THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis
ELPA 830: Financing Elementary and Secondary Education
Instructor
Peter Goff
270L Education Building
1000 Bascomb Mall
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison WI 53706
Email - [email protected]
Office Hours
I am available by appointment. Please feel free to email me at [email protected] anytime for an
appointment.
Teaching Assistant
Se Woong Lee
Email: [email protected]
Office Hours
By appointment
Required Texts
Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2008). Handbook of research in education finance and policy. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses: Solving the
funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton University Press.
Additional reading materials have been posted on learn@uw
Course Overview:
School finance is a contentious, nuanced, and technical topic. This class will prepare you to engage in
discourse regarding the key issues in school finance, through the lenses of educational adequacy, equity,
efficiency, and liberty. My goal is for you to be able to debate, craft, and implement school finance policy
with an informed understanding of the anticipated implications as well as alternative options.
There are tremendous challenges to the conversion of conceptual and theoretical concepts into concrete,
actionable finance policy. We will examine these challenges and the proposed solutions, underscoring the
strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Course Requirements
To demonstrate your understanding of the issues in school finance you will each write a conceptual essay,
an analytical essay, and a book review. In your conceptual essay you will review and choose a current
educational policy with implications for resource allocation. In your analytical essay you will engage in
your own lines of research, examining school, district, or state level finance data. You will craft a question
pertinent to educational equity, adequacy, efficiency, and/or liberty, analyze your data, and interpret your
findings from legal, political, and social perspectives. In your book review you will highlight the major
assertions of a book, provide as assessment of the evidence used to support those assertions, and convey
your (critical) understanding of the argument(s) advanced in the book.
Conceptual Essay (30% of grade)
The purpose of the conceptual essay is to examine current education policy initiatives using the theoretical
bases for analysis in school finance discussed in class. To complete this assignment, you will need to:
 Choose a current educational policy with implications for resource allocation;1
Some examples might include: pay for performance, Race to the Top, student assignment, Title I
comparability, salary differentiation, low-wealth supplemental funding, local tax policies…
1

Discuss the policy from the perspective of the four values that are used to frame educational policy
issues: equity, adequacy, efficiency, liberty;
 Defend the feasibility of your chosen policy from a preferred value; that is, a value that to your
mind trumps others on this particular issue.
Write up your findings in a 7-10 page double spaced paper. In addition to peer-reviewed journals, you
should also utilize outside sources, including media reports. Use APA style.
Analytic Essay (30% of grade)
Under the guidance of your instructor, you will create and analyze a set of school resource data. These data
may come from the classroom, school, district or state level. You will determine a set of key resource
variables (~3-5) and analyze the distribution of these resources from multiple perspectives (horizontal
equity, vertical equity, efficiency, adequacy, output equity). Having completed these calculations, you will
place them in legible tables and describe them, paying particular attention to both the scope of your
findings as well as the details.
This assignment will forgo the “Introduction” and “Context” sections of conventional academic papers and
focus upon the following sections: “Data”, “Methods”, “Findings”, and “Discussion.”
Book Reports (30% of grade)
Over the course of the semester, prepare a review of a book that focuses on school finance or resource
allocation. This review should highlight major assertions of the book, provide as assessment of the
evidence used to support those assertions, and your overall opinion of the argument advanced in the book.
In addition, you should do research across the wider field of school literature to understand the impact this
book has had on the thinking of others in the field – including places where this book has been cited,
reviews of the book, etc. Working in pairs is strongly encouraged (papers must still be written
individually). While you may pick a book on your own and have it approved by the instructor, you may
wish to select from the following list:
1) Educational Economics: Where Does School Funding Go? (Roza, 2010. 128 pages)
2) The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Howell & Peterson, 2006, 323 pages)
3) Funding Public Schools: Politics and Policies (Wong, 1999. 208 pages)
4) Does Money Matter?: The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success
(Burtless, 1996. 296 pages)
5) Strategic Management of Human Capital in Education: Improving Instructional Practice and
Student Learning in Schools (Odden, 2011. 264 pages)
6) Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education (Springer, 2009.
