade, we asked AEFA members about the best methods for measuring ad-equacy in school finance. Mirroring conflicts in the literature, AEFA respon-dents show much diversity of opinion. Of the four main methods currently inuse, AEFA respondents favor “professional judgment,” but “evidenced based”and “econometric cost functions” also have significant support (figure 1). The“successful schools” method garners the least support, and a sizable groupeither does not know or does not subscribe to any of these methods.

Not surprisingly, the results differ somewhat across disciplines.Economists (41 percent) and finance professionals (40 percent) are more sup-portive of econometric cost functions than are policy analysts (29 percent), buteconomists (23 percent) are less supportive of either professional judgmentor evidence-based methods than are finance and policy analysts (40 percent

271


Figure 1. Which of the Following Is the Best Way to Estimate the Cost of Adequate School Funding?Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.

for both methods). Economists also more frequently respond that they do notknow or that they subscribe to none of the methods (36 percent) comparedwith finance professionals (15 percent) or policy analysts (27 percent). By agegroup, only the 40- to 49-year-olds stand out—50 percent of them supporteconometric cost functions.7

Despite disagreements among respondents on how exactly to determinecosts and cost adjustments, following the broad consensus in the literature thatstudents do vary in costs and needs, there is strong agreement among AEFArespondents that state aid policies should make adjustments for students withdisadvantages (average responses of 4.6 or higher out of a possible 5). As shownin figure 2, however, adjustments in state aid for conditions not directly relatedto disadvantaged students garner somewhat less support (i.e., for changes instudent enrollment, labor market wage differences, district size, and giftedstudents). That said, respondents also strongly support federal policies thatprovide more funding for disadvantaged students (over 75 percent agree; notshown in the figure but available from the authors).8

There are several noteworthy differences concerning adjustments in stateaid by discipline and age group. Generally economists are less supportive thanfinance, policy analysis, or other disciplinary professionals of adjustments instate aid for students of various types, especially for gifted students (figure 3).Economists are also the least supportive of federal increases in funding forstudents with disabilities (figure 4). Of all age groups, respondents aged 30−39

7. There is not a one-to-one mapping of disciplines by age, although economists and policy analystsare disproportionately younger and finance professionals are older. The cross tabulations by ageand discipline are shown in appendix table 1.

8. Hereafter, results “not shown” are available from the authors on request.

272


Figure 2. State Aid to Local School Districts for K–12 Education Should Make Adjustments for:Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plusagree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.

Figure 3. State Aid to Local School Districts for K–12 Education Should Make Adjustments for:(by Discipline)

are the least supportive of increasing federal funds for low-income or disabledstudents (figure 5).

Does state aid reduce efficiency? Only 20 percent of all respondents agreeor strongly agree that increasing the state share of K−12 education spendingreduces efficiency, although among economists 37 percent believe this, andamong policy professionals only 13 percent do (not shown). When asked about aparticular form of state aid—the foundation formula—the greatest percentagesof all respondents (40 percent each) see it serving two purposes: providing

273


Figure 4. The Federal Government Should Provide More Funding for Students with Disabilities(by Discipline)

Figure 5. The Federal Government Should: (by Age)

equity in input distribution and breaking the correlation between propertywealth and school spending (figure 6). There is considerably less supportfor the notion that foundation formulas help districts meet state standards,which would be consistent with their use to pursue adequacy goals. Finally,with regard to local revenue, respondents overall are almost evenly divided onwhether districts should face limits on raising local revenue for public schools,although finance professionals differ and more strongly think they should (57percent; not shown). In addition, the majority of respondents over age sixtysay there should be limits (55 percent; not shown), while the other age groupsare more consistent with all respondents.

274


Figure 6. A Foundation Formula Is the Best State Aid Formula to:Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.

Figure 7. More Students Would Go to College If:

As for higher education finance, in accordance with the literature, re-spondents are in clear agreement that increasing college affordability, eitherthrough lower tuition or higher financial aid, would both serve to increase thenumber of students going to college, with higher financial aid being judgedslightly more effective (figure 7).

Is School Choice a Good Thing?

An ongoing debate in the literature concerns the effects of school choice(including vouchers, charters, magnets, and cross- and intradistrict choice)on performance, efficiency, and segregation in schooling. On the one hand,

275


Figure 8. Effects of School Choice. Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parenthesesshow percent that strongly agree plus agree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.

