The “Free” Public School Game:
The Opportunity Cost of Participatory Funding
by
Beverly Harris Finch, B.B.A., M.A.
A Dissertation
In
Curriculum & Instruction
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Dr. Margaret A. Price
Chair of Committee
Dr. Douglas Simpson
Dr. Susan Myers
Dr. Hansel Burley
Dr. Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2014
Copyright 2014, Beverly Harris Finch
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My journey toward a terminal degree began as an aspiration, a lofty goal to
attain a degree that would add value to a career path. I realized, however, this
academic journey ultimately led to dialog, community, and advocacy.
I want to thank all my former students for transforming my belief system.
Daily, I watched you demonstrate courage and hope during adversity. You made me
want to be a better teacher. You inspired me to advocate for those who might not have
the resources or voice to advocate for themselves. Thank you for the amazing work
you did and continue to do each day.
Thank you to the many friends and colleagues who encouraged and supported
my efforts. Thank you Nettie Edwards, Beatrice Hernandez and the Parkway Roses
and Alderson Asters for trying out the title “Dr. Finch” long before it was official.
How could I not finish when entrusted with such high expectations from such special
girls? Special recognition must be given to an exclusive “support group/book club.”
Thank you for the support, encouragement, and guidance Dr. Irma Almager, Dr. Debra
Flores, Dr. Tom Holubik, and Dr. Christy Reed. We did it! I will always cherish the
friendships that developed from our time spent together as doctoral students.
To the participants of the study who willingly shared their stories, thank you! I
admire your courage to be vulnerable, to trust me with your words. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to enter your world and for agreeing to share the power of
your voice with others. Without you, there is only silence.
To my amazing committee members, thank you. Dr. Hansel Burley, you
inspired me to be a secondary teacher when I was taking your course for my post-bac
ii
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
studies. Dr. Susan Myers and Dr. Peggie Price, because of both of you, I decided to
go back to school and work on my doctorate. Thank you for being great mentors and
role models. Dr. Douglas Simpson, you guided me through graduate school and
helped me stay on track as my advisor, and you also helped me find the ethical and
moral compass in education that helped inform much of my study.
To Dr. Price, my committee chair, my mentor, my champion -- thank you.
Thank you for your wisdom. Thank you for forcing me to do the hard work. Thank
you for inspiring me to find the best fit for my research. Thank you for believing in
me. And thank you for helping me remember how much I missed my love/hate
relationship with writing. You are truly an inspiration: an amazing researcher, writer,
teacher, University leader, and public school advocate. Thank you for your
compassion for all students -- you really do get it!
Mom, Dad, and Laurie, thank you for your encouragement and love. To my
sons and daughters-in-love, Stanley and Beth, Howell and Aimee, Charlie and
Autumn, thanks for all your support. Each of you has been an inspiration to me as
I’ve watched you dream, study, work, and create. You are all game changers. And to
Howell, my husband, best friend, and the smartest person I know -- thank you. We
accomplished another milestone together. Your love and support has been invaluable.
Dearest Lila Finch, during this study, I thought of you often. I was reminded
that birth into privilege comes with a price: “from those to whom much is given, much
is expected.” We have been bestowed the privilege of protecting the opportunities of
all students – “because, after all, a person’s a person, no matter how small” (Geisel,
1954, p. 6).
iii
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Context of the Researcher ....................................................................................... 1
Hearts and Monopoly ........................................................................................ 1
World Book Encyclopedias............................................................................... 2
The Science Fair ................................................................................................ 3
Pay for Grades ................................................................................................... 3
Home Sweet Jeep .............................................................................................. 4
Reflections......................................................................................................... 5
Introduction to the Study......................................................................................... 6
Background to the Problem ..................................................................................... 9
Statement of Problem ............................................................................................ 16
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 17
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 17
Definitions ............................................................................................................. 19
Personal Assumptions ........................................................................................... 23
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................ 23
Summary ............................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................................................. 25
Educational Funding ............................................................................................. 25
Historical Perspective............................................................................................ 26
Funding Sources .................................................................................................... 29
School Finance Reform/Litigation ........................................................................ 36
Does Funding Matter? ........................................................................................... 40
Poverty Students and Gaps in Opportunity and Achievement .............................. 42
Poverty and the Public School Learning Experiences .......................................... 47
Ethics and Social Justice Considerations .............................................................. 51
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 53
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 55
Rationale for the Study Design ............................................................................. 55
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 56
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 57
Data Sources.......................................................................................................... 57
Data Collection...................................................................................................... 60
Interviews ........................................................................................................ 60
Documents ...................................................................................................... 63
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 63
Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 66
Personal Assumptions ........................................................................................... 69
iv
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................ 69
Context of the Study ............................................................................................. 70
Context of Participants .......................................................................................... 71
Parent 1: Pamela Singleton ............................................................................. 72
Parent 2: Lisa Leap.......................................................................................... 72
Parent 3: Helen Helic ...................................................................................... 72
District Administrator: Dana Dawn ................................................................ 73
Campus Principal: Paul Pavid ......................................................................... 73
Teacher 1: Tammy Tier ................................................................................... 73
Teacher 2: Charlotte Cherem .......................................................................... 74
Teacher 3: Daisy Dual ..................................................................................... 74
Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ............................................................... 76
The Game .............................................................................................................. 77
Meeting Minutes from Game Review Board ........................................................ 79
Agenda Item #1: Review Premise of Game--Game Premise & Game
Board ................................................................................................... 81
Agenda Item #2: “Wealth – a Roll of the Dice” & the “Bank” ...................... 86
Agenda Item #3: Evaluate Pay-to-Play and Pay-to-Participate
Academic Spaces ................................................................................ 90
Agenda Item #4: Evaluate Game’s Board Spaces that Impact Students’
Social Activities ................................................................................ 107
Agenda Item #5-- Evaluate Game’s Board Spaces that Impact Students’
Emotional State ................................................................................. 128
Agenda Item #6: Implications of Systemic Habits of Practice ..................... 131
Agenda Item #7 --Roll out of the 2013 Edition of The “Free” Public
School Edition of the Game of Life ................................................... 137
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................ 140
Interpretations of Findings .................................................................................. 143
Question 1: How do public school stakeholders interpret the practice
and effects of participatory funding? ................................................ 143
Question 2: What are public school educators’ perceptions of
themselves as gatekeepers or perpetuators of the habits of
practice that may create opportunity gaps for economically
challenged students?.......................................................................... 151
Implications and Recommendations ................................................................... 154
Implications for Teachers.................................................................................... 155
Implications for School Leadership .................................................................... 157
Implications for Teacher Educators .................................................................... 160
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................. 161
Final Thoughts .................................................................................................... 161
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 164
v
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDICES
A. APPROVAL LETTER......................................................................................... 178
B. SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT--EDUCATORS ........................................................... 179
C. PARENT RECRUITMENT FLYER ...................................................................... 180
D. SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT--PARENTS ................................................................ 181
E. SAMPLE LETTERS TO PARTICIPANTS ............................................................. 182
F. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 184
G. AUDIT TRAIL TABLE....................................................................................... 187
vi
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
ABSTRACT
Family income is now nearly as strong as parental education in predicting
children’s achievement, and students who can pay to participate in a college-ready
curriculum have greater access to higher education opportunities. The common
practice of requiring student/parent funding for certain courses/activities (participatory
funding) creates an immeasurable opportunity gap for economically-challenged
students. Participatory funding includes any expense mandated/required by
teachers/sponsors/educators to participate in a public school activity/course. Student
expenses may include, but are not limited to, pay-to-play fees, school supplies,
supplemental books, instructional materials, and technology (Internet access,
calculators, printers, and computers). This pay-to-participate funding keeps many
students from taking college preparatory courses, such as Pre-AP/AP classes, and it
denies students the opportunity to participate in many extracurricular activities that are
essential in preparing students for success in postsecondary studies.
The purpose of this study was twofold. One purpose was to examine the
perceptions of eight public school stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators)
regarding the rationale behind the practice of participatory funding. The other purpose
was to examine the attitudes, practices, and beliefs of stakeholders who are
perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create opportunity gaps for
economically-challenged students through the use of participatory funding.
A narrative inquiry was employed using a modified constructivist grounded
theory approach. Participatory funding themes clustered under three broad categories
of participatory funding. These were academic (instructional expenses, school
vii
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
supplies, technology, and grades); social (extracurricular activities; fundraising; and
social events such as prom, pep rallies, and homecoming); and emotional (students’
and parents’ inability to pay for activities, events, and instructional aids created
frustration and discouragement, isolation from school/peer groups, and disconnection
from the dominant school culture). The other theme centered on educators’ habits of
practice, especially the apprenticeship of observation, deficit model of thinking, and
the pathology of silence.
This study aimed to increase understanding of the paradigms that exist in our
public schools regarding the achievement/attainment gap between poverty and
privileged students. It also aimed to increase awareness of the harmful impact of
participatory funding practices among teacher educators, especially to the pre-service
teacher and educational leadership curriculum. The study also aimed to engender
conversation among school practitioners that will lead to the elimination of studentimposed barriers to quality curriculum, instruction, and extracurricular experiences, so
that all students will have access to all opportunities offered at our public schools.
viii
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.
(President Lyndon Johnson, 1965)
Context of the Researcher
I used to tell my high school students to learn the game of school. I was blunt; I
told them succeeding in the academics of school was as much of a game as achieving
success in athletics. In addition to the highly published, well-known codes of conduct,
there were many unwritten rules they needed to understand and follow. I am not sure
exactly when or how I realized this, but my potential first generation college students,
most of them challenged by poverty, lacked many of the tools and resources needed to
take advantage of the opportunities offered to succeed in a college and career ready
academic track. Embedded systemic practices offered opportunities to those students and
their families who knew and even more importantly, could afford, to play the game of
school.
Hearts and Monopoly
I grew up playing card games with grandmothers and board games with my sister.
My grandmothers were patient teachers, gracious gate openers, queens of access; they did
not “let” me win, but they would ask me to rethink my decision to play a certain card,
they shared strategy, and they taught me the written rules of the games we played; they
also taught me the culture of their games, the tips and codes, the hidden rules that
ultimately helped me compete, even though I was handicapped with less experience and
1
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
knowledge. I was not as magnanimous with my younger sister. We were born into a
middle-class family. Our parents bought us board games for entertainment. We played
Monopoly for hours each day. I bought Park Place, Boardwalk, the railroads, and I
covered them with houses and hotels. I insisted my sister play by the rules; however, as I
uncovered strategy and tips, those valuable hidden rules, I did not necessarily share. I
was a gatekeeper. I had almost four years on her, which gave me a huge advantage in life
experience at that early age. We never played games together on a level playing field; by
the time the gap in ability decreased, she had already decided she was not lucky or gifted
at board games. I had inadvertently robbed my sister of an equitable educational
experience. The opportunity cost was noteworthy (at the gaming level).
World Book Encyclopedias
While my husband sought his daily adrenaline rush during pilot training as an Air
Force lieutenant, motherhood became my primary job. One afternoon, an encyclopedia
salesman knocked on our apartment door, and four hours later we charged $800 on our
newly acquired credit card for a set of World Book Encyclopedias; we were aggressively
reminded that education was the key to a better life and we would be terribly negligent if
we did not purchase this textual knowledge for our son, now! Competition was fierce for
quality college admissions and high-paying jobs. Several weeks later we unpacked boxes
of books and placed them across from Stanley’s crib; our son was six months old.
2
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
The Science Fair
In elementary school, I glued rocks dug out of the creek behind our home onto a
piece of plywood board I had found in our garage. I identified them and labeled them
accordingly. I did not win, but overall, I felt okay about my project.
Twenty-five years later, when my oldest son did his science fair project, we were
told to buy expensive premade headings and trifold boards at an office supply store. His
report had to be typed, and graphs/pictures had to look professional. Pressure to be the
good mom overtook my agitation with these prescriptive directives, and I took my son to
the store and bought all the supplies he needed. When we went to put up his display in
the cafeteria, I noticed there were sophisticated, amazing structures that looked like the
work of professional artists and architects. My son’s project, even with the store-bought
supplies, looked as if a 4th grader had done the project (well, actually, he was a 4th
grader). Parents were milling around, visibly impressed with their lava exploding
volcanoes and intricate mini robots. We spent many nights addressing our son’s
complaint of “that’s not fair,” and the beginning underpinnings of an awareness of
classism in the school environment found its way into our world of privilege.
Pay for Grades
As an English teacher in a high school that served a majority of poverty students,
it never occurred to me to require students to buy extra books or expensive school
supplies. I knew our campus had the resources to provide whatever instructional
materials our students needed, and I also knew my students could not afford to buy
$15.00 novels or $85.00 calculators, any more than they could afford a $200 football
3
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
helmet. When I became the education liaison for migrant students in our district, I
discovered that some teachers, especially Pre-AP and AP teachers, required students to
buy novels for English, and oftentimes, the first grade of the novel assignment was
attached to this purchase: if the student had his/her novel, then he received a 100, and if
he did not have his novel, he received a zero. I soon realized this was just the first of
many examples of teachers giving grades in exchange for materials a student was
required to purchase. Students dropped band and choir after receiving failing grades for
not having money to purchase uniforms and not having transportation to night concerts.
Other students traded woodworking and digital photography experiences for a stack of
worksheets because they could not afford to participate in class activities. I realized
students with a scarcity of resources could not afford to compete in the competition for
top grades and meaningful extracurricular experiences in certain public school
classrooms.
Home Sweet Jeep
After working several years with students living in poverty, I realized the
structure of our education system denies economically-challenged families the
opportunities and access it affords many other students. Two middle-school students,
identified as homeless, lived in their family car, a ten-year old Jeep, with Mom, Mom’s
boyfriend, and two dogs. These two students were often expected to create school
assignments that required the Internet, word-processing software, a computer, and visual
aids for a presentation; they were asked for money to participate in elective class
activities, and they were expected to perform well on high-stakes accountability testing,
4
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
even if they had little sleep or food. These children spent time at the city library, took
baths at the Salvation Army, and they struggled in school. Unfortunately, they could not
meet the expectations from classroom teachers to turn in work that relied on
supplemental funding and resources from the family or participate in certain
extracurricular activities.
Reflections
In “Diversity, Inequality, and a Post-structural Politics for Education,” Youdell
(2006) reconstructed an early school memory, a childhood moment that created a feeling
that life was not fair for all students. Her experience moved her to “make sense of the
very ordinary and unfair set of material circumstances” that create and reproduce inequity
in education (p. 34).
I too am moved by the very ordinary, seemingly innocuous moments throughout
the years that my children, spouse, and I have been recipients of privilege in educational
access and opportunity. Recently, my journey has led to an understanding of the real
power in public education of a $5.00 art fee, the required purchase of a paperback novel,
and an extra-credit grade in exchange for a pack of AA batteries.
Privilege is often attached to images of an elite private school, but it is much more
prevalent in our public schools in the contents of an ordinary backpack, the choices
offered in the school cafeteria, and the classism represented in a high school National
Honor Society chapter or the cheerleading squad. We know the game of life is not fair.
What is most disturbing is not this knowledge, but the lack of empathy and awareness
5
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
exhibited by educators who continue to allow simple classroom/campus practices that
foster inequity to go unchecked throughout many of our public schools.
Introduction to the Study
Education—is it a privilege or right? Should it matter that certain groups of
students do not have equal access to a quality public school education? After all,
education is not a fundamentally protected right under the United States Constitution
(San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973; Plyer v. Doe, 1982).
Although our founding fathers were strong proponents of establishing a system of public
education, they granted direct control to establish and maintain public school systems
directly to the states. Currently, “every state in the nation has enacted a constitutional
provision establishing a system of public schools,” and the majority of the state
constitutions do call for a free public education (Kendall, 1984, p. 1). To successfully
navigate through the complex issues surrounding decisions involving what I will refer to
as participatory funding (activity fees, required school supplies, pay-for-play programs,
and other student-centered costs), educators must know the exact state and local policies
that guide decisions at the district and campus level in each state.
At the very heart of providing a bona fide free public education are issues of
equity and fairness. Though the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a system of free
public education, landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
validate the need for educators to continually pay attention to the basic tenets of our U.S.
Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Increased
federal involvement since the 1950s has changed the landscape of public education.
6
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Educational decisions made by the states are definitely more influenced by federal
legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Bilingual Education
Act of 1968, the Educate America Act, the Improving America’s Schools Act, the No
Child Left Behind Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Childress &
Leschly, April, 2007).
Even with the increased federal impact, however, “school board policies, and
local school rules [actually] have a far more pervasive daily impact on school activities”
than federal legislation (Bull & McCarthy, 1995, p. 621). This is especially true as
teachers, principals, and central office administrators make decisions as to what types of
participatory funding are allowable to meet the mandate of offering a “free” public
education.
Interpretations of these policies and rules offer educators a challenge. Free can be
interpreted in a variety of ways, and state courts have not agreed on the definition of free.
Most state courts have ruled matriculation and general tuition fees as unconstitutional
(Harris, 1987). The Idaho Supreme Court in 1970 deemed textbook fees
unconstitutional; however, it upheld extracurricular activity fees (Paulson v. Minidoka
County School District No. 331). The Illinois Supreme Court in 1970 upheld textbook
fees (Hamer v. Board of Education). In 1984 the California Supreme Court in Hartzell v.
Connell decided that “extracurricular activities are a fundamental and integral part of a
free education,” and therefore pay-for-play programs in California were deemed
unconstitutional (Puntus, 1993, p. 4). The Supreme Court of Montana (Granger v.
Cascade County School District No. 1, 1972) interpreted yet a different meaning of free:
7
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
“the appropriate test was whether the fee was reasonably related to a recognized
academic and educational goal of the particular school system, and [if so], it constitute[d]
part of the free, public school system” (Ryan, 2003, p. 3).
There does not appear to be a one-size-fits-all determination of what a free public
education entails; however, the foundation of the American public school system, the
common school, was built on the premise that universal education would open access for
all students, not just students of privilege or the dominant culture. Public education
would be the great social equalizer, according to Horace Mann, and education would
ultimately be the driving force that gives students of limited means the opportunity to
attain increased social and economic mobility (Ornstein & Levine, 1993).
When a public K-12 education institution requires students to pay for books,
advanced curriculum, transportation, extracurricular activities, and expensive supplies,
the system creates an opportunity gap. This prevents many students from fully
participating in a rigorous academic, athletic, leadership curriculum that affords all
students, regardless of wealth, the opportunity to pursue and succeed in postsecondary
opportunities. Consequently, many students do not exit high school with the skills
necessary for the complex jobs of the 21st century. Many students do not have the option
of attending college because of “our manifest failure to provide a coherent, content-rich
curriculum that includes adequate opportunities for them to read, write, and talk
thoughtfully” (Schmoker, 2011, p. 26).
The traditional practice of selecting and sorting which students are offered a
college-ready curriculum and which students are not has led to vast numbers of students
8
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
without the necessary tools to succeed in postsecondary education and, ultimately,
earnings potential. A high school curriculum of academic rigor is the greatest precollegiate predictor of bachelor’s degree completion. The impact of not receiving the
benefits of such rigor is more pronounced for minority students (Black and Hispanic) and
even greater for students identified as low income first-generation (Conley, 2007;
Darling-Hammond, 2010; Englie, 2007; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Nagaoka, Roderick,
& Coca, 2009).
There continues to be a strong correlation between educational attainment and
earnings potential. Childress and Leschly (March 2007a) reported that “between 1980
and 2004, the median real salary of U.S. male workers without a high school diploma
declined from $30,346 to $23,600 (in constant 2004 dollars)” and a “male high school
dropout earned 47% of the salary of a college-educated working male” (p. 4).
Unfortunately, only one in ten low-income kindergarteners graduates from college, and
our country’s college participation rates have slipped from first in the world to sixteenth
(Darling-Hammond, 2010). The economic impact of educational disparity in both
attainment and achievement is colossal on both the individual and societal level
(Childress & Leschly, April 2007; McKinsey & Company, 2009).
Background to the Problem
Providing purposeful quality education is not free. School finance is complex and
often inequitable. Kozol (1991) exposed the consequences of funding inequities in
Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nations (Kozol, 2005), and these inequities
continue to exist. Expenditure per pupil varies considerably between states and within
9
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
each state. New York’s wealthiest school districts “spent more than $25,000 per pupil at
the same time the poorest district in Texas spent only about $1,200 per pupil” (Satz,
2007, pp. 623-624). Texas ranked 45 among the 50 states in education spending per
pupil in 2011 (National Education Association (NEA) Research, 2011), and within a
West Texas school district, the per pupil expenditure between district campuses recently
varied by as much as $3500 (Researcher’s personal journal).
The growing divisions of wealth and power have significantly impacted the
“inequitable distribution of resources both within and among school districts” (Parker &
Shapiro, 1993, p. 40). According to Darling-Hammond (2010), the “wealthiest school
districts in the United States spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest, and spending
ratios of 3 to 1 are common within states” (p. 12). Texas, for example, is only one of
three states to rate in the top five in poverty rate and income inequality with more than
3.9 million people living in poverty (Texas Politics, 2011).
Per pupil expenditure and inequity in school finance is an issue that will continue
to be vital in school reform; however, in reality, most families and students, especially
families struggling to meet daily and monthly obligations to pay rent, utilities, car
payments, and food, are usually more concerned with their own daily out-of-pocket
expenses for education. At this level, local educators, especially campus leaders and
classroom teachers, have an incalculable impact on students’ access to opportunity: the
option to participate in extracurricular activities and/or the option to take classes
identified as prerequisites to a postsecondary education.
10
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
The ability of states to publicly fund schools that serve all children has become
increasingly difficult as the economic climate has deteriorated. Not only is there less
funding available for education, but the number of children living in poverty, more than
14 million in 2000, has continued to escalate (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The United
States has the highest child poverty rate (23%) of all the countries in the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In Texas the number of disadvantaged students has steadily increased from 48%
to 57% since the 1998-99 academic year, and the average household income in Texas is
expected to drop in the coming decades, thus increasing the numbers of students who
receive free and reduced lunches in the coming years (Mellon, 2010). More students (and
their families) have fewer resources to supplement a “free and equal” educational
experience, and the costs for students to attend public school and participate in school
activities has increased.
Throughout the school year, unexpected, out-of-pocket personal expenses
disproportionately burden those who live in what Freire (2009) referred to as the “tyranny
of the moment,” the inability to move out of poverty or economic oppression because of
one’s constant attention to the crisis of the day. Families who live from meal to meal and
paycheck to paycheck are not equipped to absorb unanticipated participatory expenses
from their children’s schools, especially with the increase in unemployment and dip in
median household wealth since 2005 (Yen, 2011).
Families spend an average of $600.00 annually on back-to-school supplies for a
total of $21.35 billion nationwide (Skowronski, 2010). Students traditionally have been
11
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
responsible for providing consumable school supplies, such as paper, pens, pencils, and
spirals; however, school supply lists have become more of a financial burden in recent
years. In addition to asking students to provide classrooms with art supplies, hand
sanitizer, and batteries, many schools now charge fees for core courses and
extracurricular activities (Hopkins, 2012). At Medina Senior High in Ohio, for example,
the Dombi family “had to pay to register their [three] children for basic courses such as
Spanish I and Earth Sciences, to get them into graded electives such as band, and to allow
them to run cross-country and track. The family’s total tab for a year of public education:
$4,446.50” (Simon, 2011).
In Texas, however, the Texas Education Code—Section 11.158—Authority to
Charge Fees specifically states that “the board may not charge fees for (1) textbooks,
workbooks, laboratory supplies, or other supplies necessary for participation in any
instructional course except as authorized under this code” (2007). It is clearly against
state and local policy in Texas to require students to purchase instructional materials
necessary to participate in instructional courses. Unfortunately, school supply lists and
teacher syllabi provide evidence that many students are asked to purchase items such as
novels, calculators, and even cameras in order to participate and earn grades in many
instructional activities.
Students challenged by financial difficulties can usually find local community
resources for notebook paper, pens/pencils, and binders. The problem of access
escalates, however, when excessive fees and expensive supplies create greater
opportunities for educational achievement for those students who can afford to pay to
12
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
participate and play the game of school. Economically-challenged students will never
break the cycle of poverty without access to a college and career ready track of rigorous
coursework. Real annual earnings for U.S. workers ages 25-34 in constant 2004 dollars
was at least $20,000 less for those without a college degree. For high school graduates
with no college, the 2004 annual earnings were significantly less than for those with the
same educational attainment in 1980. The earnings difference between a high school
diploma and college degree was approximately 50% less in 1980 than it was in 2004
(Childress & Leschly, March 2007a).
Few dispute the significant inequalities that exist in the education children
receive. Classroom teachers, counselors, and administrators do not have control over
many of the factors that contribute to unequal educational outcomes such as “the
educational levels of the parents, parental income and wealth, the transmission of
personality traits, geographical location, parenting styles, religion, gender, ethnicity,
attractiveness, and health status” (Satz, 2007, p. 633). Educators and policy makers,
however, do control many factors that foster educational attainment, achievement, and
growth at school. Surprisingly, what may matter most are the expenses associated with
the seemingly insignificant minor costs incurred by individual students and families to
participate in school. Fullan (2003) referred to Gladwell’s argument that behavior is a
function of social context, and he argued that most of us “will pay attention to the plight
of individual students if those around us are doing so” (p. 2). The key is to truly notice
and understand each student.
13
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
As classroom teachers, counselors, and campus administrators, we can effect
equal access to opportunity if we pay attention to the plight of each individual student
and the opportunity costs associated with each classroom/campus expectation and
request. Educators become gatekeepers, perhaps unknowingly, when they require
students to purchase expensive supplies, pay for access or opportunity, or give grades in
exchange for activities/projects that cost money. There is little difference between a
syllabus that states no poverty children allowed in this AP class and a course supply list
that requires the purchase of ten paperback novels, at-home access to advanced
technology, and money for field trips to participate and receive credit for the course.
Financial barriers deny students equal access to educational opportunities within
our public school system. Although individual classroom teachers and campus
administrators have limited control over federal, state, and local funding, they do control
the petitioning of funds from students. The culture of a school either perpetuates positive
practices that support the belief that all students can and will learn, or the school’s culture
perpetuates destructive practices that support the belief that only certain students can or
want to learn. Asking students to prove a commitment to learning by purchasing
expensive school supplies supports a belief that only students who can find a way to pay
for access deserve to have certain school experiences.
Participatory funding is an example of a common classroom/campus practice that
denies economically challenged students access to the highest quality education
available. Participatory funding requires students to pay money for instructional
materials and/or to participate in certain educational opportunities. This practice creates
14
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
a toxic school culture that rewards wealthier students and discriminates against
economically-challenged students. The practice is increasing with recent cuts in
educational funding. Many classroom teachers have little financial support for individual
instructional materials/activities, and many families do not have the funds to supplement
classrooms with school supplies and instructional materials. This fairly common practice
of requiring students to buy a novel for a specific class, have access to expensive
technology for successful completion of coursework, or pay for art/music/academic club
membership creates a barrier to access for a significant number of students in public
education.
A strong correlation exists between a student’s socioeconomic status (SES) and
educational outcomes. Students who qualify for free and reduced lunch are “roughly two
years of learning behind the average better-off student of the same age” (McKinsey &
Company, 2009, p. 12). Twenty-two percent of children who have lived in poverty and
32% of children who have lived in poverty half of their childhood do not graduate from
high school (Hernandez, 2011). Childress and Leschly (March 2007a) found only 7% of
students in the lowest income quartile earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (p. 6), and the
report generated by the social sector of McKinsey & Company , noted that only “9% of
the freshmen in the top colleges are from the bottom half of the SES distribution” (p. 12).
Educators must demonstrate an ability to identify and eliminate practices that
deny economically-challenged students the opportunity to succeed in rigorous academic
curriculum and engage in leadership and quality extracurricular opportunities. Educators,
whose actions ignore federal/state laws and policies, whether because of a lack of
15
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
knowledge, lack of sensitivity/empathy, or mere unawareness, and continue to engage in
common inequitable practices negatively impact the opportunities of students.
Statement of Problem
The impact of fees, supplies, and expenses initiated by campus/classroom
educators to supplement costs of the K-12 public education experience often creates a
very profound and personal opportunity gap for students of poverty. This inequity in turn
creates systemic discrimination for the majority of students in many districts.
Classroom teachers who deliberately plan instruction that requires student funding
to fully participate in their courses serve as recalcitrant gatekeepers to opportunity and
access for poverty and many middle class students. These practices perpetuate systemic
classism, and ultimately, students who do not have the resources to compete in certain
classes or school sponsored activities are denied a rich, multidimensional, quality
educational experience.
Furthermore, these behaviors continue to reproduce and legitimize student
socioeconomic inequities by granting wealth-based privilege to those who can pay to
participate in courses of rigor and extracurricular activities that offer educational
experiences for a price. If teachers know these practices are illegal, then one would
assume the practices would be eliminated; however, policy is seldom interpreted through
the same lens, so action informed by policy may still produce different practices in the
classroom.
16
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is twofold. One purpose is to examine the perceptions
of public school stakeholders regarding the common practice of participatory funding
(my term for the resources and funds that students and their families are asked to provide
to fully participate in the public school opportunities offered at each student’s campus).
The other purpose is to examine the attitudes, practices, and beliefs of stakeholders who
are perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create opportunity gaps for
economically-challenged students through the use of participatory funding.
Objectives and Questions
The objectives of this study include analyzing the practice and effects of K-12
public school participatory funding, especially as it pertains to possible
opportunity/achievement gaps of students from economically-challenged households.
Two overarching questions guided this study:
1.
How do public school stakeholders interpret the practice and effects of
participatory funding?
2.
What are public school educators’ perceptions of themselves as
gatekeepers or perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create
opportunity gaps for economically-challenged students?
Significance of the Study
Examination of the core beliefs of educators who work with economicallychallenged families may lead to a greater understanding of the paradigms that exist in our
public schools regarding the achievement/attainment/opportunity gap between poverty
17
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
and privileged students. Only “1 in 10 low-income kindergartners becomes a college
graduate” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 3); therefore, it is imperative that educators
understand the financial barriers that may be created and practiced at the
classroom/campus level that keep low-income students from attaining success in higher
education.
Darling-Hammond (2002) maintained that to value diverse human experience and
enable learning for all students, educators must evaluate how schools and classrooms
operate. We must examine how we “construct privilege and inequality and how this
affects one’s own opportunities as well as those of different people” (p. 201). By
reflecting on the plight of the individual student and examining practices that may
contribute to class inequities, an awareness of policy and consequences of ignoring policy
will possibly engender conversation among school practitioners that will lead to the
elimination of financial barriers in our schools. Awareness and dialogue should facilitate
a community of collaboration among teachers, administrators, central office personnel,
and teacher educators that opens access to courses of rigor for economically challenged
students. Creating equity in our public schools depends on our ability to provide quality
curriculum and instruction that does not rely on out-of-pocket expenses from students or
assume access to costly out-of-school resources.
Eliminating the practice of requiring students and families to provide additional,
oftentimes on-demand, funding for access to quality school experiences would increase
equity in our public schools. Teacher educators can significantly decrease the use of
participatory funding, if they bring an awareness of this practice to the pre-service teacher
18
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
and educational leadership curriculum. In turn, new teachers and administrators will
better understand the negative impact of participatory funding.