336 pages)
7) Making Money Matter: Financing America’s Schools (Ladd & Hansen, 1999. 368 pages)
8) Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990. 340 pages)
9) Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Callahan, 1964. 283 pages)
10) Class And Schools: Using Social, Economic, And Educational Reform To Close The Black-White
Achievement Gap (Rothstein, 2004. 224 pages)
11) The Price We Pay (Belfield & Levin, 2007. 273 pages)
12) Courts and Kids: Pursuing Educational Equity through the State Courts (Rebel, 2009. 208 pages)
Reading, Reflection, & Participation (10% of grade)
Each topic (usually 1 per class) will have a discussant. Each class one student will take on the role of the
editor. Each required reading will have an assigned reader (although all students will read all readings and
submit one question to the professor one day before class).
 What does a reader do? A reader summarizes the main points and supporting evidence of one
article. A reader can also construct a list of factual questions for the class and/or the instructor
(i.e., terms of vocabulary, equations, methods discussed, etc.). A reader does not outline a
reading; rather, a reader seeks to distill the essential tone and perspective of a reading as a service
to her classmates. The reader will upload a their 500 word summary onto the class Google Doc the
day before we are to discuss the reading.



What does a discussant do? A discussant seeks to distill themes and controversies across a
number of articles. A discussant may also construct a list of theoretical or conceptual questions
for the class and/or the instructor. A discussant does not individually evaluate each reading;
rather, a discussant seeks to engage the class in broader issues that (hopefully) arise from a set of
readings. Discussants are also expected to articulate connections to prior readings. Discussants
should feel free to bring in additional materials or use the white-board (or internet or any other
source) to facilitate their ideas. The discussant will upload their 500 word synthesis of the readings
onto the class Google Doc the day before we are to discuss the readings.
What does an editor do? An editor takes careful notes based on the class discussion and any
lecture materials. After class (preferably the next day; no more than 6 days later) the editor will
add salient points from the class discussion to the reading summaries and to the discussion
synthesis.
What should everyone do, every class? All students are responsible for all the assigned readings.
All students will also e-mail the professor one question regarding any of the readings, 48 hours
before class. The question should be directed towards an aspect of the reading(s) on which you
would like clarification. I use these questions to direct the discussion and structure lecture
materials.
Writing Center: http://www.writing.wisc.edu/
You are highly encouraged to use the writing center for all projects.
Grading:
On each assignment you will receive a 1, 2, or 3. A 1 indicates that your work is not ready to be submitted
as is. This means that your paper fell below the standards and you have two weeks to revise and resubmit
the paper. Students who do not revise and resubmit the paper within two weeks after receiving a 1 will not
pass the course. A 2 indicates that your paper is acceptable and met the standards. Papers marked as a 2 can
be revised within two weeks, but revisions are not required. A 3 indicates that your paper exceeded most if
not all of my expectations for the assignment. Only students with 2s and 3s will receive passing grades at
the end of the course. Students with all 3s will receive an “A.” Students with all 2s will receive a “B.”
Students with a mix of 2s and 3s will be given either an “A” or a “B,” depending on their leadership,
camaraderie, contributions during class, and discussions outside of class.
The following are page limits (not including tables, figures, or bibliography), due dates and total points
possible for each assignment.
Assignment
Conceptual Essay
Analytic Essay
Book Reports
Page limits
10
10
10
Due date
Oct /08/12
Nov/12/12
Dec/10/12
A note on cheating & plagiarism:
Collaborate and get smarter by working with great people. Read and get smarter by synthesizing great
writings. At the end of the day you must formulate and express your own opinion.
