Illillli'lllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

i -, 3 1293 01691 4461 1

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Regional Disparities in Educational Investments:
Michigan and Kentucky, 1974-1994

presented by

Pranab Rajbhandari

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. Sociology

degree in

Major professor

 

 

Date offiEfa/Le—O 1.,qu

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M animus-m4

 

 

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENTS:
MICHIGAN AND KENTUCKY, 1974-1994

By

Pranab Raj bhandari

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1997

ABSTRACT

REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENTS:
MICHIGAN AND KENTUCKY, 1974-1994

By

Pranab Raj bhandari

Regional disparities have existed in the United States since the nation’s founding.
Appalachian Kentucky and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula are two of the more troubled
areas that have lagged significantly behind other regions of their respective States.

My study looks at regional disparities in educational investments within Michigan
and Kentucky over the years from 1974 to 1994. My aim is to evaluate whether
inequalities in educational investments and opportunities are narrowing between the
marginal and core areas within these States, and whether consequently, the life chances of
young people in these states are less dependent upon the region of birth.

I observe that Appalachian Kentucky lagged far behind other Kentucky regions in
school funding in 1974, but that by 1994 school funding in that region has surpassed the
metropolitan areas and the more affluent West Central area. The Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, however, was lagging behind the other regions of Michigan in school funding

in 1974, but by 1994 had fallen even further behind.

To my loving parents,
Laxmi and Purushottam Raj bhandari

for their continuing support, understanding, love and patience

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor and chairperson of my committee, Dr. Harry
Schwarzweller, for his support, encouragement and unending patience. Thanks also goes
to my committee members Dr. Dan Clay and Dr. Brendan Mullan.

I would also like to thank Ms.Glenda Radar of the Department of Education for
the State of Michigan and Ms. Paula Kinsolving of the Department of Education for the
State of Kentucky for their patient help in locating the needed raw sources of data among
the myriad of others. I troubled them a lot.

Thanks also is necessary to Dr. Ismail Noor for his guidance in the process of
analyzing the data and in the process of cleaning it up as well as other guides in working
on this paper.

Glenn DeYoung of the computer center at Michigan State University also
deserves my thanks for his help with the software programs used in this research.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Regional Inequality .................................................................................................... 2
Two Rural Regions .................................................................................................... 4
Education and Regional Development ...................................................................... 8
Importance of adequate financing ............................................................................ 10

CHAPTER II -

RESEARCH PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 12
Description of the study ............................................................................................ 12
Sources of Data ......................................................................................................... 13
Measurement Strategies ............................................................................................ 14
Research Variables ................................................................................................... 15

1. Funding .......................................................................................................... 15
2. Teacher Salary and Teacher/Pupil Ratio ...................................................... 16
3. Educational assessment ................................................................................ 16
Reliability and Validity of data ................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 1 8
Michigan

School funding per pupil ................................................................................. 18
Teacher Salaries and Teacher/pupil ratio ......................................................... 20
ACT Scores (Achievement Scores) .................................................................. 21
Summary of Michigan Observations ................................................................ 23

Kentucky

School fimding per pupil ................................................................................ 23
Teacher Salaries and Teacher/pupil ratio ....................................................... 25
ACT Scores (Achievement Scores) .............................................................. 28
Summary of Kentucky Observations ............................................................. 28
Sources of Funding ................................................................................................... 28
Michigan ........................................................................................................ 29
Kentucky ......................................................................................................... 30
Comparing The Two States ............................................................................. 32
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 34
FIGURES ................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A (Delineation of Study Regions) .............................................. 54
Appendix B (Formulas For Data Consolidation) ............................................ 56
Appendix C (Tables) ....................................................................................... 58
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................... '. ................................................................................. 68

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 - Per Capita Average Income: Michigan and Kentucky,

by Regions for Selected Years .............................................. 5
Table 1.2 - Percentage of Families Below Poverty Level: Michigan

and Kentucky by Regions for Selected Years ............................. 6
Table 3.1 - Michigan: Percentage Differences between Regions on

Sources of School Funding, 1974 - 1994 19
Table 3.2 - Regional Distribution of Average Teacher's Salary:

Michigan, by Regions, 1974-1994 .......................................... 20
Table 3.3 - Regional Distribution of Teacher/Pupil Ratio:

Michigan, by Region, 1974-1994. . 21
Table 3. 4 - Regional Distribution of ACT Scores Mean Average:

Michigan, by Region, 1974 -..l994 .. 22
Table 3.5 - Kentucky Percentage Differences between Regions on

Sources of School Funding, 1974-1994 ........................................... 24
Table 3.6 - Regional Distribution of Average Teacher's Salary:

Kentucky, by Region, 1974 - 1994 25
Table 3.7 - Regional Distribution of Teacher/Pupil Ratio.

Kentucky, by Region, 1974- 1994.. ... 26
Table 3. 8 - Regional Distribution of ACT Scores Mean Average:

Kentucky, by Region for 1974-1994“ 27
Table 3. 9- Local, State, Federal Funding Per Pupil as ”Percent of

Total Funding: Michigan, by Regions, 1974-1994 30
Table 3.10 - Local, State, Federal Funding Per Pupil as Percent of

Total Funding: Kentucky, by Region for 1974-1994 31
Table A - School Funding Per Pupil by Source:

Michigan, by Region, 1974-1994 58
Table B - School Funding Per Pupil by Source:

Kentucky, by Region for 1974-1994 59
Table C - Average Teacher’s Salary and Teacher/Pupil Ratio:

Michigan, by Region for 1974-1994 .............................. 60
Table D - Average Teacher’s Salary and Teacher/Pupil Ratio:

Kentucky, by Region, 1974-1994 .......................................... 61
Table E - ACT Scores Mean Average:

Michigan, by Region, 1974-1994 .......................................... 62
Table F - ACT Scores Mean Average:

Kentucky, by Region, 1974-1994 63

vii

Table G - Ninth Graders Graduating from High School .................................. 64
Table H - Consumer Price Index, 1974 - 1994 ............................................ 65

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l - Michigan: School Funding Total Per Pupil: 1974-1994 ..................
Figure 2 - Michigan: Teacher's Salary Average: 1974 -1994 ...............................
Figure 3 - Michigan: Teacher/Pupil Ratio Average: 1974 - 1994 ........................
Michigan: Comprehensive ACT Scores Average, 1974 - 1994 .. .........
Kentucky: School Funding Total Per Pupil: 1974 -1994 .....................
Kentucky: Teacher's Salary Average, 1974 - 1994 ..............................
Kentucky: Teacher/Pupil Ratio Average, 1974 - 1994 ........................
Kentucky: Comprehensive ACT Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9 - Michigan: Lower Peninsula: Funding from Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 -l994 ...........

Figure 10 - Michigan Lower Peninsula: School Funding Per Pupil by

.. 40
40
41
41
42
42
43
.. 43

44

Source, 1974 - 1994 ............................................................................ 44
Figure 11 - Michigan Upper Peninsula: School Funding Per Pupil

by Source, 1974 - 1994 ....................................................................... 45
Figure 12 - Michigan Upper Peninsula Funding for Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 -l994 ........... 45
Figure 13 - Michigan Metro Areas: School Funding Per Pupil

by Source, 1974 -1994 ........................................................................ 46
Figure 14 - Michigan Metro Areas: Funding from Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 -1994 ....... 46
Figure 15 - Kentucky Appalachian Region: Funding from Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 - 1994 .. 47
Figure 16 - Kentucky WestCentral Region: Funding from Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 -l994 47
Figure 17 - Kentucky Metro Areas: Funding from Local, State, Federal

Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 -1994 48
Figure 18 - Kentucky WestCentral Region: School Funding Per Pupil

by Source, 1974-1994 ....................................................... 48
Figure 19 - Kentucky Metro Areas: School Funding Per Pupil

by Source, 1974-1994 .. ................................................................. . 49
Figure 20 - Kentucky Appalachian Region: School Funding Per Pupil

by Source, 1974-1994 ..................................................................... 49
Figure 21 - Michigan: ACT English Scores Average, 1974 - 1994 ........................ . 50
Figure 22 - Michigan: ACT Math Scores Average, 1974 - 1994 ........................... 50
Figure 23 - Michigan: ACT Reading Scores Average, 1974 - 1994 51
Figure 24 - Michigan: ACT Science Scores Average, 1974 -l994 . . . . 51

ix

Figure 25 - Kentucky: ACT English Score Average, 1974-1994 52

Figure 26 - Kentucky: ACT Math Scores Average, 1974-1994 .......................... 52
Figure 27 - Kentucky: ACT Reading Scores Average, 1974-1994 . . . . 53
Figure 28 - Kentucky: ACT Science Scores Average, 1974-1994 ...................... 53

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and Appalachian Kentucky have been economically
marginalized “backyards” of their respective States. For many years they were
neglected, forgotten places. These regional inequalities had and continue to have social
consequences for people living in these regions.

The research reported here explores regional differentials in investment in
Michigan and Kentucky over a period of twenty years, from 1974 through 1994.
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is compared with Michigan's Lower Peninsula and
metropolitan areas. Appalachian Kentucky is compared with West/Central Kentucky and
Kentucky's metropolitan areas. My aim is to explore whether improvements have been
made over the years in reducing the educational opportunity gap between the "core" and
the "marginal" areas in these two states. Sher (1981) points out that country schools have
been left off national educational agendas as country roads have been left off national
maps. This neglect has had long-lasting and negative effects. Due to inadequate funding
many rural schools fell into disrepair and became materially poorer in comparison with
more affluent suburban schools.

The mistreatment of rural, marginal areas and their schools goes against
egalitarian American ideals. According to Williams (1970), the “avowal of equality” and
its practice has been a persistent theme through most of American history. Even modern
economic organizations, which epitrnomize inequality, stress the equality of opportunity.
But Smith (1979) states that, “The American way of life presents a sharp contrast

between the rhetoric of liberty, freedom and justice, with its equalitarian overtones, and
the reality of a relatively unconstrained capitalist economy which inevitably generates
inequality.” Lyson and Falk (1993) lament that throughout the long periods of economic
growth in the United States since WWII, there are still rural regions which are stagnating
and, in some cases, declining.