Levin (2002, 2008) and others argue that increasing school choice options ingeneral is likely to increase expenses for the school system. Others, such asHoxby (2000), argue that competition will increase school efficiency, offeringthe hope of lower costs and higher quality for all. Moreover, Nechyba (2003),who uses general equilibrium analyses, finds that at the very worst, voucherswould lead to small declines in average public school quality compared to thecurrent residence-based systems of school assignment. Empirical studies ofschool choice typically show small performance advantages for students whoattend these schools (see Bifulco and Ladd 2006; Sass 2006; and Bifulco andBuckley 2008 for charter school studies, and Rouse 1998; Peterson et al. 2002;Zimmer and Bettinger 2008; Hoxby and Muraka 2009; Rouse and Barrow2009; and Wolf et al. 2009 for voucher studies).

Interestingly, the opinions of AEFA survey respondents mirror the liter-ature, indicating a mixed view of choice among respondents. While there iswide agreement that choice increases school segregation and inequality ofoutcomes between schools, many respondents also see increasing innovation(mean 3.3) as an advantage of school choice (figure 8). In terms of the fiscal andorganizational impacts, narrow majorities disagree that school choice reducesbureaucracy or costs, and most do not believe that school choice increasesefficiency (means below 3). Finally, most respondents think that school choicedoes not meet the needs of students with disabilities. Once again, economistsdiffer and are more positive about the impacts of choice (figure 9). Those overage sixty are less positive than younger respondents (figure 10).

Turning next to specific types of school choices, the vast majority (approx-imately two-thirds) of all respondents do not see that students who attend

276


Figure 9. Increasing School Choice (by Discipline)

Figure 10. Increasing School Choice (by Age)

charter schools gain more on standardized tests (relative to traditional publicschools; figure 8), although economists and those under age forty are morelikely to see such gains than finance professionals or those over sixty (figures9 and 10).

Finally, on the question of vouchers, 68 percent of all respondents op-pose universal provision of vouchers for use in government or privately runschools, but there is less opposition to vouchers targeting low-income parents(53 percent) and even less opposition to vouchers for parents with childrenin poorly performing schools (48 percent) (figure 11). Since the voucher ques-tions were taken directly from a survey of members of the American Economic

277


Figu

re1

1.

Educ

atio

nalV

ouch

ers

Sho

uld

Be

Prov

ided

for:

278


Figure 12. Educational Vouchers Should Be Provided for: (by Discipline)

Figure 13. Educational Vouchers Should Be Provided for: (by Age)

Association (AEA), we are able to compare responses. Figure 12 shows thatamong AEFA respondents, economists are the most supportive of vouchers,although their mean score (3.3) is lower than that of AEA economists (3.7).Figure 13 shows that support for vouchers declines monotonically with ageamong AEFA respondents.

Does School Finance Reform Work?

School finance court cases in over forty-two states have focused scholars’ atten-tion on the effects of the cases. A series of influential articles by Murray, Evans,and Schwab (1998) and a review by Corcoran and Evans (2008) find that sub-sequent reforms reduced the revenue disparities across districts, suggestingimprovements in equity. That said, studies of the impact on performance are

279


Figure 14. Effects of School Finance Reform

decidedly mixed. Card and Payne (2002) find some evidence of convergence inscholastic aptitude test (SAT) scores, and Guryan (2001) reports improvementin fourth-grade scores, while Downes (1992) finds little evidence of change,and Roy (2004) finds only modest gains. Although few questions on the sur-vey address this issue directly, its importance merits a separate highlightingof responses.

It is, given the findings in the literature, unsurprising that there is consid-erable disagreement among AEFA respondents. As shown in figure 14, onlyone-quarter agree that school finance reform has narrowed the black-whitegap. As to whether school finance restructuring is temporary, those who dis-agree (38 percent) are offset by those who agree (28 percent), with 30 percentneutral. There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines orage groups.

What Has Accountability Wrought?