Many educators who engage in activities that select and sort students based on
ability to pay need to participate in professional development that requires poverty and
equity training. Administrators, teacher leaders, and stakeholders must facilitate and
demand daily conversation among educators at the campus and district level about the
needs of poverty and middle-class students who lack financial resources to pay for
wealth-derived educational opportunities, especially as the wealth disparity among
“haves” and “have-nots” continue to grow.
Poverty students comprise a majority student group in many school districts, and
yet, few educators intentionally engage in best practices to ensure open access to college
and career ready opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Noguera, 2003). The majority
of dropouts are poverty students (Reardon, 2011), and poverty students are extremely
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs and college-prep courses (OlszewskiKubilius & Thomson, 2010). By creating awareness at the classroom and campus level
of the inequity of participatory funding, best practices and socially just policy can be
implemented that impacts each individual student who desires the opportunity to enter a
college and career-ready track that includes participation in all school activities
sponsored and offered by a public school system.
Definitions
Achievement gap is the difference in performance between low-income and
minority students compared to that of their peers on standardized tests; traditionally, low19
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
income and minority children have not performed as well as their peers on the tests
(Glossary of Education, 2012).
Autonomous Classroom is a classroom governed by a classroom teacher.
AVID is the acronym for “Advancement Via Individual Determination,” a
college-readiness system implemented in K-12 schools to close the achievement gap for
historically underrepresented students.
College and Career Readiness (CCR) recognizes competencies and skills
graduating high school students must possess to enter into a postsecondary institution and
successfully complete required coursework needed to attain degree or certification
Deficit-thinking model as stated by Valencia (1997), “is a person-centered
explanation of school failure among individuals” (p. 9) in a particular group, “typically,
the combination of racial/ethnic minority status and economic disadvantagement” (p. 9).
This model posits that “poor schooling performance is rooted in students’ alleged
cognitive and motivational deficits, while institutional structures and inequitable
schooling arrangements that exclude students from learning are held exculpatory” (p. 9).
It is based on “imputation and little documentation” (p. 9).
Economically-challenged refers to families/students who find it difficult to
provide the financial resources needed to optimize the public school experience;
hardships may include healthcare, food, lodging, and required school supplies/fees.
Extracurricular activities are student activities that traditionally are not necessary
to obtain the minimum requirements for a high school diploma.
20
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Gatekeeper refers to an educator/stakeholder who controls access to a class,
activity, or educational experience (academic, social, or athletic).
Hidden curriculum, as defined by Haralambos and Heald (1991), refers to the
hidden curriculum that consists of lessons learned by students through the experience of
attending school rather than the stated educational objectives of such institutions;
Glatthorn (2000) also noted it is an unintended curriculum which defines what students
learn from the physical environment, policies, and procedures of the school (p. 84).
Inequity refers to educational practices that are unjust and unfair, especially
practices that have historically denied (implicitly or explicitly) certain groups of students
the opportunities and access to activities/experiences/courses that prepare students for
postsecondary success.
Institutional predetermination is defined by Muhammad (2009) as a structure of
traditional schools that guarantees a normal distribution of achievement where the student
meets the needs of the school system as opposed as the school system meeting the
individual needs of each student.
Minority student refers to a black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or
American Indian or Alaskan Native student; a minority student is a non-white student.
Opportunity gap is the difference in students’ access to quality teaching and
learning.
Opportunity cost refers to the cost of passing up the next best choice when
making a decision. For a poverty student, this opportunity cost may be a lost opportunity
for advanced academics because the choice involves food or electricity for his/her family.
21
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Participatory funding refers to the monies received from students, parents, and
guardians to participate in any school sanctioned activity, including, but not limited to,
required classes, elective classes, extracurricular activities, field trips, clubs, etc. Any fee
or expense required to participate in a school-related event would be included in
participatory funding.
Pay-for-play/pay-to-play is a term used to designate activities that require
participatory funding.
Poverty student is a student who qualifies for federal lunch subsidies under the
National School Lunch Act of 1946. Students from families with incomes at or below
130% of the federally-defined poverty level receive free lunch, and students from
families with incomes at or below 185% of poverty level receive partially subsidized
lunches. The Census Bureau establishes the poverty levels in the United States by family
income, adjusting the value for different family sizes and situations (Childress & Leschly,
March 2007a)
Socio-economic status (SES) is defined as the “relative ranking of individuals
according to economic, social, and occupational prestige and power; it is usually
measured in terms of occupation, education, and income and generally viewed in terms of
social-class categories” (Ornstein & Levine, 1993, p. G5).
Stakeholders are all parties who have a shared interest in the public school
organization. In this study, students, parents, teachers, administrators, and district
leadership are the primary stakeholders of the public school institution.
22
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Personal Assumptions
As a teacher in a high poverty school, I have witnessed the difficulty students of
poverty have in acquiring a quality college-readiness education that prepares them to
successfully attain a postsecondary education. There appears to be a disconnect among
educators and the socioeconomic status of their students. My personal assumptions
include a perception that many teachers, especially those who teach secondary collegereadiness classes, such as Pre-AP, AP, dual credit, and IB courses, are not sensitive to the
difficulties inherent for students of poverty and students of economically-challenged
families to access required technology, school supplies, and the ability to participate in
meaningful extracurricular activities that will prepare students for the rigor of college.
I believe many teachers continue to support a system of gatekeeping that is
sustained through the use of participatory funding. Opportunity gaps create achievement
gaps, and yet educators seem to be unaware of or apathetic to issues of access and
inequitable opportunities. I also assume teachers and perhaps other educators will be
guarded in sharing their beliefs and practices regarding participatory funding.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations of the study included difficulty obtaining honest cogenerative
discussions with educators regarding participatory funding. Every attempt was made to
interview educators who were open and forthright regarding their participation in
participatory funding. The researcher had a prior working relationship with all five
educator participants, and this relationship may have influenced the participants’
perceptions of how that dialogue should be constructed.
23
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Summary
This study examined beliefs and perceptions of educators and parents who were
engaged in the practice of participatory funding. Using the benefits of narrative inquiry
to construct rich, descriptive narratives provided insight into the culture of K-12 public
schools who ask parents/students to pay for activities/courses as part of a student’s
educational experience. This research was accomplished using interviews, observations,
and a multitude of documents that were analyzed to understand the consequences of
engaging in participatory funding within districts that educate economically-challenged
students.
24
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The primary focus of this study was to explore the concept of participatory
funding (expenses incurred by parents/students to participate in public school classes and
school-sponsored activities). The impact of fees, supplies, and expenses initiated by
campus/classroom educators to supplement costs of the K-12 public education experience
often creates a very personal opportunity gap for economically-challenged families.
While few articles specifically address the impact these monies have on students and
their families, drawing on literature that addresses educational funding, poverty students
and gaps in achievement and opportunity, poverty students and public school experience,
and ethics/social justice better elucidate the impact participatory funding has in public
schools.
Educational Funding
“[E]ducation is a local responsibility, a state function, and a national concern.”
(Norman Thomas, 1975)
Generally, the K-12 public school experience is funded by a combination of
federal, state, and local sources (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The United States
population has no national right to education. All 50 states, however, do have state
constitutions mandating the state’s responsibility to provide a system of free public
education (Dayton, 1995). The ability to fund an equitable, adequate, or efficient
education is dependent on each state. Because state constitutions call for a free public
education, no school finance/funding literature referenced a category of funding that
25
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
included expenses required by students to participate in public school classes or schoolsponsored activities. Most educational funding literature has focused on the history of
funding public education in the United States; funding inequities at the federal, state, and
local level; and litigation based on education funding.
Historical Perspective
Carnoy & Levin (as cited in Noguera, 2003) maintained America’s system of
public education “operates on more democratic principles than any other social
institution” (p. 156). Indeed, the institution of public education has historically been a
cornerstone to our democracy. The first education law, enacted in 1642 by the
Massachusetts General Court, required parents to ensure their children could read and
comprehend religious and government texts (Ornstein & Levine, 1985). Our country’s
founders “expressed the urgent need to afford educational opportunity to the nation’s
citizens; they believed that without an educated citizenry, the future of their fledgling
democracy would be in jeopardy” (Rebell & Wolff, 2006, p. 3). Thomas Jefferson and
John Adams petitioned for America’s education system to “raise the lower ranks of
society nearer to the higher,” a radical view of education that 18th century state
governments built into their constitutions (Rebell, 2008, p. 433).
In 1826, Massachusetts legislated the forerunner of school districts by requiring
towns to form education committees and encouraged towns to raise tax revenues to
support public schools (Ornstein & Levine, 1985). State constitutions of the 18th and 19th
centuries called for “spreading the opportunities and advantages of education,”
guaranteeing the “establishment of a system of free common schools in which all the
26
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
children in the state may be educated,” and for educating all citizens with a “thorough
and efficient system of common schools throughout the state” (Rebell & Wolff, 2006, p.
3). Led by Horace Mann, the common-school movement proposed that equal education
would create a “one-class/middle class society” that would diminish social and economic
inequities and establish political stability (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006, p. 59). The goal
of a democratic public education was shared by both public school advocates and the
workingmen “that a proper educational system—one that mixed together all the
children of all the people in a free and public institution—could provide equality of
educational opportunity that would lead in turn to fair competition in the quest for
achievement in later life” (Deschenes, Tyack, & Cuban, 2001, p. 529). Thus the
common school (public education) was born.
By 1913, all states had compulsory school attendance laws (Coulson, 1999). An
influx of immigrants to the United States generated a perceived need by governments to
create schools for the masses. Public schools in some sense became “mechanisms for
political acculturation and occupational sorting” (Rebell & Wolff, 2006, p. 4). By 1910,
the majority of children ages six through thirteen attended a public school, and by 1980,
99% of children attended public schools (Ornstein & Levine, 1985, p. 164). Amazingly,
from 1900 to 1996 the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased
from about 6% to about 85% (Thattai, 2001).
As rapidly as the early public schools multiplied, many students were not
included in the expansion of the first common schools, most notably descendants of the
former slaves and Native Americans. After slavery was abolished in 1863, separate
27
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
public schools existed for blacks and whites. The Supreme Court of the United States
upheld “separate, but equal” laws in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Even in the North, racial
segregation was still common in public schools. Ladson-Billings (2006), explaining the
significance of our historical debt in education, reminded us that black students in the
South did not receive universal secondary schooling until 1968. With segregation also
came inequity in average public expenditures for white schools and minority schools.
Black students received the throw-away books and resources from schools that served
predominately white students. In 1954, because of Brown v. Board of Education, statesponsored segregation in public schools was ruled unconstitutional. The doctrine of
“separate but equal” was no longer allowed to guide policy and practice our public school
system. The funding disparities between schools serving different populations of
students, however, continue to exist (Ladson-Billings).
The federal commitment to public education began in1946 with the National
School Lunch program and the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The primary
source of federal funding support for kindergarten through twelfth grade began in 1965.
Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to help
“facilitate and accelerate the dismantling of segregated school systems” and “expand
educational opportunities for poor children” (Rebell & Wolff, 2006, p. 4). The ESEA was
part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act authorizes grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of lowincome families, instructional materials, supplemental education centers and services,
strengthening state education agencies, education research, and professional development
28
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
for teachers (Abbott, 2013). Other federal legislation enacted to support educational
opportunity for all children was the Bilingual Education Act of 1968.
On October 17, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed a bill that authorized the
establishment of the “United States Department of Education,” an act that had taken
almost 150 years to accomplish (Stallings, 2002, p. 4). Under the umbrella of the U.S.
Department of Education, several other acts were signed into law: Goals 2000 Educate
America Act of 1994, Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act 1997, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Although
the federal government has not historically funded a significant percentage of monies to
public education, it has mandated where identified dollars must be spent, if states and
local school districts choose to use federal funds.
Funding Sources
Even though the Department of Education provides a small percentage of funding
to states to assist with a few targeted areas of need, the United States primarily relies on
state and local wealth to fund a competitive system of public education. In other
developed countries, however, equitable funding for schools is not left to chance or to the
disparities inherent in local property tax funding. Most European and Asian nations
“fund schools centrally and equally” (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000, p. 127). If one
examines what the United States spends on public K-12 education compared to the other
sixteen industrialized countries, we rank fourteenth in spending on K-12 public schools
(Rasell & Mishel, 1990). Countries that value education ensure all their schools are
29
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
adequately funded. Education is not determined by one’s zip code. Slavin (1999)
explained:
To my knowledge, the U.S. is the only nation to fund elementary and secondary
education based on local wealth. Other developed countries either equalize
funding or provide extra funding for individuals or groups felt to need it. In the
Netherlands, for example, national funding is provided to all schools based on the
number of pupils enrolled, but for every guilder allocated to a middle-class Dutch
child, 1.25 guilders are allocated for a lower-class child and 1.9 guilders for a
minority child, exactly the opposite of the situation in the U.S., where lower-class
and minority children typically receive less than middle-class white children. (p.
520)
In countries where public education is federally funded, socioeconomic standing
is far less predictive of student achievement than in the United States (Childress &
Leschly, March 2007b). According to a study published by the Social Sector Office of
McKinsey & Company (2009), “The gap between students from rich and poor families is
much more pronounced in the United States than in other OECD (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development) nations” (p. 9). The United States scores
poorly on the indicator that measures equal opportunity in society given the enormous
economic impact of educational achievement. For example, a low-income student in the
United States is “far less likely to do well in school than a low-income student in
Finland” (McKinsey & Company, p. 9).
In the United States, federal funds are used to supplement, not supplant state
funding, so only a small percentage (8.2%) of funding comes from federal sources. The
majority of funding is generated from state funds (48.3%) and local taxes (43.5%), (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005). Although percentages vary each year and from state to
state, the nation’s system of public education is funded through financing systems
30
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
authorized and administered under state law through mechanisms commonly known as
the school funding or finance formula (Baker, Sciarra & Farrie, 2012). Each state school
finance system is different; however, most systems are based on the program and service
requirements of each school district, as determined by local school boards, and the ability
of each community to fund its schools, usually with local property taxes (McGuire,
1994). Local funding varies by the community’s ability to generate revenue, and there is
oftentimes a huge gap in the resources available to each school district and each school
within a district (NEA, 2012).
The average amount of money school districts spend per pupil varies from state to
state, school district to school district, and even classroom to classroom. Funding is
inequitable and changes year to year. Policies, uncertain budgets, and bureaucratic red
tape often confuse and frustrate school leadership. Roza (2010) examined how school
districts and schools spend money, from the school’s vantage point. Overall, leaders are
largely unaware of where their dollars are going, and funds may not get equitably
distributed to meet the needs of priority students. Cary and Roza (2008) investigated two
similar elementary schools, one in North Carolina and the other in Virginia. The school
in Virginia received more than twice the amount of funding of the North Carolina school.
In assessing the funding situations at both schools, Cary and Roza discovered, “at every
level of government, policymakers give more resources to students who have more
resources, and less to those who have less” (p. 1). Money follows money: oftentimes, the
more the school spends, the more the school receives.
31
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
School finance inequity can be found among different states, within a particular
state, and even among schools within the same district (Abbott, 2013). In the 2009
school year, for example, Wyoming spent $19,520 per student while Tennessee spent
only $7,306 per student (Baker et al., 2012). Intrastate inequity was evident in the same
year just a few miles apart in Illinois: New Trier Township High School District spent
$19, 927 per student while Farmington Central Community Unit School District spent
only $6,548 per student (Federal Education Budget Project, 2013, p. 4). Large inequities
exist even within school districts, although transparent funding data is a little more
difficult to access within a single school district (Roza, Hill, Sclafani, & Speakman,
2004).
A large portion of the disparity seems to be “related to the allocation of teachers”
because “higher paid, more experienced teachers tend to be congregated in lower needs
schools, while less experienced teachers end up in high needs schools” (Federal
Education Budget Project, 2013, p. 4). Low-poverty schools continue to receive
experienced, high-quality teaching staff, which costs more money, whereas high-poverty
schools are often staffed with inexperienced and underqualified teachers (DarlingHammond, 2010). Haycock and Crawford (2008) stated the obvious that “assigning the
weakest students to the weakest teachers is no way to close achievement gaps” (p. 14).
Yet, for decades, minority and poverty students have been taught by unlicensed, out-offield, inexperienced teachers, even though extra federal funds are allocated to schools that
serve a high number of poverty students.
32
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
On average, the wealthiest school districts spend far more per pupil than the
national average. The top 10% wealthiest school districts outspend the poorest school
districts ten to one, and within states, it is not unusual to find wealthy school districts
outspending poor districts on a three to one ratio (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2010, p.
127). The disparity in funding transfers to outcomes: “wealthy school districts have
among the best schools in the nation based on graduation rates, test scores and
independent ratings of academic success” (McIntyre, 2012, p. 1). Wealthy schools have
a lot. Kozol (1991) documented the “savage inequalities” between poor and wealthy
schools over twenty-three years ago. When asked what money buys for children at New
Trier High School, he replied:
It buys them truly scholarly instruction from remarkable and well-rewarded
teachers, and it also buys them a great deal of thoughtful counseling from wellprepared advisers . . . the ratio between students and counselors may be as low as
25 to one. In the city the ratio is 400 to one. A suburban library has 60,000
volumes, while a city school library is lucky to have 13,000 volumes. In the
suburbs, extracurricular activities are supported as an integral part of education,
and summer school tends to be standard, whereas in the city, both were sliced thin
years ago as money became tight. (p. 77)
Money does make a difference. Baker et al. (2012) asserted the only solution to
improving the public school system is through fair school funding that can provide all
students the opportunity to meet the standards-based education.
With the recent weak economy and budget cuts across the country, however,
schools are always looking for additional funding sources. Although the vast majority of
monies provided to schools are from federal, state, and district/local sources, many public
schools receive some funding from not-for-profit organizations, educational foundations,
33
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
donations, partnerships with vested community groups, and other miscellaneous funding
efforts.
The number of school foundations is growing (Else, 2014). Shrinking tax revenues
and budget cuts are only a few of the reasons listed for the recent “explosive” growth of
education foundations (Chmelynski, 1999, p. 3). According to Yang Su (2012),
California K-12 foundations, PTAs, and booster clubs raised approximately $1.3 billion
in 2007. There are over 4800 public school education foundations across the country
(McCormick, Bauer, & Ferguson, 2001), although there does seem to be an emerging
concern that more affluent schools’ ability to fundraise will increase the advantage
wealthy schools/districts have over low-income schools/districts (Else, 2014). Private
foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Michael and Susan
Dell Foundation offer significant grants and opportunities for public school stakeholders;
however, there are time commitments and grant-writing skills involved in applying for
these grants (Mudd, 2001).
I have labeled the third type of funding source employed by schools as participatory
funding (or pay-to-play/pay-to-participate funding). According to Wassmer and Fisher
(2002), in 1991-1992 school districts received approximately 3% of revenue from usertype fees (lunch fees are not included), or basically pay-to-play fees. Included in this
revenue source are student activity fees, transportation fees, textbooks fees, tuition fees,
and “other” fees. This revenue source has increased in the last 11 years. Student activity
fees made up 21% of this revenue source. As the authors noted, however, user fees are
vastly underreported because only direct charges by the district are reported in this data.
34
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Fundraising, also considered a “user fee” if it is required for participation in an activity,
could also be considered part of this revenue source (Wassmer & Fisher, pp. 88-89).
This type of funding operates at the granular level and functions as a mechanism to
provide micro funding at the classroom, campus, activity/group/club level by imposing
user/pay-for-play fees and expenses onto students (or their parents/guardians) as a
requirement to participate in specified school sanctioned courses/activities. Any funding
required by students and their families as a prerequisite to participate and/or receive a
grade or credit toward a public school sanctioned event/course is characterized as
participatory funding. Pay-for-grades, for example, is not only grade inflation for those
who can pay, but a common practice in the classroom. Erickson (2011) noted two
common pay-for-grade practices: bringing tissue boxes to class and bringing canned food
to the food drive (p. 69).
Any type of participatory funding may be a hardship to families with limited
resources, and because of the current economic situation, more schools are attempting to
supplement funding cuts by asking students to pay for workbooks, use of lab equipment,
advanced placement courses, sports, and other extracurricular activities. According to
Simon (2011), schools across the country are charging students technology fees,
requiring expensive supplies and books, and charging students to participate in academic
classes and extracurricular activities. At Medina High School in Ohio, one family was
charged $4,446.50 for their three children’s academic classes and extracurricular
activities. They were charged to take Spanish, Earth Sciences, band and run crosscountry and track. Some schools are charging $200 to participate in Students Against
35
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Drunk Driving, $152 for an Advanced Placement course, and $175 just to register to go
to public school.
Weissbourd and Dodge (2012) reiterated that budget cuts in the majority of schools
in the country have driven schools to “charge fees for basic instructional resources such
as workbooks and the use of lab equipment. Students must also pay for advanced
placement courses, sports and other extracurricular activities long deemed standard,
clearly shortchanging students who are unable to afford them” (p. 75).
School Finance Reform/Litigation
Over the last 40 years, school finance reform has primarily been a state Supreme
Court and state legislative issue. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in San Antonio
Independent School District v. Rodriguez ruled that education was not a fundamental
right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, even though the U.S. Supreme Court
acknowledged that the Texas system of public school funding had “substantial disparities
in school districts’ assessed property values and per-pupil expenditures” (Dayton, 1995,
p. 9). Between 1971 and 1994, the public school funding systems of 14 states (Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota,
New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming) were
declared unconstitutional by the states’ highest court (Dayton, p. 10). According to
Buszin (2012), education reformers have not achieved the educational equality that has
been sought through the courts for the last 40 years by focusing on educational
expenditures. Buszin suggested an emphasis needs to be placed on “challenging
inequitable or inadequate distributions of skill-based education inputs at the local level”
36
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
instead (p. 1613). There are currently lawsuits challenging state funding formulas in
almost all 50 states (National Education Access Network, 2013).
From 1989 to 2010, plaintiffs have won in 26 education adequacy cases in school
finance litigation (Federal Education Budget Project, 2013). More recently, state court
cases have focused on the resources needed to provide all children a “certain threshold of
educational opportunities,” (Weishart, 2014). The shift from the equal per-pupil funding
approach of earlier school finance reform to the current adequacy funding concept shifts
the focus on the resources needed to provide an adequate education for all students as
defined by each state’s standards-based graduation level requirements (Umpstead, 2007).
Litigation that attempted to redistribute wealth based solely on the basis of the equal
protection standard proved to be difficult. Fiscal equity concepts did not appear to ensure
that all students had a fair opportunity to achieve an adequate level of education (Rebell,
2002, p. 227). Adequacy concepts, however, coincided with the standards-based
movement. Once content standards were established in each state, the courts could then
rule whether or not students were receiving an adequate education. The adequacy
approach in the courts “provides the courts with judicially manageable standards” to
address whether or not the state’s public education system is “preparing students to be
effective citizens and competitive participants in the economy” (Rebell, p. 239).
Recently, there is also the notion that perhaps, as Weishart (2014) argued, there is
place for both adequacy and equality in school finance policy. The two philosophies
must merge so that “children are owed an education that is adequately equal and equally
adequate” (p. 3). Weishart suggested adequacy and equality are not mutually exclusive
37
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
doctrines as previous scholars have indicated. There is a movement among some
scholars towards “equity-plus” and “meaningful educational opportunity” as the debate
continues over how state courts rule and ultimately decide how to fund their public
education systems (Weishart, p. 2).
Inequity in state funding systems creates inequity in resources for all students;
however, the wealthy school districts and/or parents have been able to provide resources
to ensure a quality educational experience. With so much attention focused on equality
vs. adequacy in state finance legislation, historically, little national attention has been
paid to user fees. To subsidize funding shortfalls, many schools ask students and their
families to pay-to-play or pay-to-participate in academic and extracurricular activities.
State courts, however, do not always agree as to what fees violate a free public education.
Matriculation and general tuition fees have generally been found to be
unconstitutional in most cases (Harris, 1986). A 1970 Idaho Supreme Court case,
Paulson v. Minidoka County School District ruled that the district could not charge
students a $12.50 textbook fee. Textbooks fees violate the state constitution’s “free”
public education. The Illinois Supreme Court, however, did rule textbook fees
constitutional in a 1970 case, Hamer v. Board of Education.
Extracurricular activity fees have also been ruled unconstitutional in some states
and constitutional in others. The 1970 Idaho Supreme Court case, Paulson v. Minidoka
County School District, ruled that extracurricular activity fees could be assessed for
activities such as sports, but not for basic education. However, a 1984 California
Supreme Court case, Hartzell v. Connell, ruled the imposition of fees for extracurricular
38
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
activities offered by public schools violated the “free school” guarantee of the California
State Constitution. The court determined all programs offered to students were
educational, whether the program was identified as curricular or extracurricular.
The most relevant court case impacting participatory funding is Jane Doe and
Jason Roe v. The State of California (2010). This landmark court case for participatory
funding was dismissed after California’s Governor, Jerry Brown, approved legislation,
AB 1575. The enacted bill settled a lawsuit over school districts that “blatantly violated
the free school guarantee” by charging students for educational activities and materials
such as textbooks, exams, and field trips. In legal depositions, the student plaintiffs in
Jane Doe and Jason Roe v. The State of California (2010), described the detrimental
effects of participatory funding:
Students who are unable to pay the fees or purchase the materials are
disadvantaged academically and overtly humiliated by teachers and
school officials. For example, Jane’s Spanish teacher wrote her name on
the class whiteboard because she could not pay for assigned workbooks.
Her English teacher instructed her not to highlight or take notes in
borrowed books that Jane could not afford to purchase. And in the middle
of taking her AP United States History exam, the proctor approached Jane,
indentified her by name and asked if she had a check for the exam fee,
stating that the person at the school charged with collecting money wanted
to see her immediately after the exam. Jason was required to purchase an
English workbook, a Chemistry lab manual, a Spanish language workbook,
and a student agenda. Jason’s mother was informed by a school official that,
if Jason did not purchase an English workbook, the only way he could
access a school-provided copy to complete homework assignments was by
going to the school library after school. Because Jason’s family could afford
to pay only a portion of the fees for these required materials, Jason was
compelled to start school without his Chemistry manual and Spanish
workbook. (p. 4)
The pay-to-learn investigation by the American Civil Liberties of Southern
39
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
California that investigated the mandatory fees illegally charged for educational activities
in public schools ultimately resulted in the examination of habits of practice in California
schools that created a “dual school system which deliberately favors students from
families of means over students from disadvantaged household” (Jane Doe and Jason
Roe v. The State of California, 2010, p. 3). The majority of school districts in the state
were engaging in participatory funding practices, and the state and local governments
were “blatantly” ignoring these habits of practice.
Bull and McCarthy’s (1995) research addressed the difficult nature of enforcing
federal and state legislation in the classroom and argued that local administration,
especially campus leadership, ultimately decides school policy. The authors also added
insight into the importance of leadership that includes ethics and an understanding of the
law as opposed to a rigid legalistic approach to administrative decisions.
Does Funding Matter?
School funding disparity is not under debate, but some do question whether or not
an increase in educational funding correlates to an increase in student achievement.
Critics of increased funding for public education claimed increases in funding over the
last 30 years have not significantly increased student achievement (Hanushek, 1996,
2006; Lips, Watkins & Fleming, 2008). What many critics do not fully disclose is that
much of the increased funding since 1970 has been used to meet the increased demands
and resources needed to implement new services for students that relate to early
childhood, dropout prevention, expanded student-testing and assessment systems,
increased graduation requirements, special education, English language learners, school
40
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
security, technology, and a host of other expenditures that were relatively nonexistent
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Baker (2012) recently revisited studies such as the 1966 James Coleman report
and Hanushek’s 1986 study that purported to find no strong relationship between school
expenditures and student performance. However, Baker documents the rigorous studies
that followed these two reports, and “invariably found a positive, statistically significant
(though at times small) relationship between student achievement gains and financial
inputs” (p. 6). Some of the findings included in Baker’s policy brief concerning the
significance of funding in education included the following: Deke’s (2003) discovery that
a 20% increase in spending correlated to a 5% increase in students moving on to
postsecondary education (p. 275); Papke’s (2005) findings that “increases in spending
have nontrivial, statistically significant effects on math test pass rates, and the effects are
largest for schools with initially poor performance” (p. 821); and Roy’s (2011) analysis
that the effects of the 1990 finance reforms in Michigan led to “a significant positive
effect on student performance in the lowest-spending districts as measured in state tests”
(abstract). Resources appear to matter significantly in the educational outcomes of
students.
In 1973 Justice Powell commented that “‘experts are divided’ on the question of
the role of money in determining the quality of education” (as cited in Kozol, 1991).
Forty years later, experts continue to be divided on the role of educational funding, even
though numerous rigorous empirically-grounded studies have indicated a positive
correlation between money and student outcomes. According to Darling-Hammond
41
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
(2010), conservative scholars argue against investing in public education because they
contend school officials, especially schools serving low-income children, would “waste
additional money if they received it” and students who live in a “culture of poverty” are
not able to benefit from increased funding levels (pp. 120-121).
Poverty Students and Gaps in Opportunity and Achievement
“Although both remain high, economic inequality now exceeds racial inequality
in education outcomes” (Reardon, 2013b, p. 11).
Numerous studies have documented and examined the achievement gap between
race and class. Lyman and Villani (2004) asserted that the achievement gap stems
primarily from a lack of transformative leadership at high-poverty schools. They
suggested the deficit-thinking of teachers and administrators often bring low student
expectations to high-poverty schools and a belief that learning deficits stem from the
student, not the educator. Muhammad (2009) also alleged that the achievement gap will
not narrow until educators facilitate the learning of all students at high levels.
Muhammad argued that “educators’ personal belief systems may be the most powerful
variables perpetuating learning gaps in our public school system” (p. 14). He maintained
educators must transform school culture, “a complex web of history, psychology,
sociology, economics, and political science” to eliminate a toxic culture and replace it
with a healthy school culture (p. 17).
Noguera (2003) noted the long history of achievement gaps between race and
academic achievement and culture and academic achievement. Instead of public schools
functioning as the “great equalizer” Horace Mann had once envisioned, public schools
42
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
“more often have been sites where patterns of privilege and inequality are maintained and
reproduced” (p. 42). Noguera dispelled genetic and cultural explanations of differences
in achievement and insisted these are used as an excuse to “rationalize why schools are
unable to help students achieve at higher levels” (p. 47). Noguera also alleged the belief
system of the educators has contributed to the achievement gap, and that students are
“products of the school’s sorting practices and its structure and organization” (p. 65).
Childress and Leschly (March 2007a) approached the achievement gap from a
quantitative lens. They did not try to explain the reasons behind the achievement gaps.
They simply examined student outcomes in U.S. public education. They found
significant achievement gaps between white and non-white students, poor and non-poor
students, and students of highly educated parents and students of less highly educated
parents. The white vs. non-white gap has remained relatively unchanged since the late
1970s. The poor vs. non-poor gap shows lower test scores, a greater likelihood of
dropping out of school, and decreased likelihood of earning a postsecondary degree.
Twenty percent of students in the lowest SES quartile did not finish high school, and only
7% of students earned a bachelor’s degree. The gap between students with highlyeducated parents and less highly-educated parents revealed higher test scores and higher
education attainment for students of highly-educated parents. Only 10% of students
whose parents had a high school diploma or less received their bachelor’s degree.