Thus, there seems to be an increasing disparity among the regions within the
United States which is reflected in the deteriorating condition of schools in different
regions. Berliner and Biddle (1995) state that “...although many Americans do not
realize it, family incomes and financial support for schools are much more poorly
distributed in our country than in other industrialized nations. This means that in the
United States, very privileged students attend some of the world’s best private and
public schools, but it also means that large numbers of students who are truly
disadvantaged attend public schools whose support is far below that permitted in other
Western democracies. Thus, opportunities are not equal in America’s schools. As a
result, the achievements of students that.cater to the rich and the poor in our country are
also far from equal.” (Berliner and Biddle, 1995)

The questions my research tries to answer are whether during the past two
decades, starting from the mid-seventies, Kentucky and Michigan as States have
alleviated regional inequalities pertaining to educational financing and, secondly,

whether such efforts are reflected in changes in the levels of educational achievement.

Regional Inguality
Labao (1990) suggests that, “. . .space affects social relations because historical

conditions are embodied in location. Uneven development within and between regions
means that wealth and poverty are differently dispersed. Morever, capital tends to build
upon pre-existing inequalities, which leads to their further entrenchment. Rural areas
have continued to lag behind urban areas on virtually all socioeconomic indicators, and
recently the gap has widened.” Falk and Lyson (1993) believe that when looked at from
a broader theoretical context, the dismal economic conditions found in many rural

regions today can be seen as part and parcel of an historical process of uneven

development in the United States.

The peripheral regions found within the states of the United States (Beaulieu and
Mulkey, 1995; Smith, 1979) can be seen as similar to the nations on the periphery in the
world system (Wallerstein, 1984). These marginal areas are also known as internal
colonies, places of exploitation. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, with its history of
extraction and logging industries, and Appalachian Kentucky, with its coal industry and
. subsistence agriculture, are marginal areas in their respective States.

Billings and Tickamyer (1993) point out the role of societal structure in the
creation of poverty in certain areas. According to Billings and Tickamyer, the sources of
poverty are found in the structure of the local economy, employment opportunities and
the linkage to the larger economy. West (1976) states that the poor are poor because of
the nature of the system of ownership, production and distribution. In other words,
regional poverty results from structural inequality pervasive within the societal system.

The inner city ghettos infested with crime, drugs and social problems must also
be counted as poor, marginal regions/areas within the United States. Kozol (1991) in
“Savage Inequalities,” explored and described the extreme disparities present in the
schools adjacent to each other in the inner cities and the suburbs. In the process of doing
so, he looked at East St. Louis; the Southside of Chicago; New York City; Camden,
New Jersey; Washington, DC; and San Antonio. Kozol notes the similar though slightly
different nature of poverty between inner city schools and rural schools. “Children in the
rural districts of Kentucky, northern Maine, and Arkansas, for instance, face a number of
the problems we have seen in East St. Louis and Chicago, though the nature of the
poverty in rural schools is often somewhat different.” (Kozol, 1991) While Kozol
focused on the inner cities, my study focuses on two rural, marginalized regions in the
States of Michigan and Kentucky.

Urban poverty is serious. But, so is poverty in the countryside. There has been a
lot of concern about inner city decay in the United States, and rightly so. But, according
to Deavers and Hoppe (1992) and Jensen and Tienda (1989), rural poverty is as severe as
poverty in urban places. Jenssen and McLaughlin (1995) state that, "Original
computations from the US Census Bureau’s 1990 Current Population Survey show that

the poverty rate in nonmetropolitan areas is higher than that in metropolitan areas (15.9
percent and 12.1 percent, respectively), and is almost as high as that in central cities of
metropolitan areas (18.7 percent). Morever, when key race/ethnic groups are considered
separately, poverty rates are consistently highest in nonmetropolitan America."
Wilkinson (1995) discusses the work of Osha Gray Davidson, in Broken Heartland
(1990), in which Davidson reports that conditions in America’s rural communities are
far worse than is generally recognized. "Contrary to national assumptions of rural
tranquility, many small towns - even those white picket-fenced hamlets in the United
States warrant the label “ghetto.” No other word so vividly, and yet so accurately,
conveys the air of ruin and desolation that now hangs over rural communities. It speaks
of the relentless deterioration of health-care systems, schools, roads, buildings, and the
emergence of homelessness, hunger and poverty. It speaks, too, of the inevitable
outrnigration of the best and brightest youths." (Wilkinson, 1995)

Jacqueline Jones (1995) describes rural distressed communities in America:

Within some of the most scenic areas of the country, not far from the interstate
highway, rustic campground, or upscale resort, lie scattered distressed
communities. In parts of New England - the back country of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and western Massachusetts - in upstate New York and
down through the southern Appalachians, households struggle to make do during
annual depressions, each winter time.

Thus, my research is being conducted to study the hidden yet pervasive nature of
poverty, perpetuated by structural impediments, in the rural regions of the United States.

Two Rural Regions
The Northern Great Lakes cutover region and the Appalachian mountain region

are generally recognized to have been two of the most difficult rural problem areas in the
United States during the 19305 and 19408. Michigan's Upper Peninsula and Appalachian
Kentucky are located within these problem areas and, in many respects, reflect the issues
that have characterized them (Schwarzweller, Mangalam, Brown, 1977; Billings and
Tickamyer, 1993; Schwarzweller and Lean, 1993; Falk and Lyson, 1993; Robinson,

1969)

These two rural regions are distinctly different and have tended to lag behind the
rest of their respective states in terms of economic and industrial development. Table 1.1
shows that, from 1959 to 1989, per capita incomes in the two regions have been 70
percent or less of their respective states. (Noor, 1996) The percentage of families below

the poverty line was much greater in Appalachian Kentucky in comparison with

West/Central Kentucky, from 1969 to 1989.

Table 1.1: Per Capita Average Income: Michigan and Kentucky,
by Regions for Selected Years

 

 

 

Michigan:
Average Income Per Capita ($)

Region 1959 1969 1974 1979 1985 1987 1989
LowerPeninsula $1,962 $3,392 $4,797 $7,761 $11,017 $12,101 $14,290
Upper Peninsula $1,392 $2,360 $3,509 $5,654 $7,661 $8,296 $10,273
(Upper Peninsula
Average
as percentage of Lower
Peninsula) 70.9 69.6 73.1 72.9 69.5 68.6 71.9
Kentucky:

Average Income Per Capita ($)

Region 1959 1969 1974 1979 1985 1989
West/Central Region $1,462 $2,628 $3,942 $6,288 $9,215 $11,917
Appalachian Kentucky $831 $1,613 $2,773 $4,774 $6,291 $7,934
(Appalachian Kentucky as
percentage of WestCentral
Kentucky) 56.8 61.4 70.3 75.9 68.3 66.6

 

Source: County and City Data Book, 1962-1980, and US Census Reports 1950.1 990. (see Noor
1996).

According to Noor (1996), poverty levels are higher in both Michigan's Upper
Peninsula as well as in Appalachian Kentucky in comparison with other areas of their
respective States. Table 1.2 shows that in Appalachian Kentucky, 45 percent of families
were below the poverty line in 1969. Poverty decreased to 22.3 percent in 1979, but
increased again to 36 percent in 1989. The percentage of families below the poverty line
for West/Central Kentucky was 25.3 in 1969, 12.6 in 1979 and 15.5 in 1989.

The percentage of families below the poverty line in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
was 11.7 in 1969, 8.6 in 1979, and 11 in 1989. The percentage below the poverty line in
the Lower Peninsula was 7.1 in 1969, 8.2 in 1979, and 10.2 in 1989. According to Blank
(1995), poverty has hovered at around 11 to 15 percent for the United States in general.
According to Blank's statistics on poverty rates, Appalachian Kentucky lags far behind

all the regions while the Upper Peninsula Michigan hovers around the average.

Table 1.2: Percentage of Families Below Poverty Level: Michigan and
Kentucky, by Regions for Selected Years

 

 

 

Michigan

Region/State 1969 1979 1989
Lower Peninsula Michigan 7.1 8.2 10.2
Upper Peninsula Michigan 11.7 8.6 11.0
Michigan Total 7.3 8.2 10.2
Kentucky

Region/State 1969 1979 1989
West/Central Region 25.3 12.6 15.5
Appalachian Kentucky 45.0 22.3 36.0
Kentucky Total 29.2 14.6 19.2

 

Sources: US Census, 1970, 1980, and 1990 (see Noor
1996)

The economic marginalization of Upper Peninsula Michigan and Appalachian
Kentucky is also reflected in the writings of the authors who have studied and made
these regions the focus of their work. Schwarzweller and Lean (1993) write, “...at least
in Michigan, where the north country is a peninsula that stands geographically apart
from the state’s industrial heartland, this region, once regarded as a major problem area
in America continues to struggle for recognition and respect.” Davidson and
Schwarzweller (1995) state that Upper Peninsula Michigan is marginal and far removed
from the major centers of population, industrial activity and political power. Due to its
remoteness, Upper Peninsula Michigan is often overlooked and forgotten by those
residing downstate in the Lower Peninsula. Schwarzweller and Lean (1993) also observe
that there are some significant differences between the Upper Peninsula and the Lower
Peninsula in labor market structure (industrial composition of the labor force),
availability of work (unemployment rates), and the opportunity of individuals and their
families to generate good incomes. The chances of finding employment (especially for a
young man or woman starting out on a work career), acquiring an upper-level position
(professional, technical, managerial, administrative, skilled), and drawing a decent wage
or salary, are better downstate.

In the same vein, authors writing about Appalachia describe it thus: “Appalachia
is, as Frost noted, made up of the back yards of nine states. With the exception of West
Virginia, no single state has been primarily concerned with Appalachia. Back yards are
often a nuisance, and the states have preferred to use what political influence they had in
Washington to improving their front yards. Because of this, there was never any
sustained and powerful political pressure to improve conditions in Appalachia as a
whole” (Munn, 1976). “The parallels between Third World, nonsocialist,
underdeveloped countries and advanced capitalist nations, on the one hand, and
Appalachia and metropolitan America, on the other, are striking!” (Dix, 1976).

The Appalachian educational system is described to be in dismal condition as
well. Branscome (1976) writes that the educational experience in Appalachia is surreal

and degrading. High schools there channel, they do not educate. Standardized tests have

also shown that the IQs of school children in the Appalachia have declined from ‘A to 1/2
a point each year for 13 years.

The above narration highlights the disparities between the marginal and core
regions within the States of Michigan and Kentucky. F alk and Lyson (1993) state that,
“...uneven development is really a characterization of some geographical feature:
whether within a neighborhood, a town, a city, a county, a state, a region, a nation, or the
world, not all areas are economic equals. And, any measures of this are driven by
curiosity about how unequal or uneven these areas are. Thus, by whatever measure
(education, income, births, deaths, etc.) the intent is the same: to know how alike any
two or more areas are. The aim of this study is to use investments in education to

measure the persistence of disparities within the regions of Michigan and Kentucky.