As with the other areas, the jury is still out on whether state or federal ac-countability policies improve student performance. On the one hand, Carnoyand Loeb (2003), Hanushek and Raymond (2005), and Figlio and Ladd (2008)report evidence of some improvement based on the experiences of the statesbefore the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). On the other hand,Rothstein, Jacobsen, and Wilder (2008), Ladd (2007), and Rebell and Wolff(2008) argue that accountability under NCLB is seriously broken. Althoughthe authors do not concur on all desired changes, together they argue that atleast the systems need to include more measures, use better assessments, pay

280


Figure 15. The Federal Government Should Mandate:

more attention to qualitative inspections, and include corrections to countergaming the system.

As shown in figure 15, respondents are divided about one aspect ofaccountability—whether the federal government should increase its role intesting by mandating national tests (44 percent oppose nationalization, 42percent support the reform). A majority (62 percent), however, oppose nation-alizing curricula. By age group, those 30–39 are more supportive of nationalroles in both areas than any other age group (not shown), and there are nostatistically significant differences by disciplines.

While recognizing the benefits of accountability, a majority of respondentsare concerned that schools are gaming the system (figure 16). There is a par-ticular concern about teaching to the test, but also about cheating. In contrastto these forms of direct gaming, there is no clear consensus on the severityof problems, such as whether schools are excluding groups of potentiallylow-scoring students (e.g., special education students and English languagelearners, or ELLs). Economists are more likely than finance professionals,however, to say that accountability has increased the exclusion of specialeducation students (mean 3.5) and ELLs (mean 3.3), and finance professionalsare less likely to say so (means 2.9 for special education and 2.8 for ELLs) (notshown). In addition, those in their thirties are more likely to agree that exclu-sion has occurred (means 3.4 for special education and 3.3 for ELLs), and thosein their fifties are less likely to agree (2.9 for special education and 2.9 for ELLs)(not shown).

When asked to identify the best way to measure school quality (figure 17), re-spondents clearly supported using value-added test scores adjusted for student

281


Figure 16. Federal and State Accountability Systems Have:Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plusagree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.

Figure 17. The Best Way to Measure School Quality Is to Use:Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.

characteristics (68 percent). Ratings of school inspection teams and parent sat-isfaction surveys are supported by only a little over one-third of respondentseach. Raw test score levels received the least support (9 percent), a notableresult considering the current reliance on raw test score levels in the federalNCLB accountability program.9

9. There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines or age groups.

282


Figure 18. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to:Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plusagree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.

Can School Policies Close the Black-White Achievement Gaps?

Jencks and Phillips’s Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) focused interest in anarea of research that arguably began with the Coleman report (Coleman et al.1966). Since then, numerous authors have documented test score gaps, an-alyzed their determinants, and asked whether policies focused on schools canclose the gaps (e.g., Rothstein 2004; Stiefel, Schwartz, and Ellen 2007; Harris2008; Loeb and Bassok 2008; Murnane et al. 2006; Reardon and Robinson2008). While there is nearly universal consensus that disparities are drivenby both in-school and out-of-school factors, debate continues about whetherschools can compensate sufficiently to close the gap in nonschool factors.

As does the literature, respondents view some in-school programs aspromising for narrowing the gap. In choosing from a specified list of re-forms, respondents exhibit clear enthusiasm for three: reducing disparities inschool resources, increasing black students’ exposure to experienced teachers,and, above all, increasing pre-K programs (figure 18). There is also support,although less strong (mean 3.7–3.9), for increasing the length of the schoolyear and decreasing racial segregation within and across schools.

Economists exhibit some differences compared with other disciplines (fig-ure 19), showing less support for decreasing school size and more for increas-ing school choice as ways to reduce the black-white test score gap. Those oversixty are more supportive than other age groups of decreasing school size andare less supportive of school choice (figure 20).

Mirroring the literature’s findings that out-of-school factors also drive dis-parities, most AEFA respondents also view such policies as promising for

283


Figure 19. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to:(by Discipline)

Figure 20. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to: (by Age)

narrowing the racial test score gap. Over 75 percent of respondents think thatincreasing family income and/or wealth among black families will help, andover 70 percent support decreasing segregation in communities (not shown).10

How Should Teachers Be Compensated?

While there is a considerable body of literature finding that teachers are impor-tant determinants of student performance, there is little evidence identifying

10. There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines or age groups.

284


Figu

re2

1.