Challenged Students
I seek to fully include persons with disabilities in this course. Please let us know if you need any special
accommodations in the curriculum, instruction, or assessments in this course to enable you to fully
participate. I will try to maintain the confidentiality of the information that you share with me. Please
contact me as early in the course as practicable. You may also contact the McBurney Disability Resource
Center, 305 Linden Drive (263-2741 or [email protected]) if you have questions about campus
policies and services. Questions or concerns about disability accommodations can be brought to the
attention of Associate Dean Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell (262-2463) or the Educational Leadership and Policy
Analysis office (251-2486), the ELPA coordinator.
Class Schedule: While I am confident regarding my knowledge of the subject matter, I am less confident regarding my ability to convey it effectively.
Consequently, I welcome suggestions for rendering the course more effective. As such, this syllabus should itself be regarded as a draft. Assuredly, matters will
emerge in assigned readings, discussions, and assignments that will reveal inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and omissions. Your comments and suggestions
regarding the manner in which the syllabus can be altered in order to benefit your successors will be appreciated.
Date
Topic
Readings
1a. Springer, M. G., & Houck, E. A., & Guthrie, J. Q. (2008). History and Scholarship Regarding United States Education Finance
and Policy. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 3-22). New York,
NY: Routledge.
1b. Dominic Brewer, et. al., (2008). The Role of Economics in Education Policy Research. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.),
Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 23-41). New York, NY: Routledge.
Septembe
r 10
(p. 99)
Historical &
Disciplinary
Overview
1c. Koski, J. W., & Hahnel, J. (2008). The Past, Present and Possible Futures of Educational Finance Reform Litigation. In Ladd,
H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 42-60). New York, NY: Routledge.
1d. McEwan, P. J. (2008). Quantitative Research Methods in Education Finance and Policy. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.),
Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 87-104). New York, NY: Routledge.
1e. Guthrie, J. W. (2006). “Modern” Education Finance: How It Differs from the “Old” and the Analytic and Data Collection
Changes It Implies. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 3–16. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.1.3
1f. Stiefel, L. (2006). Insight from hindsight: The new education finance of the next decade. Education Finance and Policy, 1(4),
383–395. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.4.383
1g. Smith, M. (2012, April 7). In Rural Texas, Shrinking District Battles to Make Improvements. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/in-rural-texas-shrinking-district-battles-to-make-improvements.html
2a. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (1996). Understanding the 20th century growth in US school spending. National Bureau of
Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/papers/w5547
Septembe
r 17
(p.166)
Does Money
Matter:
Funding &
Education
2b. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of
educational research, 66(3), 361–396.
2b*. Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange: Part I: Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of
the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational researcher, 23(3), 5–14.
2c. Guthrie, J. W., & Peng, A. (2010). A Warning for All Who Would Listen: America’s Public Schools Face a Forthcoming Fiscal
Tsunami. F. Hess & E. Osberg, Stretching the school dollar, 19–44.
2d. Hill, P., & Roza, M. (2010). Curing Baumol’s disease: in search of productivity gains in K-12 schooling. white paper, Center on
Reinventing Public Education, 28, 1–21.
2e. Baker, B. D., & Welner, K. G. (2011). Productivity Research, The U.S. Department of Education, and High-Quality Evidence.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
2f. Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2008). Conceptions of Equity and Adequacy in School Finance. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B.
(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 203-221). Routledge New York.
3a. Downes, T. A., & Stiefel, L. (2008). Measuring Equity and Adequacy in School Finance. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.),
Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 222-225). New York, NY: Routledge.
3b. Satoshi Miyamura, "How to calculate Gini coefficient"
http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/users/sm97/teaching_intro_qm_notes_gini_coefficient.htm
(note: readings 3e-f are not required, but will help you understand the Theil decomposition used in 5g)
*3c. Excerpt from Murray, Evans, and Schwab (see 3g'. below, p. 797), on Theil's T.