Education and Rggional Development

As mentioned by Falk and Lyson (1993), education can be used as a measure of
equality among areas. Education is taken as a component of human capital which adds to
the returns an individual has by investing in it. According to Smith, Beaulieu and
Seraphine (1995), “The notion of human capital, introduced by Becker (1962) and
Schultz (1962), regards education in a manner analogous to financial capital, wherein
individuals invest in further increments of education according to rational calculations of
returns on their investment. From the outset, social capital was designed to serve as a
conceptual extension of the theory of human capital, one in which the formal and
informal education and training of an individual is regarded as a form of capital.” The
physical, financial and human capital are respectively the physical materials, financial
resources and human skills and capacities (Duncan and Hofferth, 1995).

Lyson (1995) states that the stock of human capital in rural places is not up to
urban standards and that many social scientists have argued that the human capital of
rural places must be enhanced for it to close its gap with urban areas. Mulkey and
Beaulieu (1995) reiterate Lyson when they say that the skill and abilities of rural
residents are increasingly important to the growth and development and to the success of

rural communities.

Education is generally regarded as a viable means to enhance the life chances of
young people in poverty situations. In our modern, technologically sophisticated society
education has become one of the more important channels for attaining upward social
mobility. Williams (1970) states that “not only do the schools transmit the culture, they
also winnow and sift the individuals who pass through them. If there is to be even
nominally free access to the better paid and prestige-carrying occupations, the necessary
education must be open to all who have the capacities and motivation to acquire it.”

Education, even more so "good education," has been regarded as vital by
Durkheim and John Dewey. “Society can survive only if there exists among its members
a suflicient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this
homogeneity by fixing the child, from the beginning, the essential similarities that
collective life demands” (Durkheim, 1956). Durkheim emphasized the necessity of the
State to get involved in the education of its citizens because education is an essentially
social function. Dewey (1964) stated that, “Only by being true to the full growth of all
individuals who make it up, can society by any chance be true to itself. And in the self-
direction thus given, nothing counts as much as the school...”

According to Williams (1970), there is and has been a widespread ‘faith in
education’ within the United States which has been observed by both native and foreign
observers. To some Americans, education is a magic panacea though there is widespread
disaffection, criticism and low esteem towards it as well amongst others. Education is
usually taken as the panacea for societal inequalities. People need to develop their skills
to enable them to compete in the system and in the modern world. This narrow
perspective in taking education as the panacea and the tendency to turn a blind eye
towards the inherent faults in the pervasive system and the historical disadvantage that
peripheral regions have had (Noble, 1994; Lobao, 1990) has been highly criticized.

But according to Snipp (1995) education is synonymous with economic
opportunities. Education is the equalizer which makes economic opportunities available
to those of otherwise disadvantaged origins. This perspective is also echoed by Labao
(1990) who states that education broadens the mind and inculcates skills necessary for
complete social and political participation. Higher educational attainments among poorly

lO

educated people can allow them to compete for better quality jobs which in turn would
lead to decrease in income inequality across areas. But a significant educational upgrade
cannot be brought about without extensive investment in local schools and this, of
course is more difficult for poorer communities. Therefore, one can argue that the poorer

communities should receive greater subsidization from the federal government.

Imgortance of adequate financing
“Unequal education is perpetuated in the ways schools are financed. About half

of the elementary and secondary school expenditures are financed by local property
taxes and most of the remainder by state revenues, with only 10 percent financed by the
federal government. Children in poorer states and localities are thus limited by lower
educational expenditures“ (Labao, 1990). Adequate financing is important in providing
quality education to all students and in giving equal opportunities to disadvantaged
youth in rural areas. Poor rural areas lag behind other areas in providing adequate

education to its youth.

Hobbs (1995) states that:

Although academic performance of students, whether rural or urban, is not
greatly affected by expenditures per pupil, financial support is nevertheless
essential to retaining quality schools. Compared to urban schools, there is greater
variation in level of frmding for rural schools. There are far more “poor” rural
districts and generally rural localities find it necessary to commit a higher
proportion of local government revenues to education in order to keep school
doors open. Jansen (1991), for example, reports that in 1982, nonmetropolitan
counties outspent metropolitan counties for education in all but seven states.
...At the local district level, even with some equalization of funding through
state and federal supplements, low income nrral counties spend less per pupil
than wealthier counties, contributing to significant variation even within the
same state.

Equitable school funding within sparsely populated regions has been brought to
the forefront in the national educational agenda only within the recent years (Sher,
1981). Since 1989, courts have found school-finance systems unconstitutional in 13
states. Litigation is under way in eight others (Christian Science Monitor, 1997).

11

According to Gusky (1994), the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in June 1989 that the
public school system in the Commonwealth was “unconstitutional.” Based on evidence
presented in Rose v. the Council for Better Education, Inc (1989), the court concluded
that each and every child in the Commonwealth was not being provided with an equal
opportunity to have an adequate education. KERA (Kentucky Education Reform Act) of
1990 was based on the Supreme Court decision of 1989. KERA addresses issues of
administration, governance, finance, school organization, accountability, professional
development, curriculum and development of schools in Kentucky.

Michigan also saw reforms in school financing in 1993. In July 1993, the
Legislature eliminated local school property taxes, reducing by nearly $7 billion the
annual funding for Michigan's public schools beginning in the 1994-95 school year. The
school finance reform plan diminished the State's reliance on local school operating
property taxes as source of funding for K-12 public schools. The tax sources going to the
School Aid Fund (SAF) were expanded to include revenue from the sales and use tax
increases, the cigarette tax increase, the new state real estate transfer tax, the tax on
tobacco products, and proceeds from the new State education property tax of six nrills on
all property. These tax reforms substantially changed the financing of K-12 education in
Michigan, increasing the share of revenue by the State and decreasing the reliance on
property taxes as a revenue source (School Finance in Michigan Before and Afier The
Implementation of Proposal A).

Berliner and Biddle (1995) state that the ultimate test of society depends on how
it treats its poorest and weakest citizens instead of the rich and powerful. The push for a
more equitable distribution of resources to ensure quality education for youth in
disadvantaged marginal areas such as Appalachian Kentucky and Upper Peninsula
Michigan can be taken as an indicator of whether the States of Kentucky and Michigan
truly care for their citizens. The provision of high quality education is necessary for a
society to develop high levels of competency among its youth. A major prerequisite for
high quality education is adequate financing. Inadequate financing can have negative

lasting effects because poor schools are like poor homes.

___

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Appalachian Kentucky and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, as I have tried to make
clear, are rural marginal areas of their respective states. The economics of Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula and Appalachian Kentucky have been dependent upon extractive
industries. Both of these regions, in many respects, are the backyards of their states.
Benajamin Chintz suggests that Eastern Kentucky counties should be regarded as "low
income counties" and the upper reaches of the Great lakes area, in which Upper
Peninsula falls, as the "not-so-poor depressed rural area" (Robinson, 1969). Taking these
similarities into consideration, a comparative and longitudinal research methodology

was devised. Investments in education are used to compare the regions.

Description of the Study
The study period spans twenty years, from 1974 to 1994. The marginal regions

of the two States are compared to the more affluent sectors: Upper Peninsula Michigan
vs. Lower Peninsula Michigan and Appalachian Kentucky vs. West/Central Kentucky.
The regional breakdown by counties for Michigan and Kentucky is presented in
Appendix A. The two marginal areas, Upper Peninsula and Appalachian Kentucky, are
also compared with the metropolitan areas of their respective states and similarly, the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan and West/Central Kentucky are also compared with their
States’ Metropolitan areas.

The study population consists of the total school-going population of K-12 public
schools of both states between the years of 1974-75 to 1993-94. Public schools educate
approximately 90 percent of the student population in the United States and this is also

12

13

for the States of Michigan and Kentucky.

Sources of Data

Aggregated data of school financing at the county level (for Kentucky) and at the
school district level (for Michigan) were obtained from the departments of education of
the respective States. The ACT scores at the county level were obtained from the ACT
office in Iowa. One of the main reasons for starting the research in 1974 was that ACT
score data were not available for earlier years. Data on school funding (local, state and
federal sources), average teacher’s salary, and teacher-pupil ratio were obtained from
the 1014 bulletin (a bulletin published annually by the Michigan Department of
Education) for Michigan and from the "Profiles of Kentucky Public Schools, Receipts
and Expenditures," and "Public School Salaries for Kentucky" published by the
Kentucky State Department of Education. These data, from 1974 through 1994, were
utilized as indicants of educational inputs.

The information available was not specified by ethnic/race composition nor by
gender. Race as well as gender are vital issues in assessing educational inequalities, but
consideration of these factors was not possible at this time. Metropolitan areas in both
States were factored out from both their peripheral as well as core regions. This was
done to look at the disparities among the core and peripheral regions controlling for the
metropolitan effect.

In Michigan, neither high school graduation rates nor MEAP (Michigan
Educational Assessment Program) scores could be utilized in the study. The high school
graduation rates were unavailable while the MEAP scores were unreliable. The MEAP
test format as well as the method of collecting scores had changed‘over the years. As for
Kentucky, the high school graduation rates] were not used as the rates were unavailable
for the years 1989/90, and the data collection has been suspended in recent years. The
KIRIS (Kentucky Instructional Results Information System) test has been implemented
only in the past two years therefore it was useless for this 20 year long trend study.

 

1 See Table G in Appendix D for available high school graduation rates.

14

The ACT scores were divided into four categories: English, Math, Reading,
Science. Scores ranged from a possible low of 1 to a maximum of 36. The English test
focused on Usage/Mechanics and Rhetorical skills. The Reading test was divided into
Arts and Literature, Social studies, and Science. The Mathematics test was divided into
Pre-Algebra and Elementary Algebra; Intermediate and Coordinate Geometry; Plane
Geometry and Trigonometry. The Science reasoning section was not divided into areas.
The Comprehensive score measured the average of the English, Reading, Math and

Science sections.