The achievement gap study by McKinsey & Company (2009) found “the
underutilization of human potential in the United States is extremely costly” for
individuals and the United States economy. This study examined the economic impact of
43
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
the achievement gap between certain groups of students and others. The study examined
four types of achievement gaps: international, racial, income, and system-based. As
previously mentioned in other studies, the racial and income gap is large, and it appears
early and persists to college. For example, only 9% of freshmen students in Tier 1
colleges are in the bottom half of the SES distribution (p. 12). Of note in this study is the
“huge differences found between school systems, especially between systems serving
similar students” which proves there are “substantial opportunities to improve” (p. 12).
The authors noted that the “persistence of these educational achievement gaps imposes on
the United States the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession” (p. 6).
Although the achievement gap for race and income both continue to be severe,
during the last 50 years, the achievement gap for race has declined, whereas the
achievement gap for socioeconomic status has rapidly increased (Reardon, 2013b).
Reardon (2013a) discovered a “rich-poor gap in test scores that is about forty percent
larger today than it was thirty years ago” and an average SAT test score today that is
“almost twice as large” as “the test score gap between white and black children” (para.
6). Educational achievement gaps for poverty students are widening even though the test
scores of poverty students have continued to increase (Reardon, 2013b, p. 16). Reardon
and others have indicated that rising income inequality has caused an even greater
disparity in students’ access to opportunity.
Darling-Hammond (2010) defined opportunity gap as “the accumulated
differences in access to key educational resources—expert teachers, personalized
attention, high-quality curriculum opportunities, good educational materials and plentiful
44
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
information resources –that support learning at home and at school” (p. 28). Oakes,
Rogers, Silver, and Goode (2004) defined opportunity gaps as the lack of “fundamental
‘opportunities to learn’ (shortages of qualified teachers, unstable teaching staff,
inadequate instructional materials, and overcrowded facilities in disrepair) that undermine
certain student achievement” (p. i). Reardon (2013a) addressed the opportunity gap as
the differences available to key resources (money, time, and knowledge of what it takes
to be successful at school) that improve a child’s cognitive development and educational
success. Greenstone, Looney, Patashnik, and Yu (2013) examined in detail the “growing
divide in educational opportunities and outcomes for high- and low-income students” and
its relationship to social mobility (p. 1). Lack of educational opportunities for the current
generation of students because of income inequality leads not only to an increase in the
achievement gap in test scores, but also to the attainment gap in college graduation rates.
Key to providing students access to opportunity is the ability to participate in payto-play and pay-to-participate activities. High-income families spend a lot more on their
children’s education than low-income families (Kaushal, Magnuson, & Waldfogel,
2011). Although both high- and low- income families invest more in their children’s
education today, high-income families spend nearly seven times as much on their
children as do low-income families. Not only has spending increased in real dollars, but
the gap has widened also. Thirty years ago, the wealthy only spent four times as much on
their children’s education (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013). Enrichment expenditures
such as SAT prep, private tutors, computers, music lessons, etc., have increased at all
levels, but high-income families have increased their spending on these participatory
45
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
funding activities from approximately $3,500 to nearly $9,000 (in constant 2008 dollars)
(Greenstone et al., 2013, p. 9). According to Weissbourd and Dodge (2012), some
affluent parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on private tutors for their K-12
children and hire SAT tutors for their children as early as 5th grade.
Reardon (2013a) suggested that the recent rapid increase in time and money
parents spend on educational opportunities for their children “captures the growing
perception that early childhood experiences are central to winning a lifelong educational
and economic competition” (p. 4). The American Dream is becoming more difficult to
achieve (Neuman, 2013). The cycle of opportunity seems to start with a child’s family
income. Children who are born into poor families will more than likely remain poor.
Children born into families in the lowest quintile are more than ten times likely to stay in
the lowest quintile, and children born into families in the highest quintile are more than
five times more likely to stay in the highest quintile (Greenstone et al., 2013).
The increase in opportunity gaps is exasperated by the lack of funding and
resources provided to students of poverty. As indicated earlier, disparity in public school
resources and school-sponsored activities are addressed as equity issues during the school
finance/funding debate, especially funding received from state and local funding sources
(Biddle & Berliner, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 1998). The
participatory funding, those “enrichment expenditures” that offer opportunities for
development and school engagement are rarely mentioned in literature addressing
achievement gaps and funding inequities. The disparity evident in the ability of
students/families to pay for requested school-related expenses affords economically46
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
challenged students little opportunity to participate in school activities that request or
demand funding from parents (Saez, 2012). As Ryan (2003) discovered, pay-for-play
programs create a system that alienates economically-challenged families and
discourages student participation. Offering a fee waiver program may seem to be an
equitable solution; however, the mandate to reveal one’s financial difficulties to a third
party merely stigmatizes students whose families are unable or unwilling to pay.
Poverty and the Public School Learning Experiences
Studies that examine the effects of poverty, especially as it impacts educational
opportunity and achievement in the K-12 public education system, inform this study to a
large degree. The United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty among
industrialized countries, and child poverty has increased 36% from 2000 to 2010
(Children’s Defense Fund, 2014). Child poverty impacts an array of educational
outcomes and experiences. Poverty affects student engagement at school (Jensen, 2013).
Child poverty impacts access to reading materials, and easy availability of reading
materials strongly predicts reading activity and “summer reading setback” (McGillFranzen & Allington, 2008). Poverty also impacts early vocabulary development
(Children’s Defense Fund, 2014; Jensen, 2013). Low-income four-year olds have a
working vocabulary that is only one-third that of middle-class four-year olds (DarlingHammond, 2010). Poverty also impacts the opportunity to attend preschool and receive
quality child care (Lamy, 2013).
Poverty also impacts the ability of families to provide educational resources
requested from teachers: Whether we’re talking about the amount of time low SES
47
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
parents can spend helping their children with homework or the availability of material
resources like books, art supplies, work space, computers, and Internet access, low SES
home resources too frequently fall short of teachers’ general expectation (Howard,
Dresser, & Dunklee, 2009).
Economically-challenged families do not have the resources to run to Barnes &
Noble and pick up a resource book or novel; poverty students do not have the ability to
run to Michaels or Hobby Lobby to purchase materials for a project. And they do not
have the money to purchase computers and technology needed to compete in many
classes at school. Poverty families access to technology as do their higher-income
neighbors. Only 25% of families earning less than $25,000 have Internet access at home,
compared with more than 75% of families earning more than $50,000 (Cooper, 2002).
Low-income students do not have equal access to computers, Internet, and other
technology (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). The digital divide does exist.
Gorski’s (2005) study included classism as one of the categories of the digital
divide. He distinguished three types of gaps for poverty students:
(a) gaps in physical access to computers and the Internet
(b) gaps in access to teaching and learning experiences that incorporate
computers and the Internet in pedagogically sound ways
(c) gaps in access to relevant Internet content. (p. 24)
These gaps are especially relevant in today’s classroom. Students who must depend on
computers, printers, the Internet, and specific software applications to be successful in
school are at a severe disadvantage without physical access to computers and the Internet.
Gorski discovered schools that served a high number of poverty students had a high
student to computer ratio of 9:1; whereas, schools that served a low number of poverty
48
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
students had a 5:1 ratio. Also noteworthy in this study is the gap in learning experiences
using technology. Poverty students were more likely to use technology for low-level
cognitive learning, while affluent students used technology in problem-based learning
environments that engaged them in high-level cognitive learning tasks.
As more educators became aware of the harmful effects of deficit-thinking and
education reformers convinced communities that poverty is not an obstacle to high
student achievement, Boykin and Noguera (2011) urged stakeholders to step back and
acknowledge the difficulties students of poverty face. While the authors reminded us not
to see poverty as a disability, they did remind us that children living in poverty face
multiple challenges and difficulties. They called for a holistic strategy for learning in
poverty communities, one that includes parents, students, educators, and community
partnerships that provide support services and educational resources needed to succeed in
a rigorous curriculum. By mitigating the effects of poverty, Boykin and Noguera hoped
to expand learning opportunities by offering early childhood education, extending the
day, offering project-based learning, and building critical partnerships with community
leaders.
Poverty continues to stand as a key indicator of achievement (Darling-Hammond,
2010). Although considerable research has focused on the achievement gap of
ethnic/racial student populations, it is well noted that a high percentage of minority
students are poverty students, as well (Bennet et al., 2004). Although the majority of
studies concentrated on the academic achievement gap of poverty students, important to
this study is also the positive effect student participation in extracurricular activities have
49
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
on student attendance, GPA, and higher education aspiration (Massoni, 2011). A study
by O’Brien and Rollefson (1995) also indicated students who participated in
extracurricular activities had better attendance, higher academic achievement, and
aspirations to higher levels of education. The authors also noted that low SES students
did not participate in as many activities as affluent students, but they did not know the
cause.
Staff, Schulenberg, and Bachman (2010) addressed the important relationship
among part-time work, school performance, and academic engagement/extracurricular
activities. They found that students who worked more than twenty hours a week
participated less in extracurricular activities, were absent more, and had lower GPAs and
test scores, and lower rates of high school graduation. This study is important to note
because economically students often work part time to help support their family and/or to
pay for required school expenses.
The daily/weekly/semester requests for out-of-pocket costs that are routinely
incurred by students, parents, guardians, and student advocates are often overlooked as a
significant barrier to the advancement of an equitable K-12 public education for all. I
maintain that although inequitable funding at all levels impose severe limitations and
challenges for inadequately-funded schools, the impersonal nature of federal, state, and
local funding sources do not necessarily demoralize individual students.
Attending a deteriorating facility or not having an orchestra does not single out
individual students at a school. Inadequate and inequitable funding formulas
“democratically” encumber all students and stakeholders at a school. On the other hand,
50
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
individual participatory funding demands contributions from individual students and their
families in a very personal environment. The inability to pay a required fee can be a
humiliating experience for students and families, in addition to denying access to the
desired opportunity (Sapp, 2010).
Ethics and Social Justice Considerations
Ethical and social justice considerations do inform this project to a large degree.
The works of Paulo Freire may help to inform many of the themes that emerge from this
project. For example, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2009) confronted the “culture of
silence of the dispossessed” and the “banking concept” that guides our current
educational institutions and serves as a “major instrument for the maintenance of this
culture of silence” (p. 30). Freire (2009) called for educators to move away from
prescription and move towards co-intentional education. He understood that practicing a
humanizing pedagogy is the only way to liberate students of poverty. He suggested that
“problem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality [and it] . . . strives for
the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality” (p. 81).
In Pedagogy of Freedom, Friere (1998) conveyed the stance that “teaching
requires a recognition that education is ideological; teaching always involves ethics;
teaching requires a capacity to be critical; teaching requires humility; and teaching
requires critical reflection” (p. xiii). The Politics of Education (Freire, 1985) addressed
the very real political issues of why school culture embraces the preservation of the status
quo, and the role schools play as an “efficient mechanism for social control” (p. 116).
51
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Works that address issues in ethics and educational leadership also illuminated the
consequences certain practices have on student equity and access. Shapiro and
Stefkovich (2005) explained the ethic of critique that is based on critical theory and is
“frequently linked to critical pedagogy” (p. 14). They also noted that critical educators
will confront difficult issues and “ask us to redefine and reframe other concepts such as
privilege, power, culture, language, and even justice” (p. 14).
Simpson et al. (2003-2004) acknowledged the importance of the individual
educator in making ethical curricular decisions that impact each student in his/her
classroom. They also called for a critical examination of the curricula “embedded in
personal, classroom, and school activities” and asserted that the “selection of materials is
seen as an educational and ethical endeavor” (p. 83). Reflecting on the cost, access, and
relevance of instructional materials would definitely appear to necessitate such critical
examination. Starratt (2004) also addressed ethical leadership and called for educators to
engage in the “ethics of presence that mediates the relationship between the leader’s
ethics of authenticity and ethics of responsibility” which “suggests full attention to the
other” (p. 104).
Starratt (2004) argued that school practices that allow wealth-based privilege
suggest leadership that has not engaged in the ethics of presence, as full attention to the
individual student would not permit school-imposed barriers to access. Fullan (2003)
suggested that administrators must be willing to engage in the ethics of presence. They
must be aware of their school culture, and they must be willing to confront brutal facts
and develop a culture of relational trust and disciplined performance, primarily through
52
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
reshaping the composition of their school faculties. Fullan also advised leadership to rid
schools of teachers who maintained status quo by continuing practices that created
barriers to learning and access, including, one can assume, such practices as requiring any
type of participatory funding.
The research of Lyman and Villani (2004) addressed best leadership practices for
high-poverty schools and reiterated challenging social justice issues for leaders that
included teacher bias and lack of financial resources. Their research attempted to
“confront the prejudices and deficit thinking that rationalize the achievement gap, [and]
to present information to educators who may be ignorant of poverty’s complexities” (p.
159). Important in Lyman and Villani’s study is the focus on leadership’s ability to
influence beliefs and attitudes of students and teachers. Eradicating the deficit thinking
model and replacing it with a framework that identifies learning problems as school
failures, instead of student/family failures, can offer a fresh perspective to the way school
is conducted.
Gorski (2006) has challenged educators to “fix the structures, policies, and
practices that contribute to the poverty cycle” and not try to “fix the people most
oppressed by classism” (p. 4 ). Understanding the beliefs and attitudes of educators who
engage in practices such as participatory funding that deprive students of important
academic opportunities is crucial to this research.
Conclusion
In her “Arts of the Possible,” Rich (as cited in Thomas, 2010) proclaimed:
Universal public education has two possible and contradictory missions. One is
the development of a literate, articulate, and well-informed citizenry so that the
53
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
democratic process can continue to evolve and the promise of radical equality can
be brought closer to realization. The other is the perpetuation of a class system
dividing an elite, nominally “gifted” few, tracked from an early age, from a very
large underclass essentially to be written off as alienated from language and
science, from poetry and politics, from history and hope toward low-wage
temporary jobs. The second is the direction our society has taken. The results are
devastating in terms of the betrayal of a generation of youth. The loss to the
whole of society is incalculable. (p. 277)
Articles and books and court case opinions found respite on my dining room table, in my
backpack, and in digital folders on my laptop the last few years waiting for this chapter,
waiting to be sorted, tagged, filed, or tossed. Each contributed a piece to the
understanding of the rigged game of public school. Each study in essence validates
Rich’s text.
At first, I did not expect to find literature that specifically pertained to my study.
After many late nights and weekends of reading, I have found a rich collection of texts
that are connected to this study. They discuss the following issues relating to this study:
educational funding for a universal public school system that will offer every child the
American Dream; the anguish of severe achievement and opportunity gaps of large
groups of students; the public (and not so public) learning experience of poverty and
economically-challenged students; and the ethics and justice framework that could shed
light on how best to navigate a system that has betrayed our youth. Each child who
becomes disengaged from learning and who is denied access to opportunity because of a
fee; an insensitive, rigid policy; or an indifferent adult adds sorrow to our society’s
incalculable loss.
54
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Rationale for the Study Design
Qualitative research “has special value for investigating complex and sensitive
issues” (Trochim, 2006) and is well suited to “make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 4). When
individual educators impose participatory funding and, consequently, create financial
barriers and/or limit opportunities for certain students, it is imperative to understand how
they construct the meaning of their actions. A qualitative design is the best fit for this
dissertation study because the study looks at “relationships within a system or culture . . .
it is personal, face-to-face and immediate . . . and it is focused on understanding a given
social setting” (Janesick, 1998, p. 42).
If, as Glesne (1999) suggested, “a research project is an effort to remedy the
ignorance that exists about something” (p. 24), then this study attempted to explore and
illuminate the insidious nature of participatory funding and move toward a greater
understanding of the perceptions, attitudes, and processes of teachers who authorize and
validate this informal funding system. Exploring the constructed realities of educators
who support an informal funding structure may lead to an understanding as to why
certain inequalities and exclusions persist in our schools despite state legislation and state
and local policy that specifically prohibits access to instructional opportunities based on
wealth-based privilege. A quantitative study, on the other hand, would not have been as
effective in revealing the attitudes and perceptions of educators involved in ignoring
55
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
policy and/or maintaining the status quo of financial barriers that deny poverty students
and students of working-class families the opportunities/access to certain educational
experiences in public schools because of a wealth-based advantage.
Factors such as the existence of a hidden curriculum (Glatthorn, 2000), the
authority of the autonomous classroom, the insensitivity of institutional predetermination
((Muhammad, 2009), and the very personal rejection possible at the student level with
participatory funding contributed to the complexity and variability of the study. To
accomplish this task, narrative inquiry was employed using a modified constructivist
grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
This study’s intent was to detect and unmask beliefs and practices that “limit
human freedom, justice, and democracy” (Usher, 1996, p. 22): to move beyond mere
description and effect change in “attitudes, beliefs, and /or social context for research
participants and others” (Glesne, 1998, p. 12). The purpose of this study was twofold.
One purpose was to examine the perceptions of public school stakeholders (parents,
teachers, principals, administrators) regarding the rationale behind the practice of
participatory funding. The other purpose was to examine the attitudes, practices, and
beliefs of stakeholders who are perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create
opportunity gaps for economically-challenged students through the use of participatory
funding.
56
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Research Questions
The objectives of this study included analyzing the practice and effects of K-12
public school participatory funding, especially as it pertained to possible
opportunity/achievement gaps of students from economically-challenged households.
Two overarching questions guided this study:
1:
How do public school stakeholders interpret the practice and effects of
participatory funding?
2:
What are public school educators’ perceptions of themselves as
gatekeepers or perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create
opportunity gaps for economically-challenged students?
Data Sources
This study focused on the constructed realities of public school stakeholders who
knowingly or unintentionally foster informal funding barriers previously identified as
participatory funding or pay-to-participate/pay-to-play.
Purposeful sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used to identify and initially
select participants. Purposeful sampling of participants was used to “maximize the
researcher’s ability to identify emerging themes that take account of contextual
conditions and cultural norms” (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 82). As
the study progressed, however, and themes emerged and categories became better
defined, theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was used to
choose additional participants to refine ideas and “pinpoint the fit and relevance of [my]
categories” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 519). Opportunistic sampling (Patton, 2002) was also
57
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
utilized to take advantage of new leads and emerging themes as the study progressed. A
third parent participant was added to take advantage of emerging themes that developed
from the parent perspective of participatory funding effects.
Although the focus of the study centered on educator attitudes, beliefs, and
practices, it was important to include parent voices. Parents were intricately involved in
the school experiences of their children, especially when asked to participate in funding
activities. The multiplicity of a diverse group of voices was designed to add breadth, as
well as depth, to the study.
The participants for the study were selected from public school stakeholders
currently participating and/or impacted by participatory funding in the state of Texas. I
specifically wanted participants who were currently in a public school district that
engaged in participatory funding and had a significant number of economically
challenged students. All participants were stakeholders in a school district that exhibited
wealth disparity among campus populations.
The teacher participants were selected based on evidence that they were engaged
with some school activity that required participatory funding as documented by course
syllabi, extracurricular information packets, and referrals from colleagues. A district
administrator and a campus principal were selected based on their experience,
accessibility, and an inclination to participate in open, honest cogenerative dialogue.
Parent participants were selected based on evidence that they and their child(ren) each
had been negatively impacted by participatory funding requirements.
58
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Documents and interviews with these eight public school stakeholder participants
consisted of the primary data sources for this study. Although triangulation of sources
traditionally occurs with multiple types of data collection, such as observations,
documents, and interviews, triangulation may also include several kinds of data sources
(Denzin, 1989), such as interviews from parents, teachers, and administrators. Interviews
offered the researcher an opportunity to “gain a first insight into the constructed realities
that are wrapped up in the idiolect of the respondent” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 99). As
Merriam (2001) noted, interviews are often the best way to gain an understanding of
“how people interpret the world around them” (p. 72). Because this study focused on
examining attitudes, practices, and beliefs, interviews offered one of the best data sources
for the study.
Documents and records contributed an additional data source used in this study.
As Merriam (1998) noted, “documents of all types can help the researcher uncover
meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem”
(p. 133). The “strength of documents as a data source,” suggested Merriam (2002), “lies
with the fact that they already exist” (p. 13). Evidence of participatory funding was
found in grade reports, syllabi, course schedule catalogs, teacher/parent memos, emails,
supply lists, extracurricular activity flyers, program brochures, notes from teachers, and
other school-related communication sources.
An additional data source was a researcher’s journal kept to document the
research process, especially as a self-reflective professional tool that served as a place to
record events and document existing thoughts. It was used as a “forum for reflection
59
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
where ideas were generated and explored and discoveries were made in and through
writing” (Borg, 2001, p. 160). The journal was used as a “tangible way to evaluate [my]
experience, improve and clarify [my] thinking, and finally to become a better . . . scholar”
(Janesick, 1998, p. 24).
Data Collection
Charmaz (as cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) reminded qualitative researchers
that “a constructivist grounded theory recognizes the interactive nature of both data
collection and analysis” (p. 522). Data collection and analysis began with the first
completed interview, my first parent participant. Because data from interviews was the
primary data source, I wanted to ensure the inclusion of a diverse collection of data
sources: interviews with parents, teachers, and administrators.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted from November 12, 2012, until July 25, 2013, after
permission had been obtained from the university's Protection of Human Rights
Committee (see Appendix A). Interviews were conducted with three teachers, three
parents, one district administrator, and one high school principal. “Interpersonal social
reality is constituted by conversations,” (Brinkmann, 2011, p. 58). To seek meaning as to
how participants construct reality in essence necessitated the use of interviews. Using a
semi-structured interview afforded participants an opportunity to share their stories, to
dialogue, and to seek meaning during the interview process. Interviews focused on the
personal and professional experiences of participants with participatory funding. The
60
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
interviews took place at the participants’ convenience at a location and time of their
choosing.
An interview guide approach (Patton, 2002) was used so that “the participant’s
perspective on the phenomenon of interest [c]ould unfold as the participant views it, not
as the researcher views it” (Rossman & Rallis, 2003, pp. 183-184). Open-ended
interview questions guided the exploratory nature of the conversation between participant
and researcher. Although I had a set of predetermined questions, there was freedom
during the interview to probe and to ask for clarification of responses. In turn,
participants had the freedom to elaborate, describe, and share their stories.
This study only used adult participants who agreed to be interviewed. Contact
information for teachers, principals, and district administrators was accessible through
public records. I contacted educators who worked at K-12 public school districts and
asked for volunteers to participate in this research study (See Appendix B). Parents of K12 public school students were given a recruiting flyer by school district personnel (social
workers, counselors, parent liaisons) in an attempt to obtain parents who might be willing
to participate in the research study. Information as to how to contact the researcher was
listed on the flyer (see Appendix C). Parents who volunteered were contacted by
telephone (see Appendix D).
All participants were provided with an explanation of the study and how it would
be collected and disseminated. I explained to each participant that he or she had the right
to refuse to participate at any time during this study. I also explained in detail all the
61
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
procedures in place to ensure that all confidentiality would be maintained (see Appendix
E).
At the onset of the study, two interviews had been scheduled for each participant;
however, because of the nature of the questions and the quantity and quality of data
gathered from each initial interview, a second formal interview was not needed for all but
one participant. All eight interviews went significantly over the scheduled time
allotment. Follow-up visits occurred only for informal clarification of meaning and
member-checking. These conversations were quick and primarily accomplished by email, phone, and informal face-to-face visits. See Appendix F for the list of interview
questions.
All interviews were digitally recorded with the permission of the participant.
Researcher notes were standard protocol during participant interviews. To prevent
potential personal and professional risks, the names and school districts of the
participants involved in this study were kept confidential. A pseudonym was assigned to
each participant during interviews. The audio files were then transcribed after the
interview. Each line of the transcription was numbered and each page numbered for easy
reference and to provide an audit trail. Collecting qualitative data from participating
stakeholders is not intended to identify them as individuals, but to provide narratives of
multi-contextual participatory funding experiences, so the culture of public school
systems could be further examined.
62
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Documents
According to Merriam (1998), “documents of all types can help the researcher
uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research
problem,” (p. 133). Documents and records applicable to illustrating evidence of an
informal funding structure were collected during the research study. Many documents
and records that were collected provided information as to the different types of
participatory funding prevalent in school districts and helped authenticate demographic
and socioeconomic information.
Records included AEIS (Academic Excellence Indicator System) reports from
TEA (Texas Education Agency), which are accessible to the public. Examples of
documents gathered and studied for this study were syllabi from a variety of teachers,
school/classroom/teacher supply lists collected at the beginning of the school year,
student grade reports shared by parents, course schedule catalogs, teacher/parent memos,
emails, extracurricular activity flyers, program brochures, notes from teachers, district
web sites, pictures of activities/events/products advertised in schools and in community
venues, and other school-related/extracurricular-related communication sources. After I
had started interviewing participants, many of them dropped off or sent by email
documents that showed evidence of participatory funding. Parents brought syllabi,
school supply lists, emails from teachers, and grade reports.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred simultaneously with data collection. As Charmaz (2000)
explained, “grounded theorists code our emerging data as we collect it. Through coding,
63
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
we start to define and categorize our data. In grounded theory coding, we create codes as
we study our data” (p. 515). After my first completed interview and transcription
(complete with researcher notes), I began my initial coding. I went through the first
transcript line by line and started to define and categorize my data. I began to code
significant units of data and began comparing it to other units of data while looking for
common patterns. I developed action codes to get “insight into what people are doing,
what is happening in the setting” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 515).
As I continued to conduct interviews and complete subsequent transcriptions, I
continually engaged in the constant comparison method, analyzing the interplay of the
data as I read and reread the transcripts and coded the data. As I looked at different
transcripts, I began to notice and identify repeating ideas in each separate transcript. As I
continued to create more codes, I, in turn, had to create categories to “subsume several
codes” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 516).
While working through the beginning stages of the constant comparative method
with a growing number of long interview transcriptions, I searched for the best way to
work with my data. I investigated information management systems that had the capacity
to help me organize large sets of text documents and facilitate the creation of categories,
concepts, or codes to segments of information. I purchased the student edition of
ATLAS.ti 7, a qualitative data analysis software program that was “drawn deliberately
from the paper and pencil paradigm” and could facilitate the coding of different data
sources (Friese, 2013, p. 7). After I had completed each interview and transcription, I
uploaded the transcribed word document into the HU editor in ATLAS.ti 7. Each
64
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
interview was labeled according to participant type and interview number, and each line
of text was numbered. An audit trail was kept that allows the reader to follow the data
analysis process (Strauss & Corbin, 1997).
Coding a document in ATLAS.ti 7 was similar to coding with paper and
highlighter. I opened the primary document to be coded, and I was able to highlight and
code each desired segment. The coded segment was then displayed in the margin area,
and a bracket marked the size of the coded segment with the code name next to it. Each
word, phrase, and line of text could be highlighted and assigned one or more codes
created and identified by the researcher. A “Quotation Manager” and “Code” manager
helped significantly as I gathered and uploaded additional transcribed interviews. Also
helpful was the ability to use the software for my memo writing. I was able to comment
on the transcript, quotation, code definitions, and themes (“families” of codes). In
ATLAS.ti 7, comments were always linked to other objects. Memos, however, could be
linked to my primary documents, comments, and code families, or they could be standalone statements/reflections about the research process, ongoing analysis, or other
relevant data segments that might add meaning to the research study.
Using ATLAS.ti 7, I was better able to follow Auerback and Silverstein’s (2003)
suggestion to organize relevant text into repeating ideas and organize repeating ideas into
themes. Equipped with user-friendly software that provided tools for organization, yet
kept the researcher as the primary instrument for data collection and data analysis
(Merriam, 2002), I was able to stay immersed and grounded in the contextual data. As I
continued to bring the different voices and perspectives of participants together with
65
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
extensive analysis, I followed the guidelines of grounded theory methodology by utilizing
constant comparisons, theoretically oriented questions, and theoretical coding as the
means to developing a theory that closely corresponded to my data.
As I worked through the data, I engaged in memo writing, created files to
organize the sheer volume of accumulated documents, and developed preliminary coding
schemes (Glesne, 1999, p. 134). As data collection intensified and I sensed the
possibility of saturation of data, I worked with the categories, themes, and patterns that
had emerged from the data. I developed and constantly evaluated and adjusted a system
of coding and categorizing that eventually added meaning to the collected data. While
working through the data, I found myself “constantly immersed in a combination of
deliberate decisions about hypotheses generated and tested on the one hand and intuitive
reactions on the other” (Janesick, 1998, p. 43).
Because I did have “intimate familiarity” with teacher/campus practices in the
school district where the majority of my participants worked and/or had public school
students, I sought “meanings—both respondents’ meanings and researcher’s meanings”
(Charmaz, 2000, p. 525) as I progressed through the data collection and analysis phases.
I consciously made the decision to undertake a constructivist approach to grounded
theory as opposed to the more rigidly constructed objectivist approach. I also wanted to
ensure that all participant voices were integrated into theory development.
Trustworthiness
For the qualitative research paradigm, trustworthiness is determined by
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
66
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
For a research study to construct meaning to self and others, the study must demonstrate a
high degree of trustworthiness.
Credibility is defined as the “degree of confidence in the ‘truth’ that the findings
of a particular inquiry have for the subject with which--and context within which--the
inquiry is carried out” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 29). Several practices were followed
during the research process to ensure credibility of the study. Prolonged engagement
occurred because of my role with the public school system. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
suggested “it is not possible to understand any phenomenon without reference to the
context in which it is embedded” (p. 302). I was in the participatory school funding
culture throughout my study. From the time my IRB was approved until my last
interview was approximately one year. Throughout this time, I collected data and
worked in a public school system where the phenomenon of participatory funding took
place on a daily basis. Triangulation of data using multiple data sources assisted in
verifying the truthfulness of the data as the sources of data were checked against each
other (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Engaging in peer debriefing with a group of four other
doctoral students throughout the dissertation process required us to work together over
several years; together we examined each other’s methodology, biases, and overall body
of work. I also asked several people outside of the academic community to read certain
sections of the study to check for understanding. Member checking was conducted
throughout the interview process to clarify and ensure accuracy of participant data.
Transferability is defined as “the extent to which its findings can be applied in
other contexts or with other respondents” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 31). Although the
67
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
onus is on the reader as to whether or not the research findings are applicable in the
reader’s world, providing thick description that “explain[s] the essence of experience and
meaning” (Janesick, 1998, p. 49) is vital. Purposeful sampling of participants is also
important. To increase the ability of the findings to be transferable to similar cases,
Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended asking numerous questions related to the focus
of the study. This study did ask numerous questions related to participatory funding;
thereby, increasing the likelihood that others may benefit from the awareness that pay-toplay/pay-to-participate habits of practice are detrimental to many students.
Dependability is defined as the extent to which, if the inquiry “were replicated
with the same or similar respondents (subjects) in the same (or similar) context, its
findings would be repeated” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 33). A logical, traceable,
documented audit trail was created. All data used in the dissertation can be traced to the
original documents. Appendix G provides access to the audit trail; however, great care
was taken to ensure the confidentiality of all participants by assigning pseudonyms and
keeping the original transcripts in a secure, locked area at home.