Septembe
r 24
(p.131)
Defining &
Measuring
Equity
*3d. Hale, T. (2003). The theoretical basics of popular inequality measures. Online Computation of.
http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/tutorials/theo_basic_ineq_measures.doc 17
3e. Corcoran. S. P., & Evans. W. N. (2008). Equity, Adequacy and the Evolving State Role in Education Finance. In Ladd, H. F., &
Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 332-356). New York, NY: Routledge.
** This is an updated version of an important, but dated paper:
3e*. Murray, S. E., Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources.
American Economic Review, 789–812.
3g Costrell, R. (2005). Equity v. Equity: Why Education Week and the Education Trust Don’t Agree. Education Next, 5(3).
Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Education-Next/136199663.html
3f. Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., Farrie, D., & Center, E. L. (2010). Is School Funding Fair?: A National Report Card. Education
Law Center. Retrieved from
http://www.multiontwerp.nlmyimgwww.minoritynews.net/images/userfiles/National_Report_Card.pdf
October
1
October
8
(p.82)
Conceptual essay presentations (conceptual essays due next week)
Federal
Funding
5a. Gordon. N. E. (2008). The Changing Federal Role in Education Finance and Governance. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.),
Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 295-313). New York, NY: Routledge.
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~negordon/papers/handbook.pdf
5b. Miller, R. T. (2009). Secret Recipes Revealed: Demystifying the Title I, Part A Funding Formulas. Center for American
Progress. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2009/08/17/6544/secretrecipes-revealed-demystifying-the-title-i-part-a-funding-formulas/
Explication of the single largest programs, the 4 items in Title I aid to local districts.
Interactive Title I map: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title1_map.html
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html (Title I home page)
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg3.html#sec1124 (Title I, sec's 1124-1125A)
5c. Miller, R. T., & Brown. C. G. (2010). Bitter Pill, Better Formula : Toward a Single, Fair, and Equitable Formula for ESEA
Title I, Part A. Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/bitter_pill.html
5d. Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. (2003). Choice and Federalism. Hoover Institution Press. Pages 31-34.
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Choice-and-Federalism.pdf
5e. President Obama's, FY2013 Federal Budget proposal for US Department of Education.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (home page for an array of links)
Bolded items below required:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/summary/13summary.pdf, p. 1, 16-19
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html link to budget tables, including:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/summary/appendix1.xls Coarse grain
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/13pbapt.xls Pres O's FY13 Detail
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html link to historical table
5f. Federal share of K-12 money: NCES tables & DOE updates.
October
15
(p.137)
State
Revenues &
District
Funding
Formulas
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_180.asp
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/summary/appendix3.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget10/summary/appendix3.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/appendix3.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/appendix5.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/summary/appendix5.pdf
6a. Hanushek, E. A. (2002). Alternative funding schemes. In Auerbach, A. F., & Feldstein, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Public
Economics, 4, (pp. 82-86), Amsterdam: North Holland. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8799
6b. Picus, L. O., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2008). Intergovernmental Aid Formulas and Case Studies. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E.
B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 257-275). New York, NY: Routledge.
6c. Costrell, R. M. (2008). The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, 1993-2008.
School Choice Demonstration Project, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas.
6d. Murray, S. E., Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources.
American Economic Review, 789–812.
6e. Hoxby, C. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4),
1189–1231.
7a. Guthrie, J. W., Springer, M. G., Rolle, R. A., & Houck, E. A. (2006). Property Tax. Modern Education Finance and Policy
(pp.148-159). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
7b. McGuire, T. J., & Papke, L. E. (2008). Local Funding of Schools: The Property Tax and its Alternatives. In Ladd, H. F., &
Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 357-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
7c. Youngman, J. M. (2002). Enlarging the Property Tax Debate - Regressivity and Fairness. State Tax Notes 45, pp45-52.
October
22
(p.184)
Revenue: The
Nuts and Bolts
of Property
Tax & Tax
Limits
7d. Hoxby, C. M. (1996). Are efficiency and equity in school finance substitutes or complements? The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 10(4), 51–72.