Measurement Strategies
Local, State, and Federal funding as well as the average annual teacher’s salary

and the pupil/teacher ratio were taken as the inputs into the educational infrastructure.
Local, State and Federal funding was summed up as the total of all sources of funding
available per pupil in each region (i.e. total per capita funding per pupil). Local funding
is funding obtained from local county government sources. State and Federal funding is
funding obtained from State and Federal sources. The average annual teacher’s salary is
the yearly salary received by teachers working in Michigan and Kentucky’s school
districts. The teacher/pupil ratio is the average number of students per teacher.

The data for Michigan were obtained from the 1014 bulletin published by the
Michigan State Department of Education and were reported at the school district level.
These data were then consolidated to the county level and further to the regional
leve12.The data obtained from the Kentucky State Department of Education were
reported at the county level and subsequently were consolidated to the regional level.

For Michigan, the funding per pupil in the school district was multiplied’ by the
number of pupils in the school district to obtain the total funding per pupil in the school
district. To get the funding per pupil at the county level, the total sum of the funding per
pupil in the school districts in the county was added up and then divided by the total
number of students in the county.

 

2 See Appendix B for the demarcation of regions in Michigan
3 See Appendix C for the formulas used to calculate, consolidate and aggregate data.

15

For both Michigan and Kentucky the per pupil funding at the county level, for all
the counties making up the region, was multiplied by the number of students in that
particular county. The product of the multiplication at the county level was summed
according to the counties making up of the region and then divided by the total number
of students in the region. This produced the funding per pupil at the regional level.

The calculation of the average teacher’s salary involved more steps than the
consolidation of the per capita funding data. For Michigan, the number of teachers was
first calculated by dividing the number of pupils in the school district by the
teacher/pupil ratio. The average teacher’s salary at the school district level was then
multiplied by the number of teachers in the school district to get the total amount of
funds utilized for teachers’ salaries within the school district. The school district teacher
salary funds were added up for the whole county and then divided by the total number of
teachers in the county to obtain the average teacher’s salary at the county level. For both
Michigan and Kentucky, the same methodology used to calculate teacher’s salary to the
county level was used to obtain teacher’s salary at the county level and then at the
regional level. The teacher/pupil ratio at the regional level was also calculated using the
same methodology as for calculating per capita funding and the teacher salary.

ACT scores were obtained at the county level for both Michigan and Kentucky
and were aggregated to the regional level using the methods outlined above for per

capita funding, teacher’s salary and the teacher/pupil ratio.

RESEARCH VARIABLES

(1) Funding

Money (the amount of funds available) has an impact on the running of schools
and the quality of education afforded to students. Money for books, for the upkeep of the
buildings, for science laboratory equipment, for attracting qualified teachers is necessary
to ensure the smooth functioning of schools and in providing a good education for its
students. Therefore, for present, the level of funding over the years was taken as the

major problematic variable. Funding was further broken down into funding obtained at

16

the local level, state level, and the federal level to analyze changes in the distribution of
the sources of firnding, which of course may profoundly affect the total level of funding.
Berliner and Biddle (1995) state that “Extra funding usually means that schools
can improve their facilities, cut class sizes, and hire teachers with better qualifications;
and surely these steps should help to improve student performance.” Phelps and Prock
(1991) point out that the most easily addressed indicator of educational equality is fiscal

equity. Though equal spending might not ensure equal education, it is a prerequisite.

(2) Teacher Salary and Teacher/Pugil Ratio
Average teacher salary is considered important because better salary levels are

more apt to attract more qualified and better teachers, thus enhancing the quality of
education where they teach.

Teacher/Pupil ratio is the number of students per teacher. The lower the number
of students a teacher has to work with, the better it is because the teacher can pay more
individual attention to the students. Therefore, lower teacher/pupil ratio would point to
possibly higher quality of education.

(3) Educational assessment

Educational assessment scores were utilized to study the educational outcomes
throughout the period. For in-state as well as inter-state comparisons the ACT
(American College Testing) scores were used to assess outcomes in the development of
human capital. The standardized ACT test is taken by high school students in
preparation for their entry into colleges as most colleges use ACT scores as one of their
criteria for admitting students.

But Berliner and Biddle (1995) point to the limitations of using ACT scores as
measures:

The American College Testing Program (ACT) was founded in 1959. Many
students now take the twelfih-grade ACT instead of SAT. The ACT test does not
have a fixed set of content topic but, rather, is revised each year by panels of
consultants. Each year these experts propose new items to test the evolving
curricula at American colleges and universities for the subjects tested, and since
those curricula change over time, so does the coverage of ACT test. This means

17

that average ACT scores for any given year should not be compared with those
of of other years because tests they came from were measuring somewhat
different things.

These limitations pointed out by Berliner and Biddle were circumvented since in
this study the ACT score differences were used for comparing regions each year instead

of for assessing the changes in ACT scores over time.

Reliability and Validity of data
The funding data as well as teacher’s salary and pupil/teacher ratio data are

reliable measures, for it is mandatory for the school districts and counties to make these
official figures public. The reported figures affect their funding support by the State
government. The ACT scores, obtained from the ACT office in Iowa, are reliable as well
because the scores are taken as a measure of preparedness of students by colleges and
have been used consistently by colleges as admission standards.

Funding of schools and average teacher salary are reasonably valid measures of
educational inputs for this research. Both measures indicate investment in the
educational infrastructure. Funding of schools indicates how much importance is given
to education by certain levels of governance within that region. ACT scores is a
reasonable measure of educational achievement as colleges use this indicator as one of
the criteria of selecting students they see ready for college. The common uses of ACT
scores are: Admissions (accepted by most, but not all, colleges and universities); talent
identification; academic advising; freshman course placement decisions; awarding

course credit, especially in English and Math courses.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

School funding per pupil, average teacher salary and teacher/pupil ratio were
observed for the different regions of Michigan and Kentucky. Comparisons were made
to assess regional disparities in the quality of education. The rationale behind these
observations is that regional disparities within Michigan and Kentucky can be studied by
observing regional financing differentials of the educational infrastructure. ACT scores
were used to explore comparative performance outputs. The ACT test is a partial

indicator of the readiness of students to take up college studies.

MICHIGAN

School funding ger gupil
The modest funding gap in 1974/75 between the Upper Peninsula and the non-

metropolitan Lower Peninsula in terms of Upper Peninsula funding as a percentage of
the Lower Peninsula, gradually increased from 93.3 percent to 84.0 percent in 1993/94
(Table 3.1, Figure 1). Similarly, the overall funding gap between the Upper Peninsula
and Metropolitan areas also increased from 91.4 percent to 80.9 percent of the Upper
Peninsula as a percent of the Metropolitan areas (Table 3.1, Figure 1). Per pupil funding
in the Lower Peninsula for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas has been
nearly consistent over the years with the gap in all sources of funding increasing only
negligibly, from 97.9 to 96.2 percent of the Lower Peninsula as a percent of
Metropolitan areas (Table 3.1, Figure 1). In other words, there has been and continues to
be very little difference in per pupil funding between the metropolitan and

18

19

Table 3.1: Michigan: Percentage Differences between Regions on Sources of
School Funding, 1974 - 1994

Lower and Upper Peninsula as Percentage of Metro Areas Per Capita
School Funding:

 

Local State Federal All
Michigan Region Funding Funding Funding Funding
1974-75 Lower Peninsula 96.3 100.7 96.9 97.9
Upper Peninsula 64.7 129.8 124.1 91.4
1979-80 Lower Peninsula 97.3 96.5 96.3 97.0
Upper Peninsula 76.9 98.0 122.0 87.2
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 95.3 98.4 96.4 96.2
Upper Peninsula 63.0 1 15.3 1 19.0 80.3
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 95.1 99.4 95.0 96.1
Upper Peninsula 62.5 125.0 103.6 80.6
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 95.1 99.3 95.8 96.2
Upper Peninsula 62.2 120.5 110.4 80.9

 

Upper Peninsula as Percentage of Lower Peninsula Per Capita

 

School Funding:
Local State Federal All
Michigan Region Funding Funding Funding Funding

1974-75 Upper Peninsula 67.2 129.0 128.0 93 .3
1979-80 Upper Peninsula 79.1 101.5 126.7 89.9
1989-90 Upper Peninsula 66.2 1 17.2 123.3 83 .5
1991-92 Upper Peninsula 65.7 125.8 109.0 83.9
1993-94 Upper Peninsula 65.4 121.3 1 15.3 84.0

 

20

nonmetropolitan area of the Lower Peninsula. But, per pupil funding gap is increasing

between the Upper Peninsula and the rest of Michigan.

Teacher Salaries and Teacher/gum] Ratio

The gap in teacher’s salary has increased somewhat between the nonmetropolitan
Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula, from 84.5 percent to 81.4 percent of the
Upper Peninsula as percent of the Lower Peninsula (Table 3.2, Figure 2). But, teacher
salary average in the nonmetropolitan Lower Peninsula has remained at a constant 96
percent of the Metropolitan areas while the gap between the Metropolitan areas and the
Upper Peninsula increased from 81.8 percent to 78.4 percent of the Upper Peninsula as
percent of Metropolitan areas (Table 3.2, Figure 2).

Table 3.2: Regional Distribution of Average Teacher's Salary: Michigan,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

As Percentage of As Percentage of

 

Michigan Region Metro Area Lower Peninsula
Average Average

1979-80 Lower Peninsula 96.9

Upper Peninsula 81.8 84.5
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 96.5

Upper Peninsula 78.6 81.4
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 96.5

Upper Peninsula 77.5 80.3
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 96.4

Upper Peninsula 78.4 81.4

 

As for the teacher/pupil ratio, the gap has only slightly increased (91.9 percent to
91.1 percent of the Upper Peninsula as percent of the Lower Peninsula) between the
Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula (Table 3.3, Figure 3). The gap in the
teacher/pupil ratio too has remained similar between the Metropolitan areas and the

21

Lower Peninsula (99.5 percent to 98.9 percent of the Lower Peninsula as percent of the
Metropolitan areas) as well as the Upper Peninsula (91.4 percent to 90.1 percent of the
Upper Peninsula as percent of the Metropolitan areas). The number of students per
teacher is slightly higher throughout the study period in Metropolitan areas and Lower
Peninsula than in Upper Peninsula. The teacher/pupil ratio appears to be essentially
standardized within the States, but the Upper Peninsula, with its sparser population

maintains a slight advantage (i.e. a lower teacher/pupil ratio).

