Evaluating the Effectiveness of Instructional Resource Allocation and Use. Irt and Hlm Analysis of Naep Teacher Survey and Student Assessment Data

A large body of research, conducted over three decades following the Coleman report (1966), has failed to find a systematic relationship between school resources and student achievement (Hanushek, 1997). The so-called "education production function" studies, relied on readily measurable indicators of school resources (i.e., per pupil expenditures, teacher salary, library resources) but failed to account fully for key aspects of schooling processes that affect student outcomes. On the other hand, another branch of research, i.e., the so-called "effective schools" studies, found that desirable instructional practices (i.e., clear goals and high expectations, opportunity to learn, monitoring student progress) enhance student achievement (Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Purkey & Smith, 1983). These case-studies sought to identify elusive aspects of effective school context and process but failed to provide generalizable information on required resources as a sufficient base for policy making (Monk, 1992). Needs for filling the knowledge gap concerning educational production function become more pressing as more state policymakers consider and adopt outcome-based school funding. While concerns in school finance reform shifted from equity to adequacy (Clune, 1994; Ladd, Chalk, & Hansen, 1999), it is not clear how states will accomplish this new goal. This necessitates an empirical search for what is an "adequate" level of instructional resources and practices. While several different methods have been proposed to set adequacy benchmarks for school funding and resource measures, every approach has limitations and thus the results should be interpreted carefully (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999). One popular strategy is to determine a level of acceptable student