7e. Downes, T. A. & Figlio, D. N. (2008). Tax and Expenditure Limits, School Finance and School Quality. In Ladd, H. F., &
Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 373-388). New York, NY: Routledge.
7f. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Annual Statistical Report, 2010-11. Download
& play with: http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/Download_choose_file.asp?strMyFileType=Annual&strMyYear=f2010-2011
A merged Stata data file (.dta) and excel file (.xlsx) using data from the above link will be available on the class website. Come to
class with a graphic of this data to share and discuss.
Recommended (Tax Limits):
7g*. Levy Limits: A Primer on Proposition 2 1/2. Massachusetts Department of Revenue.
15http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dls/publ/misc/levylimits.pdf
7h*. Revenue Limit Explanation and Example. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sfs/revlimex.html and Multi-Year Revenue Limit Survey spreadsheet, linked to
http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/SFSrss/revlim.aspx
7i*. Fischel, W. A. (1989). Did Serrano cause proposition 13? National Tax Journal, 42(4), 465–73.
http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/0/a1723c9dfcacb8c58525686c00686da2/$FILE/v42n4465.pdf
7j*. Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse?: School Finance Reform in California. Public Policy
Institution of California.
(Chapters 1-3, 5, 11. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_200JSR.pdf )
October
29
Analytic essay presentations (analytic essays due next week)
Overview and Previous Compensation Debates (suggested readings are marked with an * ):
9a. Podgursky, M. J. (2011). Teacher compensation and collective bargaining. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, 279–
313.
9b. Corcoran, S. (2009). Creating a new teaching profession. In Goldhaber, D., & Hannaway, J. (Eds.) Human capital policy and
the quality of the teacher workforce (pp.29–52). Urban Institute Press.
9c. Allegretto, S. A., Corcoran, S. P., & Mishel, L. R. (2008). The Teaching Penalty: Teacher Pay Losing Ground. Economic
Policy Institute. See Appendix A, pp. 45-55. http://epi.3cdn.net/05447667bb274f359e_zam6br3st.pdf
9c'. 2011 update http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/issuebriefs/IssueBrief298.pdf.
Novembe
r5
(p.209)
Compensation:
Salaries,
Benefits, &
Pensions
Teacher Pensions:
9d. Costrell, R. M., & Podgursky, M. (2010). Introduction to “Rethinking Teacher Retirement Benefit Systems.” Education
Finance and Policy, 5(4), 393–401.
The introductory essay provides an overview of the volume. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/edfp/5/4
9e. Costrell, R. M., & Podgursky, M. (2010). Distribution of Benefits in Teacher Retirement Systems and Their Implications for
Mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5(4), 519–557.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00015
Current Debate:
9f. Richwine, J., & Biggs, A. G. (2011). Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers. A Report of the Heritage Center
for Data Analysis. Heritage Foundation, 25. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/assessing-the-compensation-ofpublic-school-teachers (video with Costrell response: http://bcove.me/4lsx01wa http://www.aei.org/events/2011/11/01/are-public-
school-teachers-overpaid/ )
9g. Keefe, J. H. (2012). Review of Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers. National Education Policy Center.
9h. Monahan, A. B. (2010). Public pension plan reform: The legal framework. Education Finance and Policy, 5(4), 617–646.
*9i. Morrissey, M. (2012). Do Public School Teachers Really Receive Lavish Benefits? Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 5-7.
http://www.epi.org/files/2012/ib324.pdf 2
Relevant papers on public-private, but not specifically teachers
9j. Gittleman, M., & Pierce, B. (2012). Compensation for State and Local Government Workers. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 217–241. http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.1.217
The Discount rate controversy:
*9k. Andrew G. Biggs, "Understanding the True Cost of State and Local Pensions," State Tax Notes, February 13, 2012, pp. 565-570.
http://aei.org/article/economics/retirement/pensions/understanding-the-true-cost-of-state-and-local-pensions/
*9l. Segal Group, "Actual Cost vs. Market Price: Does Market Valuation of Pension Liabilities Fit the Public Sector?" Public Sector Letter, June 2011, 4 pages.