Confirmability is defined as “the degree to which its findings are the product of
the focus of its inquiry and not of the biases of the researcher” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p.
34). Triangulation, keeping a researcher’s journal, engaging in peer debriefing
throughout the study, and providing an audit trail helped keep analysis transparent and
grounded in data.
68
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Personal Assumptions
As a teacher in a high poverty school, I have witnessed the difficulty students of
poverty have in acquiring a quality college-readiness education that prepares them to
successfully attain a postsecondary education. I have also observed and participated in
the financial struggles of economically-challenged families, families who may be
poverty, working-class or middle-class who are not able to meet the participatory funding
requests of educators. There appears to be a disconnect among educators and the
socioeconomic status of their students. My personal assumptions included a perception
that many teachers, especially those who teach secondary college-readiness classes, such
as Pre-AP, AP, dual credit, and IB courses, are not sensitive to the difficulties inherent
for students of poverty and students of economically-challenged families to access
technology, school supplies, and participation in meaningful extracurricular activities that
will prepare students for the rigor of college.
I believed many teachers continued to support a system of gatekeeping that is
sustained through the use of participatory funding. Opportunity gaps create achievement
gaps, and yet some educators seem to be unaware of or apathetic to issues of access and
inequitable opportunities. Assumptions were also made that teachers and perhaps other
educators might be guarded in sharing their beliefs and practices regarding participatory
funding.
Limitations of the Study
Possible limitations of the study may have included the authentication of
obtaining honest cogenerative discussions with educators regarding their beliefs,
69
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
attitudes, and practices regarding participatory funding. Every attempt was made to
interview educators who appeared to be open and forthright regarding their participation
in participatory funding. The researcher did have a prior working relationship with all
five educator participants. Although the prior relationship facilitated the ability of
participants to engage in open, honest dialogue, the relationship between participant and
researcher may have also influenced their perceptions of how that dialogue should be
constructed.
Context of the Study
The common practice of requiring student/parent funding for certain
courses/activities (participatory funding) creates an immeasurable opportunity gap for
economically-challenged students. The practice of pay-to-play and pay-to-participate is
prevalent in school districts throughout the United States. As noted earlier, this study
was not intended to target one school district, one campus, or one classroom. This study
was intended to “make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 4). The intent was to make sense of or
interpret the phenomena of participatory funding in terms of the meanings the eight
participants bring to them.
It is important to note that the participants’ varied experiences with participatory
funding occurred in numerous school districts, schools, and classrooms in several states
over a span of 50 years. Because of purposeful and convenience sampling, however, all
eight of the participants did have a connection to Milton Bradley Independent School
District (a pseudonym) at some point in their public school history. Milton Bradley ISD
70
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
is located in College City, also a pseudonym. The district’s approximate population is
29,300 students. The district is divided into four quadrants with four traditional high
schools serving as the anchors to the feeder system of middle and elementary schools. In
Milton Bradley ISD, 66% of students are identified as being economically disadvantaged
based on eligibility to receive free or reduced lunches.
The researcher also has a present and a past with Milton Bradley ISD. As noted
in the researcher’s context, I have been employed as a high school teacher and as a
specialist for the district. My children have also attended schools in Milton Bradley ISD.
As the researcher, my background also contributes to the “research [that] is an interactive
process shaped by his or her own personal history, biography, gender, social class, race,
and ethnicity, and by those of the people in the setting” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 8).
Context of Participants
Because my roles as parent and educator have allowed me the opportunity to
network with a large number of public school stakeholders, I did not have difficulty
finding volunteers to participate in this study. The participants for the study were
selected from public school stakeholders currently participating in and/or impacted by
participatory funding in the state of Texas. All participants were either educators
working in a public school district that engaged in participatory funding or a parent
whose child had attended a school that engaged in participatory funding. All participants
were recruited on a volunteer basis.
71
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Parent 1: Pamela Singleton
Ms. Singleton is a Hispanic single parent who is identified as living in poverty.
Singleton has five children, one who recently graduated from Milton Bradley ISD, and
four children who currently attend schools in MBISD. Ms. Singleton is a migratory
worker and has recently gone back to school to further her education. At the time of the
interview, she had no children participating in extracurricular activities because of a lack
of financial resources.
Parent 2: Lisa Leap
Mrs. Leap is an Anglo married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. Mrs.
Leap has two children who attend Milton Bradley ISD schools. Mrs. Leap is a stay-athome parent who volunteers in the school district and occasionally works as a temporary
employee for MBISD. Mrs. Leap is a college graduate. Her children are both involved
in numerous in-school and out-of-school extracurricular activities and college-ready
academic programs.
Parent 3: Helen Helic
Mrs. Helic is a Hispanic married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. At
the time of the interview, Mrs. Helic had three children who graduated from Milton
Bradley ISD schools, and one child who attended a MBISD school. After many years of
working as a stay-at-home parent, Mrs. Helic recently began employment in MBISD.
She is a college graduate. All four of her children were involved in numerous out-ofschool and in-school extracurricular activities and college-ready academic programs
when they attended public school.
72
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
District Administrator: Dana Dawn
Mrs. Dawn is an Anglo married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. All
four of her children graduated from schools in Milton Bradley ISD. Mrs. Dawn has
extensive experience as an educator. She has been a teacher and a campus administrator
at the elementary and secondary level. She has been a principal at two different school
districts. She is currently a top district administrator in MBISD. She is a college
graduate. All four of her children were involved in numerous out-of-school and in-school
extracurricular activities and college-ready academic programs when they attended public
school.
Campus Principal: Paul Pavid
Mr. Pavid is an Anglo married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. Two
of his children graduated from schools in Milton Bradley ISD. His youngest child
currently attends school in MBISD. Mr. Pavid has extensive experience as an
administrator and educator in MBISD. He is currently the principal of a large, diverse
urban high school and was previously the principal of a large middle school. He is a
college graduate. All three of his children have been involved in numerous out-of-school
and in-school extracurricular activities and college-ready academic programs when they
attended public school.
Teacher 1: Tammy Tier
Mrs. Tier is an Anglo married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. Mrs.
Tier’s two children attend Milton Bradley ISD schools. Mrs. Tier is a high school PreAP English teacher and sponsors several extracurricular activities at schools such as UIL,
73
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Mock Trail, and National Honor Society. She is a college graduate. Both of her children
have been involved in numerous out-of-school and in-school extracurricular activities and
college-ready academic programs when they attended public school.
Teacher 2: Charlotte Cherem
Ms. Cherem is an Anglo teacher who had just finished her first full year of
teaching at the time of the interview. She is middle- to upper-middle class. Ms. Cherem
is a high school English and AVID teacher and sponsored the following extracurricular
activities: student council and cheerleading. She is a college graduate.
Teacher 3: Daisy Dual
Mrs. Dual is an Anglo married parent who is middle- to upper-middle class. Mrs.
Dual has two children. One child attends elementary school in the Milton Bradley ISD.
Her other child is too young to attend school. Mrs. Dual is an AP/dual credit history
teacher, and a sponsor for academic decathlon. Until recently, she has also been a coach
in girls’ competitive athletics. She is a college graduate. Her school-aged child has been
involved in numerous out-of-school and in-school extracurricular activities and collegeready academic programs.
Concluding Remarks
In this narrative inquiry, data were collected and analyzed over approximately one
year to detect and unmask beliefs and practices of public school stakeholders engaged in
participatory funding practices. In-depth interviews from eight participants and an array
of reports and documents were used to triangulate the data. Data collection and data
analysis occurred simultaneously, and a modified constructiveness grounded theory
74
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
approach was employed to study the “personal, face-to-face” relationship among
participatory funding and public school stakeholders.
75
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Darling-Hammond (2002) maintained that to value diverse human experience
and enable learning for all students, educators must evaluate how schools and
classrooms operate, and we must examine how we “construct privilege and inequality
and how this affects one’s own opportunities as well as those of different people” (p.
201). Muhammad (2009) noted, “the human experience of education plays a major
role in how school culture forms and ultimately how well a school operates” (p. 21).
The cacophony of public education can be heard in the stakeholders’ voices: the
inequity of the school experience resonates in each participant’s experience, at times
with a thunderous roar, at times with a disconcerting cackle, and at times with an
aching whisper.
Assembling multiple voices in a conference room as a group appointed to
evaluate the new edition of The “Free” Public School Edition of the Game of Life
enables the researcher the opportunity to interpret and share multiple perspectives of
the public school education journey. Although Hope Tochange, as researcher and
student, attempts to facilitate the conversation so that the stakeholders’ voices take
center stage, it is important to note that oftentimes there is omission of the
observation piece -- the pain in the eyes of Singleton, a single mother who lives daily
with poverty, and the sighs of frustration of the middle-class parents who try to
balance the demands of what their kids need, want, and expect as they play the game
of school. It is imperative, however, for the words of each individual voice to
76
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
reverberate among the four walls of consciousness. This community of words mined
and shaped will open the door and carry a message beyond the researcher’s small
constructed space.
The Game
Constructing The “Free” Public School Edition of the Game of Life has taken
many years to revise, refine, and market. The basic premise of the current edition was
created in 1779, when Thomas Jefferson created a two-track educational system that
sorted students by “the laboring and the learned” (Brown, Corrigan, & HigginsD’Alessandro, 2012, p. 42). The current institutional system of sorting “suggests
schools were never meant to serve all students,” (Muhammad, 2009, p. 25). Systemic
policies, procedures, and norms create inequity, especially for students of poverty.
The innovators of the 2013 edition of The “Free” Public School Edition of the Game
of Life appear to use public education models that reproduced and legitimized a
modern form of class structure (Bowles, 1977) to justify the game’s premise.
Currently, Dr. Status Quo, the CEO of TEA, one of the largest game
companies in the United States of America, assembled a group of public education
stakeholders to evaluate the school edition of an old favorite, The Checkered Game of
Life. Instead of the infancy to death cycle of the original game, the school edition has
players move along a track from preschool through high school graduation. Similar to
the original game, the school edition is constructed with built-in wealth-based advantages
based on true-to-life events. Members of Dr. Quo’s review board have all had years of
experience playing the real game of public school. Assembled together for a final review
77
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
of the game are three parents (Ms. Singleton, Mrs. Leap, and Mrs. Helic); three high
school teachers (Mrs. Tier, Ms. Cherem, and Mrs. Dual); a school district administrator,
Mrs. Dawn; a high school principal, Mr. Pavid; and Ms. Tochange, the
researcher/university graduate student who has compiled data to authenticate and validate
the game’s premise. All of the members of the review board attended public school,
taught in public school and/or have children who attended public school. Although Dr.
Quo did try to assemble a socioeconomically diverse group, only one member who was
identified as living in poverty was able to attend the review board meeting. As with
many poverty families in the review board’s school district, transportation, lack of
financial resources, and time constraints contributed to the absence of poverty
participants. The voice of the poverty is indeed small and underrepresented on the
review board.
Although all board members have a connection with Milton Bradley Independent
School District, it is important to note that the data include many school districts. The
eight board members share experiences, stories, and information from other schools and
districts in Texas and in other states. The board game spaces/images represent the
collection of data from all experiences.
All members of the review board have had an opportunity to play The Free Public
School Edition of the Game of Life. Each board member has been given a copy of the
game board as a reminder of the basic rules of the game and the representative pay-toparticipate/pay-to-play spaces on the board. Following are the minutes from each agenda
item of the review board meeting.
78
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Meeting Minutes from Game Review Board
TEA Game Review Board
Friday, January 8, 2014, 1:00-3:00 pm
Milton Bradley Independent School District Central Office,
West Conference Room – Ivory Tower (2nd floor)
Members Present: Pamela Singleton, parent; Lisa Leap, parent; Helen Helic, parent; Dana
Dawn, district administrator; Paul Pavid, principal; Tammy Tier, teacher; Charlotte
Cherem, teacher; Daisy Dual, teacher; Hope Tochange, researcher/university graduate
student
Members Apologies: Dr. Status Quo, family ski vacation in Switzerland
Agenda Item #1: Review Premise of Game
Discussion: see attached minutes and copy of game board
Action: Game premise authenticated
Agenda Item #2: Evaluate “Share the Wealth” cards & “Bank” needed to begin game
Discussion: see attached
Action: Validated inequity in school opportunity between high- and low-income students.
Agenda Item #3: Evaluate pay-to-play and pay-to-participate spaces on game board;
committee members will discuss academic category issues.
Discussion: see attached
Action: Certified impact of participatory funding in academic categories of pay-to-play
and pay-to-participate activities.
79
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Agenda Item #4: Evaluate pay-to-play and pay-to-participate spaces on game board;
committee members will discuss social category issues.
Discussion: see attached
Action: Certified impact of participatory funding in social category pay-to-play and payto-participate activities
Agenda Item #5: Evaluate pay-to-play and pay-to-participate spaces on game board;
committee members will discuss emotional category issues.
Discussion: see attached
Action: Certified impact of participatory funding in emotional category pay-to-play and
pay-to-participate activities
Agenda Item #6: Educators evaluate implications of systemic habits of practice in
schools. Are participatory funding habits of practice built into our game?
Discussion: see attached
Action: Educators verified participatory funding habits of practice are systemic.
Agenda Item #7: Roll out of the 2013 edition of The “Free” Public School Edition of the
Game of Life
Discussion: see attached
Action: Committee members voted current edition of game is authentic and ready to send
to manufacturer.
Minutes Prepared By: Hope Tochange
80
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Agenda Item #1: Review Premise of Game--Game Premise & Game Board
Tochange: As I understand it, our task is to evaluate the authenticity of The
“Free” Public School Edition of the Game of Life. Let’s first reacquaint ourselves with
the game board. Each of you should have a copy of the game board with your agenda.
Let’s review the basic rules listed on the game board:
1. One player chooses school district card from SD (school district) pack. The
SD pack of cards has various representative school districts from the United States of
America. Each represented school district has a different socioeconomic demographic,
so each SD card will provide a slightly different experience.
2. SD card will identify corresponding bank roll (family wealth) of each player
based on SES score. Zip codes indicate mean and median household income, so zip
codes within each school district will determine socioeconomic status of each player and
wealth disparity at each district (Population Studies Center, 2014).
3. Each player rolls dice to determine SES score: 1 = top quintile; 2 = 2nd
quintile, 3 = 3rd quintile; 4 & 5 = 4th quintile; 6 = bottom quintile. Each player rolls dice
and depending on the number (1 – 6) will receive a bank roll. The bank roll will be
determined by school district. Each SD card will have a chart indicating family wealth
by quintiles. The top quintile in a poor rural school district, Prairie Dog ISD, for
example, may be lower than the 5th or 6th quintile income in Lucky Me ISD.
4. Player with highest SES score rolls first.
5. Each player rolls dice and moves number of spaces indicated.
6. Each image space coincides with a participatory funding expense. Refer to
81
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
provided chart for exact cost. Pay school bank specified cost. Each image/space
represents a pay-to-participate experience. Included with the game board, money, dice,
SD cards, player figures, and instruction book are several laminated charts that indicate
costs associated with each image. Choose chart before game and use only one chart per
game. Example of chart expense: Chart 1-- Field Trip -- $250 needed for overnight trip
to visit colleges in Dallas area. Player will need to give bank $250.
7. Winner is determined by player who has enough money left in personal bank
roll after crossing photo finish to attend institution of higher education. *Depending on
SES score of players, there may not be a winner for every game played. Sometimes there
will not be a clear winner. All players may spend their bank rolls before they cross the
finish line. If this happens, the player who is closest to the photo finish when players are
out of money will be declared the winner of the board game.
It appears that a public school student must navigate the K-12 journey, and the
student who has the most “value” after high school graduation wins. Highest value
equates to having the financial resources and the social and academic skills needed to
successfully attain education achievement required for economic success (Reardon,
2013b). According to the rules of the game, each image space requires the player to
spend money to participate in a school related event/activity/class. Each space addresses
a practice found within one of three categories of participatory funding group: academic,
social and/or emotional. Some spaces may address more than one category.
Scan over the game board (see Figure 4.1). We will start our roundtable
discussion as to whether or not the game premise is authentic. The images/spaces
82
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Figure 4.1. Tochange Game Board
83
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
represent expenses faced by typical college and career-ready students as they move from
kindergarten through high school in our public school system
Tochange: If college and career readiness is the desired goal for our public school
students, share your general thoughts as to how well your students or children are
progressing towards the goal of college and career readiness upon high school
graduation?
Singleton: I have five children, and I don’t think my children are prepared for
college (Singleton, line 111, p. 5). It’s been difficult for my children though. I am a
single mom, and I do migrant work in the fields. I have moved my children many times
in Texas, Minnesota, and North Dakota, and sometimes they don’t get to start at the
beginning of the year or finish (Singleton, lines 26-29, p. 2).
Tier: Well, my own kids don’t have an option; they’re going to college (Tier, lines
32-33, p. 2). At the school where I teach, we have really high achievers and then we have
those who aren’t – more the neighborhood kids (Tier, lines 192-193, p. 9).
Leap: I think my children’s school district is preparing my children for college.
My son is in the district’s elite academic program, and he takes all Pre-AP and AP
classes. He is also in tennis and band, extracurricular activities that will give him the
additional opportunities needed to be successful at the next level. He is actually earning
college credit by scoring high on his AP tests. Although it has been a little expensive,
I’ve been pleased with his opportunities to attain a college-ready education so far (Leap,
lines 345-358, p. 19).
84
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic: My youngest is a senior, and she is going to Out of State University next
semester. My oldest two have graduated from college and my third child is still in
school. Their schools prepared them for college, and they had some excellent teachers.
But, I’m going to be honest – I spent a lot of time at their schools. I volunteered, worked
as a substitute teacher in their schools, and I advocated for my children. I made sure they
had tutors, good teachers, and supplies and money for their activities (Helic, lines 132141, p. 157-165).
Cherem: I have students who want to go to college and want to participate as an
athlete or cheerleader in high school. They take Pre-AP classes, go to practice after
school, and then they work until 11:00 at night just to pay for their school activities.
Sometimes they then have to study for a big test the next day. I can’t imagine having to
wake up, dress and catch the school bus at 7:00 am after getting home so late. I have a
lot of kids doing that (Cherem, lines 466-68 and 477-482, pp. 20-21).
Dual: Economic status definitely plays a role in the school journey. Students who
have more financial resources have more opportunities to engage and connect at school.
When I was a student, basically, the kids that were upper-class rich that had money, they
got all the attention, and then pretty much the rest of us were just kind of . . . we were
there (Dual, lines 14-15, p. 1).
Pavid: We basically lived in paradise for the first ten to twelve years of my life;
we lived in a huge house with a swimming pool, three horses, five motorcycles, a
camper, and a boat. We had two cabins and did everything! My dad went rogue, and all
the sudden, in the seventh-grade, I went from having everything to having nothing. I
85
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
didn’t get to participate in a lot of activities because I didn’t have the money. I know
what it is to go without. I didn’t have any money unless I earned it. My own kids have
been fortunate. They have all three been able to be invested in their school community.
Two have already graduated from college, and one is in high school and is preparing for
college (Pavid, lines 39-84, pp. 2-4).
Tochange: I’m hearing the members of the review board agree that the game
premise replicates a student’s journey in the K-12 public school system as he/she
prepares to be college and career ready upon graduation. It appears from your comments
that school can be expensive, and school can also be exclusive if one cannot pay for
certain school-related expenses. Let’s move to the next agenda item and start examining
specific items of interest in the construction of the board game.
Agenda Item #2: “Wealth – a Roll of the Dice” & the “Bank”
Tochange: A major component of the game is a roll of the dice. The SES score of
each player is decided by the initial roll of the dice. This creates financial opportunities
and setbacks for each player. Dr. Status Quo said he used historical data and current
studies to set up this public school edition of the game of life. At an earlier meeting, Dr.
Quo referred to several studies that indicated a widening socioeconomic status
achievement gap in our K-12 system (Reardon, 2013b), and noted economic inequality
had reached historic highs (Saez, 2012). Only 7% of high school youth from the bottom
quartile of SES attain baccalaureate degrees (Carnevale & Strohl, 2010). Another study
referenced by Dr. Quo, “Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of
86
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Education,” revealed the diverging fortunes for students based on family income
(Greenstone et al., 2013).
Dr. Quo considered the key premise of the game to be the opportunity (or lack of)
for socioeconomic mobility – the proverbial rags to riches and riches to rags tale. Does
every child start off with the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream? Is it
possible to escape poverty through hard work and opportunities our public education
system offers students of poverty? To ensure the game is authentic, Dr. Quo believes
“Wealth – a roll of the Dice” and funding from the “Bank” should align with our
students’ economic reality. Does the game favor students with more wealth?
Dawn: Well, in MBISD, I do know that 66% of over 29,000 students are
identified as being economically disadvantaged based on eligibility to receive free or
reduced lunches. And there is definitely an achievement gap between our economicallydisadvantaged student group and those who are not in our economically-disadvantaged
student group. I also know poverty students in our district often can’t afford some of the
costs of extracurricular activities, activity fees, and school supplies teachers/sponsors ask
them to provide. So yes, there is an opportunity gap in our district between high- and
low-income students (Dawn, lines 782-783, p. 33).
Pavid: At our school, approximately 52% of our students are identified as
economically disadvantaged (AEIS Report, 2012-2013). We have a really diverse
school. The hard thing about our campus is that we literally have neighborhoods with
two million dollar houses, and a few blocks away, we have students living in $200/month
hovels. So you have the full continuum from abject poverty to the most affluent homes
87
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
(Pavid, lines 202-214, p. 9). I do know the achievement gap between our poverty and
non-poverty students is pronounced; it is a large gap. I would guess it’s close to 20%
(Pavid, lines 519-526, p. 22.
Dual: I think what’s happening is we’re separating students so early that they’re
growing up in essentially two different cultures, so you have a middle class, affluent side,
and then you have the kids who are in regular classes. By the time students are in middle
school, they are already on sort of a different track, even though we don’t say we track. I
think also we don’t have a lot of people teaching these classes [Pre-AP/AP] who are from
the lower socioeconomic levels. Kids want to be with people who are more like them, so
kids in regular classes and AP classes don’t want to intermix either direction. I have
affluent kids in my AP classes who should be in regular classes, but they don’t want to be
with the students in the regular classes (Dual, lines 548-569, pp. 27-28.
Tochange: I’ve heard that from several people, Mrs. Dual. Students who have the
opportunity to take Algebra I in middle school are on the college track. In many of our
middle schools, the majority of students in Pre-AP/Algebra I classes are not poverty
students (Researcher’s personal journal, p. 18).
Singleton: It is more expensive to take college-ready classes. My kids are not in
Pre-AP or AP classes or fun activities that they enjoy. Being a single parent with just a
fixed income is difficult. Schools ask for too much. I feel discouraged because
sometimes it is a month when I really can’t buy something the kids need for school. It
makes me feel bad. If I had more money, my kids would have better opportunities at
school (Singleton, lines 81-82, p. 4).
88
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic: School could be expensive. With four children, it was a financial hardship.
You want to have your child participate in an activity or take a class, so we did it at a
cost. It was hard financially, especially with the first and second child. There were times
when I would just say, “Wow, another t-shirt!” I bet I had 30 t-shirts in the boys’ closets
– one for Spanish club, one for Latin club, one for National Honor Society, etc. If you
wanted to be in a school organization, you had to buy a t-shirt. The kids always needed
something. I felt bad for the students who couldn’t participate because they couldn’t buy
all the stuff required, and I felt bad for parents who were working and couldn’t participate
in school activities. You could certainly tell there was a different treatment for kids
whose parents could not be involved, and I felt bad because of that (Helic, lines 182-191
and 240-244, pp. 10, 13).
Tier: Well, families have to take responsibility for their children’s education. I’ve
lived both ends of the spectrum, and as a single mom, I could have qualified for food
stamps, but I just thought that was embarrassing. My oldest child, for twelve years, we
spent probably eight to ten thousand dollars – school supplies, field trips, golf, tutoring,
AP tests, t-shirts, I have no idea. I’m not good in math. Some families will always have
more money than others. I’m not sure, but overall when you think about it, it’s pretty
darn cheap! Unless you are extremely wealthy, you got to budget what’s important,
right? (Tier, lines 316-322 and 95-103, pp. 5, 15).
Singleton: I can’t afford a computer or pay to rent a band instrument -- and some
months, we don’t have gas or food money. I’m a single parent on a fixed income. I
worry about expenses of school a lot because like right now, I’m a student myself, so I
89
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
have these added expenses trying to educate myself and educate my kids and meet all
needs possible (Singleton, lines 48-52, p. 3).
Tochange: Your shared experiences have authenticated the wealth-advantage
component of Dr. Quo’s game. Dr. Quo left several statistics to share with us. As
income inequality increases, the opportunities for high- and low-income students
dramatically differ. Over the past 40 years, high-income families have increased their
spending per child from slightly more than four times as much as low-income families to
nearly seven times more. High-income families spend nearly $9,000 per child on
enrichment expenditures (tutors, computers, music lessons, SAT prep, etc.), whereas lowincome families spend about $1,300 per child (Greenstone et al., 2013, p. 9). It appears
one can concur that the socioeconomic status of students in public schools does impact
the outcomes of their educational experience. Students who come from families with
higher incomes are able to pay for and participate in a greater number of school-related
opportunities during the public school journey. Let’s review some of the game board
pay-to-play/pay-to-participate spaces/images.
Agenda Item #3: Evaluate Pay-to-Play and Pay-to-Participate Academic Spaces
Tochange: Dr. Quo wants us to evaluate the pay-to-play/pay-to-participate
academic spaces on the game board. We have already validated the game premise that
the public school journey requires students to pay for school-related opportunities. For
example, students may land on a space and have to pay to participate in an academic
opportunity such as the requirement to buy books for an AP class, pay for school supplies
for classes, or pay the fee needed to take a college entrance exam. In Texas, for example,
90
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
the Texas Education Code – Section 11.158—Authority to Charge Fees specifically states
that “the board may not charge fees for (1) textbooks, workbooks, laboratory supplies, or
other supplies necessary for participation in any instructional course except as authorized
under this code” (2011). Is this policy enforced? Do teachers ask students to buy
instructional materials for classes? Are students in public schools being asked to pay to
participate in academic opportunities?
Instructional costs. Helic: At my children’s schools, students have to pay extra
for everything: football games (Helic, line 532, p. 28); pep rallies (Helic, lines 526-531,
p. 28); books for AP classes (Helic, lines 453-462, p. 24); tee-shirts for clubs and school
organizations (Helic, lines 182-192, p. 10); dry cleaning for ROTC uniforms (Helic, lines
498-509, pp. 26-27); required fundraisers (Helic, lines 255-273, p. 14); school supplies
(Helic, lines 219-226, p. 12).
Tochange: Hmmm. Well let’s start with the extra costs associated with
academics. Are there specific instructional costs required to participate in instruction?
Helic: When the kids were in Pre-AP and AP classes, I always bought books for
my kids. I never knew that is was not required or that our district had a policy against
asking parents to pay for books required for class. For each child, I probably bought ten
to twelve books per school year at about $15.00 each. They were required to do summer
reading also. Sometimes we couldn’t find the books at the stores in town, so we had to
go to the Internet and order the books online. It was quite an expense (Helic, lines 451480, pp. 24-25).
91
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Dual: Last year, I did ask my students to buy a book to supplement their textbook
that was so awful. It was a $20.00 textbook, and of course, the kids that really needed it,
they couldn’t afford the book. I told them if they couldn’t afford the book to come see
me or have their parents call me, but seldom would anyone come forward to tell me
he/she couldn’t afford the book. A lot of them wouldn’t say anything, or a lot would just
be like, “I don’t even know where to get that.” Barnes & Noble used to do a deal for us
where we would get some money back when students bought the books they needed for
our class. Last year they didn’t do it for some reason (Dual, lines 321-335, p. 16).
Singleton: A lot of parents won’t ask, especially minorities. I have not asked [for
help at school] since I got here because the person at the front desk was very unfriendly.
I get discouraged (Singleton, line 64, p. 3).
Tochange: Ms. Singleton, do you think your children would ask for help?
Singleton: No, they are too shy. They feel so uncomfortable and feel like some
teachers have an attitude against them (Singleton, lines 67-68, p. 3).
Dual: Someone has to let me know though. I have a lot of those kids who are so
shy, especially in an AP class for the first time. We can use AP money to pay for books
for students who can’t buy them. Well, I guess what student is going to want to come to
you and be like, “I can’t buy the book.” They don’t want to tell you that (Dual, lines 290292, p. 14).
Leap: My son was required to buy books for English also. The books were
expensive, and they were required for his classes. I think they cost between 10 and 15
dollars each, and last year we had to buy six or seven during the school year. If you
92
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
searched on the Internet, you might be able to find them for $7.50 or so, I don’t know.
We also had to buy books during the summer, and he had to read them by the first day of
school. Going into his freshman year, we didn’t even get a letter telling us what summer
reading was required. If it hadn’t been for a friend who asked if my son had read the
books yet, we wouldn’t have even known about the required summer reading list (Leap,
lines 727-765, pp. 38-40.
Cherem: Yes, I know that in some classes, especially if you want to be in Pre-AP
classes, teachers ask you to buy a book to read in the summer. I would definitely say that
the challenging courses require more money (Cherem, lines 265-274, p.12).
Pavid: We got rid of summer reading at my school; however, I know a school
down the road still does summer reading. There’s nothing like reading The Great Gatsby
over the summer to get a 17-year old boy excited about school! Our teachers decided that
half of the students came back to school in August without reading the book, or they
would just buy Cliff Notes. Of course some kids couldn’t buy the Cliff Notes or the
book. I do think there are some hidden costs in our AP classes at times (Pavid, lines 324
– 329, p. 14).
Dawn: When my boys were in high school, we fell into the trappings of just
paying for whatever the teachers asked them to buy. I really didn’t start questioning a lot
of things until I had to buy $100.00 of books every semester for English classes and
things like that, and then they all took the same English class. They weren’t supposed to
use their older brothers’ books, and they wanted me to buy the book again! They
wouldn’t let them use a used book. They had to be brand new books. I finally told my
93
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
third child to take one of the used books. He was worried he would get a lower grade or
be penalized by the teacher (Dawn, lines 245 – 262, p. 11).
Tochange: What if a student couldn’t afford to buy a book?
Dawn: Actually, if you couldn’t afford the book, you got a zero for not having the
book. I remember one specific time when my youngest son needed a book the other boys
had not been required to read. We couldn’t find it in town, so I bought five of them
online at Amazon. I knew he had friends who couldn’t find the book either, so I went
ahead and bought extra copies for them. I don’t know if affordability was an issue, but
getting access to them was definitely an issue (Dawn, lines 265 – 273, p. 12).
Tochange: So, buying books certainly seems to be a common requirement for
taking AP classes. Are there any other costs associated with AP or other advanced
classes?
Pavid: Now we have AP and dual credit classes, and that certainly becomes, to
me, the big divide because a lot of kids can’t afford the dual credit. $200 for three credit
hours is a great deal to parents who can afford the fee, but $200 for a family who makes
$400 a week is like a ton of money. So I think that’s an issue, and we don’t really have a
source of funding to pay for our low socioeconomic status students to obtain dual credit
(Pavid, lines 329 – 333, p. 14).
