The Impact of AISD High School Funding on Test Scores
Education is supported nationally on both sides of the political aisle. Along with infrastructure, Republicans and Democrats often come together in support of education when the Texas legislature needs to show bipartisan progress. During the Texas legislature’s 2019 session, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law HB 3 (Svitek, 2019). The $11.6 billion bill increased teacher pay, pre-K funding, and reduced the recapture program. HB 3 has been seen as a massive step forward for improving the Texas education system. Similar to our legislators, citizens from all political backgrounds generally support education spending. 47% of Texans believe that we should be spending more on education while only 10% believe we are spending too much (Ramsey, 2017). On average, Texas schools spend $9,606 per student and Austin ISD spent an average of $7,424 per student from 2013–2015 (U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics, 2021). At face value, lack of funding seems to be the root cause of many school problems. From education special interest groups to teachers, to the general public, it is widely agreed that our public schools need more funding. However, there may be a myth regarding the value sheer dollars can provide to a school. In this paper, I will analyze Austin ISD high schools and how their per-student costs relate to the percent of students whose STAAR test scores across reading, math, science, and social studies met district standards.
Austin ISD is of particular interest as it encompasses numerous high schools that serve neighborhoods with varying levels of socioeconomic status. Eastside Memorial High School spent the most per student with an average of $10,044 from 2013–2015. However, Eastside also had the lowest average with only 71% of students meeting testing standards over this same period. The Liberal Arts and Science Academy had the second-lowest amount of funding, spending $5,997 per student, and yet had 100% of their students meet test standards in every category, every year. This trend can be shown in Figure 1 which illustrates a negative correlation between per-student funding and the number of students who met testing standards. My research clearly indicates that per-student spending by Austin area high schools do not contribute to high test scores.
Figure 1
When looking at these trends on a per-year basis as opposed to averaging the 3 years studied, there are some schools with discernable patterns but 55.4% showed no relation between funding and test scores. Figure 2 shows that 36.4% of AISD high schools saw an increase in the percent of students who met district test standards across all subjects when funding increased over a 1 year period. 9.1% of AISD high schools saw a decrease in the percent of students who met district test standards across all subjects when funding decreased over a 1 year period. This shows that funding does have a moderate effect on school success. Funding allows schools to have smaller class sizes, additional instructional supports, early childhood programs, and more competitive teacher compensation; all of these factors have been shown to increase student success across multiple contexts (Baker, 2018). Funding is one factor out of many that should be considered when policymakers are determining methods to improve the Texas education system.
Figure 2
It is easy for policymakers and interest groups alike to debate the level of school funding, increase the money going toward schools, and consider the problem solved. This practice is common in the Texas legislature across a myriad of political issues but it only serves to ignore the root of many social problems. Student success on tests and at school, in general, is determined by a conglomerate of factors not affected by school funding. Student academic success has four levels: the student’s individual microsystem, their interactive experiences, their larger community, and the greater climate and culture around them (Bertolini, 2021). These levels that influence student success originate with the students’ intrinsic mindset. It has been shown that students who are willing to struggle with a new concept or task are identified as having a growth mindset (Polirstok, 2017). A key characteristic of students with a growth mindset is that they believe through perseverance they will eventually master the difficult subject (Polirstok, 2017). Students who are not willing to take on new challenges fear exposing a lack of academic ability to their peers and have a fixed mindset (Polirstok, 2017). When students adopt a fixed mindset they can become “trapped in a recursive pattern of low achievement, low motivation, and low effort” (Saunders, 2014).
By identifying the underlying student frameworks that inform their perspective towards schoolwork, policymakers can effectively tailor responses to increase student outcomes. When students read stories about other adolescents, it allows them to imagine other worlds, emotions, and circumstances outside of their own. By implementing a reading curriculum that is more relatable to high school students, teachers can better foster a growth mindset (Connors, 2014). Additionally, peer tutoring, self-evaluation, and verbal self-instruction are all practices that have been shown to support a growth mindset(Polirstok, 2017).
While funding is not moot in its relation to student success, per-student funding in AISD high schools had a negative correlation with student STAAR success. While standardized testing may not be the best indicator for student motivation or intelligence, it is nationally used to measure student abilities. Additionally, there are more external factors such as Parent Teacher Association donations and access to private tutors that may contribute to explaining the relationship between funding and test scores. But, by identifying the behaviors that contribute to a student’s mindset toward school, policymakers, teachers, and parents alike can best support student academic achievement. Through new types of reading assignments and increased peer interactions, we can hope to instill a growth mindset in all high school students.
Eastside Memorial High School Data
Liberal Arts and Science Academy Data
Works Cited
Baker, Bruce. “How Money Matters for Schools.” Learning Policy Institute, 17 July 2018, learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/how-money-matters-brief.
Bertolini, Katherine, et al. “Student Achievement Factors .” South Dakota State University, 2012.
Connors, Sean. “Young Adult Literature: A Vehicle for Imagining Other Worlds.” SIGNAL, vol. 37, 2014, pp. 34–36., doi:10.13140.
Polirstok, Susan. “Strategies to Improve Academic Achievement in Secondary School Students: Perspectives on Grit and Mindset.” SAGE Open, vol. 7, no. 4, 25 Nov. 2017, doi:10.1177/2158244017745111.
Ramsey, Ross. “UT/TT Poll: Few Texas Voters Believe Education Spending Is Too High.” The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 20 June 2017, www.texastribune.org/2017/06/20/uttt-poll-few-texas-voters-believe-education-spending-too-high/.
Saunders, Stephen Allan. “The Impact of a Growth Mindset Intervention on the Reading Achievement of At-Risk Adolescent Students.” Online Archive of University of Virginia Scholarship, The University of Virginia, 23 Jan. 2014, libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/9z9030159.
Svitek, Patrick. “Gov. Greg Abbott Signs $11.6 Billion School Finance Measure into Law.” The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 11 June 2019, www.texastribune.org/2019/06/11/texas-gov-greg-abbott-signs-116-billion-school-finance-measure-law/.
“U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics [2021]: per Pupil + Total.” EducationData, 28 Feb. 2021, educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics.