The

Bes

tW

ayto

Impr

ove

Teac

her

Qua

lity

Isto

:N

ote:

Bar

sdo

not

tota

l100

perc

ent

beca

use

mor

eth

anon

ere

spon

sepe

rre

spon

dent

ispo

ssib

le.

285


which teacher attributes identify “quality” or how teachers respond to variouslevels and kinds of pay, such as pay for performance (Hanushek and Rivkin2004; Podgursky and Springer 2007; Goldhaber 2008).

When asked specifically about one commonly used measure of teacherquality—teachers’ SAT scores—respondents soundly rejected it as a good sin-gle indicator of quality: 60 percent disagree or strongly disagree (not shown).

With regard to compensation, a sizable percentage of respondents favorreforms aimed at targeted salary increases, specifically for new teachers (49percent) and math, science, and special education specialists (44 percent), withonly one-third favoring salary hikes for all teachers (figure 21). Economists,however, are more favorable to math, science, and special education salarydifferentials (58 percent), and finance professionals are less favorable (30 per-cent) than the average of all respondents. In addition, while all respondentssupport changes to the salary structure, especially for introducing knowledge-and skills-based pay (46 percent), only a little over a third of respondents fa-vor merit pay based on student performance. When asked specifically abouteffective reforms for improving urban high schools, respondents see mostpromise in raising teacher salaries in urban high schools.11

CONCLUSIONSThis survey of the views of AEFA members finds that there are important areasof agreement as well as areas of conflict on major education policy issues. Inthis section we highlight areas of high agreement, defined as those in whichall respondents averaged scores of 4.0 or higher or 2.0 or lower (on the five-point scale) or over 50 percent chose an option on multiple option questions.Then we note areas of conflict, defined as those in which the average for allrespondents is in the middle of the five-point scale (3.1 to 2.9) with groupson both the high and low ends or with close to only 30 percent agreementon multiple option questions. While these are somewhat stringent cutoffs formeasuring agreement and conflict, they identify particular results that giveclear signals. We summarize these in bullet points following the six policyareas of the article.

How should education aid be distributed?

Respondents are in widespread agreement that:

� State aid policies should make adjustments for disabled, poor, andlimited English students.

11. On this question, decreasing school size, focusing on the success of students in grade 9, andestablishing connections to business and careers also garner more than 50 percent of respondents’agreement. There are also some isolated questions on which there are differences in responses bysome age groups, but these are not consistent across questions and are not reported.

286


� More students would go to college if tuition were lower or if there weremore financial aid.

There are conflicting opinions about:

� Whether school districts should face limits in raising local revenue.� Whether higher state aid reduces efficiency.� How to measure school finance adequacy.

Is school choice a good thing?

There is widespread agreement that:

� Education vouchers should not be provided for all parents.� Charter schools do not cause students to gain more on standardized

tests than traditional public schools.

Respondents have conflicting opinions about whether:

� Educational vouchers should be provided for parents with children inpoorly performing schools.

Does school finance reform work?

There are conflicting opinions about whether:

� School finance reform has narrowed the black-white achievement gap.� Effects of school finance restructuring are temporary.

What has accountability wrought?

Respondents are in widespread agreement that:

� The federal government should not mandate a national curriculum.� Federal and state accountability systems have increased teaching to

the test.� The best way to measure school quality is to use value-added test scores

adjusted for student characteristics.12

� The best way to measure school quality does not use test score levels.13

12. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.13. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.

287


Respondents have conflicting opinions about whether:

� The federal government should mandate national tests.� Federal and state accountability systems have increased the exclusion

of English language learners, reduced the black-white test score gap,or improved curricula.

� The best way to measure school quality is to use ratings of schoolinspection teams, use parent satisfaction surveys, or use student at-tendance rates.14

Can school policies close the black-white achievement gap?


� Promising ways for schools to reduce the black-white test score gap areto increase participation in pre-K programs, increase black students’exposure to experienced teachers, or reduce disparities in school re-sources.

� Promising ways for society to reduce the black-white test score gap areto increase black family income and wealth or to decrease segregationin communities.

How should teachers be compensated?


� SAT scores are not a good single measure of teacher quality.