Cherem: It is definitely expensive to take dual credit classes (Cherem, lines 268 –
270, p. 12).
Dual: The fees for taking AP exams in the AP classes can really add up also. I
had three students this year come to me and say, “I want to take the test, but I can’t afford
94
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
it.” Fortunately, our principal paid for it. But that was only three students out of one
hundred, and I know more students probably couldn’t afford it either but just didn’t want
to ask for help. The test is $89.00, and if you are on free-and-reduced lunch, it is $13 or
$15. I mean the money scares a lot of my students; they don’t even want to go ask their
parents for it. I wouldn’t have wanted to ask my parents for that much money (Dual,
lines 297-317, p. 15).
Leap: My son took three AP tests last year. The social studies exam was $87
(Leap, lines 353-354, p. 19).
Helic: It’s a socioeconomic issue. Kids in Pre-AP and AP were usually the kids
who could afford to be in there; kids whose parents have professional lives (Helic, lines
687-688, p. 36).
Singleton: I worry about the expenses of school. Someone called from the school
and wanted my kids to take the ACT test, but they wanted $40 for each child, so that
would be times three! (Singleton, lines 112-113, p. 5)
Tochange: $120.00 for your children to take the ACT is certainly expensive.
Singleton: I can’t even pay for some of the supplies they need for their regular
classes to graduate from high school. Teachers ask us to pay for calculators, boxes of
tissue, bottles of sanitizer, those Clorox wipes, baggies – don’t know what those are used
for. My kids say, “I need you to buy this Mamma,” but I feel bad because I can’t provide
something they want or need for school (Singleton, lines 72-83, p. 4).
School supplies. Tochange: Let’s talk about school supplies. This is another area
Mr. Quo targeted in the construction of his game.
95
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Pavid: I mean, at times, the supply lists have been unbelievable; they were just
overwhelming. It just amazed me when a parent came in with seven boxes of Kleenex
and said, “Here’s $20 worth of Kleenex that I had to buy because it’s really the most
important thing for my kid to have at school? Or is this just going to the teacher’s lounge
at the end of the year?” And ironically, I later witnessed several of the teachers bringing
gifts of Kleenex boxes to the office workers. I thought why are we still collecting boxes
of Kleenex from students? I guess because we always had! (Pavid, lines 98-103, pp. 1516)
Dual: I think a lot of teachers just, we kind of get consumed in that mindset that,
oh well, $1.50 isn’t a lot to pay for tissue – you can get that anywhere if you really want
it. But at the same time, if you have to choose between, “Do I get a meal right now, or do
I get this box of tissues for my grade?” Well, I probably wouldn’t care too much about
that box of tissues (Dual, lines 431-435, p. 21).
Dawn: I remember the beginning of school as a parent. Each son would bring
home a stack of supply lists – sometimes four, five, six. I would sit and tally it all up so I
would know what I needed for each of them. We would head over to the Office Depot on
Monday night. I remember driving around town trying to find the right color of
everything. There were some specific things that we spent a lot time looking for at times.
That was not necessary because I don’t think the boys ever used those items. I don’t
think any of them ever used an entire spiral. I would ask, “What are you taking notes
in?” So all that stuff was required, but I don’t think teachers ensured they were using all
those supplies we had to buy. I don’t know what happened to all those barely-used
96
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
spirals we had to buy each year -- in a spiral cemetery, I guess. Yeah, and those were
relatively easy to get, even if they were not cheap. What would get me is they never used
the red pens and all that kind of stuff. The two red pens, the two green pens -- they still
had them in the unopened package in their backpacks at the end of the school year. It is
just frustrating that I spent [gas, money,] and lots of time looking for items like that
(Dawn, lines 291-313, p. 13).
Dual: I just spent probably $60 on my eight-year-old’s school supplies for this
year. I bought like the cheap brand of everything. By the time you buy pencils, binders,
a lunch box, a backpack, and everything else that they need for school, it adds up really
quick. I just, I don’t know how I feel about that because, I mean, with school funding
being cut all the time, it’s kind of like, the supplies have got to come from somewhere.
As teachers, we do need those supplies. But what I get frustrated with is that I’m one of
those parents who always buys their kids’ supplies. So what about those kids who don’t
have the supplies? But, I honestly don’t know. I feel like anything that is consumable, it
needs to be bought by parents. School supplies are pretty cheap now. You can get
crayons for 50 cents, which seems cheap to me, but if I was worried about do I buy milk
or do I buy crayons, I’m going to buy the milk. We were looking at all of the stuff and
everything that was on her supply list, and it was all consumables, except for scissors. I
bought scissors every single year for this child. What happens to the scissors? Because, I
mean, I buy good scissors. So, like what’s happened to all the scissors? (Dual, lines 226249, pp. 11-12)
97
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Pavid: I remember my first-year mentor teacher had a required supply list that
was about two pages long; I copied it. She also had a list of rules. It was about a page
and a half long, and I copied it because I was going to be a good teacher. I worked at an
affluent school and I just thought that’s how you did things. And it was easy. I
immediately got rid of the rules because it wasn’t me. But the school supplies, I got into
the habit of requiring all my students to buy lots of school supplies until I found myself
with a thousand boxes of map colors. I finally said, “We don’t need map colors” (Pavid,
lines 416-421, p. 18).
Helic: I don’t think students should be required to buy any supplies. If the
teacher’s well-organized, I think she could use the minimum amount of school materials
is the way I see it. I don’t see why kids have to have a new everything each year. I don’t
see why they cannot reuse their notebooks. Sometimes my kids would use three pages in
a notebook, but they didn’t want to use that one because they had written down English
on the cover. And I said, “Well, you can just scratch it off or we can cover it, and it’s like
a new one.” I would buy so many school supplies every year. My kids wanted new
crayons every year, new color pencils every year, a new pencil bag every year (Helic,
lines 295-306, p. 16).
Cherem: The school supply issue is kind of a hard one. When I was in school we
had to buy these huge packets of school supplies put together by the PTA. They were
kind of expensive. I also had teachers always asking for special folders, markers, and
notebooks. It was always something. I really think the school should be able to provide
supplies needed for students to learn in the classroom (Cherem, lines 79-88, p. 4).
98
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic: In my kids’ elementary school, the PTA would sell a school supply packet
for about $35 to $40. They would collect your money the year before and then all you
had to do was attend the Open House before school started, go to the cafeteria, and pick
up your big bag. And sometimes I just said no. If you have three or four kids, that adds
up. Most kids bought the supply packages, so there was definitely peer pressure to buy
the PTA supplies. The kids who didn’t buy the prepackaged supplies were different
(Helic, lines 219-234, p. 12).
Leap: My children’s elementary school offered the PTA school supply box also.
There is also a planner that is required, a big spiral, three-ring kind of thing. Depending
on the grade level, I would say the pre-packaged box alone sells for between $35 to $60
dollars (Leap, lines 191-211, p. 11). School supplies, I mean, they just keep growing. As
we get into Algebra 2, Chemistry, and more rigorous classes, the teachers strongly
suggest students have their own graphing calculator to succeed in class. The one we
purchased was close to $200; hopefully we won’t have to buy another one soon (Leap,
lines 699-700, p. 37).
Tochange: There seems to be quite a jump from map pencils to $200 graphing
calculators.
Helic: Yeah, if you come from a rich family you’re going to bring your state-ofthe-art calculator to your math class, and you will have an advantage in class; students
have an advantage if they can buy Spark Notes for English books also. Extra study aids
help kids succeed in school, and they all cost extra money. I got my kids tutors, and that
99
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
cost a lot of money. I was paying tutors about $50.00 an hour (Helic, lines 710-732, p.
38).
Tochange: So, just to make sure I understand, you are saying parents feel the need
to pay for additional instructional costs to succeed in advanced classes such as study aids
and professional tutors.
Tier: I hired math tutors for my girls. I wasn’t really happy with my daughter’s
math teacher this year, but that happens. We just hired a tutor to come in and help make
things better. With the tutoring expenses though, we weren’t able to pay for private
tennis lessons. My daughter felt as though all the other middle school kids playing tennis
had been taking private lessons, so she felt really behind. She decided not to try out for
the tennis team (Tier, lines 73-99, p. 5).
Tochange: Thanks for sharing your thoughts concerning instructional materials
such as books, school supplies, study aids, and additional costs to take AP and dual credit
classes, such as tutors. Are there any other academic life spaces that need to be addressed
before we go to our next group of game board spaces/images?
Technology access. Tier: Well, something we haven’t talked about yet is
technology. Today, every kid needs a computer, Internet access, and every kid needs a
printer. They all need that to be successful in their classes. They really do, but you can’t
require that (Tier, lines 197-200, p. 9).
Singleton: I strongly believe if you don’t have a computer, you can’t get your
school work done. We’ve struggled a lot because we have to go to the public library to
do the kids’ homework. It costs money to make copies, $.10 per copy; to print color
100
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
copies it is $.20 cents, so it is an extra cost. I have to load up the kids, if I have a car, and
we all go at a certain time. Sometimes we have to wait 15, 30, even 45 minutes to get a
computer. I think it is very essential that each student have a computer. Internet access
is free at the public library, but you get limited access. If your child is under eighteen
years old, you have to sign a permission slip for that child to use the Internet. At the
library, the Internet freezes up all the time, and the librarian has to come over and unlock
the Internet. The kids get frustrated. It is difficult. Recently my son had to do a 3D
project, and he had to use the computer and get all this information. If he didn’t have it,
he would have gotten a zero. From one day to the next, he can’t always get on the
computer (Singleton, lines 93-105, p. 5).
Leap: Having a computer and Internet access at home are definitely a
requirement to be successful in school. Teachers have sent out several things about
different computer programs the kids need, probably since kindergarten or first grade,
and we’re all about getting the program on the computer that day. We have a new
program that we downloaded this week! Teachers expect the kids to be able to access
programs such as IStation and BrainPop at home (Leap, lines 308-320, p. 17).
Dual: If we’re going to provide equity then we’ve got to provide the technology at
school, and we’ve got to teach students how to use it because that’s a large part of
learning. I don’t think that a kid should have to have a cell phone to do homework in
your class or Internet access. I’ve got a lot of teacher friends that use Edmodo right now,
and while I like Edmodo, and I agree that it has amazing advantages, I don’t think that
using it is totally fair primarily because not all kids have access to it at home. And I have
101
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
a problem with it because the teachers that use it post quizzes and stuff. If you’re using it
for reminders then that’s fine; but if you’re posting quizzes and things like that on it,
students have to come to school early so that they can do those quizzes, or they have to
stay there late so they can do those quizzes. Well, I don’t think that’s really fair to them
primarily because a lot of them ride the bus, so they have what, 10 minutes to get it done?
And a lot of them go to work after school. So I don’t think that that’s fair to use those as
ways to do outside work. Really, students who have a computer and Internet access at
home are really getting a leg up on those who don’t (Dual, lines 461-506, p. 25).
Tochange: From what I’m hearing, access to appropriate technology really is a
deal maker or breaker in student success in school. Internet access seems to be
important.
Helic: I do think a lot of times teachers assume that students have Internet at
home. They will assign homework, and they will tell students: “Look this up on the
Internet. And by the way, if you don’t have the Internet, you can use the library
computer.” The problem is the library closes at 5:00 pm, and school isn’t over until 4:40.
And, if the student rides the bus, he can’t go to the library after school (Helic, lines 643648, p. 35).
Pavid: Really, unless the school or district is providing students with technology, I
don’t see how you can require students to do lessons that require having access to
technology at home (Pavid, line 264, p. 11).
Cherem: Unfortunately, students do need to be able to look up information online
for classes. Students who do have computers and the Internet at home can access certain
102
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
programs from home. We have Kindles and computers in some of classrooms, but
there’s no way that those devices can leave the classrooms (Cherem, lines 253-255, p.
11).
Helic: My kids, I think all of their projects required having the Internet or
required us going over to Hobby Lobby and buying whatever materials were necessary.
Like, if it was a chemistry project and you were making a molecule, you had to buy the
Styrofoam balls. Then the kids wanted to make it really cute, so we had to buy the paint.
The more professional the project looked, the better the grade. The grades were really
good if all your information came from the Internet and reports and stuff printed out on a
computer. For good grades, the kids not only needed the Internet and a computer, they
needed a printer, paper, and ink (color ink would be better than black). (Helic, lines 650670, pp. 35-36).
Grades. Tochange: I guess the academic category wouldn’t be complete without a
discussion of grades. Grades seem to be a significant component in the K-12 journey,
especially for students who are trying to gain entrance into competitive colleges and
postsecondary programs. Am I hearing the review board say there is a definite grade
advantage in the Game of Life School Edition for students who have the wealth available
to purchase certain technology or students who are required to buy books for a grade.
Are there any other pay-to-participate opportunities that give wealthier students an
advantage for better grades?
Dawn: Well, we did take our share of stuff to school to get grades. There is a
huge difference between being number one in your graduating class and being number
103
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
100 in your class, so those extra credit grades add up. If my child can get an extra
hundred points for a Pre-AP class, that could make the difference between whether he
stayed in that class or didn’t stay in that class; it was worth buying cans of food. The kids
brought lots of food to school for the United Way food drives. As parents, we would ask
each other, “Can you believe we have to do this for a grade?” But who wants to be the
parent that’s not going to do it, especially if you can afford to? When it is going to affect
your kid in the end, how can I say no? We took batteries and all sorts of things for grades
(Dawn, lines 180-183, p. 8).
Singleton: Higher grades give you better opportunities (Singleton, line 122, p. 6).
Teachers asked my kids to bring cans for extra credit grades. They also asked for
supplies for extra credit. Mainly what I heard about were the food drives (Singleton,
lines 90-91, p. 4).
Pavid: I took over a middle school a few years ago where everyone that brought
cans for the canned food drive received 100s. What I realized is for every tin can, they
received a free 100; they also got to drop a grade. It hit home with me when I saw a mom
carrying two cases of green beans into the school so that her daughter could have five
100s to drop her low grades. And so if that daughter makes an “A” because of green
beans that Mom was able to go buy at Sam’s, and I can’t afford to buy my son the same
number of cans for five 100s, then we have a real problem. I told my teachers, “We’re
not giving grades for cans.” Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve eliminated that practice in
our district yet. I mean seriously, the difference between the valedictorian or salutatorian
104
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
shouldn’t be three cans of green beans or a box of Kleenex (Pavid, lines 173-198, pp. 89).
Tier: I’ll be honest, I offered my students 10 points on a quiz, so it wasn’t worth a
lot. But if they wanted to bring Kleenex boxes that were decorated with the theme of the
book that we’re doing, I’d give them the extra points. So I tied it to the instruction and
what we’re learning, and that was great because as a teacher I can’t buy all of those
Kleenex boxes, and you can’t force them to bring them either. So there’s got to be some
way to get a few things for the classroom. And that worked out great; that was a perfect
system (Tier, lines 179-186, p. 9).
Cherem: I think students should be tested on mastering a concept and not just,
“Did you bring the extra Kleenex to class? Did you bring the pencils for supplies?” I
don’t really think that you should be given a grade or given extra points for that, even
though I enjoyed that as a student. My mom said if I had to bring a bag of pencils to get
a free 100, “Of course we’re going to do that because who doesn’t want a free 100?”
And my parents were pretty strict about grades, so anything extra I could do, I did it. I
always brought the extra Kleenex and glue, whatever we needed. It’s not really fair to
the kids who are on free and reduced lunch. They can’t bring extra Kleenex, and they
can’t bring extra pencils and stuff like that (Cherem, lines 201-213, p. 9).
Dual: I used to be okay with that [practice] and now I’m not. Because, I mean,
I’ve read articles and stuff. And like I’ve really thought about it, and it’s just not fair.
We have some instances at our school where our students can basically buy their grades.
Well, not every kid can do that. If you’re talking about essentially paying for stuff to buy
105
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
a grade, I don’t think that’s okay. I know one class where the more a student donates to
the March of Dimes, the higher his or her grade goes up in this certain class. I don’t
know for sure if that still goes on; perhaps they’ve moved away from it. But essentially a
student can get a hundred for 6 weeks because their parents paid all this money (Dual,
lines 395-410, pp. 19-20).
Helic: That is wrong, very wrong. I can’t remember exactly what class it was, but
if he bought something to class, my child received an automatic 100. That is so wrong.
And of course higher-income students are able to receive better grades, which mean they
have greater opportunities (Helic, lines 635-636, p. 34).
Dawn: If students didn’t have the books teachers asked them to buy, they actually
got zeros in the gradebook for not having their books on a certain day. Students received
a zero if they did not have their AP/Pre-AP contracts signed also. All of these grades
counted in their GPA and class rank (Dawn, lines 185-192, p. 8).
Dual: Grades are everything. They determine where you get accepted into college
and what scholarships you receive. In Texas, the top 8% of students in each senior
graduating class can automatically get accepted into any university in Texas. That is
huge because it is based on each student’s GPA. It is a huge advantage to take weighted
classes and receive extra-credit points to raise one’s GPA (Dual, lines 411-422, pp. 20 21).
Dawn: GPA’s really do count a lot for competitive sorting and ranking (Dawn,
line 474, p. 20).
106
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic: Yes, buying stuff for extra-credit grades is calculated into the student’s
GPA. I know some of these kids who end up as valedictorians, and I’m wondering,
“Really?” (Helic, lines 638-639, p. 34).
Tochange: Well, it does make us think, doesn’t it? It does appear that the wealth
advantages embedded in The Game of Life Public School Edition are aligned with
authentic experiences you have all confronted as an educator, student, and/or parent.
Let’s take a quick five-minute break then reconvene to evaluate the next category of
game board spaces. We will be looking at the social effects of participatory funding,
especially as it pertains to school related activities. This will probably be the largest
category.
Agenda Item #4: Evaluate Game’s Board Spaces that Impact Students’ Social
Activities
Tochange: Welcome back board members! Please nibble on these tasty snacks
while we continue to evaluate each facet of the school version of the Game if Life. Dr.
Quo did quite a bit of research regarding the benefit of the traditional extracurricular
activities, such as sports, band, drama, cheerleading, choir and specialized
events/activities that engage/connect students to a unique academic or school spirit
culture. Not only is there an academic achievement gap between low-income and highincome students, income gaps in other measures of education success have grown as
well. One of several studies important to Dr. Quo’s construction of this board game
noted: “A related trend during the last 20 years is the growing social-class gap in other
important measures of adolescents’ ‘soft skills’ and behaviors related to civic
107
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
engagement, such as participating in extracurricular activities, sports, and academic
clubs; volunteering and participating in community life; and self-reports of social trust”
(Putnam, Frederick, & Snellman, 2012).
I put copies of several of the studies in your folders, in case you want to read the
complete text at a later time. Basically, students who participate in extracurricular
activities are more engaged in school and are more likely to attend college. Participating
in a greater number of extracurricular equates to greater educational status. The problem
for many kids, as we have already discussed, is that there may be a financial barrier to
participating in certain activities.
So, that is your job for the next hour. Evaluate whether or not you think
extracurricular activities are important. Do public schools offer all students the
opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities or are these activities just available
to high-income students? Let’s first share any activities you enjoyed while in high
school.
Singleton: I participated in several extracurricular activities, volleyball,
basketball, and pep squad. My brothers played football, so I was always at all their
games. Those were good memories. Those activities made school more fun (Singleton,
lines 7-9, p. 1).
Leap: I was very involved in junior high and high school and extracurricular
activities. I was in student council, a cheerleader, and a class representative. I was in
drama and on the drill team and participated in band in middle school. The
108
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
extracurricular activities obviously made high school more fun. That’s the fun stuff about
school (Leap, lines 17-32, p. 2).
Pavid: I was involved in extracurriculars my whole educational career, and I loved
the social aspect of school. I was in athletics all the time, and I was also in choir,
National Honor Society -- that sort of thing. I tried to tag along and do the same activities
as my girlfriend (Pavid, lines 14-24, p. 1).
Tier: I was a cheerleader and I played tennis, but that was in middle school; by
high school, I wasn’t really in anything else--other than cosmetology (Tier, lines 27-28,
p. 2).
Cherem: Everyone enjoys extracurricular activities. I would honestly say being in
athletics was a huge thing for me just because it taught me discipline. And then it was
fun. You got to know your peers. I got to compete and that’s everything. I did
volleyball, basketball, and track. I was in National Honor Society, Glee Club, choir, and
cheerleading (Cherem, lines 16-33, p. 2).
Dual: I mean participating in competitive athletics in school provided that drive
for me to do a lot of different things. I was pretty much all athlete; I mean, volleyball,
basketball, track, and cross-country for a very short time. I was involved in FCA
primarily because of the athletics part but I wasn’t in like Spanish club or anything like
that (Dual, lines 33-38, p. 2).
Cherem: I think anytime that you’re more involved in school, you’re more keyed
in to school and your friends. My honest opinion is that if I went to school for just core
classes, and I wasn’t involved in anything, I wouldn’t have enjoyed school. You go to
109
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
school, sit through English and math, but then you get to go to cheer or athletics, and
that’s what plugs you in, and that’s what gets you involved in school, excited about
school, excited about showing up to school. And having athletics during the last period
keeps you in school all day. I think participating in extracurricular activities kind of
includes you in everything, and you feel a part of the school’s culture. But, if you just
come to school and are not connected to anything, then no, you’re not going to be as
excited to show up, go to class, and do the academic work you need to do (Cherem, lines
338-346, p. 15).
Dawn: I participated in athletics, choir, cheerleading, National Honor Society,
Fellowship of Christian Athletes . . . anything I could get into, I did. But that was the fun
part of school. I loved the social aspect of it and I liked being with people and doing the
things that I did. Those things are really important to me--the people and that connection.
I just did the classes because you’re supposed to (Dawn, lines 31-49, p. 2).
Tochange: The studies Dr. Quo shared with us seem to be spot on. Each of you
has shared the activities that connected you to school and kept you engaged in the both
academics and the “soft-skills” of schools. All of you appeared to negotiate success in
school by participating in a variety of extracurricular activities. Are your children and/or
students involved in the same type of activities?
Singleton: I wish school could provide more opportunities for extracurricular
events for all kids. It would make school more fun for them. I don’t have money to pay
for extracurricular activities, and my kids really don’t feel connected to the school. The
boys used to be involved in wrestling. Up north, they received scholarships to participate
110
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
in wrestling and extracurricular activities. Here there are no scholarships that I know of,
and I don’t know who to ask for help. The person at the front desk at their school was
very unfriendly. I really do get discouraged (Singleton, lines 53-65, p. 3).
Sports-related activities. Tochange: Let’s talk about athletics or other sportsrelated activities. It seems as though a lot of you and/or your children have participated
in athletics. Does it cost extra to participate in athletics, such as basketball, cheerleading,
pom, gymnastics, tennis or golf? Some schools/districts charge a flat fee for students
who participate in certain activities such as athletics, cheerleading, and dance team.
Some activities require students to fundraise (Researcher’s journal, p. 11). What are your
experiences?
Pavid: When I was in 7th grade I didn’t have anything. I went from having
everything to having nothing. And so I didn’t get to participate in a lot of activities
because I didn’t have the money. I remember specifically getting on a bus trip to go play
a football game in Somewhere, Texas, and you had to bring $5 for your dinner. And I
remember I didn’t have $5. I didn’t want to tell anybody because in my mind I was still
upper middle class, and so I played our football game and we went and got our meal. I
didn’t have my meal money, and so I didn’t eat. And I starved to death and it was
devastating to me, but my pride was such that there’s no way I would have told my
coaches and everybody I was hungry (Pavid, lines 42-48, p. 2).
Dawn: We did pay $15 for a physical exam at the beginning of the year for each
of our sons so they could participate in competitive athletics. I don’t know what happens
to kids who can’t pay for their physicals. I guess the coach might find a way, especially
111
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
if the coach wanted the kids on the team. Baseball did cost a lot. We sure paid our share
of money for select baseball for our sons, especially the travel expenses. Coaches
expected the boys to play summer baseball. And there probably is an unwritten rule that
there are extra costs to play sports. If I’d been a single parent with four kids, I probably
would have a different feeling about what something might cost. I don’t know if I even
would encourage my kid to participate in sports because I’d be worried about the cost.
For example, the boys had to buy cleats, that sort of stuff. Cleats were between $100 and
$200. Kids want to look like the other kids, and I remember mine coming home and
telling me “so and so” got this kind of cleat, and I’m thinking, I can’t afford that kind of
cleat. I would get online and find a cleat that looked similar to the expensive cleat but
didn’t cost quite as much (Dawn, lines 410-457, pp. 18-19).
Pavid: Yeah, the boys’ sports were expensive, but it was up to us [as parents] to
find a way to support those activities, which is ultimately good in the long run. But as a
teacher you struggle. As a teacher, you are not making a lot of money, and so you have to
think about that when you’re spending money on your kids’ athletic activities. You may
go into debt for summer league travel baseball, which is crazy. But when you’re
spending eight weeks in the summer in hotel rooms it can be devastating financially.
Extracurricular expenses certainly put a lot of pressure on us, especially when I was just
teaching and working part-time in the summer to make ends meet. So, I always worked
summer jobs, until I became the principal (Pavid, lines 87-93, p. 4).
112
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Dawn: There were lots of hidden costs to baseball – bats, baseball gloves, special
clothing. I don’t think my husband ever really told me how much all those things cost
(Dawn, lines 277-289, p. 12).
Pavid: Well athletics is famous for these hidden costs because coaches ask their
kids to do a lot. They give them “voluntary summer programs,” and although we’re a lot
better than we used to be, there’s still the coach saying, “Okay, all you got to do is buy
this little shirt to play on the summer league basketball team.” But, everybody that plays
in athletics feels pressured to be a part of the summer league team. Well, again 20 bucks
may not mean much to some, but others can’t pay an extra $2.00, much less an extra $20.
I do think that a lot of times we catch those kids where we can, but sometimes I wonder if
that depends on talent level, and so it still becomes kind of discriminatory (Pavid, lines
159-165, p. 7).
Dual: One thing that I do feel has become an issue is not only the lack of
extracurricular activity funding during the school year, but coaches also want students to
play AAU and 7-on-7. Coaches want you to take these trips, and they want you to do this
and if you can’t afford that, you have to either ask other people to help you pay for it, or,
you know, you have to get an extra job or something. I know basketball girls who
haven’t been able to play AAU because they can’t afford the extra expense of a summer
league. I mean it’s one of those things where it’s not mandatory, but it’s highly
encouraged. Playing in summer leagues is going to make the young athlete better, but, I
mean, the cost of participation tends to leave some students out (Dual, lines 375-382, pp.
18-19).
113
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Pavid: Yeah, the cost leaves a lot of kids out. I spent thousands of dollars in one
summer just in hotels and food and gas, not to mention registration fees, for summer
league baseball. I guess it was designed to prepare him for high school baseball. So you
could find a way to connect that, but I mean it did cost thousands and thousands of
dollars. I think it certainly gave him an early advantage to play high school baseball
(Pavid, lines 376-384, p. 16).
Cherem: Also, along with stuff like that, a lot of coaches want their players to do
private lessons. There are a lot of student athletes who pay extra for lessons, to go to
camps and then play in all kinds of summer leagues, which means lots of traveling, lots
of time, lots of money (Cherem, lines 177-188, p. 8).
Dual: I mean, parents pay personal trainers for their students, and I mean they go.
And we have some girls that do that for basketball here. They pay on a weekly basis to
go to lessons on their own. Private lessons, trainers . . . it is highly encouraged. If you
want your child to get a step-up, then you have to do this (Dual, lines 384-390, p. 19).
Tier: I agree. I think to really get an edge up, you have to start all those types of
lessons early on and be consistent with it. My daughter wanted to play tennis, but I just
couldn’t pay for the lessons she needed to compete with the other middle-school kids
who were trying out for the tennis team. She felt like she was behind because all the
other kids had been in tennis lessons and had been doing that for some time. She’s really
suffered because of it (Tier, lines 92-101, p. 5).
Leap: I can relate to the tennis expense at the middle school level. To begin with,
we had to buy the tennis rackets, which ranged from $50 to over $200. Plus, we had to
114
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
buy tennis shoes, tennis bags, tennis covers, shirts with the school name, and then
optional clothing that of course the kids want, so they can look like the rest of their
teammates. And yes, lessons were strongly encouraged. Most kids take private lessons.
Private one-on-one lessons with the tennis coach are approximately $45.00/hour. We
paid a college student $35.00/hour to work with our son, and we paid for group lessons.
We also had to pay a fee just to use tennis courts (Leap, lines 592-649, pp. 32-34).
Helic: My kids didn’t play tennis, but they did swim. Most of the kids in that
kind of sport seem to be middle to upper class. I do think the cost of participating was a
little intimidating to some families. We had to buy goggles, extra swimsuits, and big
coats that serve as cover-ups. My son’s swimsuits were around $90.00 each, and we had
to replace them each semester because the chlorine was so hard on them. Transportation
was an issue for a lot of kids. They had to be at the pool at 5:15 am, so if you didn’t have
transportation, you couldn’t participate. You wouldn’t think swimming would be an
expensive sport, but it really had lots of unexpected expenses (Helic, lines 408-433, p.
23).
Tochange: I guess I had never thought about the cost of sports-related activities
such as swimming, tennis, gymnastics, and cheerleading.
Cherem: I’d always been a gymnast, so my parents were really excited when I
made cheerleader at my middle school. When I told them we had to buy all of our
uniforms and our megaphones and stuff like that, I kind of felt like it was a burden on my
parents because they were already paying for me to do other things outside of school, like
my gymnastics. When they had to pay for certain things for athletics or cheerleading, I
115
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
always kind of felt bad when I knew how much money they were having to pay for me to
do stuff, and it’s quite a bit of money when you’re having to pay for cheerleading camp
each summer. My mom’s a teacher and so we know how it is to have to watch our
money, especially since there are three children in our family. I always enjoyed being a
cheerleader, and my parents wanted that for me, but at the same time, I knew that they
had to give a lot for me to be able to do that (Cherem, lines 47-56, pp. 2-3).
Dawn: There are definitely people who don’t participate in cheerleading because
they have to go to all those lessons outside of school. It’s an unwritten requirement I
suspect. Those are pretty high-priced lessons at those gyms. Yeah, it’s very pricey,
above $600 a month (Dawn, lines 575-585, pp. 24-25).
Helic: Thankfully, I’m glad my kids were never cheerleaders. I believe the fees to
be a cheerleader are about two thousand dollars a year. And of course nowadays,
cheerleaders have to have a gymnastics background, so that is an extra expense in
addition to the fees. Needless to say, all the cheerleaders were a certain type. You would
never find somebody from an economically-disadvantaged neighbourhood being a
cheerleader. And really, that’s wrong! (Helic, lines 534-540, pp. 28-29).
Dual: I do worry about my daughter later on. If she’s involved in cheerleading,
well that is extremely expensive and I just don’t know if we can afford it. I have students
right now that are involved, and they have to work 20 hours a week to pay for the cost of
cheerleading activities because their parents can’t afford the extra expense. And their
parents are not poor (Dual, lines 365-368, p. 18). I know there are families that can’t pay
for their kids to participate in cheer and pom because there’s so much money involved in
116
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
this. I know that their parents pay probably upwards of $5,000 a year. That’s ridiculous
(Dual, lines 143-147, pp. 7-8).