Table 3.3: Regional Distribution of Teacher/Pupil Ratio: Michigan,
by Region, 1974 -l994

As Percentage of As Percentage of

 

Michigan Region Metro Area Lower Peninsula
Average Average

1979-80 Lower Peninsula 99.5

Upper Peninsula 91.4 91.9
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 99.7

Upper Peninsula 93.5 93.8
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 99.5

Upper Peninsula 90.7 91.2
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 98.9

Upper Peninsula 90.1 91.1

 

ACT Scores (Achievement Scores)
The Upper Peninsula started out the study period, in 1979/80, with slightly

higher ACT scores than the Lower Peninsula. But by the end of the study period, in
1993/94, ACT scores were essentially the same for the Upper Peninsula as for both
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan Lower Peninsula (Table 3.4). The comprehensive
ACT scores are and have remained comparatively similar between the Metropolitan
areas and the nonmetropolitan Lower Peninsula (Figure 4). Both Metropolitan areas and

22

Table 3.4: Regional Distribution of ACT Scores Mean Average: Michigan,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

As Percentage of Michigan Metro Area ACT Score Average

 

Michigan Region
English Math Reading Science Comprehensive
1974-75 Lower Peninsula 99.7 98.0 99.7 100.1 99.2
Upper Peninsula 102.9 102.3 102.1 101.6 102.0
1979-80 Lower Peninsula 98.8 97.3 N/A N/A 98.9
Upper Peninsula 101.4 100.6 N/A N/A 100.7
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 102.0 98.8 102.9 103.2 99.8
Upper Peninsula 103.2 99.2 103.5 102.8 100.6
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 99.6 99.3 99.7 101.0 99.8
Upper Peninsula 99.7 99.5 99.8 101.2 100.0
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 99.7 98.6 99.8 100.5 99.6
Upper Peninsula 99.3 99.9 99.0 100.8 99.7

 

As Percentage of Lower Peninsula ACT Score Average

 

Michigan Region
English Math Reading Science Comprehensive
1974-75 Upper Peninsula 103 .2 104.4 102.4 101 .6 102.8
1979-80 Upper Peninsula 102.6 103.3 N/A N/A 101.8
1989-90 Upper Peninsula 101.1 100.4 100.5 99.7 100.9
1991-92 Upper Peninsula 100.1 100.2 100.1 100.2 100.2
1993-94 Upper Peninsula 99.6 101.3 99.1 100.3 100.1

 

23

the nonmetropolitan Lower Peninsula closed the gap with the Upper Peninsula by
improving their performance on all components (English, Math, Reading, and Science)

of the ACT tests (Figures 21, 22, 23, 24).

Summary of Michigan Observations
The funding gap between Michigan's Upper Peninsula and both metro and

nonmetro Lower Peninsula areas increased over the years, 1974/75 -1993/94. Thus, there
are lesser resources becoming available to the students in the marginalized region of
Michigan, relatively speaking. Regional inequalities have become more evident. Teacher
salaries in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula also decreased in comparison to the Lower
Peninsula and the Metropolitan areas. But the average family income in the Upper
Peninsula is 70 percent of the Lower Peninsula, one could assume that teachers in the
Upper Peninsula may be doing relatively better than their peers downstate. The Upper
Peninsula has the least amount of students per teacher among the regions, probably
because of the sparsely populated rural areas in Upper Peninsula Michigan. ACT scores
were only slightly higher for the Upper Peninsula in the 19705 but the Lower Peninsula
and Metropolitan areas have caught up by the end of the study period and there are now

negligible differences between the three regions.

KENTUCKY

School funding ger gugil
The per pupil funding gap between West/Central Kentucky and Kentucky

Metropolitan areas, and between Appalachian Kentucky and Kentucky Metropolitan
areas has narrowed over the period of twenty years, 1974 to 1994 but especially
particularly for Appalachian Kentucky. More importantly, there is now a per pupil
funding gap between West/Central Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky in favor of
Appalachian Kentucky. Appalachian Kentucky had more overall per pupil funding in
1994 than did West/Central Kentucky. West/Central Kentucky has had a modest overall

increase in all sources of funding per pupil relative to Metropolitan areas, increasing

24

Table 3.5: Kentucky Percentage Differences between Regions on Sources of
School Funding, 1974 - 1994

WestCentral and Appalachian Kentucky as Percentage of Metro Areas
Per Capita School Funding:

 

 

 

Local State Federal All
Kentucky Region Funding Funding Funding Funding
1974-75 WestCentral 50.1 108.8 85.0 79.2
Appalachian 22.3 120.1 134.4 78.9
1979-80 WestCentral 37.4 100.1 122.6 83.1
Appalachian 17.8 98.6 178.9 79.2
1989-90 WestCentral 39.9 104.7 127.7 82.8
Appalachian 22.2 105.3 181.5 80.8
1991-92 WestCentral 50.3 111.7 107.4 89.4
Appalachian 34.0 124.7 150.2 94.7
1993-94 WestCentral 51.3 114.7 100.8 90.1
Appalachian 34.3 132.7 139.9 97.4
Appalachian Kentucky as Percentage of WestCentral Kentucky
Per Capita School Funding:
Local State Federal All
Kentucky Region Funding Funding Funding Funding
1974-75 Appalachian 44.5 110.4 158.1 99.7
1979-80 Appalachian 47.4 98.5 146.0 95.3
1989-90 Appalachian 55.7 100.6 142.1 97.5
1991—92 Appalachian 67.6 111.7 139.9 105.9
1993-94 Appalachian 66.9 115.7 138.8 108.1

 

25

from 79.2 percent in 1974 to 90.1 percent in 1994 (Table 3.5). Appalachian Kentucky
also has had an overall but much larger increase over the years in all sources of funding
per pupil relative to Metropolitan area funding. The Appalachian Kentucky funding as a
proportion of the Metropolitan area funding increased from 78.9 percent to 97.4 percent
over the years (Table 3.5) bringing per pupil funding in Appalachian Kentucky to a
nearly equal level with Metropolitan areas and surpassing per pupil funding level in
West/Central Kentucky (Figure 5). In proportion to West/Central Kentucky,

Appalachian Kentucky’s funding from all sources per pupil was nearly equal in 1974 at
99.7 percent and had surpassed West/Central Kentucky in 1994 and was 108.1 percent of
West/Central Kentucky funding in 1994 (Table 3.5).

Table 3.6: Regional Distribution of Average Teacher's Salary: Kentucky,
by Region, 1974 - 1994
As Percentage of As Percentage of

 

Kentucky Region Metro Area WestCentral
Average Average

1974-75 WestCentral 87.0

Appalachian 85.1 97.7
1979-80 WestCentral 91.2

Appalachian 88.6 97.2
1989-90 WestCentral 91.9

Appalachian 88.5 96.4
1991-92 WestCentral 93.2

Appalachian 94.5 101 .4
1993-94 WestCentral 93.0

Appalachian 94.2 101.3

 

Teacher Salaries and Teacher/pug“ Ratio
Teacher’s salaries in both West/Central Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky

increased somewhat, from 1974/75 to 1993/94, in comparison with the Metropolitan

26

areas. West/Central Kentucky increased from 87.0 percent as a proportion of
Metropolitan area salary to 93.0 percent in 1994 while Appalachian Kentucky increased
from 85.1 percent to 94.2 percent as proportion of the Metropolitan area salary. Teacher
salaries in Appalachian Kentucky, which were 97.7 percent of West/Central Kentucky
teacher salary in 1974, increased and slightly surpassed it and was 101.3 percent of
West/Central region salary in 1994 (Table 3.6, Figure 6).

West/Central Kentucky had about equal and Appalachian Kentucky had more
students per teacher in 1974 in comparison to Metropolitan areas. By 1994, West/Central
Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky both had less students per teacher at 97.0 percent
and 93.4 percent as proportion of the Metropolitan area teacher/pupil ratio. Appalachian
Kentucky started out in the study period with more students per teacher than
West/Central Kentucky and decreased from 101.9 percent to 96.3 percent as a proportion
of West/Central Kentucky teacher/pupil ratio by the end of the study period (Table 3.7,

Table 3.7: Regional Distribution of Teacher/Pupil Ratio: Kentucky,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

 

As Percentage of As Percentage of
Kentucky Region Metro Area WestCentral
Average Average

1974-75 WestCentral Kentucky 100.5

Appalachian Kentucky 102.4 101.9
1979-80 WestCentral Kentucky 104.5

Appalachian Kentucky 1 10.2 105.5
1989-90 WestCentral Kentucky 100.8 .

Appalachian Kentucky 103.0 102.2
1991-92 WestCentral Kentucky 97.6

Appalachian Kentucky 96.4 98.8
1993-94 WestCentral Kentucky 97.0

Appalachian Kentucky 93.4 96.3

 

27

Table 3.8: Regional Distribution of ACT Scores Mean Average: Kentucky,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

As Percentage of Kentucky Metro Area ACT Score Average

Kentucky Region
English Math Reading Science Comprehensive

 

1974-75 WestCentral 99.2 94.4 95.1 98.5 97.0
Appalachian 95.0 84.1 90.9 94.1 91.1
1979-80 WestCentral 99.2 95.7 0.0 0.0 97.8
Appalachian 95.4 88.6 0.0 0.0 93.1
1989-90 WestCentral 99.5 97.8 99.7 105.8 98.3
Appalachian 94.2 91.0 95.2 101.5 92.8
1991-92 WestCentral 98.7 97.8 98.3 97.9 98.1
Appalachian 93 .3 91.7 92.7 93.1 92.6
1993-94 WestCentral 99.0 98.7 97.7 98.7 98.6
Appalachian 92.1 90.5 91.4 92.9 91.9

 

As Percentage of WestCentral Kentucky ACT Score Average

Kentucky Region
English Math Reading Science Comprehensive

 

1974-75 Appalachian 95.8 89.1 95.5 95.6 93.9
1979-80 Appalachian 96.1 92.5 0.0 0.0 95.1
1989-90 Appalachian 94.6 93.0 95.5 95.9 94.4
1991-92 Appalachian 94.6 93 .8 94.4 95 .0 94.5

1993-94 Appalachian 93.0 91.6 93.5 94.2 93.3

 

28

Figure 7). There has been an overall decrease in the teacher/pupil ratio in all regions of

Kentucky between 1974 and 1994 (Figure 7).

ACT Scores (Achievement Scores)
ACT scores in Appalachian Kentucky have been consistently lower than

West/Central and metro Kentucky. The difference between metro and West/Central
Kentucky has been and remains minor.