Respondents have conflicting opinions on whether:

� The best way to improve teacher quality is to increase all teachers’salaries or to award merit pay for individual teachers based on studentperformance.

AEFA is a small but focused professional association of researchers andpractitioners engaged in education policy and finance work. Our survey resultsprovide access to the views of AEFA members on a range of current issues ineducation finance and policy, identifying areas of consensus and of continuingdisagreement. While the insight offered is unlikely to quell the rhetoric of the

14. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.

288


policy debate, knowing how these professionals view the issues may provehelpful in weighing evidence and identifying areas for further exploration.

Thanks to Jack Buckley, Sean Corcoran, Jennifer King Rice, and session participants atthe 2009 AEFA annual conference for helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authorsalone are responsible for the opinions expressed in the article.

REFERENCESBaum, Sandy. 2008. The student aid system: An overview. In Handbook of research ineducation finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 59–104.New York: Routledge.

Bifulco, Robert, and Katrina Buckley. 2008. Charter schools. In Handbook of research ineducation finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 425–46.New York: Routledge.

Bifulco, Robert, and Helen F. Ladd. 2006. The impacts of charter schools on studentachievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy 1(1): 50–90.

Card, David, and A. Abigail Payne. 2002. School finance reform, the distribution ofschool spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics83(1): 49–82.

Carnoy, Martin, and Susanna Loeb. 2003. Does external accountability affect studentoutcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 305–32.

Coleman, James S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. M. Mean, F. D.Weinfeld, and R. L. York. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Corcoran, Sean P., and William N. Evans. 2008. Equity, adequacy and the evolvingstate role in education finance. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy,edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 332–56. New York: Routledge.

Cullen, Julie Berry. 2003. The impact of fiscal incentives on student disability rates.Journal of Public Economics 87(7–8): 1557–89.

Downes, Thomas. 1992. Evaluation of the impact of school finance reform on theprovision of public education: The California case. National Tax Journal 45: 405–19.

Downes, Thomas A., and Leanna Stiefel. 2008. Measuring equity and adequacy inschool finance. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by HelenF. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 222–37. New York: Routledge.

Duncombe, William D., and John Yinger. 2008. Measurement of cost differentials.In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd andEdward B. Fiske, pp. 238–56. New York: Routledge.

Dynarski, Susan. 2003. Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on collegeattendance and completion. American Economic Review 93(1): 79–88.

289


Figlio, David, and Helen F. Ladd. 2008. School accountability and student achievement.In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd andEdward B. Fiske, pp. 166–82. New York: Routledge.

Fischel, William A. 2008. Educational finance. The new Palgrave dictionary of eco-nomics online, 2nd ed. Available www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008E000237&edition=current&q=educational % 20finance&topicid = &result number =1.

Accessed 8 September 2010.

Goldhaber, Dan. 2008. Teachers matter, but effective teacher quality policies are elu-sive. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Laddand Edward B. Fiske, pp. 146–65. New York: Routledge.

Greenwald, Rob, Larry V. Hedges, and Richard D. Laine. 1996. The effect of schoolresources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research 66(3): 361–96.

Guryan, Jonathan. 2001. Does money matter? Regression discontinuity estimates fromeducation finance reform in Massachusetts. NBER Working Paper No. 8269.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1986. The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency inpublic schools. Journal of Economic Literature 24: 1141–77.

Hanushek, Erik A., and Margaret Raymond. 2005. Does school accountability leadto improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(2):297–327.

Hanushek, Eric A., and Steven G. Rivkin. 2004. How to improve the supply of highquality teachers. In Brookings papers on education policy, 2004, edited by Diane Ravitch,pp. 7–25. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Harris, Douglas N. 2008. Educational outcomes of disadvantaged students: Fromdesegregation to accountability. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy,edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 551–72. New York: Routledge.

Hoxby, Caroline. 2000. Does competition among public schools benefit students andtaxpayers? American Economic Review 90: 1200–38.

Hoxby, Caroline, and Sonali Muraka. 2009. Charter schools in New York City: Whoenrolls and how they affect their students’ achievement. NBER Working Paper No.14852.

Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips, eds. 1998. The black-white test score gap.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kane, Thomas J. 2004. College-going and inequality. In Social inequality, edited byKathryn Neckerman, pp. 319–54. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Klein, Daniel B., and Charlotta Stern. 2007. Is there a free-market economist in thehouse? The policy views of American Economic Association members. American Jour-nal of Economics of Sociology 66(2): 309–34.

Ladd, Helen F. 2007. Holding schools accountable revisited. Spencer Foundation Lec-ture, Association for Policy Analysis and Management Annual Meetings. Washington,DC, March.

290


Ladd, Helen F., and Edward B. Fiske. 2008. Handbook of research in education financeand policy. New York: Routledge.

Levin, Henry M. 2002. A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouch-ers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(3): 159–74.

Levin, Henry M. 2008. Issues in educational privatization. In Handbook of research ineducation finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 391–401.New York: Routledge.

Loeb, Susanna, and Daphna Bassok. 2008. Early childhood and the achievement gap.In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd andEdward B. Fiske, pp. 517–34. New York: Routledge.

Long, Terry B. 2007. The contributions of economics to the study of college access andsuccess. Teachers College Record 109(10): 2367–443.

Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, Kristen L. Bub, and Kathleen McCartney. 2006.Understanding trends in the black-white achievement gaps during the first years ofschool. In Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, edited by Janet Rothenberg Packand William G. Gale, pp. 97–135. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Murray, Sheila E., William N. Evans, and Robert M. Schwab. 1998. Education-financereform and the distribution of education resources. American Economic Review 88:789–812.

Nechyba, Thomas J. 2003. Introducing school choice into multi-district public schoolsystems. In Economics of school choice, edited by Caroline Hoxby, pp. 145–94. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

New York Times. 2004. Charter school evaluation reported by The New York Times failsto meet professional standards. [Advertisement.] 25 August.

Peterson, Paul, William G. Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, and David E. Campbell. 2002.School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized fieldexperiments. Journal of Policy and Management 21(2): 191–217.

Picus, Lawrence O., Margaret Goertz, and Allan Odden. 2008. Intergovernmental aidformulas and case studies. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, editedby Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 257–75. New York: Routledge.

Podgursky, Michael J., and Matthew G. Springer. 2007. Teacher performance pay: Areview. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26(4): 909–49.

Reardon, Sean F., and Joseph P. Robinson. 2008. Patterns and trends in racial/ethnicand socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In Handbook of research in educationfinance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 497–516. NewYork: Routledge.

Rebell, Michael, and Jessica R. Wolff. 2008. Moving every child along: From NCLB hypeto meaningful educational opportunity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rothstein, Richard. 2004. Class and schools. Washington, DC: Education Policy InstitutePress.

291


Rothstein, Richard, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Tamara Wilder. 2008. Grading education:Getting accountability right. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rouse, Cecilia Elena. 1998. Private school vouchers and student achievement: Anevaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics113(2): 553–602.

Rouse, Cecilia Elena, and Lisa Barrow. 2009. School vouchers and student achieve-ment: Recent evidence and remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics 1: 17–42.

Roy, Joydeep. 2004. Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization andacademic performance: Evidence from Michigan. Working Paper No. 8, PrincetonUniversity.

Sass, Tim. 2006. Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Fi-nance and Policy 1(1): 91–122.

Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Leanna Stiefel, and Ross Rubenstein. 1998. Education finance. InHandbook of public finance, edited by Fred Thompson and Mark T. Green, pp. 447–82.New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Stiefel, Leanna, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Ingrid Ellen. 2007. Can public schools closethe race gap? Probing the evidence in a large urban school district. Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management 26(1): 7–30.

Wolf, Patrick, et al. 2009. Evaluation of DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impactsafter three years. NCEE 2009-4050. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationEvaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.

Zimmer, Ron, and Eric P. Bettinger. 2008. Beyond the rhetoric: Surveying the evidenceon vouchers and tax credits. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, editedby Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 447–66. New York: Routledge.

APPENDIX

Table A.1.

Percent by age and discipline of those who answered both

<30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Total #

Finance 9.7 17.7 33.9 38.7 62

Economics 42.7 17.3 21.3 18.7 75

Policy 40.7 16.1 17.3 25.9 81

Other 31.3 18.8 27.1 29.9 48

292

WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY? SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AN

Documents

Transcript of WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY? SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AN