Cherem: It was kind of sad when I actually had to write the cheerleading
constitution at our school again. I had to have parents sign that their kids couldn’t try-out
unless they could financially support the cheerleader position. It costs way too much.
Honestly, just to go to camp in the summer is $150 for each cheerleader. The school is
actually paying for a new uniform this year, but with sweats, warm-ups, bags, and stuff
like that, a cheerleader has to pay about $800 out of his/her own pocket. They don’t have
much time to get the money either. They find out if they make the cheerleading squad in
April, and they have to go to camp and pay for their cheerleading items before August.
And then there are other costs associated with being a cheerleader, such as transportation
to get to practices and events after school and on weekends. Sometimes we’re way far
out practicing in a certain gym we go to. And so it’s quite a bit of time and quite a bit of
money for the parents (Cherem, lines 132-165, pp. 6-7).
Dual: As a parent, I’m really concerned about the expense, and my daughter is
only eight years old. The studios really push the gymnastics and dance for girls who
want to be in pom or cheerleading. My daughter did gymnastics for the first time this
past year, and they already told us that she was behind because they usually started with
students at three years old. Right now it is only about $60 a month for dance, but the
girls who are cheerleaders and on the pom squad go to a place in town that costs $200
each month. It is almost required for cheerleaders to go to this private studio because
that’s where they get their training. Then you have to pay for uniforms, and they change
117
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
clothes every pep rally, so you have to pay for those clothes. I’ve got a lot of friends that
don’t make a lot of money, and their kids really love to do these activities. Some parents
are struggling to pay for their sweat suits, bags, poms, and megaphones. So I do worry
about whether or not we’ll be able to afford to support those types of activities for our
own kids (Dual, lines 155-190, pp. 8-9).
Leap: I also have a daughter in elementary school who takes dance. At her
particular studio, there’s a big plaque on the wall with the names of the different girls that
are participating in pom squads, dance troops, and cheerleading squads. She’s on a
special team, and this is her third year. I’m paying fees of approximately $1,800 a year
for her to participate. This doesn’t even include all the costumes and tights and shoes.
Next year, as a fifth grader, she will start traveling with her dance team, so it really gets
expensive then. To make a team in high school, you do feel as though you have to give
your kids these opportunities early, or they won’t be able to compete (Leap, lines 124170, pp. 8-9).
Dual: I agree. You could tell the girls who tried out for the pom squad who had
never had private lessons or much previous experience in dance or gymnastics. It shows.
They don’t make the team (Dual, lines 199-205, p. 10).
Cherem: Well I do think students with more money have a definite advantage in
opportunities related to cheerleading and pom squad. I would have a lot more people
sign up for cheerleader tryouts if it didn’t require such a huge financial responsibility
from the family. I actually had a few girls recently come by my room and ask me, “How
118
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
much is it going to cost to be a cheerleader?” When I told them the cost, they didn’t even
ask for a cheerleading packet (Cherem, lines 326-331, p. 14).
Tochange: So, the consensus appears to be that wealth really does play a
significant role as to whether or not students have an opportunity to participate in certain
sport-related activities. All of you have suggested participation in extracurricular
activities are fun for students and keep students engaged and connected in school. Are
sports the only activities in which students must pay to participate? What about fine arts?
Fine arts. Singleton: My sixth grader wanted to be in orchestra this year, but I
can’t afford the monthly rental fee for an instrument. If you don’t have $20.00 a month,
you can’t participate (Singleton, lines 39-41, p. 2).
Helic: I feel bad for kids who want to play the violin at middle school. If you
didn’t grow up playing the violin or go to an elementary school that offered the Suzuki
program, your odds of being in the orchestra are almost zero. My son’s elementary
school would pay for so many Suzuki lessons, but we had to get our own violin. We
could either rent one for about $30 a month or buy one. The cheapest violins cost
approximately $300 to $400. And we did private lessons from kindergarten through high
school. The lessons were approximately $30 a lesson, and lessons were between 30 and
45 minutes long. Very few kids not in Suzuki got into orchestra without having any prior
experience (Helic, lines 313-359, pp. 17-19).
Cherem: I remember at some point I went through this stage where I really
wanted to be in band, but to be in the band you had to be able to buy your own
instrument. I knew that instruments were expensive, and I didn’t know if I would be any
119
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
good at it or not. I decided it was too big of a risk to be a part of that also. My parents
were already spending a lot of money on my other activities, and I think I just didn’t want
to burden them with something else. I knew my parents always just figured out a way to
pay for the things that were important to me (Cherem, lines 70-77, pp. 3-4).
Leap: My son has been in band for six years. He started in 5th grade. We
purchased his first instrument for around $500, I think. We thought he would play the
same instrument all through high school, so we opted to buy instead of rent each year at
$30.00 a month. Now the band director wants him to play a different instrument, so I
guess we are going to pay the rental fee. We also had to pay for shoes, black socks,
gloves, a lyre, supply fees, shorts, white tee shirts to wear under the uniform, travel shirts
and show shirts. Everyone has to pay a snack fee also. All these extras cost over $150.
My son has friends in the color guard, and they have to pay an additional $300 for their
costumes. Another expense is the band trips. Students are required to fundraise or write
a check to participate in an out-of-town band event. And to participate in some of the
band fundraisers, the parents must be members of the band booster club, which also cost
money. Last year the trip cost close to $1,100 per child (Leap, lines 371-568, pp. 3-4).
Pavid: When you have a band trip that’s going to cost $1,500 a kid and you say
you’re going to fundraise but really, those parents are just coming up with 1,500 bucks.
Well, if I’m a parent, I’ve got to find a way to tell my little girl Alice that she can’t go
because there’s no way in the world I can raise 1,500 bucks (Pavid, lines 121-125, p. 6).
Tier: In choir, we actually just kind of sent out letters to our family members and
said, “Hey, help us out. We want to do this trip to London.” And that was successful
120
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
because we have a lot of different family members, so we didn’t have to foot the bill for
all of it (Tier, lines 144-148, p. 7).
Leap: In middle school, the band director highly recommended each band
member take private lessons, so that added another $200 each semester. Our son would
get one thirty minute lesson each week. We also had to pay solo fees when they went to
competitions. It seems as though there were always additional expenses (Leap, lines 371571, pp. 20-28).
Pavid: Actually, the fees for fine arts are less now than several years ago. I was
really proud of our district two years ago for capping band fees, choir fees, and fine arts
fees. I thought that was very important to do because our district had little hidden fees in
different places, and you had different schools charging different fees, but not really
calling them fees. And you would find out, and quite frankly, I had no idea that some
band kids were paying up to a thousand dollars a year just to be in a band. What’s really
important? Is it important to have the $8,000 uniform or to be able to learn to play the
trumpet better? I think having a universal policy that everyone must adhere to will help
create a level playing field; otherwise, you end up with have and have-not schools (Pavid,
lines 141-156, pp. 6-7).
Tochange: We have covered sports and fine arts activities. Are there other wealthbased advantages that may impact students’ engagement and connectedness at school?
Are there other school organizations and/or activities that practice pay-to-play in the
schools? Do any of these costs keep students from participating in school
activities/events?
121
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
School organizations and other school activities. Pavid: You know it’s funny
that you ask that because when we started FCA, we had shirts made – we were going to
do it right! I didn’t bat an eye telling every kid they need to bring $15 for a shirt. I didn’t
think about it. I didn’t have one kid say that they couldn’t. Looking back on it, I’m sure
I had a few kids who quit coming because of it. I didn’t even know it because I was so
busy doing the work of the Lord I didn’t have time to pay attention to poor people. Now
isn’t that ironic? There’s a little reflective irony. So, yeah, absolutely, there’s some fees
attached to some of our activities, and certainly we lose students from possibly engaging
with school organizations because of it (Pavid, lines 448-454, p. 19).
Dual: I know one girl who wanted to be in mock trial and couldn’t because she
couldn’t get a ride to practice on Tuesdays and/or Thursday nights. And she would’ve
been awesome; so . . . I do know transportation issues/costs keep a lot of our
economically-disadvantaged kids from participating in extracurricular events (Dual, lines
481-483, p. 23).
Helic: At our school, students have to pay to go to school assemblies, pep rallies,
and all sporting events. If you want to go to a pep rally, you have to pay a dollar or two
dollars depending, and if you didn’t pay that you will sit in the classroom [while the
students who pay get to go to the pep rally]. So, as a student, that really makes you even
more of an outsider completely when you can’t attend [the school events]. (Helic, lines
521-533, pp. 27-28).
Leap: Schools also have dress-up days, usually to raise money for United Way or
some other fundraiser. For example, students bring a dollar and get to wear pajamas, or
122
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
they bring a dollar to wear a hat during school, so every week we’ve had one of those
pay-to-participate events for the past, probably six weeks (Leap, lines 280-288, p. 15).
Dual: My daughter’s school is pretty good about not having too many extra
expenses. They do ask that you donate bags of candy for the Harvest Festivals. The kids
do dress up for different events such as No Drugs Week and other special days. I know
that a lot of parents will go buy their kids something just so they can dress up for this one
day, just because they want them involved (Dual, lines 267-272, p. 13).
Helic: I especially got tired of being asked to fundraise for all my children’s
school organizations. For ROTC and band, my daughter had to sell chocolates and beef
jerky. In middle school orchestra, we had to sell Cokes and water. These fundraisers
were required, and my kids were shy. They didn’t want to go around the neighborhood
and sell to strangers. For families who are not financially well-off, I can’t imagine trying
to find enough people to sell the required quota of products. Sometimes the family was
required to pay that money. And we always paid. Sometimes the teachers would say,
“Okay, we’ve raised so much money,” and they would give prizes to the kids who sold
the most. Magnet Elementary was always having fundraisers, and I remember they
would have pep rallies in the gym. They would tell all these kids, “Okay, whoever sells
the most is going to win this bicycle. And if you sell this much you’re going to win this.”
I really disliked that practice. There’s a lot of peer pressure on kids and then on parents
too. Then the kids are disappointed when they don’t win the big prize. Usually, the kids
whose parents already have money are the ones who have a better chance of winning the
prizes. Ironically, Magnet Elementary didn’t even need any money. At one point they
123
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
had over $20,000 in their PTA account, but it was habit. They had to fundraise! (Helic,
lines 250-289, pp. 13-15).
Pavid: Schools have become a culture of beggars, and it’s almost accepted for
every organization, every department to ask for money, for funding, and the blame is,
“Well, legislature’s not giving us enough. Well my principal’s not giving me enough; so,
therefore, I need every one of you to buy $50 worth of M&M’s. Whether you sell them
or not is at your discretion” (Pavid, lines 115-118, p. 5).
Leap: My daughter had to sell items from Cherrydale Farms for a PTA fundraiser.
If she sold 150 items or more, she could earn an iPod (Leap, lines 241-247, p. 13).
Dawn: Well, the boys’ coach expected all of them to sell the minimum number of
restaurant discount cards at $20.00 each. I usually ended up buying them all. I also felt
as though I needed to be in the boys’ athletic booster clubs, which each had a membership
fee. To be part of the booster club and go to the meetings and stuff you needed to pay
$20 (Dawn, lines 326-360, pp. 14 -15).
Helic: Oh, the swim team had a booster club also, and I felt pressured to buy the
booster club t-shirt. And then you were kind of required to do certain jobs during the
swim meets. Parents were required to be time keepers at the meets, work in the
concession stands, or work the fundraiser at the Fair. Parents who didn’t have
transportation or flexible work hours were sort of left out of the loop (Helic, lines 249252, p. 13).
Dawn: Cheerleading had a booster club also. Band had a booster club--everybody
has a booster club (Dawn, lines 368-374, p. 16).
124
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Leap: I did feel pressured to be part of the band booster club and also the tennis
booster club. I believe they wanted each family to pay $25. The tennis booster club
strongly suggested that each family purchase a sign for $100. You know, we didn’t buy
one last year, but when your child is the only tennis player who doesn’t have a family
sign, then he/she feels unsupported and sort of like an outsider. It is very highly
recommended that each family get one, and there really is a lot of pressure to find a way
to get sponsors to buy a sign and/or pay for one. They always make it sound so easy –
get just ten sponsors for $10 each. But it really isn’t so easy (Leap, lines 667-685, pp. 3536).
Pavid: I do think we’re a lot better than we used to be. Again, where we do
struggle is in our big expense areas like band choir, orchestra, and athletics where every
kid has to sell five $20 cards in order to participate, even though we say that they don’t
have to (Pavid, lines 480-483, pp. 20-21).
Tochange: All of you have mentioned various other costs associated with clubs,
graduation, prom, ROTC, photography and art classes, the yearbook, etc. Do you have
anything in particular you would like to add to this section of social opportunities (or lack
of) in our public schools?
Helic: The National Honor Society was especially bad about asking students to
buy stuff in exchange for community service requirements. For example, NHS members
had to bring cans of food to get points. When you belong to that organization you have
to have so many volunteer points, or service points, otherwise you were dropped from the
National Honor Society. Sometimes students were required to bring drinks for the
125
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
meetings, or perhaps they were doing something for the teachers, and students were
asked to bring food, a toy, and books. There was always something to bring. And if
you’re a working parent that has to work the night shift, well, I don’t know when you’re
going to go buy this stuff that your kid needs. For National Honor Society, kids would
also get points if they attended football games, basketball games, softball games, plays,
or concerts. Of course all those events cost money and required transportation. And yes,
each NHS member had to buy a tee-shirt also (Helic, lines 437-445, pp. 23-24).
Dawn: Yes, students also had to pay dues to be a member of the National Honor
Society. I never even thought about it at the time, but I guess they didn’t come to the
meeting if they didn’t pay their dues. I don’t know. I think their dues were five dollars,
and they also had to pay for their pins and different things like that (Dawn, lines 624-630,
p. 26-27).
Cherem: I remember another expense in middle school and high schools were
end-of-year award banquets. There seems to be a banquet for all the different
groups/activities offered at school. If you’re a cheerleader, basketball player, you always
had to pay for a banquet ticket. And if you want your parents/grandparents to come, each
family member has to pay for a $25 banquet ticket. Students are required to dress up,
which can also be a financial issue for some students (Cherem, lines 426-434, pp. 18-19).
Helic: Yes, my kids had banquets for all their activities. The ROTC military ball
was $10 a ticket for students, and for her parents to attend it was an additional $20 per
person. Of course that didn’t include all the other extra expenses for the ball. The high
126
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
school prom is expensive also. A lot of kids don’t attend this event (Helic, lines 595-597,
p. 32).
Cherem: Yes, events such as homecoming and prom can really become
expensive, especially if you include flowers, meals, dresses and tuxedos, and prom
tickets. At some schools, kids and parents can really go over the top with parties and
limousines. Another event that is really getting expensive is high school graduation. I
had a sibling who recently graduated and the cap and gown is very expensive, and if you
are an honor student, you have to pay for an honor stole. Yes, you have to pay to be
recognized for working hard and earning good grades! If you can’t pay for your own
honor stole, you don’t get recognized (Cherem, lines 409-422, p. 18).
Helic: Graduation expenses! A no-frills cap-and-gown package is between 50
and 60 dollars. Senior pictures are expensive, and this year, if you wanted your picture to
be in the yearbook, you had to go to a photographer’s studio away from school. So, if
you didn’t have a phone to schedule an appointment and transportation to get to the
studio, you didn’t have your picture in the yearbook. If you wanted a yearbook, it cost
$75. Also, some parents bought ads that cost $200 to put in the yearbook. Graduation
invitations and announcements were expensive (Helic, lines 542-575, pp. 29-32).
Leap: I had to tell my kids that we were not going to order the 12 items they
circled on the Scholastic Book Fair order form. We’re only going to order one or two
books because we’ve already spent so much this month (Leap, lines 296-302, p. 16).
Tochange: Any other expenses to discuss?
127
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic: If you wanted to go on the field trips, you had to pay. Students who
couldn’t afford to pay for a field trip couldn’t go. I remember a middle school trip to Fort
Davis for the Junior Historians. I got a note saying what I had to pay if my child wanted
to go on the trip (Helic, lines 364-372, pp. 19-20). If you had a car to drive to school,
you had to pay to park it. If you lose your ID badge, you had to pay a fee. And if you
can’t pay the fee, I think maybe you got sent to in-school suspension. Really, it was
always something. It seemed that every day the kids were asking for money for schoolrelated things (Helic, lines 575-585, p. 31). It got to be very draining, very frustrating as
a parent. And really, if you couldn’t do something for one of your kids, well then, your
kid is sad, and you just hear about it forever (Helic, line 193, p. 10).
Tochange: It appears that all of you have acknowledged the impact participatory
funding practices have on students’ opportunities to be connected to the social activities
that permeate the school culture. I think you have actually started discussing some of our
next category of life spaces in the game. Several of you have already touched on the
emotional side of participatory funding when discussing how certain students feel when
excluded from activities or privileges because of money. How do some of these
participatory funding practices affect the emotional state of mind of students in their
school journey?
Agenda Item #5-- Evaluate Game’s Board Spaces that Impact Students’ Emotional
State
Singleton: I do feel discouraged when I really can’t buy something my children
need for school. It makes me feel bad when my kids say, “Mamma, I need you to buy
128
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
this,” and I can’t provide something for them. I’m pretty sure my kids feel sad, upset,
just a lot of different emotions (Singleton, lines 81-85, p. 4). My older kids have special
needs, so when they feel they are being left out, they feel degraded (Singleton, lines 126128, p. 6).
Pavid: I still remember the pain of not having the money to participate in a lot of
activities that my friends were doing. I would never have admitted that at the time. My
pride was such that there’s no way I’d admit not having money to my friends. I did not
want to be different. Few kids want to be different at that age (Pavid, lines 280-286, p.
12).
Tochange: Feeling left out and different than the group certainly creates feelings
of disconnectedness and detachment from the school experience. When students feel
cared for and connected to school, they are more likely to report higher levels of
emotional well-being. Extracurricular activities provide emotional and social support to
students. McNeely, Nonnemaker and Blum (2002) noted that as the “percentage of
students involved in nonacademic activities in their school increases, the average level of
connection to school also increases” (p. 140). Most of our nonacademic and some of our
academic activities require students to pay-to-play or pay-to-participate. It appears that
staying connected to school and emotional health may also be linked to the wealth of a
student.
Dawn: It does cost to fit in. Part of it is because kids at that age want to be like
the other person in their certain group. So it may not technically cost to participate, but
it’s a cost for those kids to feel like they’re part of the group they’re in. I think those are
129
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
the hidden costs that may keep a family from thinking the student can afford to be part of
a school organization or activity. The student doesn’t want to be different (Dawn, lines
439-460, pp. 19-20).
Dual: It is difficult if you’re sitting there as a parent and you have to make the
choice: Well, do I buy my kid these school clothes, that, you know, might help them fit in
a little bit more? Or do I buy other stuff I might need more? I’m going to buy the school
clothes, just because you never want your kid to be an outcast because maybe you can’t
afford something (Dual, lines 254-257, pp. 12-13).
Helic: I agree. Sometimes even the little things made a huge difference. I bought
the packaged school supplies sold by the PTA for my daughter Lila. It was more for her
psychological well-being that she felt that she belong, so I started doing that. My other
kids wanted the packaged supplies also; they just begged for them because all their
friends had those packaged supplies also. I guess that might have affected them. They
felt like they were different because they didn’t have the same supplies as the other kids
(Helic, lines 219-234, p. 12).
Tier: Parents should be invested in their children’s education. I made sure I got
my kids whatever they needed to be successful in school. I think a lot of families don’t
have their priorities straight. Parents should make sure their kids have all their school
supplies and whatever they need to participate in educational activities (Tier, lines 114121, p. 6).
Tochange: Thanks for everyone’s honest conversation about this category of life
spaces that address the emotional aspect of participatory funding. Each individual school
130
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
journey brings challenges for every student and family, especially in cases where students
feel disconnected, discouraged, and isolated. Let’s move to our next agenda item, #6.
Agenda Item #6: Implications of Systemic Habits of Practice
Educators evaluate implications of systemic habits of practice in schools that
impact equity and access because of participatory funding. How do you know whether or
not participatory funding habits of practice are built into the game?
Dawn: I’m not sure how many stakeholders are aware of the board policy that
prohibits the practice of asking students to purchase instructional materials necessary to
participate in instructional courses. All fees must be approved by the school board, and
there must be fee waivers available to parents. One habit of practice our district has
recently addressed is our fee schedule. I agree our fees were very much out of hand
before we got our fees on a chart two years ago. Our curriculum people went through
this whole process and they had like twelve to thirteen pages of different fees for every
campus. Now we just have one page of acceptable fees. As far as I know, we don’t have
a fee waiver posted. I’m not sure all teachers at all campuses are in compliance with the
fee policies, and I’m not sure teachers have changed their practices. Principals must use
their leadership role and communicate the policy to his/her staff (Dawn, lines 714-759,
pp. 30-32).
Pavid: I go over the policy at the beginning of school. It’s part of the check-off
form teachers sign, but there’s always going to be a teacher you have to tell, “Hey,
remember you can’t require kids to bring an extra $150 because your activity fund is
low.” So . . . that happens a lot (Pavid, lines 507-511, p. 22). When I instituted the
131
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
policy that we wouldn’t give any grades to students for bringing cans of food, I thought
that the world was going to come tumbling down with our National Honor Society
organization. We’d always led the district’s canned food drive, so teachers and parents
were not too happy with me. You know, the very first class I taught consisted of the kids
who were two years behind and bussed to Wealthy Middle School. For the first time I
got a taste of what it was like to have kids who didn’t have anything enter a culture where
many kids had everything. And so that was a real eye opener for me. That’s when I
realized my students didn’t need to bring map pencils, paper, folders, and spiral
notebooks. I had plenty. I had everything we needed for class. We had practiced a
system of asking parents to stock our classroom supply closets for years. And then after
that, I started realizing, “Okay, how much of that stuff do you really need?” Students can
share a box of map pencils. So that’s when I started community stuff with so many
teachers today. But, it took me awhile to learn. Initially, I followed the same habits of
practice that my supervising teacher practiced (Pavid, lines 416-431, p. 18).
Dual: I’ll be honest. I practiced some of the same habits that I learned from my
supervising teacher. I had someone explain to me why you don’t require students to pay
for books for classes and give extra credit grades for bringing extra supplies to school.
But now I understand. Those were conversations [about equity] I never had in my
education classes or with other teachers. I think a lot of teachers just get consumed in the
mind-set that we have always done it this way, and think, oh well, $1.50 isn’t a lot to pay
for tissue; students can get that anywhere, if they really want it (Dual, lines 430-433, p.
21).
132
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Tier: I think students should be expected to furnish all of their supplies. I’m sorry,
but my teacher comes out. I’m really a big believer in responsibility, and I think that the
kids in these families, there should be ways for them to earn that money. It shouldn’t be
like if you have the money you can go, but if you don’t too bad, right? But have
something for the kids to do, so that they feel responsible and we are not just handing
money to them, because then they don’t appreciate what they’ve been given (Tier, lines
151-157, p. 7).
Tochange: Mrs. Tier, how would you help your child if you were a poverty
parent?
Tier: Well, as a parent I would first contact the school and find out if there was
any way we could apply for some grant money or something to help pay, if we absolutely
couldn’t come up with the money. But, I think that’s where parents typically aren’t
proactive, and I think there’s probably quite a bit of money out there. I don’t know. But
again, parents need to look for that if it’s important to them, and if their child’s success is
important to them (Tier, lines 298-303, p. 14). And sometimes it doesn’t seem like it is.
I really think families have to be accountable and I think that in this country we have
handed out so much and we have enabled so much that families aren’t responsible for
their children’s success, or for anything. I think in order to really value that you have to
be invested in that. And so I think it’s all about the way families manage their money
(Tier, lines 329-333, p. 15).
Cherem: I don’t think that’s fair. I think that if a kid has the ability, the want, and
the drive to be a part of something in public school, they shouldn’t have to worry about
133
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
the financial part of it. It shouldn’t cost anything, honestly. It’s public education. If you
choose to go to a private school then it becomes your obligation to pay for school and
school-related activities. But I think that when you’re going to go to a public school, I
don’t think that it should cost you anything (Cherem, lines 302-305, p. 13).
Tier: I don’t think public school should be free. I think my costs to send one child
through school so far has been probably between eight to ten thousand dollars. I think
it’s pretty darn cheap, really (Tier, lines 316-320, p. 15).
Pavid: It cost a lot to educate my children in the public schools, I mean, thousands
and thousands of dollars for each one. Obviously a lot of people can’t afford to do the
things for their kids that I was able to do for mine. I really don’t know how much a
parent should be expected to participate financially. Some people think that’s the
government’s job to pay for a kid’s education and they shouldn’t have to pay anything.
Then you have people who feel like, “Well, all of us should arrive from endless means
and so what’s the big deal? Everybody should be able to pay.” I think it’s okay to
fundraise a little and ask parents to contribute a little, if they can. But it just kills me
when my kids would come home and I use to get nickeled and dimed to death. I was
constantly throwing money at one thing after another after another, and I can see how that
would be really frustrating for parents, especially if a family is [economically
challenged]. (Pavid, lines 130-139, p. 6).
Cherem: I finally have to say that you have to be fair to everybody and have a fair
playing field for everyone (Cherem, lines 212-213, p. 9).
134
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Pavid: The key is in a perfect world what would happen is you’d have systems in
place, where your school culture was such that it didn’t matter whether you’re from that
$200 a month hovel, or that $2 million home. If you had the aptitude and the ability and
the desire you would have equal opportunity to be National Merit Scholars. Is there a
system in place that will make sure those kids who are economically disadvantaged have
the same opportunities in an AP class as the affluent kids? Right now there’s not a
system in place (Pavid, lines 346-348, p. 15).
Dawn: I think some of the schools have changed so much over the past few years.
They still have the same culture as they did when they had almost all affluent kids [in
school] versus now having a very small number of affluent kids. So the teachers haven’t
even thought about their practices. They still do what they have done in the past (Dawn,
lines 656-666, p. 28). I think it’s a perception of that’s the way things have always been.
So I do think the culture creates those kinds of barriers (Dawn, lines 600-604, pp. 25-26).
Pavid: How can we serve our students the best that we can? We are not anywhere
close to being great. If there are not systems in place, then it just goes back to whatever it
was (Pavid, lines 339-342, p. 15). AVID is a huge part of changing our culture to close
the achievement gap between our poverty and non-poverty kids, and just making our
school more of an aware, inclusive school. Creating a climate that college is attainable
for everyone is the key. And we’re not close yet, but we’re closer (Pavid, lines 524-531,
p. 23).
135
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Tochange: How do we make our schools more aware and inclusive, especially for
poverty students and their families? Do we have systems in place to waive fees for payto- participate activities?
Dawn: As a parent I wouldn’t know that; as an administrator, I don’t understand
how that’s even a possibility not to know. Usually someone takes a special interest in a
kid, a teacher or adult who cares and knows something the child needs, and that’s how
fees get waived or supplies get bought for the child, because it’s not a universal practice
to waive a fee (Dawn, lines 552-558, pp. 23-24).
Tier: I don’t know how difficult it is for students to get a fee waiver (Tier, lines
290-292, p. 13).
Cherem: I don’t know about fee waivers, and I think a lot of people wouldn’t
know. I don’t think the people in the front office would know, and that is who [parents]
would probably ask (Cherem, lines 285-298, pp. 12-13).
Dual: I think there are policies in place. I’m not sure that the general public
knows of those policies. I think that’s where we do a poor job because we don’t advertise
those because we don’t want everybody to know about them, I guess (Dual, lines 285286, p. 14).
Pavid: As principal of the school, I really rely heavily on our counselors for that.
They do a pretty good job of screening those kids as they come in and enroll, but I don’t
know if our system’s good for all kids. Where we miss people I think are those families
that are recently poor, or temporarily poor, and maybe they or their kids were kind of like
I was – too proud to ask for something. If students don’t advocate for themselves or ask
136
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
a teacher or coach to advocate for them, do they get what they need? I don’t know about
that. That’s something we have to look at closer (Pavid, lines 280-286, p. 12).
Tochange: Educators, do you have anything else you would like to address
concerning the board game? Your discussion indicates there are challenges in creating a
systemic practice of habit that eliminates pay-to-play and pay-to-participate barriers for
poverty students. Any comment?
Pavid: [As an educator], you can’t be the determinant that makes decisions that
create unequal opportunity at school between the haves and have-nots (Pavid, lines 458460, p. 206, p. 13).
Agenda Item #7 --Roll out of the 2013 Edition of The “Free” Public School Edition
of the Game of Life
Tochange: Take a minute to look over your game board. We have reviewed the
three main themes of pay-to-play/pay-to-participate opportunities in The “Free” Public
School Edition of the Game of Life: the academic, social, and emotional. Each
image/space was validated by your voice, and by your shared experience. Educators
were asked to unpack systemic practices that might perpetuate inequity in opportunity
and access in our public schools.
Looking at the game board, I do think you have authenticated and validated each
category and subcategory of themes built into Dr. Quo’s game. Participatory funding is
exemplified in the academic theme by its instructional costs to compete in advanced
classes, such as fees to take exams, the costs to buy required books and expensive school
supplies, and instructional aids such as hiring tutors, supplementing instruction with
137
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
additional resources, and providing appropriate technology needed to complete school
work. Also important to the academic theme is the connection between money and
grades – the exchange of goods for grades, the ability to buy supplies, to pay for tutorial
help, and the capability to access expensive resources.
Participatory funding is extremely evident in the social theme also. Each of you
was observant and reflective of your own social experiences during your K-12 school
journey. Sports-related activities, fine arts, and school organizations all generated
expenses and costs for families. Clubs, organizations, and teams used fundraising to raise
money; however, it appears fundraising activities were just one more burden on many
families. The other large category of participatory funding was found in daily and
traditional rite of passage type school activities: pep rallies, sporting events, prom,
homecoming, yearbook, graduation activities. The emotional participatory funding
category really emerged as part of the other themes. Students’ and parents’ inability to
pay for activities, events, and instructional aids created frustration and discouragement,
isolation from school/peer groups, and disconnection from the dominant school culture.
I am sure Dr. Quo will appreciate the educators’ openness to examine habits of
practice. The lack of awareness of fee waivers, the habits of practice handed down from
supervising teacher to student teacher, the pathology of silence, and the deficit model of
thinking are all important themes that Dr. Quo might want to explore in more depth.
The minutes of our meeting will be emailed to Dr. Status Quo. My
recommendation will be to endorse the game’s initial roll out. You have authenticated the
138
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
game premise and conceded the wealth-based advantage inherent in the game of public
school. Thank you for your input.
139
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The Floor Was Cold
We laid on blankets. It felt hard. There were little roaches that walked
over us at night. One little one got in my ear, and it was hard to take it
out. It was nasty, because I could hear it scratching. It hurt a lot when
I was trying to sleep. . . .
We had to wake up at 5 o’clock in the morning because our school was
far away. Sometimes we had to go to school late, because we had to
wait for the bathroom. But since it wasn’t our house they could use the
bathroom first. But at school, we would get truant. I could not go to
recess because of this.
Kimberly, age 12 (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014, p. 26)
The floor is cold and hard for many students.