10a. Duncombe, W. D., & Yinger, J. (2008). Measurement of Cost Differentials. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (Eds.), Handbook of
research in education finance and policy (pp. 238-256). New York, NY: Routledge.
Novembe
r 12
(p.144)
Legal
Frameworks &
Cost
Estimation
10b. Costrell, R., Hanushek, E., & Loeb, S. (2008). What do cost functions tell us about the cost of an adequate education?
Peabody Journal of Education, 83(2), 198–223.
10c. Duncombe, W. (2007). Estimating the cost of meeting student performance standards in the St. Louis public schools.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Retrieved from
https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/research/cpr_research_education_finance_policy/Duncombe_technical%20report4.
pdf
10d. Rice. J. K., & Schwartz. A. M. (2008). Toward an Understanding of Productivity in Education. In Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B.
(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 131-145). New York, NY: Routledge.
10e. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Court Intervention in School Finance. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.83-117). Princeton University Press. 34
10f. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Practical Issues with Education Adequacy. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.118-144). Princeton University Press. 26
10g. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). The Effectiveness of Judicial Remedies. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.145-170). Princeton University Press. 25
10h. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Science and School Finance Decision Making. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.171-216). Princeton University Press. (you
can skip pp. 200-211).
10i. Apter, R. W. (2008). Institutional Constraints, Politics, and Good Faith: A Case Study of School Finance Reform in
Massachusetts. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol’y, 17, 621–747.
11.a Newman, F., King, B., and Youngs, P. (2000). Professional Development That Addresses School Capacity: Lessons from
Urban Elementary Schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.
11.b Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations
and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Novembe
r 19
(p.205)
Novembe
r 26
Decembe
r3
(p.132)
School Factors
11.c Krueger, A. B. (2002). Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement. The class size debate, 7–
35.
11.d Jacob, B. A., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade
Configurations, and Teacher Assignments. Washington DC: The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution.
11.e Baker, B. D. (Aprill, 2011). Cheerleading, Ceramics and Non-Productive Resource Allocation in Low Performing Schools:
Really? . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Retrieved from http://www2.illinois.gov/ltgov/Documents/CFC%20Materials/Baker%202011%20Draft%20Nonproductive%20resource%20allocation%20in%20low%20perf%20schools%20-%20ILMO.pdf
11.f Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation Between Language Experiences in Preschool Classrooms and Children’s
Kindergarten and Fourth-Grade Language and Reading Abilities. Child development, 82(3), 870-886.
11.g Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence
synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.
11.h Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American
Sociological Review, 72(2), 167–180.
Awaiting copyright clearance.
Budgeting &
Resource
Guest Speaker: Art Rainwater
Allocation
13a. 13a. Roza, M., Hill, P. T., Sclafani, S., & Speakman, S. (2004). How within-district spending inequities help some schools to fail.
Special
Topics: Within Brookings papers on education policy, (7), 201–227.
13b. Gray, N.L., Barnett, J.H., & Ritter, G.W. (April 2009). States Found Guilty of Inequity, Districts Yet to be Tried: An Analysis
district
spending,
of Intra-District Spending Inequities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San
financing
Diego, CA.
facilities,
international
perspectives,
special
education,
Higher
education
Decembe
r 10
13c. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). A Performance-Based Funding System. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.217-262). Princeton University Press.
13d. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Making Performance-Based Funding a Reality. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools (pp.263-290). Princeton University Press.
13e. Roza, M. (2010). A Multidimensional Solution: Elements of a Coherent, Aligned, Efficient Education Finance System.
Educational economics: Where do school funds go? (pp.89-100) Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
13f. Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A. E., Stiefel, L., & Amor, H. B. H. (2007). From districts to schools: The distribution of resources
across schools in big city school districts. Economics of Education Review, 26(5), 532–545.
Book Review Presentation (Book review papers also due)