West/Central Kentucky comprehensive ACT scores 1974/75 were 97.0 percent
of metropolitan areas but had increased to 98.6 percent of the metro areas in 1993/94
while the Appalachian Kentucky ACT comprehensive scores had hardly changed,
starting from 91.1 percent of the metro areas in 1974/75 to 91.9 percent in 1993/94. The
comprehensive ACT score for Appalachian Kentucky in proportion of West/ Central
Kentucky was 93.9 percent in 1974/75 and remained 93.9 percent inl993/94 (Table 3.8,
Figure 8).

Summagy of Kentucky Observations
School funding in Appalachian Kentucky had lagged considerably behind both

West/Central Kentucky and Kentucky Metropolitan regions in 1974 but the gap had
closed by 1994. In fact, by 1994/95 Appalachian Kentucky had surpassed West/Central
Kentucky in per pupil funding and was nearly equal to Metropolitan Kentucky per pupil
funding. Further, there has been an overall decrease in the teacher/pupil ratio in all
regions of Kentucky . Teacher salaries increased in the Appalachian Kentucky region
surpassing West/Central Kentucky teacher salaries and becoming nearly equal to the
Metropolitan area average. Nevertheless, Appalachian Kentucky ACT scores have
continuously lagged behind the other Kentucky regions during the entire study period
and had even fallen further behind by 1994.

SOURCES OF FUNDING
As can be observed from the findings above, patterns of change were different in

Kentucky and Michigan during this study period. Regional differentials in per student

29

funding in Michigan seem to have remained constant, relatively speaking, while there

have been major changes in regional funding differentials in Kentucky.

Michigan

Local sources of school funding has generally become more important in school
financing in Michigan, but the pattern has been varied over the years. Clearly, local
funding is and has been the biggest source of funding for all regions of Michigan except
in the early 19708 in the Upper Peninsula, when the State contributed over half. Local
funding contributes approximately 60 percent of school funding in the Lower Peninsula
and Metropolitan areas while it makes up only 50 percent of all sources of funding in the
Upper Peninsula. Federal fimding provides the least amount of funding, never going
over a nine percent in any of the regions between 1974 and 1994. (Table 3.9)

The Lower Peninsula local funding per pupil has increased proportionally over
the years while State and Federal proportions have decreased. Local funding increased
from 57.5 percent of all fimding to 63.7 percent while State firnding decreased from 36.9
percent to 28.6 percent (Table 3.9, Figure 9). Federal fimding dropped from 5.4 percent
to 4.5 percent (Figure 9). Local funding has been the biggest funding source for the
Lower Peninsula within the study period and in the recent years the burden on it as a
source of funding has increased (Table 3.9, Figure 10).

During the early 19703 the Upper Peninsula had proportionally more funding per
pupil from State sources than Local sources but Local funding had surpassed State
funding by far by the end of the study period. State funding took over as the main source
of funding per pupil between the years of 1974 and 1980 (Figure 11). The Upper
Peninsula gets proportionally more from Federal sources than is the case downstate.
Local funding increased from 41.4 percent to 49.6 percent. State funding decreased fi'om
50.9 percent to 41.3 percent. Federal funding decreased fi'om 7.5 percent to 6.1 percent
(Table 3.9, Figure 12).

Local funding has been the biggest source of funding for the Metropolitan areas
and its role has increased over the study period (Figure 13) from 58.5 percent of all

30

sources to 64.5 percent. The State funding decreased from 35.8 percent to 27.7 percent
while Federal funding decreased from 5.5 to 4.5 percent (Table 3.9, Figure 14).

Table 3.9: Local, State, Federal Funding Per Pupil as Percent of Total Funding:
Michigan, by Regions, 1974 - 1994

Local State Federal
Michigan Region Funding Funding Funding
Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil

 

 

1974-7 5 Lower Peninsula 57.5 36.9 5.4
Upper Peninsula 41.4 50.9 7.5
Metro Areas 58.5 35.8 5.5
1979-80 Lower Peninsula 5 8.5 35.5 5.8
Upper Peninsula 51.5 40.1 8.2
Metro Areas 58.3 35.7 5.9
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 66.5 29.5 3.9
Upper Peninsula 52.7 41.4 5.7
Metro Areas 67.2 28.9 3.9
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 64.1 28.0 4.2
Upper Peninsula 50.2 42.0 5.5
Metro Areas 64.8 27.1 4.3
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 63.7 28.6 4.5
Upper Peninsula 49.6 41.3 6.1
Metro Areas 64.5 27.7 4.5
Kentuch

State funding is the most important source of funding for all regions of Kentucky
making up around 70 percent for West/Central and Appalachian Kentucky and 53.5
percent for Metropolitan areas (Table 3.10). Local funding has been the second biggest
source of funding for West/Central and Metropolitan areas while it remains as the least

amount of per pupil funding sources for Appalachian Kentucky (Table 3.10).

31

Local funding has been the lowest source of funding for Appalachian Kentucky
and has remained consistently so over the years between 1974 and 1994 (Figure 15). It

Table 3.10: Local, State, Federal Funding Per Pupil as Percent of Total Funding:
Kentucky, by Region, 1974 - 1994

Local State Federal
Kentucky Region Funding Funding Funding
Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil

 

1974-75 WestCentral 28.0 55.7 16.3
Appalachian 12.5 61.6 25.9
Metro Areas 44.3 40.5 15.2
1979-80 WestCentral 13.8 71.0 15.1
Appalachian 6.9 73.4 23.2
Metro Areas 30.7 59.0 10.3
1989-90 WestCentral 17.5 71.0 11.5
Appalachian 10.0 73.3 16.7
Metro Areas 36.4 56.2 7.4
1991-92 WestCentral 20.1 68.8 11.1
Appalachian 12.8 72.6 14.6
Metro Areas 35.7 55.1 9.2
1993-94 WestCentral 20.8 68.0 11.2
Appalachian 12.9 72.8 14.3
Metro Areas 36.6 53.5 10.0

 

was 12.5 percent of all sources of funding in 1974 and had only slightly increased to
12.9 percent by 1994 (Figure 15). Federal funding made up 25.9 percent in 1974 and
decreased to 14.3 percent by 1994 (Figure 15). State funding has been the biggest source
of funding starting out at 61.6 percent and increasing to 72.8 percent by 1994 (Table
3.10, Figure 15).

State funding made up the highest proportion of all sources of funding for
West/Central Kentucky in the beginning of the study period and had increased by the

32

end of the study period (Figure 16). It started out at 55.7 percent of all sources in 1974
and increased to 68.0 percent by 1994 (Figure 16). Local and Federal funding decreased
over the years. Local funding dropped from 28.0 percent to 20.8 percent while Federal
funding decreased from 16.3 to 11.2 percent (Table 3.10, Figure 16).

Local funding was the highest proportion of funding source at 44.3 percent for
Metropolitan areas in 1974 but had decreased to 36.6 percent by 1994 (Figure 17). State
funding which was the second biggest source in 1974 at 40.5 percent increased to 53.5
percent in 1994 and in doing so took over the lead from local funding to become the
biggest source of funding. The reversal in leads as the major source of school funding
per pupil between local funding and state funding took place in the years between 1974
and 1980 (Figure 17). There had been a decrease in Federal funding from 15.2 percent in
1974 to 10.0 percent by 1994 (Table 3.10, Figure 17).

Excepting Appalachian Kentucky, Federal funding has been the lowest source of
funding in all the regions of Michigan and Kentucky during the study period. State is the
most important source of funding for Kentucky regions while Local sources of funding
is the leading source of funding for all Michigan regions. The importance of State
funding had increased during the study period for Kentucky while it had decreased in
Michigan.

Comparing The Two States
The two States exhibit different patterns of change over time in dealing with

regional inequalities in school funding, teacher salaries, teacher/pupil ratios and ACT
scores. The gap in per pupil funding has closed between the marginal and core regions of
Kentucky in the study period while it has enlarged, with the Upper Peninsula Michigan
falling further behind, in Michigan. Kentucky has vastly improved the funding of its
educational infrastructure in its marginal area in comparison to the other regions within
the State while the marginal area, Upper Peninsula, in Michigan has further fallen behind
its counterpart regions within the State of Michigan.

Kentucky has strategically relied on the State to provide bulk of the funding for

its public schools while Michigan relied more and more on the local sources as the most

33

important source for public school funding during the study period. With the
implementation of the Kentucky Reform Act, the emphasis on State provision of funds
to marginalized regions vastly increased in Kentucky. This can be observed by the
closure of the gap in per pupil funding among the Kentucky regions. In Michgan, the
legislation implemented in 1993 diminished the reliance on local sources as sources of
fimding for public schools and increased the reliance on the State to provide funds
instead. This is a change in the established and increasing pattern of the growing

importance of reliance on local sources for funding public schools in Michigan.

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

During the past two decades, Michigan and Kentucky have instituted rather
dramatic, but quite different reforms in how local primary and secondary school
education is financed. These changes, especially in Kentucky, in many ways are
reflected in the data we have examined here to assess changes in regional differentials
and funding inequalities over the years.

The Kentucky Reform Act, of 1990, appears to be having a positive effect in
leveling school funding inequities which existed in the past among Kentucky counties
and regions. In 1974 dollar valuation‘ , per pupil funding in Appalachian Kentucky had
increased by 84 percent, West/Central by 70 percent, and the metro areas by only 50
percent between 1974/75 and 1993/94. Per pupil educational fimding in Appalachian
Kentucky now surpasses that of West/ Central Kentucky and has nearly caught up with
per pupil educational funding in the metropolitan areas of Kentucky.

But the gap in total per pupil school funding between Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula and the state’s metropolitan areas and between Michigan’s Upper Peninsula
and the Lower Peninsula has increased. In 1974 dollar valuation’ , Michigan’s Lower
Peninsula and Metro area per pupil funding had increased by 45 percent and 47 percent
respectively while there had only been a 30 percent increase in Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula fi'om 1974/75 to 1993/94. The school funding reforms initiated in Michigan
after 1994 have shified funding responsibilities more to the State. It remains to be seen

 

‘ See Table H in Appendix C for the Consumer Price Index, 1974-1994
5 See Table H in Appendix C for the Consumer Price Index, 1974-1994

34

35

whether the regional gap that has appeared during the early phase of Michigan’s school
funding reform is adjusted in some way or whether the Upper Peninsula region is in the
early stages of what will become a difficult financial struggle to maintain the historic
strength and success of its local schools. There is no question, however, that the data
point to a serious emerging problem, and the manifestations of an increasing inequity in
the funding of Upper Peninsula local schools.