Participants in this study acknowledged most students do not complain or discuss
their lack of resources to educators. Most teachers do not know about Kimberly’s cold,
hard floor or the “little roaches.” Kimberly does not have access to the Internet and the
use of a color printer where she lives. Kimberly does not have money to pay to
participate in band, cheerleading, or photography. Kimberly will not be able to bring
cans of food for an extra credit grade to drop a low grade in her math class. Kimberly
will not be able to sell $20 restaurant discount cards to her family and neighbors to
participate in a required fundraising project that will pay for a field trip. Kimberly and
her family worry about food, transportation, and shelter.
Although this research study was not specifically about poverty, homelessness,
and unprecedented levels of income inequality, it is important to revisit the literature and
140
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
understand why so many economically-challenged students sit in the bleachers and never
receive an opportunity to successfully compete in The “Free” Public School Edition of
the Game of Life. Data from the study confirm that for the majority of students, public
school is a rigged game played on an uneven playing field. Through no fault of their
own, many students do not bring additional financial resources to their schools. Most
students in public schools cannot underwrite their school activities. In the United States,
nearly 1.2 million public school students were identified as homeless during the 20112012 school year, 73% more than before the 2007-2009 Great Recession (National
Center for Homeless Education, 2013). One in five children, approximately 16.1 million
U.S. children, lives in poverty (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014). Income inequality has
increased dramatically. According to a recent report by the Children’s Defense Fund
(2014), “The top 1 percent of earners received 22.5 percent of the nation’s income in
2012, more than double their share in 1964 and equal to levels last seen in the 1920s” (p.
10).
The inequity is also carried into our public schools. School district funding and
per pupil expenditure is an ongoing battle in many states. Thirteen states spent more on
students from the richest fourth of districts than their poorest districts, and Alaska was the
only state to “equitably fund education by spending 40 percent more per student in their
poorest districts than their richest districts” (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014, p. 69).
McIntyre (2012) aptly noted wealth has “an outsized effect on education at the local
level” (p. 1) as he compared America’s 10 richest and 10 poorest school districts. In
Savage Inequalities (1991) and The Shame of the Nation (2005), Kozol exposed the
141
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
inequity in America’s schools, and readers were shocked, for the moment.
Unfortunately, almost 25 years later, little has changed to provide adequate funding and
increased educational opportunities for many economically-challenged students.
To understand the impact participatory funding has on students’ opportunities,
educators and stakeholders in our public schools must better understand the realities of
economically-challenged families, not so we can “fix” our students, but so we can “fix”
the policies that further disenfranchise poor and working class families. Over 60% of
students in Texas are identified as economically disadvantaged (AEIS, 2013). However,
as shown by the data collected from the participants in this study, even families who do
not receive a free and reduced lunch subsidy are oftentimes unable to afford opportunities
for their children. Also revealed in this study is the preponderance of pay-to-play and
pay-to-participate activities in our public schools that misappropriate opportunity for
many children.
Participants in the study corroborate the dependency children have on the adults
in the school community. Coons (as cited in Kozol, 1991) keenly observed that children
are in a sense “all poor” because “they are dependent on adults” (pp. 176 -177). Children
are dependent on parents, educators, politicians, and other stakeholders who have the
authority to provide or withhold equity and opportunity to children. Young children do
not get to choose school districts, zip codes, parents, and family wealth. Adults,
however, do control many of the factors that open or close access to opportunities in our
public schools. This study underscores the impact participatory funding has on access
and equity to many of the activities embedded into the culture of our public schools.
142
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Each participant in this study validated the inequity of opportunity in the public
schools because of participatory funding practices. Most participants acknowledged their
own personal challenges trying to fund certain opportunities for their own children, and
several participants worried about being able to afford certain activities in public schools
as their children moved through the K-12 public school system. Participants also
substantiated school-wide and district-wide participatory funding habits of practice that
ignored district and state policy. None of the participants at the campus level could
clearly articulate procedures in place to assist economically-challenged students who
wanted to participate in extracurricular activities, fine arts, competitive athletics, or other
school-related events and activities. Participants speculated most students who could not
afford participatory funding activities kept silent; they did not ask for help. Students and
teachers accepted the class system that offered opportunity to those who could pay.
Interpretations of Findings
Guiding my study were two overarching questions: 1) How do public school
stakeholders interpret the practice and effects of participatory funding? 2) What are
public school educators’ perceptions of themselves as gatekeepers or perpetuators of the
habits of practice that may create opportunity gaps for economically challenged students?
Question 1: How do public school stakeholders interpret the practice and effects of
participatory funding?
The first question was answered by an array of disparate voices. Public school
stakeholders, from teachers, parents, principals, district administrators, and an occasional
student voice from the past contributed to the interpretation of the practice and effects of
143
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
participatory funding. Common themes emerged around the three different broad
categories of participatory funding: academic, social, and emotional. Although the
themes and categories overlapped and blurred amongst each other, surprisingly the two
strongest voices that emerged were those of student and parent. All of the participants
were asked questions about their own public school experience and possible participatory
funding activities confronted as a student and parent (if applicable) in the public school
system. A convincing, but somewhat unexpected, student voice emerged. All but one of
the participants were also parents of public school students. Even though I only
identified three participants as parents for the study, a robust parent voice emerged in the
research findings because of the additional parent voice from the teacher, administrator,
and principal participants.
All eight public school stakeholders had first-hand experience as a student, parent,
and/or educator in the practice of participatory funding. Each participant shared his/her
experiences with participatory funding and discussed the effects participatory funding
had on opportunities as a student; challenges as a parent; and equity issues as a teacher,
principal, or administrator. The following themes emerged from data gathered from all
participants: academic (college curriculum & instructional costs, school supplies,
technology access, and grades); social (athletics, fine arts, school organizations, and
school events/activities); and emotional (frustration and discouragement, isolation from
school group, and disconnection from school culture).
The voice of the student emerged from shared memories of participatory funding
during the participants’ own childhood experiences. Most of the participants were
144
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
involved in a variety of extracurricular events and school-related activities during their
childhood. The strong parent voice emerged in all seven participants who had children.
All participants validated the fact that participatory funding existed as a prevalent,
common practice in all public schools at every grade level, regardless of state, district, or
school.
The effects participatory funding had on parents depended on the socioeconomic
status of the participant. The poverty parent acknowledged her worry about paying for
school supplies and items her children needed for school. She admitted to feelings of
discouragement and sadness when she does not have the money or resources to provide
for her children’s basic education. She voiced her frustration with the system that
excludes her children from participation in extracurricular activities at school, such as
orchestra. She expressed weariness as she recounted the extra time, effort, and money
needed to help her students complete school work that required technology she did not
have access to at home (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Purcell et al., 2013).
The effects of participatory funding were primarily seen as a burden for middleclass and upper-middle class parents. Parents complained of being nickel and dimed to
death. Parents were inundated with requests from public school entities to pay for an
array of items, services, and events that would benefit their child. At some point, each of
the parent participants, depending on his/her socioeconomic status, had to question
certain expenditures and say no. Public school stakeholders, especially parents, voiced
concern and frustration with participatory funding and its effects in all three broad
categories: academic, social, and emotional.
145
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Academic pay-to-play and pay-to-participate opportunities encompassed
instructional costs, school supplies, technology access, and student grades. Most
participants did not know it was against board and state policy to charge fees or require
students to buy “textbooks, workbooks, laboratory supplies, or other supplies necessary
for participation in any instructional course” (Texas Education Code, 2014). Most of the
participants also did not know fee waivers were available to economically-challenged
families for activities that did require fees. Teachers still required students to pay for
instructional supplies, especially books for Pre-AP and AP classes. Parents still bought
the books, even parents who worked in a school district and were familiar with state
policy. Several parents voiced their frustration in finding the books, paying over $100 for
the books, and for children receiving grades based on whether or not they bought the
books. Dual credit classes, AP exams, and SAT/ACT/PSAT exams also demanded fees,
and few stakeholders knew how to navigate the fee waiver system. Teachers and parents
voiced concerns that many students could not afford to participate in pay-to-participate
exams and dual-credit classes. Several participants corroborated the opinion that students
were hesitant to ask for help; pride, shyness, and embarrassment were all reasons given as
to why students would not ask teachers or administrators for help to navigate through
pay-to-play/pay-to-participate issues (Epstein et al., 1997; Finders & Lewis, 1994;
Noguera, 2003).
School supplies also posed a concern for many families. All participants
presented numerous examples of the burden of buying specialized and expensive school
supplies. Participants complained about buying prepackaged supplies, expensive
146
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
graphing calculators, hand sanitizer, binders, baggies, Kleenex boxes, Clorox Wipes, map
pencils, oversized fabric book covers, batteries, and other assorted supplies required by
each teacher. Several stakeholders objected to having to buy materials that ultimately
were never used – most notably spirals and special colored pens. Several participants
questioned the purpose of school supply lists and the need to replenish nonconsumable
supplies each year, such as scissors.
Another academic cost for several middle-class parents included private tutors.
Tutoring times offered at school were oftentimes not convenient, especially if students
had to ride the bus to and from school. Parents also noted tutoring opportunities were
only twenty minutes long with many students trying to get help at the same time.
Technology access and costs to create required school projects generated considerable
dialogue. The only participant who did not have Internet access and a computer/printer at
home, spent time and money trying to help her children access the Internet and other
electronic technology needed to create projects for their classes. The burden to complete
school projects was definitely more of a burden on participants with fewer resources.
Other participants also acknowledged the necessity of being able to pay for technology to
successfully complete academic tasks; however all of the other participants had ample
resources and access to technology (Purcell et al., 2013).
Effects of participatory funding permeated into issues of student grades and
subsequent class ranking. According to many of the participants, students received
grades for bringing canned food for the local United Way food drive, school supplies to
stock teacher’s classrooms, books required for class, and other assorted pay-for-grade
147
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
items. Participants shared feelings that ranged from indignant to exasperated to slightly
indifferent. Most participants appeared to feel somewhat uneasy about tying grades to
participatory funding; however, all participants had been complicit in participatory
funding at some point as a teacher, parent, student, or combination of the three.
The effects of participatory funding were clearly evident in public stakeholders’
concern with pay-to-play and pay-to-participate expenses involved in social activities
connected to public schools. Extracurricular activities such as athletics, fine arts, school
organizations, and other social events that kept students connected and engaged to school
created the vast majority of participatory funding incidences. Again, the practice of payto-play/pay-to-participate permeated the array of extracurricular activities available to
public school students. Fine arts, such as choir, orchestra, and band and sports, such as
cheerleading, golf, and, tennis seemed to carry the largest price tags. Parents, who could
afford the outlay of cash, had to pay thousands of dollars for their children to participate
in several of these activities. In addition, these parents were also burdened with the
peripheral expenses of time, transportation, and securing a network of contacts to access
fundraising expectations. These costs made certain activities unattainable for many, if
not most, poverty and working class students.
All participants agreed that the social activities kept students engaged and
connected to school, and most participants agreed that many activities were not truly
open to economically-challenged families (Putnam et al., 2012). Not only were the fees
and expenses imposed by sponsors, coaches, teachers, and schools difficult to pay, many
stakeholders discussed the pressure to pay for additional out-of-school services
148
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
considered necessary so their children would be able to compete in public school
activities. Public school coaches, band directors, and sponsors highly recommended
students pay for individual lessons for band, tennis, golf, baseball, gymnastics,
cheerleading, personal trainers, summer camps and summer leagues. Several participants
expressed the sentiment that students in athletics and fine arts felt pressured to participate
in summer leagues and take private lessons from instructors recommended by public
school employees. All middle- to upper-middle class participants talked about the high
cost of lessons, camps, equipment, transportation, fundraisers, and end-of-year banquets.
The consensus was that in order to compete in middle school and high school activities,
parents had to pay for their students to participate in expensive activities starting at an
early age. Because the expectations in many high schools are for students to come in
with certain skills acquired from many years of private lessons, camps, and youth
leagues, most poverty students are excluded from participating in certain activities before
they are ever aware of tryouts, especially in larger high schools with a significant group
of middle to upper-middle class families.
One of most disturbing effects of participatory funding that emerged was the
inability of many economically-challenged students to participate in the school rituals
and social events such as the prom, homecoming, pep rallies, field events, sporting
events, and senior graduation activities. Some schools require students to pay to attend
pep rallies and sporting events. Prom and homecoming require $25 tickets and expensive
dress attire. Senior graduation inundates students with pleas for expensive graduation
invitations, ads in the yearbook, senior photos taken at studios off campus, and fees to
149
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
rent one’s cap and gown. Organizations such as the National Honor Society require
students to pay-to-participate in community service and require students to purchase their
honor pins and tee shirts. Participants painted a dismal school experience for students of
poverty: basic core classes without any of the socialization frills and fun associated with
the TV image of school culture.
It does not seem surprising that many students’ sense of belonging to the school
community decreases as they progress through school (Marks, 2000; Ryan & Patrick,
2001). Based on the participants’ stories, the effects of participatory funding create a
divide between those who have money to participate and those who do not. In
elementary school, the effects appear more subtle; clubs, teams, and student organizations
are more inclusive in elementary school and do not necessarily require substantial
financial burdens. In middle school and high school, however, the money required to
compete and belong becomes obvious and exclusive.
The effects of participatory funding include the emotional facet of students and
families. The poverty participant was discouraged and angry at the system she blames
for causing her children to feel sad, upset, and left out of the school experience. Another
participant underscored the anguish he felt as a child when he did not have money to eat
during a school activity and the isolation he felt from his peer group for not having the
same resources to participate in activities. He also expressed the fear of embarrassment
had he revealed his socioeconomic status to anyone at school. Other participants
divulged the difficult choices they had to make as parents to help children fit in and
belong in the school community. Participants expressed tremendous peer pressure with
150
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
each participatory funding opportunity, whether it was to pay to attend a pep rally, pay to
wear a hat for hat day, or pay to participate in a school field trip. The child who cannot
financially pay and, therefore, cannot participate becomes the outsider, the child without
school spirit, the child who is labeled by educators as the one who “does not care about
school.”
Question 2: What are public school educators’ perceptions of themselves as
gatekeepers or perpetuators of the habits of practice that may create opportunity
gaps for economically challenged students?
To answer this question, I specifically focused on qualitative data from the three
teachers, principal, and district administrator. The public school stakeholders all
admitted to perpetuating habits of practice involving participatory funding. Many of the
educators conceded they had modeled practices from educators before them. Several
participants specifically referenced practicing the same habits of practice learned from
their supervising teachers. All educators referenced the time spent in school as a student
and student teacher as time spent observing habits of practices used by a variety of
teachers. Lortie (1975) called this time in the field the apprenticeship of observation.
The educator participants modeled habits of practice, especially the use of and/or
endorsement of participatory funding, from the educator’s own personal experience in
school.
Four out of the five educators questioned the extensive use of participatory
funding in public schools. All five were at varying degrees of endorsing the use of
participatory funding. Although all five educators acknowledged its widespread use in
151
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
his or her schools and in some instances his or her current classrooms, none of the
educators thought of themselves as current gatekeepers or existing perpetuators of the
habits of practice that create opportunity gaps for economically-challenged students.
All five educators were aware of pay-to-play and pay-to-participate practices.
The educators each had varying perspectives in assessing participatory funding practices
as a vehicle in creating opportunity gaps for economically-challenged students. One
teacher participant, using the “deficit ideologue’s ammunition” (Gorski, 2011 p. 157), in
discussing the difficulties faced by economically-challenged students to furnish schoolrelated materials and fees, blamed poverty parents for lack of resources. Although this
participant admitted to perpetuating participatory funding practices and blaming the
family/student for not having appropriate resources to pay to participate, she did not see
herself as a gatekeeper to opportunity for economically-challenged students. She
believed that part of her job as a teacher is holding students accountable and teaching
them responsibility. This participant felt strongly there should be no “free ride.” She
believed economically-challenged students would not appreciate an activity or try as hard
if they did not participate in the funding of that activity. Students should get a job and
families should manage their money better if students want to participate in
extracurricular activities at school and/or have the necessary resources to be successful in
school.
The other four educators appeared to be working through different stages of
assessing their roles as possible perpetuators of habits of practice. The two
administrators have had years of experience in different leadership roles at different
152
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
schools. Both admitted to participating in habits of practice many years ago when they
were new teachers that may have created opportunity gaps for economically students, but
both have also actively eliminated some pay-to-play and pay-to-participate practices at
their schools and/or at the district level. The other two teachers voiced concern with
participatory funding practices, but both still accepted many of the practices at their
schools as standard operating practices. All four educators grappled with the equity issue
at some level. The district and school administrator had greater awareness and were both
more proactive in attempting to eliminate some types of participatory funding. The two
teachers who voiced their concerns about the unfairness and inequity of participatory
funding seemed to feel powerless to serve as change agents. The two teacher participants
expressed feelings of sadness and injustice when they had students who could not
participate in certain opportunities because of the expense. Neither teacher, however, felt
empowered to challenge the system.
Barone (as cited in Martin, 2009) suggested that “one of the reasons for doing
narrative research is not to come up with final versions of the truth about educational
phenomena or prevailing policies and practices, but rather to have people think
skeptically about various dimensions of prevailing policies and practices . . . to ask
questions that hopefully enrich an ongoing conversation” (para. 16). All participants
responded about the difficulty of students to obtain a waiver for fees or deposits
required for school-related activities. Only one participant, the district administrator, was
familiar with the Texas Education Code, Section 11.158, Authority to Charge Fees. This
statement speaks to the requirement to “adopt reasonable procedures for waiving a
153
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
deposit or fee if a student or the student’s parent or guardian is unable to pay it” and post
its policy “in a central location in each school facility, in the school policy manual, and in
the student handbook” (2011). The teachers (and parents) were not familiar with the
availability of fee waivers and did not know how they could help students obtain one.
Little had been done to create a system at the school and/or district level that encouraged
economically-challenged parents and students to come forth and request waivers for fees
and deposits that might create barriers to certain opportunities.
Implications and Recommendations
As the gap between high- and low-income families continues to widen, the
achievement gap between children in high- and low-income families also widens
(Reardon, 2011). Only 7% of students in the lowest income quartile earned a bachelor’s
degree or higher (Childress & Leschly, March 2007a), and only one in ten low-income
kindergarteners graduates from college. Almost one third of students who live in poverty
half of their childhood years do not graduate from high school (Hernandez, 2011).
Although our public education system was designed to be the great social equalizer and
open access to all students, it has instead become a class-based sorting system.
Educators who plan instruction that requires student funding to fully participate in
their courses/school-sponsored activities do serve as gatekeepers to opportunity and
access. These behaviors reproduce and legitimize student socioeconomic inequities by
granting wealth-based privilege to those who can pay to participate in courses of rigor
and extracurricular activities that prepare students for success in higher education
154
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
(Massoni, 2011; O’Brien & Rollefson, 1995). This inequity in turn creates systemic
discrimination for the majority of students in many districts.
The findings from this study underscore the immediate need to address
participatory funding practices at the teacher group, school group, and teacher education
group. We must identify and regulate all requests for participatory funding by each
teacher, each school, and each school district. If school policy already addresses
participatory funding issues, why do our habits of practice not align with policy? Is
policy being suppressed, ignored, or are many educators just unaware and indifferent to
the needs of economically-challenged students?
Implications for Teachers
First and foremost, each teacher must cultivate a conscious awareness of his or
her moral agency by evaluating his teaching agenda and taking inventory of his syllabus,
lesson plans, student opportunity expectations, teaching philosophy, learning goals, and
habits of practice. Each teacher must critically introspect the what, how, and why of her
professional practice. Simpson et al. (2003-2004) stressed the importance of the
individual educator in making ethical curricular decisions that impact each student in
his/her classroom; The authors called for a critical examination of curricula “embedded in
personal, classroom, and school activities” and instructed teachers to ensure that the
“selection of materials is seen as an educational and ethical endeavor” (p. 83). Each
teacher’s act (or decision to not act) impacts students:
The curriculum choices teachers make in structuring lessons, the pedagogical
decisions they take, their casual social exchanges with students as well as their
more formalized approaches to discipline and classroom management, their
methods of evaluation, and many other discretionary aspects of their work all
155
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
have the potential to influence others in profound moral and ethical ways.
(Campbell, 2003, p. 26)
Teachers must evaluate the merit of each decision; each act made in the name of their
professional practice will influence the life of a student.
Not only must teachers become hypercritical in examining their habits of practice
in the classroom, they must also continue to examine their own identity and beliefs.
Muhammad (2009) suggested “educators’ personal belief systems may be the most
powerful variables perpetuating learning gaps in our public school system” (p 14).
Teachers must move toward empathy and compassion as they enter into the shared space
of their students. Teachers must build relationships. We know that effective high
schools are student centered, and educators in these schools make sure students are not
anonymous; teachers know their students and students reciprocate feelings of respect and
trust (Cohen, 2001). Students who have developed a caring and supportive relationship
with their teachers are also more likely to graduate from high school and attend college
(Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
Teachers who develop a caring and supportive relationship with their students
will begin to confront deficit ideology through dialogue, communication, and mutual
respect. For example, through dialogue with parents, teachers will intentionally schedule
parent-teacher conferences at times suitable for parents as opposed to scheduling
conferences at times only convenient to the teacher. We must not assume parents do not
care about education because they do not take off from work to attend a school function;
instead, we should assume our conference times are not convenient for parents (Gorski,
2011). Teachers will not presuppose all students can bring $5 for a field trip; instead,
156
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
teachers should remove any possible barriers from attending a field trip in advance and
make alternate arrangements for lunch so no child has to bring money to eat. Teachers
will not require students to purchase a tee-shirt to participate in a school club; students
will be welcomed into club membership based on academic merit as opposed to paying a
fee for dues and/or purchasing a tee-shirt with the club logo emblazoned on the front.
Teachers will not exchange grades for canned food, toys for tots, school supplies, or
anything that requires additional funding from students (and is not related to the
instructional goal). In summary, teachers will find ways to create inclusive school
communities as opposed to the current system that tends to be an exclusive, closed school
community.
Implications for School Leadership
Leading a group of diverse educators forward to create a positive, equitable
school culture is not an easy task. Muhammad (2009) noted that “unfortunately, many
school leaders find themselves underprepared to deal with all of the diverse aspects of
school leadership, especially as it pertains to developing a healthy school culture” (p. 99).
Shields (2004) argued that “one of the central interventions of educational leaders must
be the facilitation of moral dialogue” (p. 110). Perhaps what is needed is the type of
leadership Collins (2001) found to be most effective in leading organizations into
greatness: “the self-effacing people who constantly asked questions and had the ability to
confront the most brutal answers” (Dweck, 2008, p. 110). Dweck asserted that the best,
most effective leaders are those who have a growth mindset, men and women who have
157
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
“a zest for teaching and learning, an openness to giving and receiving feedback, and an
ability to confront and surmount obstacles” (p. 141).
Confronting the systemic practice of participatory funding in our public schools
calls for transformative leadership: leaders with a growth-mindset who are trained to
facilitate moral dialogue; leaders who work with students to “develop meaningful and
socially constructed understandings” (Shields, 2004, p 115); and leaders who adhere to a
professional code of ethics that understands critical pedagogy and empowers others
through a “language of possibility” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p. 15). Leaders must be
comfortable engaging in the daily critical conversations needed between teachers and
leaders to challenge the status quo. Leaders must be present daily to engage in critical
dialogue in professional learning communities, in classrooms, in the teachers’ lounge,
and in the staff parking lot after school. Leaders must continually examine and be willing
to confront the seemingly insignificant practices such as charging students a fee to attend
a pep rally or the more obvious pay-to-play practices of offering goods for grades.
Educational leaders may want to examine the authority of the autonomous
classroom in schools. The self-governing, independent, loosely monitored nature of the
traditional secondary teacher’s classroom hinders meaningful dialogue among teachers
and administrators. The autonomous classroom oftentimes operates independently of
district policy, especially as it pertains to pay-to-play and pay-to-participate practices.
Syllabi, lesson plans, gradebooks, school supply lists, and other individual
teacher/classroom documents show evidence of decisions that disregard district policy
regarding participatory funding.
158
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Educational leaders at the district and campus level may also want to examine
their communication with students and families regarding fee waivers. Although district
and state policy states waivers must be visible and procedures to obtain waivers must be
reasonable, there is little evidence to indicate parents, students, and teachers know how to
access waivers or that they even exist. Although principals have the authority to waive
fees at each campus, it is too difficult (and uncomfortable) for parents to access principals
in large schools. Districts need to have a fee waiver form visible and accessible through
the district web site. Parents could then complete a fee waiver, submit it to a campus
principal, and then visit with a principal for approval. Knowledge of fee waivers and
other types of financial aid information should be made available to parents through
campus web sites, at PTA meetings, and at back-to-school nights. If free-and-reduced
lunch applications are sent home to families, administrators should consider sending
home fee waiver applications also. The additional cost to waive some fees will likely be
small compared to the increase in student engagement for those students who want to
take advantage of opportunities offered at the school. Opportunities for all tenth-grade
students to take the PSAT test and all eleventh-grade students to take the SAT test are
examples of initiatives that some districts have implemented to increase equity at the
district level. Other initiatives include paying for AP test fees for all students taking
certain AP tests and offering study-prep sessions for all students free of charge.
Additional resources for technology use may be one area where educational
leaders might want to focus. Procedures to open libraries and computer labs before and
after school and on weekends would have a positive impact for students and the
159
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
neighborhood families who do not have computer, Internet, printer access at home.
Working together with community partners could help fund the extra use of ink, paper,
and part-time help to monitor these resources. Access to technology is a significant
barrier to learning and opportunities for economically-challenged students (DiMaggio &
Hargittai, 2001; Purcell et al., 2013).
Implications for Teacher Educators
Teacher educators who work with educators in pre-service teacher programs, new
teacher academies, and professional learning communities may want to create more
opportunities for pre-service and new teachers to experience the lived stories of students.
Neighborhood walks, scavenger hunts that include buying required school supplies using
local public transportation, and self-reflective journals that celebrate differences of others
may be used more frequently to initiate dialogue.
Shields (2004) offered the following as guidance for teacher educators: educators
must continue to “address issues of power, control, and inequity” and they must adopt a
set of guiding criteria to act as benchmarks for the development of socially just
education; and they must engage in dialogue, examine current practice, and create
pedagogical conversations and communities that critically build on, and do not devalue,
students’ lived experiences” (p. 128). Teacher educators enjoy a unique relationship with
their students, and as such, the opportunity to create inclusive learning communities. Preservice teachers must “overcome pathologies of silence” and acknowledge ethnicity and
recognize class; an educational framework for social justice must value instead of ignore
diversity (Shields, p. 118). Teacher educators can skillfully guide these conversations
160
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
and help students eliminate deficit-thinking ideology and understand different is normal.
Teacher educators must help their students gain awareness that pay-to-play and pay-toparticipate practices rig the game of school for economically-challenged students.
Recommendations for Further Research
Recommendations for further research should focus on the student stories and
school/district data that dig into the numbers of students who participate in all activities
and courses by SES. Qualitative research that unpacks the stories of students who are in
schools with pervasive participatory funding practices may open the eyes and hearts of
adults who can change these habits of practice.
Digging into data using quantitative research will also give schools and districts
the data needed to understand the impact participatory funding has on certain groups of
students. Districts need to know that only 5% of their students participating in
cheerleading receive free and reduced lunch, especially if 60% of their students receive
free and reduced lunch. Districts should look at ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic
status in every opportunity offered in the district to ensure certain groups are not
excluded based on school/district habits of practice.
Final Thoughts
“Overall, the status we brought with us to school on our first day – something that
was far more evident to our teachers than it was to us – was preserved intact upon
graduation. If our parents were prosperous, we were destined to replicate their success,”
(Fuller, 2004, p. 67). If our parents are poor, we are most likely destined to replicate their
same socioeconomic outcome. Noguera (2003), speaking of his experiences in the public
161
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
schools, noted that “under the present conditions, academic failure for large numbers of
poor and working-class children is inevitable” (p. 13). He contended this is “not because
of a lack of effort, but because of a lack of luck and opportunity” (p. 12). Not much has
changed. Children born into families with greater wealth will continue to have the best
shot at winning The Free Public School Edition of the Game of Life.
Economically-challenged families work hard to feed, clothe, and house their
children. Many parents/guardians work several jobs, live with relatives, use public
transportation or walk, and they still go without basic amenities. Families who live from
meal to meal and paycheck to paycheck are not equipped to absorb unanticipated
participatory expenses from their children’s schools. They do not have the extra funds to
send their children to cheerleading camps, pay for expensive tutors, and provide the
extras that make school more fun and interesting.
As justification for participatory funding, educators often say, “Kids need to earn
the opportunity to be in band or cheerleading or AP classes. How else will they
appreciate these activities? Kids should get a job or fundraise if they don’t have the
money. How else will students learn responsibility, if they don’t help foot the bill?” I
think of Joey, his dark, intelligent eyes that seemed to yearn for the worlds he entered
with each book he borrowed from me and the librarian, a tenth-grade student who wore
the same plaid short-sleeve shirt and jeans to school each day – washed and impeccably
ironed; I think of Susan, a 6th grade student who woke up at six each morning to dress,
feed, and walk to school her four younger siblings because her mother worked nights and
did not get home until after they had to be at school. And I think of my own privileged
162
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
childhood or that of my children’s. My children did not have to get part-time jobs after
school in order to play baseball, take AP classes, or participate in the National Honor
Society. They did not have to walk door to door to strangers’ homes to sell candy bars or
candles, so they could go on field trips. They did not have to find the principal or a
counselor at their school and prove “inability to pay” so they could receive a book needed
for an AP class. And yes, my children could bring ten cans of green beans to class to
receive extra credit grades to increase their GPA and rank in their graduating senior class.
The game is rigged. Joey, Susan and many others watch from the parking lot. They
cannot afford even the cheap seats, much less suit up and play.
Only public school stakeholders can create an equitable system that offers all
children an opportunity to engage in interesting extracurricular activities, a rigorous
academic curriculum, and an inclusive school climate that celebrates the development of
the whole child, regardless of family wealth.
163
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
REFERENCES
Abbott, C. (2013). The “race to the top” and the inevitable fall to the bottom: How the
principles of the “campaign for fiscal equity” and economic integration can help
close the achievement gap. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal,
1, 93.
AEIS Report (2012-2013). Texas Academic Performance Report. Retrieved from Texas
Education Agency website:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/2013/static/campus/c152901023.pdf
Auerback, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding
and analysis. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Baker, B. D. (2012). Revisiting that age-old question: Does money matter in education?
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Baker, B., Sciarra, D., & Farrie, D. (2012). Is school funding fair? A national report
card. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.
Bennet, A., Bridglall, B., Cauce, A. M., Everson, H. T., Gordon, E. W., Lee, C. D., . . .
Stewart, J. K. (2004). All students reaching the top: Strategies for closing
academic achievement gaps. Report of the National Study Group for the
Affirmative Development of Academic Ability. North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Unequal school funding in the United States.
Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48-59.
Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher
development. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 156-177.
Bowles, S. (1977). Unequal education and reproduction of the social division of labor. In
J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 137-153).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Boykin, A., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brinkmann, S. (2011). Interviewing and the production of the conversational self. In N.
