Funding Versus Results: Project Debate Centers Around Fun

Funding Versus Results Projectmuch Debate Centers Around Funding For S

Funding Versus Results ProjectMuch debate centers around funding for schools and the results that are produced because of that funding. Many people think that funding has a direct correlation to school success. This project will enlighten you about the situation and help you to determine if tax increases resulting in funding increases are necessary for schools to function at a high level. Please follow instructions carefully. The excel page link (Links to an external site.) is titled Mississippi FY18 Allocations. Opening this link will give you information about the federal funding of school districts in the 2018 school year. This spreadsheet is located on the Mississippi Department of Education website. While viewing this information, find the school districts from the Pine Belt and total the amounts in their row. This will give you a total amount of federal funding. Rank these districts in a chart from 1-18. Number one should be the school receiving the most funds, etc. Only rank the schools in the Pine Belt.

The list of schools from the Pine Belt includes Jefferson Davis County, Marion County, Columbia, Lamar County, Lumberton, Pearl River County, Poplarville, Picayune, Stone County, Forrest County AHS, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, Petal, Covington County, Jones County, Laurel, Perry County, and Richton.

Next, find the accountability results for those same districts by copying and pasting the link in your search bar. To find this information, click on the listed link. You will need to enter the school district in the search bar. As you type the school district name in the search bar, that name will appear in the dropdown. Click on the dropdown name and the name will fill the search bar. Click go. The overall district score should appear at the top of the screen, and the separate scores will appear below.

Repeat this process for each school listed in the Pine Belt. Then, rank these districts in descending order according to their test score performance and place this information in a chart. Analyze whether the schools with the most funding also have the highest scores in the subject area tests.

Write a minimum 200-word discussion summarizing your results in the first paragraph and discussing your thoughts about the results in the second paragraph. For example, consider whether a district that ranks 2nd in funding per pupil in the Pine Belt also ranks last in proficiency scores. Where do these scores rank the district among the districts from the Pine Belt? Does its rank in funding correlate with its rank in test scores? Another district in the Pine Belt may rank 10th in funding per pupil, but its test scores may be very high. Does its rank in funding correlate with its rank in test scores? Upload all information, including charts and your 200-word discussion.

Your discussion should examine the argument that more funding does or does not have a direct correlation to test scores. In your discussion, note what you think is the factor that helps schools perform better.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between funding and academic performance has long been a subject of debate among educators, policymakers, and researchers. This project evaluates whether increased federal funding for school districts in Mississippi's Pine Belt region correlates with higher proficiency test scores. By analyzing data from the Mississippi FY18 Allocations spreadsheet and accountability reports, we seek to determine if financial resources directly impact school success or if other factors play more significant roles.

To begin, I identified and totaled the federal funding received by each of the Pine Belt school districts, then ranked these districts from highest to lowest funding. The districts included Jefferson Davis County, Marion County, Columbia, Lamar County, Lumberton, Pearl River County, Poplarville, Picayune, Stone County, Forrest County AHS, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, Petal, Covington County, Jones County, Laurel, Perry County, and Richton. Subsequently, I retrieved their accountability scores from the Mississippi Department of Education website and ranked these districts according to their test scores. Comparing the ranks in funding with the ranks in test performance revealed that there was no consistent correlation between the amount of federal funding and proficiency scores. For example, a district ranking second in funding might rank last in proficiency, while another district ranking tenth in funding could have the highest test scores. This indicates that higher funding does not necessarily guarantee better academic performance.

These findings suggest that financial resources, while important, are not the sole determinants of school success. Other factors such as effective leadership, quality of teachers, community involvement, curriculum standards, and student engagement likely play critical roles. Some districts may efficiently utilize their resources, achieving high performance despite limited funding, whereas others may underperform regardless of their financial advantage. In my opinion, investments in teacher development, fostering a positive school climate, and engaging families and communities are essential for driving student achievement. Therefore, policymakers should consider focusing not only on increasing funding but also on improving the quality of educational programs and support systems to ensure better outcomes for students.

References

• Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2015). Funding gap? Education finance and school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(4), 459-471.
• Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Ationo, M. (2018). The impacts of school finance reforms on student achievement and other outcomes: A review of the evidence. Education Finance and Policy, 13(3), 387-421.
• Miron, G., & Leslie, L. L. (2004). The effects of resource redistribution on student achievement. Journal of Education Finance, 29(4), 363-382.
• Jackson, C. K. (2018). The effect of school spending on student achievement: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1707-1750.
• Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). Scholarship of teaching and learning: A community of scholars. Teachers College Record, 97(2), 282-308.
• Cheng, A., & Lewis, L. (2019). The relationship between school resources and student achievement: A comprehensive review. Educational Researcher, 48(7), 447-470.
• Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Analyzing the effects of school resources on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 319-334.
• Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization. ASCD.
• Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). School Quality, Achievement, and Income: Evidence from California. Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 159-195.