Teacher salaries in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula also lag behind those in the
Metropolitan area and this has been so for the entire study period. Using the 1979/80
dollar value as the base value", the average teacher salary is seen to have increased 12
percent for Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and metro areas while there has only been an 8
percent increase in the Upper Peninsula teacher salaries between 1979/ 80 and 1993/94.
Though the cost of living is quite a bit less in the Upper Peninsula than it is downstate
(family incomes in the UP are only 70 percent of average family incomes downstate), it
is quite likely that teachers in the UP are doing reasonably well relative to their
counterparts downstate.

The teacher salary gap relative to the metropolitan areas of Kentucky has
narrowed for both the Appalachian and West/Central regions. Using 1974/75 dollar as
the base value’, both WestCentral and Appalachian Kentucky teacher salaries have
increased by 20 percent and 24 percent respectively while metro areas teacher salary
increased by only 12 percent between 1974/75 and 1993/94. Indeed, by 1994, teacher
salaries in Appalachian Kentucky had surpassed those of West/Central Kentucky. This is
a strong sign of the attention and importance that is now being given to enhancing the
quality of local education in Kentucky rural areas (as reflected in the great increase in
Appalachian Kentucky). These observations contrast sharply with what appears to be

relative stagnation, in terms of teacher salaries among the regions of Michigan.

 

° See Table H in Appendix C for the Consumer Price Index, 1974-1994
7 See Table H in Appendix C for the Consumer Price Index, 1974-1994

36

The teacher/pupil ratio is another measure that reflects funding strategy
differences between the two states. Kentucky, since 1974/75, has experienced an overall
reduction in teacher/pupil ratios. Teacher/pupil ratios had been higher in Appalachian
Kentucky at the start of the study period but by the end of 1994/95 the region had the
lowest teacher/pupil ratio among the Kentucky regions. On the other hand, the
teacher/pupil ratio has remained unchanged in the Michigan regions during the study
period with Michigan’s Upper Peninsula having the lowest teacher/pupil ratio among the
regions. All regions of Michigan and Kentucky started out with nearly equal
teacher/pupil ratios but by 1993/94, Kentucky regions had a much lower teacher/pupil
ratio than Michigan regions. Lower teacher/pupil ratios reflect an aspect of higher
quality of education available to the students as lower number of students are handled by
each teacher. Therefore, over the years, Kentucky has surpassed Michigan in this
indicator of quality of education while within Kentucky, Appalachian Kentucky has
pulled ahead of other Kentucky regions by the end of the study period.

ACT scores tell a somewhat different story when comparing these two States and
their regions. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has done quite well in comparison with the
other regions of Michigan. Perhaps this is due to a selection bias among the students
taking the ACT test. Motivated students aspiring to move out of the Upper Peninsula
might be the ones taking the test upstate while the students taking the ACT test could be
less self-selective downstate which would pull down the ACT scores for the Lower
Peninsula. But ACT scores have remained similar for the peripheral and core regions of
Michigan throughout the study period. In West/Central Kentucky ACT scores in
1994/95 were nearly equal to the Metropolitan area scores but Appalachian Kentucky
ACT scores lagged behind both regions throughout the study period. This could be
disheartening if one takes into account the efforts that have been put into reinforcing
schools in the Appalachian region. But it should be kept in rrrind that Appalachian
Kentucky has borne the brunt of neglect for a long time and it will take quite a few years

37

for this marginalized region to catch up with its stronger counterparts in the other parts
of Kentucky.

With implementation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act, Kentucky has
attempted to integrate its rural marginal areas into the mainstream. Funding per pupil as
well as teacher salaries have increased enormously in Appalachian Kentucky, where
most of the counties are poor and rural, in proportion to the other regions in the State.
The average teacher/pupil ratio in Appalachian Kentucky has declined. But not much has
changed in Michigan. Indeed, the situation appears to have worsened in Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula. Funding per pupil and teacher salaries in the Upper Peninsula still lag
behind the other regions of Michigan and the teacher/pupil ratio has remained the same.

How do the results of this study relate to theories of uneven development and to
human capital theory? Perspectives on uneven development is derived from Marxist
theory. Trotsky was the originator of the phrase drawing the concept of "uneven
development" from Marxist literature and consistent with Marxist ideas about the
discontinuities in capitalism. McIntyre (1992) writes that for Trotsky, unevenness was
“the most general law of historic process which reveals itself most sharply and
complexly in the destiny of the backward countries.” Trotsky's conceptualization of
unevenness can also be related to the regions within the United States and is relevant in
looking at the historical processes of the rise of peripheral, marginal regions within
various parts of America, such as northern Michigan and eastern Kentucky. Upper
Peninsula Michigan was a rich source of timber as well as mining and was exploited for
these resources while Appalachian Kentucky was rich in coal as well as timber. These
resources were heavily exploited by outside capital, thus marginalizing these two regions
in the process. The remnants of marginalization of these regions persist to the present
day as reflected in the per pupil funding and teacher salary differentials within the two
States. Kentucky has made efforts to demarginalize its eastern mountain region, which is
reflected in the student funding and teacher salary differentials which have undergone

38

remarkable changes bringing them up to par with WestCentral Kentucky and nearly
equaling the metro area student funding and teacher salary levels. As for Michigan, the
marginalization process still persists, and the danger is that education in the Upper
Peninsula will be further marginalized as can be seen from the existing and increasing
regional differentials of per pupil funding and teacher salaries.

Per pupil funding, teacher pupil ratios as well as teacher salaries can be taken as
indicators of investment in human capital. Human capital refers to skills and abilities of
individuals. The notion of human capital, introduced by Becker (1962) and Schultz
(1962), regards education in a manner analogous to financial capital in which individuals
invest in further increments of education according to rational calculations of returns on
their investment. (Smith, Beaulieu, Seraphine, 1995) Investment in human capital is of
great importance. Probably the most impressive piece of evidence testifying to the
economic importance of human capital is that more highly educated and skilled persons
tend to earn more than others. (Becker, 1964) In my study, differentials in human capital
investment were noticeable within the regions of both states. But the direction taken in
the two states to equalize the differences varies. Kentucky has increased its input into
human capital investment in its marginal areas over the years, especially after the
implementation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 while Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula is faring even less well than the regions downstate by the end of the study
period. Michigan education policy-makers can learn invaluable lessons from Kentucky
about how to revitalize a rural peripheral region within its jurisdiction.

Further research should be done looking at changes which might have taken
place from 1993/94 to 1996/97, especially since Michigan legislation to shift funding
from local to state sources was implemented in 1994. It would also be interesting to look
at changes which might have taken place in Kentucky relative to educational funding as
well as ACT scores since there had been no improvement in the ACT scores in the

Appalachian region even in 1993/94 which was a few years after the implementation of

39

Appalachian region even in 1993/94 which was a few years after the implementation of
the Kentucky Education Reform Act. The relationship between per pupil funding and
ACT scores could also be explored in further studies. It should be kept in mind that
ACT tests, like most other tests currently available, are not a good method to evaluate
educational programs in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of school programs within
State regions and between States. The national testing program currently being proposed
by President Clinton, if implemented, might become an enormous source of data to
evaluate educational programs.

Education is a very important factor in opening up career opportunities for young
people. It is a capital investment that young people can build upon to ensure better
futures for themselves and their families. But, as can be seen from this study, some
regional that affect educational opportunities tend to persist, particularly in Michigan
and Kentucky regions. Kentucky, it seems is- trying desperately to achieve regional
equality of education and to overcome its long history of overlooking the human
resource potential located in its eastern mountain region. Equality of educational
opportunity, and more importantly, the quality of education should be ensured so that
there is an equal chance for everyone to maximize their inherent potential of becoming
productive members of American society. Without that, the avowal of equality which
has been a persistent theme in American history will be present only as rhetoric.

40

Figure 1: Michigan: School Funding Total Per Pupil: 1974-1994

 

 

$6.000
$5.500 .
$5.000 _
$4.500 .
$4.000 .
$3.500 .
$3.000 ,
$2.500 .
$2.000 ,

 

 

 

 

 

Ye are

 

_._ Low or Peninsula .... Upper Fonhsula + thro Areas

 

 

 

Figure 2: Michigan: Teacher's Salary Average: 1974-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1979~80 1989-90 1991 -92 1993-94
Years
I ... Low er Peninsula + prer kninsula .... thro Areas

 

 

 

41

Figure 3: Michigan: Teacher/Pupil Ratio Average: 1974-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 . ........................................................
5 . ________________________________________________________
0 .
1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
...— Lower Feninsula + Upper aninsula + thro Areas

 

 

 

Figure 4: Michigan: Comprehensive ACT Scores Average, 1974-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991 -92 1993-94
Years 1
l
| ..._ Low er Faninsula + Upper kninsula + Metro Areas

 

”___;

 

42

Figure 5: Kentucky: School Funding Total Per Pupil: 1974-1994

 

 

$6.000
$5.500 _____________________________________________________
$5.000 .
$4.500

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... Appalachian Region + Westhntral Region + mire Areas 1
J

 

Figure 6: Kentucky: Teacher's Salary Average, 1974-1994

 

 

 

$50,000
$45,000
$40,000 .
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000 .
$20,000 1
$15,000 .
$10,000 I
$5.000 .