K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and global crises (pp. 5675). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
164
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Brown, P. M., Corrigan, M. W., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook
of prosocial education (Vol.1). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bull, B., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Reflections on the knowledge base in law and ethics
for educational leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 613-631.
Buszin, J. (2012). Beyond school finance: Refocusing education reform litigation to
realize the deferred dream of education equality and adequacy. Emory Law
Journal, 62, 1613. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2038865
Carey, K., & Roza, M. (2008). School funding’s tragic flaw. Seattle, WA: Center on
Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2010). How increasing college access is increasing
inequality, and what to do about it. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), Rewarding strivers:
Helping low-income students succeed in college (pp.71-137). New York, NY:
Century Foundation Press.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.
509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Children’s Defense Fund (2014). The state of America’s children: 2014 report. Retrieved
from http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/state-ofamericas-children
Childress, S., & Leschly, S. (2007a, March 30). Note on student outcomes in U.S. public
education (HBS No. 9-307-068). Boston: Harvard Business School.
Childress, S., & Leschly, S. (2007b, March 30). Note U.S. public education finance (B):
expenditures (HBS No. 9-307-070). Boston: Harvard Business School.
Childress, S., & Leschly, S. (2007, April 2). Note on U.S. public education finance (A):
revenues (HBS No. 9-307-069). Boston: Harvard Business School.
Chmelynski, C. (1999, February 23). Non-profit foundations raise millions for schools.
School Board News. Alexandria VA: NSBA. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from
http://www.nsba.org/sbn/1999/022399-all.htm
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational
Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved on December 4, 2009 from
http://cepr.uoregon.edu/upload/Gates-College%20Readiness.pdf
165
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Cooper, M. (2002). Does the digital divide still exist?: Bush administration shrugs, but
evidence says “yes.” Washington, DC: Consumer Federation of America.
Coulson. A. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Educating a profession for equitable practice. In J. French,
S. P. Garcia-Lopez, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Learning to teach for social
justice (pp. 201-212). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Post, L. (2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling:
Supporting high-quality teaching and leadership in low-income schools. In R. D.
Kahlenberg (Ed.), A nation at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for
social mobility (pp.127-167). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press.
Dayton, J. (1995). When all else has failed: Resolving the school funding problem.
Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1995(1), 1-20.
Deke, J. (2003). A study of the impact of public school spending on postsecondary
educational attainment using statewide school district refinancing in Kansas.
Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 275-284.
Denzin N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). The landscape of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deschenes, S., Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on
schools and students who don’t fit them. The Teachers College Record, 103(4),
525-547.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”:
Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton University Center for
Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number, 15. Retrieved on
July, 8 2013, from http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/WP15_DiMaggioHargittai.pdf
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House.
166
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Else, D. (2013). Assisting K-12 education through the National School Foundations
Association. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://www.schoolfoundations.org/en/resources/research_findings/
Englie, J. (2007). Post-secondary access and success for first-generation college students.
American Academic, 3(1), 25-48.
Erickson, J. A. (2011). How grading reform changed our school. Educational Leadership,
69(3), 66-70.
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A
guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Federal Education Budget Project. (2013). School finance: Federal, state, and local K-12
school finance overview. Retrieved on August 18, 2013, from
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Freire, P. Pedagogy of freedom (1998). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed (2009). New York, NY: Continuum.
Friese, S. (2013). ATLAS.ti 7 quick tour. Berlin, Germany: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software
Development GmbH.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fuller, R. (2004). Somebodies and nobodies: Overcoming the abuse of rank. Gabriola
Island, BC: New Society.
Geisel, T. (1954). Horton hears a who! New York, NY: Random House.
Glatthorn, A. (2000). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and
tested (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, NY:
Addison, Wesley Longman.
Glossary of education. Education.com. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from
http://www.education.com/definition
167
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Gorski, P. (2005). Education equity and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 13(1), 3-45.
Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.editlib.org/p/6570
Gorski, P. (2006). The classist underpinnings of Ruby Payne’s framework. Teachers
College Record. Retrieved on January 20, 2012, from www.tcrecord.org
Gorski, P. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education. In R. Ahlquist, P. Gorski, &
T. Montano (Eds.), Assault on kids: How hyper-accountability, corporatization,
deficit ideologies, and Ruby Payne are destroying our schools (pp. 152-176).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Granger v. Cascade County School District No. 1, 499 Montana P.2d 780 (1972).
Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., & Yu, M. (2013). Thirteen economic facts
about social mobility and the role of education. The Hamilton Project, Brookings
Institution. Retrieved from
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/thirteen_economic_facts_social_mobility_
education/
Hamer v. Board of Education, 47 Illinois 2d 480, 265 N.E. 2d 616 (1970).
Hanushek, E. (1996). School resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.),
Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and
adult success (pp. 74-92). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). The alchemy of “costing out” an adequate education. Education
Working Paper Archive. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED508948)
Haralambos, M., & Heald, R. (1991). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. London,
England: Collins.
Harris, P. M. (1987). Student fees in public schools: Defining the scope of education.
Iowa Law Review, 72, 1401-1461. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Nexis database
Hartzell v. Connell, 679 California (1984).
Haycock, K., & Crawford, C. (2008). Closing the teacher quality gap. Educational
Leadership, 65(7), 14-19.
Hernandez, D. (2011). Double jeopardy: How 3rd-grade reading skills and poverty
influence high school graduation. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
168
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Hopkins, K. (May 8, 2012). 5 hidden costs of public high school. US News and World
Report. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from http://www.usnews.com/education/highschools/articles/2012/05/5
Howard, L. Y., Dresser, S. G., & Dunklee, D. R. (Eds.). (2009). Poverty is not a learning
disability: Equalizing opportunities for low SES students. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Jane Doe and Jason Roe v. The State of California, Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, Sept. 2010. Retrieved from
http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/FeesLawuit-Latest091211.pdf
Janesick, V. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry,
and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative
inquiry (pp. 35-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership,
70(8), 24-30.
Kaushal, N., Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). How is family income related to
investments in children’s learning? In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.),
Whither opportunity?:Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp.
187-206). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kendall, P. (1984). Public school fees in Illinois: A re-examination of constitutional and
policy questions. University of Illinois Law Review, 99, 1-31. Retrieved April 4,
2010, from Nexis database
Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in parental
spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography, 50(1), 1-23.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY:
Harper Perennial.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid. New York, NY:
Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Lamy, C. E. (2013). How preschool fights poverty. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 3236.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
169
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Lips, D., Watkins, S., & Fleming, J. (2008). Does spending more on education improve
academic achievement? Backgrounder, 2179, 1-20. Retrieved January 8, 2012,
from www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2179.cfm
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lyman, L., & Villani, C. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty schools.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 153-184.
Martin, V. (2009, March 19). Barone paints picture of education with narrative research.
ASU News. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from
http://asunews.asu.edu/20090319_narrativeresearch
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college
access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC:
American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network. Retrieved
December 4, 2009, from
http://www.aypf.org/publications/HSReformCollegeAccessandSuccess.pdf
Massoni, E. (2011). Positive effects of extra-curricular activities on students. ESSAI,
9(1/27), 84-87. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol9/iss1/27
McCormick D. H., Bauer D. G., Ferguson, D. E. (2001). Creating foundations for
American schools. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (2008). Got books? Educational Leadership,
65(7), 20-23.
McGuire, K. (1994). The current policy debate in school finance: Why does it matter?
Clearing House, 68(2), 71.
McIntyre, D. (2012). America’s richest school districts. Retrieved from
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/06/06/americas-richest-school-districts/
McKinsey & Company, Social Sector Office. (2009) The economic impact of the
achievement gap in America’s schools. New York, NY: Author.
170
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school
connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146.
Mellon, E. (2010, January 2). Poverty growing in Texas. Houston Chronicle, Retrieved
from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6795211.html
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.),
Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3-17).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mudd, M. (2001). Grants for K-12 schools. Aspen Nonprofit Fundraising &
Administrative Development Group, Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Nagaoka, J., Roderick, M., & Coca, V. (2009). Barriers to college attainment: Lessons
from Chicago. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from Center for American Progress
website: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/chicago_schools.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Inequalities in public school district
revenues. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Homeless Education (2013). Education for homeless children and
youths program: Data collection summary (Table 3). Retrieved from
http://ftp.serve.org/NCHE/downloads/data-comp-0910-1112.pdf
National Education Access Network. (2013). Teachers College, Columbia University.
http://schoolfunding.info/category/news-from-the-access-network/
National Education Association (NEA) Research. (2011, December). Rankings &
estimates: Ranking of the states 2011, and estimates of school statistics 2012.
Retrieved May 12, 2012, from http://www.nea.org
Neuman, S. B. (2013). The American dream: Slipping away? Educational Leadership,
70(8), 18-22.
171
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of
public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. (2012, April 3). The achievement gap and the schools we need: Creating the
conditions where race and class no longer predict student achievement. In Motion
Magazine. Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/er12/pn_achvgap.html
Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Silver, D., & Goode, J. (2004). Separate and unequal 50 years after
Brown: California’s racial “opportunity gap.” Los Angeles, CA: Institute for
Democracy, Education, and Access, University of California-Los Angeles.
O’Brien, E., & Rollefson, M. (1995). Extracurricular participation and student
engagement. Retrieved on May 5, 2012, from U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences website:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95741.asp
Ornstein, A., & Levine, D. (1985). An introduction to the foundations of education (3rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ornstein, A., & Levine, D. (1993). Foundations of education (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Pai, Y., Adler, S. A., & Shadiow, L. K. (2006). Cultural foundations of education (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Papke, L. E. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates: Evidence from Michigan.
Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 821-839.
Parker, L., & Shapiro, J. P. (1993). The context of educational administration and social
class. In C.A. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society
(pp. 36-65). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulson v. Minidoka County School District No. 331, 93 Idaho 469 (1970).
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
172
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Population Studies Center (PSC) Institute for Social Research. (2014). University of
Michigan. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/Features/tract2zip/index.html
Puntus, M. D. (1993). Education fees in public schools: A practitioner’s guide. Boston
University Law Review, 71, 1-19. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Nexis database
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using
technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Putnam, R., Frederick, B., & Snellman, K. (2012). Growing class gaps in social
connectedness among American youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
School of Government. Retrieved from
www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/research/SaguaroReport_Diverging
SocialConnectedness20120808.pdf
Rasell, M. E., & Mishel, L. R. (1990). Shortchanging education: How U.S. spending on
grades K-12 lags behind other industrial nations. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the
poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane
(Eds.), Whither opportunity?:Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life
chances (pp. 91-116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Reardon, S. F. (2013a, April 27). No rich child left behind. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://ed.stanford.edu/in-the-media/no-rich-child-left-behind
Reardon, S. F. (2013b). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership,
70(8), 10-16.
Rebell, M. A. (2002). Educational adequacy, democracy, and the courts. In T. Ready, C.
Edley, Jr., & C. Snow (Eds.), Achieving high educational standards for all:
Conference summary (pp. 218-268). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rebell, M. A. (2008). Equal opportunity and the courts. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 432439.
Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (2006). Litigation and education reform: The history and
the promise of the Education Adequacy Movement. The Campaign for
Educational Equity (Policy Paper No.1). New York, NY: Columbia University.
173
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Roy, J. (2011). Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization and academic
performance: Evidence from Michigan. Education Finance and Policy, 6(2), 137167.
Roza, M. (2010). Educational economics: Where do school funds go? New York, NY:
Urban Institute.
Roza, M., Hill, P. T., Sclafani, S., & Speakman, S. (2004). How within-district spending
inequities help some schools to fail. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 7,
201-227.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American
Education Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.
Ryan, S. M. (2003). Fees for extracurricular activities alienate students who would
otherwise participate and should be replaced with alternate means of fundraising.
Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law, 239, 1-22. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from Nexis
database
Saez, E. (2012). Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States
(updated with 2009 and 2010 estimates). Berkeley, CA: Department of
Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 4 (1973).
Sapp, D. (2010, September 15). ACLU sues California over public school fees for
students. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-racial-justice/aclu-sues-california-overpublic-school-fees-students
Satz, D. (2007). Equality, adequacy, and education for citizenship. Ethics, 117, 623-648.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in
education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
174
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109-132.
Simon, S. (2011, May 25). Public schools charge kids for basics, frills. The Wall Street
Journal.
Simpson, D., Jackson, M., Bunuan, R., Chan, Y., Collins, B., King, E., & Mosley, L.
(2003-2004). Toward a democratic ethic of curricular decision-making: A guide
for educational practitioners. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 2(2), 79-87.
Skowronski, J. (2010, August 3). School supplies cost families $600 annually. Main
Street. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from http://www.mainstreet.com/article/smartspending/school-supplies-cost-families-600-annually
Slavin, R. (1999). How can funding equity ensure enhanced achievement? Journal of
Education Finance, 24(4), 519–528.
Staff, J., Schulenberg, J. E., & Bachman, J. G. (2010). Adolescent work intensity, school
performance, and academic engagement. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 183-200.
Stallings, D. T. (2002). A brief history of the United States Department of Education,
1979-2002. Durham, NC: Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Texas Education Code, § 11.158. (2014). Authority to charge fees. Retrieved from
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=ED
Texas Politics (2011). Retrieved August 9, 2011, from http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu
Thattai, D. (2001). A history of public education in the United States. Retrieved October
17, 2006, from http://www.servintfree.net/aidmn-ejournal/publications/200111/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html
Thomas, N. (1975). Education in national politics. New York, NY: David McKay.
175
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Thomas, P. L. (2010). The Payne of addressing race and poverty in public education:
Utopian accountability and deficit assumptions of middle-class America. Souls,
12(3), 262-283.
Trochim, W. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (version current as of October 20,
2006).
Umpstead, R. (2007). Determining adequacy: How courts are redefining state
responsibility for educational finance, goals, and accountability. Brigham Young
University Education & Law Journal, 2, 281-320.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Statistical abstract of the United States:2009. Retrieved
from http:// www.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Public Education Finances: 2011, G11-ASPEF.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). 10 facts about K-12 education funding.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development,
Policy and Program Studies Service. (2008). United States Education Dashboard:
Percent difference in current expenditures minus federal revenues (other than
Impact Aid) per pupil between high- and low-poverty districts (2007-2008).
Retrieved from
http://dashboard.ed.gov/statecomparison.aspx?i=ac&id=0&wt=40.
Usher, R. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational
research. In D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp.
9-32). New York, NY: Routledge.
Valencia, R. R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. Valencia
(Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 112). London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Wassmer, R. W., & Fisher, R. C. (2002). Interstate variation in the use of fees to fund K12 public education. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 87-100.
Weishart, J. (2014). Transcending equality versus adequacy. Stanford Law Review, 66,
477-542.
Weissbourd, R., & Dodge, T. (2012). Senseless extravagance, shocking gaps.
Educational Leadership, 69(5), 74-78.
176
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Yang Su, E. (2012, January 19). Public school, private donations: the money debate. The
Huffington Post.. Retrieved December 28, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/public-schoolsincreasing_n_1216048.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
Yen, H. (2011, July 26). Wealth gap between whites, minorities widens to greatest level
in a quarter century. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Youdell, D. (2006). Diversity, inequality, and a post-structural politics
for education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
27(1). 33-42.
177
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX A
APPROVAL LETTER
178
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT--EDUCATORS
1. Hi, my name is Beverly Finch, and I am a doctoral student in the College of
Education at Texas Tech University. I am calling you because you are a
respected educator in our public school system, and I am conducting a research
study about the impact of participatory funding in public schools. Participatory
funding is a term used to identify all the expenses students and parents are
required to pay so that students can participate in a school class or activity. I am
very interested in your professional perspective of this practice. If you agree to
take part in the study, you will be asked to participate in two face–to-face
interviews. This study has been cleared by the Texas Tech University
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects and will take no
more than 45 minutes per interview. The interviews will be conducted at a time
and place of your convenience.
2. Would you have any time [this week] to help us by participating in our research
study? [If yes, go on.] If no: Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
3. We have a letter and an information sheet outlining your participation and details
of the research study that can be given to you in person, e-mailed, faxed or mailed
to you. How would you like these sent? Thank you. We will provide a return
envelope with the forms for your convenience.
4. What [day] and [time] would be convenient for you to schedule this interview?
[Continue until we have an agreed-upon time and day].
5. Thank you again for your willingness to participate. The interview will be held on
[day] at [time] at [specific location]. Again, my name is _______________
[provide first AND LAST name].
6. If for some reason you are unable to make the interview, please email me at
_________or leave a message at this number _________. I will email or call you
the day before our scheduled interview with a reminder. Also, please know that
you can change your mind about your involvement in this research project at any
time.
7. Thank you very much, [name]. I’ll count on seeing you at ______ on _______
then, ok? [Wait for response.]
179
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX C
PARENT RECRUITMENT FLYER
Wanted:
Parents of K-12 students
attending public schools
We are currently looking for parents! Do you buy school
supplies, pay fees for activities, or spend money on other
school-related expenses for your child?
A researcher would like to interview parents concerning the expenses, if any, that
parents may have in sending their K-12 children to a public school.
The first interview would last approximately 45 minutes. A second interview would last
approximately 30 minutes. Parents will not receive financial benefits; however results of
the research project may help educators understand how fees, school supply expenses,
and other costs impact families of school age children.
Participation is confidential & visits can be scheduled at a time
that works best for parents, including evenings and weekends.
Interested?
Contact Beverly Finch, Texas Tech University Ph.D. Candidate
(xxx) xxx-xxxx or beverly.finch@ttu.edu
180
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT--PARENTS
1. Hi, my name is Beverly Finch, and I am a graduate student in the College of
Education at Texas Tech University pursuing my PhD. Thank you for replying to
our parent recruiting flyer. I am so glad you might be willing to visit with me
about your experiences as a parent of a student in public school who has been
impacted by the back-to-school and everyday costs of sending your child to
school. I am conducting a research study about the impact of participatory
funding in public schools. Participatory funding is just a term used to describe all
the expenses students and parents are required to pay so that students can
participate in a school class or activity, such as band, choir, AP classes, etc. I am
very interested in visiting with you about your experience with this practice. If
you agree to help in the study, you will be asked to participate in two face–to-face
interviews. This study has been cleared by the Texas Tech University
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects and will take no
more than 45 minutes per interview. The interviews will be conducted at a time
and place of your convenience.
2. Would you have any time [this week] to help us by participating in our research
study? [If yes, go on.] If no: Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
3. We have a letter and an information sheet outlining your participation and details
of the research study that can be given to you in person, e-mailed, faxed or mailed
to you. How would you like these sent? Thank you. We will provide a return
envelope with the forms for your convenience.
4. What [day] and [time] would be convenient for you to schedule this interview?
[Continue until we have an agreed-upon time and day].
5. Thank you again for your willingness to participate. The interview will be held on
[day] at [time] at [specific location]. Again, my name is Beverly Finch.
6. If for some reason you are unable to make the interview, please email me at
_________or leave a message at this number _________. I will email or call you
the day before our scheduled interview with a reminder. Also, please know that
you can change your mind about your involvement in this research project at any
time.
7. Thank you very much, [name]. I’ll count on seeing you at ______ on _______
then, ok? [Wait for response.]
181
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE LETTERS TO PARTICIPANTS
Dear ______________________,
My name is Beverly Finch. I am currently conducting a research study entitled: The
“Free” Public School: Opportunity Costs of Participatory Funding. Thank you so much
for agreeing to participate in this research study. Because you are currently a public
school educator who may have insight into the practice of participatory funding, you have
been chosen as a possible participant. The purpose of this study is to examine the practice
of requiring students to pay to participate in school activities and/or classes. As an
educator, you have a vital perspective regarding this practice.
Your role in this study is voluntary. You will not receive anything for being a part of this
study. You may choose to withdraw from this study at any time.
Please be assured that all transcripts of our interviews will be kept confidential. The
original interview transcripts will be kept in a locked file cabinet, and only Dr. Price and I
will have access to this original data. Your name will not be used in the dissertation or in
any possible publications resulting from the findings of the study. A pseudonym will be
assigned to your data, and all findings will be reported using this pseudonym.
If you have questions, please contact me at xxx-xxx-xxxx or Dr. Margaret A. Price at
806-742-1997 (ext. 318). You may also contact the Texas Tech University Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in care of the Office
of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409. You may also call
them at (806) 742-3884.
Sincerely,
Beverly Finch
Doctorate Student, Texas Tech University
182
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Dear ______________________,
My name is Beverly Finch. Thank you for replying to the recruiting flyer. I am currently
conducting a research study entitled: The “Free” Public School: Opportunity Costs of
Participatory Funding. Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in this research
study. Because you are currently a parent who may have insight into the school practice
of charging students fees or buying expensive materials to participate in school activities
or classes, you have been asked to be a possible participant.
Your role in this study is voluntary. You will not receive anything for being a part of this
study. You may choose to withdraw from this study at any time.
Please be assured that all transcripts of our interviews will be kept confidential. The
original interview transcripts will be kept in a locked file cabinet, and only Dr. Price and I
will have access to this original data. Your name will not be used in the dissertation or in
any possible publications resulting from the findings of the study. A pseudonym will be
assigned to your data, and all findings will be reported using this pseudonym.
If you have questions, please contact me at xxx-xxx-xxxx or Dr. Margaret A. Price at
806-742-1997 (ext. 318). You may also contact the Texas Tech University Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in care of the Office
of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409. You may also call
them at (806) 742-3884.
Sincerely,
Beverly Finch
Doctorate Student, Texas Tech University
183
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Tell me about your current role/relationship with the public school system.
2. Describe your own K-12 school experience.
3. What activities/courses during K-12 impacted your educational journey the most?
Why?
4. Describe any extracurricular activities you participated in during your K-12 years.
5. How did your parent(s)/guardian(s) feel about your education? If they were
supportive, how did they show that support?
6. If possible, share a time, as a child, that you might have worried about whether or
not you could participate in an activity because of financial concerns.
7. Please share anything you think is important about how you grew up as it relates
to your school experience.
8. Are you a parent? If yes, what are your children’s ages/grade levels? If no, move
to question 14.
9. Describe your children’s K-12 school experiences.
10. What activities/courses during K-12 impacted your children’s educational journey
the most? Why?
11. Describe any extracurricular activities your children have participated in during
their K-12 years.
12. How did you feel about your children’s education? How did you show that
support?
13. If applicable, share a time that you worried about whether or not your child could
participate in an activity because of financial concerns (yours or your child).
14. If funding/cost was not an issue, what K-12 activities/courses would you have
wished to participate in yourself or as a parent, offer your child?
15. What school supplies should K-12 students be expected to furnish? Be as specific
as possible.
184
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
16. What are your thoughts as to how much of the costs (if any) students and their
families should be expected to pay for school sponsored activities/field
trips/clubs/school programs/etc.?
17. Describe any policies that may be in place to ensure economically-challenged
students are able to participate in instructional activities.
18. Describe any policies that may be in place to help economically-challenged
students participate in extracurricular activities.
19. Describe any pay-to-participate or pay-to-play activities students or parents may
encounter.
20. What are your thoughts about grades?
21. Explain your thoughts on giving students grades for bringing school
supplies/books or other purchased material.
22. Tell me about the students who attend your school/school district.
23. What technology should students be required to have at home? Why?
24. What procedures are in place to help economically-challenged students and their
families access supplies and/or technology needed to succeed in school?
25. What are your thoughts regarding Pre-AP/AP/IB classes? Should college-ready
courses be available to all students? Why or why not?
26. Explain why certain classes may require fees or special supplies? How do you
feel about this?
27. How difficult is it to get a waiver for a fee or deposit that is required for a class or
extracurricular activity? What steps would a parent/student have to take to get a
waiver? Would students/parents feel comfortable going through this procedure?
28. I’m interested in finding out your perception of what it costs each student to
obtain a public education high school diploma that will prepare him/her for
successful post-secondary opportunities (i.e. college, certification programs,
technology and vocational programs). Or, to be more concise, what expenses do
we expect students to incur while going to school?
29. Do you think school expenses create barriers to certain college readiness classes
or certain elective classes? Explain.
185
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
30. [Educators Only] As a teacher, what did (or do) you require students to bring to
your classes? Why?
31. [Educators Only] Were (are) you a sponsor for any extracurricular activities?
Which one(s)? How were students provided with necessary materials, fees,
uniforms, etc. for this? Explain. Did you worry whether or not
poverty/economically-challenged students could afford to participate in this
activity? Why or why not?
32. [Administrator/Principal Only] As a principal/administrator, what was/is your
philosophy on school supplies, fees, extra credit expenses, elective class expenses
(digital cameras, art supplies, band fees, etc)?
33. [Administrator/Principal Only] How do teachers know what they can ask students
to provide?
34. [Administrator/Principal Only] Are teachers given any instructions before school
starts as to what supplies/materials they can require students to purchase?
35. [Administrator/Principal Only] How are teachers made aware of board policy
regarding student fees, fines, and charges?
36. [Administrator/Principal Only] How many students are on free/reduced lunch at
your school/district? What is the achievement gap between your poverty/nonpoverty students? What do you have in place to close the gap?
37. [Administrator/Principal Only] What are you doing to increase the number of
poverty students who graduate college ready from your school/district?
186
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
APPENDIX G
AUDIT TRAIL TABLE
Participant
Interview Date
Line #
Page #
Singleton
Singleton
Tier
Tier
Leap
Helic
Cherem
Dual
Pavid
Dawn
Pavid
Pavid
Dual
Researcher’s journal
Singleton
Helic
Tier
Singleton
Helic
Helic
Helic
Helic
Helic
Helic
Helic
Helic
Dual
Singleton
Singleton
Dual
Leap
Cherem
Pavid
Dawn
Dawn
Pavid
Cherem
Dual
Leap
Helic
February 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 3, 2013
November 14, 2012
June 18, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
May 21, 2013
July 25, 2013
111
26-29
32-33
192-193
345-358
132-141, 157-165
466-68, 477-482
14-15
39-84
782-783
202-214
519-526
548-569
February 3, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
July 25, 2013
February 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
July 25, 2013
November 14, 2012
June 20, 2013
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
November 14, 2012
June 18, 2013
81-82
182-191, 240-244
316-322, 95-103
48-52
532
526-531
453-462
182-192
498-509
255-273
219-226
451-480
321-335
64
67-68
290-292
727-765
265-274
324-329
245-262
265-273
329-333
268-270
297-317
353-354
687-688
5
2
2
9
19
8-9
20-21
1
2-4
33
9
22
27-28
18
4
10, 13
5, 15
3
28
28
24
10
26-27
14
12
24-25
16
3
3
14
38-40
12
14
11
12
14
12
15
19
36
187
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Singleton
Singleton
Pavid
Dual
Dawn
Dual
Pavid
Helic
Cherem
Helic
Leap
Leap
Helic
Tier
Tier
Singleton
Leap
Dual
Helic
Pavid
Cherem
Helic
Dawn
Singleton
Singleton
Pavid
Tier
Cherem
Dual
Helic
Dawn
Dual
Dawn
Helic
Singleton
Leap
Pavid
Tier
Cherem
Dual
Cherem
Dawn
Singleton
Researcher’s journal
Pavid
Dawn
Pavid
February 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
May 21, 2013
July 25, 2013
February 23, 2013
July 25, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 20, 2013
June 18, 2013
November 14, 2012
November 14, 2012
June 18, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
November 14, 2012
July 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 20, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 23, 2013
February 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 23, 2013
July 25, 2013
February 23, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 3, 2013
November 14, 2012
May 21, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 20, 2013
February 23, 2013
February 3, 2013
112-113
72-83
98-103
431-435
291-313
226-249
416-421
295-306
79-88
219-234
191-211
699-700
710-732
73-99
197-200
93-105
308-320
461-506
643-648
264
253-255
650-670
180-183
122
90-91
173-198
179-186
201-213
395-410
635-636
185-192
411-422
474
638-639
7-9
17-32
14-24
27-28
16-33
33-38
338-346
31-49
53-65
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
42-48
410-457
87-93
188
5
4
15-16
21
13
11-12
18
16
4
12
11
37
38
5
9
5
17
25
35
11
11
35-36
8
6
4
8-9
9
9
19-20
34
8
20-21
20
34
1
2
1
2
2
2
15
2
3
11
2
18-19
4
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Dawn
Pavid
Dual
Pavid
Cherem
Dual
Tier
Leap
Helic
Cherem
Dawn
Helic
Dual
Dual
Cherem
Dual
Leap
Dual
Cherem
Singleton
Helic
Cherem
Leap
Pavid
Tier
Leap
Pavid
Pavid
Dual
Helic
Leap
Dual
Helic
Pavid
Leap
Dawn
Helic
Dawn
Leap
Pavid
Helic
Dawn
Cherem
Helic
Cherem
Helic
Leap
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
July 25, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 3, 2013
November 14, 2012
June 18, 2013
June 20, 2013
February 23, 2013
June 18, 2013
July 25, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
November 14, 2012
July 25, 2013
June 20, 2013
February 3, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 20, 2013
November 14, 2012
May 21, 2013
June 3, 2013
November 14, 2012
May 21, 2013
May 21, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
November 14, 2012
July 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
May 21, 2013
November 14, 2012
February 23, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 23, 2013
November 14, 2012
May 21, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 23, 2013
June 20, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 20, 2013
June 18, 2013
November 14, 2012
277-289
159-165
375-382
376-384
177-188
384-390
92-101
592-649
408-433
47-56
575-585
534-540
365-368
143-147
132-165
155-190
124-170
199-205
326-331
39-41
313-359
70-77
371-568
121-125
144-148
371-571
141-156
448-454
481-483
521-533
280-288
267-272
250-289
115-118
241-247
326-360
249-252
368-374
667-685
480-483
437-445
624-630
426-434
595-597
409-422
542-575
296-302
189
12
7
18-19
16
8
19
5
32-34
23
2-3
24-25
28-29
18
7-8
6-7
8-9
8-9
10
14
2
17-19
3-4
3-4
6
7
20-28
6-7
19
23
27-28
15
13
13-15
5
13
14-15
13
16
35-36
20-21
23-24
26-27
18-19
32
18
29-32
16
Texas Tech University, Beverly Finch, May 2014
Helic
Helic
Helic
Singleton
Singleton
Pavid
Dawn
Dual
Helic
Tier
Dawn
Pavid
Pavid
Dual
Tier
Tier
Tier
Cherem
Tier
Pavid
Cherem
Pavid
Dawn
Dawn
Pavid
Pavid
Dawn
Tier
Cherem
Dual
Pavid
Pavid
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 18, 2013
February 3, 2013
February 3, 2013
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
June 3, 2013
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
May 21, 2013
July 25, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 20, 2013
June 3, 2013
May 21, 2013
June 20, 2013
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
February 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
May 21, 2013
February 23, 2013
June 3, 2013
June 20, 2013
July 25, 2013
May 21, 2013
May 21, 2013
364-372
575-585
193
81-85
126-128
280-286
439-460
254-257
219-234
114-121
714-759
507-511
416-431
430-433
151-157
298-303
329-333
302-305
316-320
130-139
212-213
346-348
656-666
600-604
339-342
524-531
552-558
290-292
285-298
285-286
280-286
458-460
190
19-20
31
10
4
6
12
19-20
12-13
12
6
30-32
22
18
21
7
14
15
13
15
6
9
15
28
25-26
15
2
23-24
13
12-13
14
12
13