 

_L

 

 

 

 

so . . ,
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991 -92 1993-94

 

... Appalachian kgion + WestCentral Region + thro Areas

 

 

43

Figure 7: Kentucky: Teacher/Pupil Ratio Average, 1974-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 .t ______________________________________________________
5 - _______________________________________________________
o » 1. .- .
1974—75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years

 

... Appalachian Kentucky

+ WestCentral Kentucky

+ thro Areasj

 

 

Figure 8: Kentucky: Comprehensive ACT Scores Average, 1974-1994

 

 

p-..___ .—

 

 

15.0 '
14.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.0 ,
1974-75

Years

 

 

f
l
1

i

... Appalachian Region

+ WestCentral kgion

+ thro Areas Tl

 

 

 

44

Figure 9: Michigan Lower Peninsula: Funding from Local, State,

Federal Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-1994
i
3
a
L
O
a.
5’ £1 ....................................................
E 4o:21:11:12:11::::::::::::i::2::::::::::::::IZ
gash ______________________________________________
l- 25IIKIIITII:::::::____-:::::Z::+:::::::::::::::.'
3 2g .....................................................
a .11... ___________________________________________________ _l
5 10 t ................................................... 1
s 5P -----s ................ ... ............ 1
a o,~ 1 1' ~ A. ,
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
1 + Local Funding + State Fund'ng + Federal Funding
1

 

 

 

Figure 10: Michigan Lower Peninsula: School Funding Per Pupil by
Source, 1974-1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

Years

 

 

f ... Local Sources .... State Sources + Federal Sources

 

 

45 ,

 

Figure 11: Michigan Upper Peninsula: School Funding Per Pupil by
Source, 1974 - 1994

 

$6,000 1
$5.500 .
$5.000 .
$4.500 .
$4.000 .
$3.500 .
$3.000 .
$2.500 .
$2.000 .
$1.500 .
$1,000 .
$500
$0 . :
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... Local Sources + State Sources + Federal Sources

 

 

 

Figure 12: Michigan Upper Peninsula Funding for Local, State, Federal
Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so.
= 75 ___________________________________________________ 1
O- 70 ____________________________________________________
a 65 ................................................... .
E 3 :::::::::::Z::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
5 50 ------_-_--f __________ ;
g 45 ............................................
E g: -------- P ------------ ' ------------ ‘5' E
g 30 .................................................... 2
t 25 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 l
3 20 .................................................... . l
6 15 .................................................... 1
§ 10 ................................................... , ~
5 ——————————————————————— TE- ——————————— :3 ————————————

& Ofi J j
1974-75 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
‘I ... Local Funding .... State Fund'ng + Federal Fund'ng i

 

 

 

46

Figure 13: Michigan Metro Areas: School Funding Per Pupil by
Source, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

 

Years
; + Local Sources + State Sources + Federal Sources

 

 

Figure 14: Michigan Metro Areas: Funding from Local, State, Federal
Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 - 1994

 

Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

 

l ... Local Funding + State Funding + Federal Funding l
l

 

47

Figure 15: Kentucky Appalachian Region: Funding from Local, State,
Federal Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil,
1974 - 1994

 

 

 

Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 , 1 t :
1 974-75 1 979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Year
... Local Funding + State Funding + Federal Fund'ng

 

 

Figure 16: Kentucky WestCentral Region: Funding from Local, State,
Federal Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil,
1974 - 1994

 

 

Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil

80
75
7O .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65
60
55
50
45
40 .
35 .
30
25
20
15
1O
5
0

 

 

V

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

 

... Local Funding + State Funding _.,_ Federal Funding 7

 

 

48

Figure 17: Kentucky Metro Areas: Funding from Local, State, Federal
Sources as Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Percent of Total Funding Per Pupil

 

 

 

 

 

197445 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 '
Years
+ Local Funding + State Fund‘ng + Federal Funding l

 

Figure 18: Kentucky WestCentral Region: School Funding Per Pupil by
Source, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$0
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

Years

 

... Local Sources .... State Sources + Federal Sources

1 -

 

49

Figure 19: Kentucky Metro Areas: School Funding Per Pupil by Source,
1974 - 1994

 

 

$5.000
$5.500
$5.000
$4.500
$4.000
$3.500
$3.000
$2.500
$2,000
$1,500
$1 .000

    

 

$500
w .
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
... Local Sources + State Sources .... Federal Sources 1

 

 

 

Figure 20: Kentucky Appalachian Region: School Funding Per Pupil by
Source, 1974 - 1994

 

 

       

$500
1 974-75 1 979-80 1 989-90 1 991 -92 1 993.94
Years

 

_._ Local Sources + State Sources + Federal Sources 1
l

 

 

50

Figure 21: Michigan: ACT English Scores Average, 1974 ~1994

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
+ Lower Fieninsula + Lpper Pen‘nsula + mire Areas

 

 

Figure 22: Michigan: ACT Math Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

Years

 

L ... Law at Faninsula .... Upper Paninsuia -&-— Metro Areas 1

 

 

 

51

Figure 23: Michigan: ACT Reading Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Years
... Upper Peninsula + Lower Faninsula + thro Areas

 

 

 

Figure 24: Michigan: ACT Science Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

_-_-__,_---_~-;,_

,_--_....__.----._.__.-»_-_---...

 

___,-_z-----M____-_a-------_-_-s--__-L-,__--_-_--Lua-_.

-------_-_-___s___---a_-__-u_i-__s_:_--;_LL_;;-ELSL_~NL
«---——_____?__-------___-_;__-_-___-_;1—_-»-—-—~;—-—--L
___-‘-_-..--- ................................................
.-----~——--—-~~~-------—-——;e-~—-—r----—e-4*-

..-...-_-..--—..-..-------..---..-......—-__...-...'_,.____-_-_-_..__--.._.

 

 

 

1974-75 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

Years

 

.... Low er Ranlnsula + Upper Peninsula .... Metro Areas

 

 

 

 

52

Figure 25: Kentucky: ACT English Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14:0 . . ,'
1974-75 1979-80 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94
Ye are
+ Appalachian Region + WestCentral Region + Metro Areas

 

 

Figure 26: Kentucky: ACT Math Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 974-75

 

 

l

_._ Appalachian Region

+ WestCentral Region

+ Metro Areas J

 

 

 

 

53

Figure 27: Kentucky: ACT Reading Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94

Years

 

 

... Appalachian Region + WestOentral Region + Metro Areas ‘

 

 

Figure 28: Kentucky: ACT Science Scores Average, 1974 - 1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1974-75 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 \

1 Years

I I” ... Appalachian Egon + Msfintral Re—gion + fitro Areas
1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DELINEATION OF STUDY REGIONS

Michigan Upper Peninsula Region (Non-Metropolitan Counties)

1. Schoolcraft
2. Dickinson
3. Gogebic

4. Houghton
5. Delta

6. Alger

7. Baraga

8. Chippewa

9. Marquette

1 0. Menominee
l l. Ontonagon
12. Mackinac
13. Iron

14. Keweenaw
15. Luce

Michigan Lower Peninsula Rggion (Non-Metropolitan Counties)

1. Alcona

2. Alpena

3. Antrim

4. Arenac

5. Barry

6. Benzie

7. Branch

8. Cass

9. Charlevoix
10. Cheboygan
11. Clare

12. Crawford

1 3. Emmet

14. Gladwin

15. Grand Traverse
l 6. Gratiot

17. Hillsdale

1 8. Huron

l9. Ionia

20. Iosco
21 . Isabella
22. Kalkaska

23. Lake 34. Osceola

24. Leelanau 35. Oscoda

25. Manistee 36. Otsego

26. Mason 37. Presque Isle
27. Mecosta 38. Roscommon
28. Missaukee 39. Sanilac

29. Montcalm 40. Shiawassee
30. Montmorency 41. St. Joseph

3 1 . Newaygo 42. Tuscola

32. Oceana 43. Wexford
33. Ogemaw

Michigan Metropolitan Area (All Metro Counties are in the Lower Peninsula)

Allegan
Bay
Berrien
Calhoun
Clinton
Eaton
Genesee

Ingham

9899:5919?

9. Jackson
1 0. Kalamazoo
1 1. Kent
12. Lapeer
l3. Leenawee
14. Livingston
1 5. Macomb
16. Midland

17. Monroe 25. Wayne
18. Muskegon

19. Oakland

20. Ottawa

21 . Saginaw

22. St. Clair

23. Van Buren

24. Washtenaw

54

 

Kentucky Appalachian Region (Non-Metropolitan Counties)

1. Bell

2. Breathitt
3. Clay

4. Elliot

5. Estill

6. Floyd

7. Greenup
8. Harlan
9. Jackson

Kentucky West/Central Region (Non-Metropolitan Counties)

1. Adair

2. Allen

3. Anderson

4. Ballard

5. Barren

6. Bath

7. Boyle

8. Bracken

9. Breckenridge
10. Butler

1 1. Caldwell

12. Calloway
13. Carlisle

14. Carroll

15. Casey

16. Clinton

17. Crittendon
18. Cumberland
19. Edmonson
20. Fleming

10. Johnson
1 1 . Knott
12. Knox
13. Laurel
14. Lee

15. Leslie
16. Letcher
17. Lewis

1 8. Martin

21 . Franklin
22. Fulton
23. Gallatin
24. Garrad
25. Grant

26. Graves
27. Grayson
28. Green
29. Hancock
30. Hardin

3 1 . Harrison
32. Hart

33. Henry
34. Hickman
35. Hopkins
36. Larue

37. Lawrence
38. Lincoln
39. Livingston
40. Logan

55

19. Magoffin
20. McCreary
21. Menifee
22. Morgan
23. Owsley
24. Perry

25. Pike

26. Powell
27. Rowan

41. Lyon

42. Madison
43. Marion

44. Marshall
45. Mason

46. McCracken
47. McLean

48. Meade

49. Mercer

50. Metcalfe

51 . Monroe

52. Montgomery
53. Muhlenberg
54. Nelson

55. Nocholes
56. Ohio

57. Owen

58. Pendleton
59. Pulaski

60. Robertson

28. Whitley
29. Wolfe

61. Rockcastle
62. Russell
63. Simpson
64. Spencer
65. Taylor

66. Todd

67. Trigg

68. Trimble
69. Union

70. Warren
71. Washington
72. Wayne

73. Webster

Kentucky Metropolitan Areas 1* Indicates Appalachian Metro Counties)

Boone
Boyde
Bourbon
Bullitt
Campbell

9:59.“?

6. Carter

7. Christian
8. Clark

9. Davies
10. Fayette

11. Greenup "'
1 2. Henderson
13. Jefferson
14. Jessamine
15. Kenton

16. Oldham

1 7. Scott

18. Shelby
19. Woodford

APPENDIX B

FORMULAS FOR DATA CONSOLIDATION

School funding (Local, State, and Federal level)

Per Pupil funding in school district multiplied by No. of Pupils in the school district
= Total funding in school district

Total funding in all school districts in a county divided by Total no. of pupils in all school
districts in a county = Per pupil firnding at county level

The per pupil funding at the regional level is also calculated using the similar formula.

Per pupil funding in a county multiplied by No. of pupils in a county = Total funding in a county

Total funding all counties in the region divided by Total no. of pupils all counties in the region =
Per pupil funding at the regional level

Average Teacher's Salai'y

No. of pupils divided by Teacher/pupil ratio = No. of teachers

No. of teachers in school district multiplied by Average annual salary of teachers in school
district = Total funding for teacher's salary in school district

Total average annual salary in all school districts in the county divided by No. of teachers in all
school districts in the county = Average annual salary of teachers at the county level

Average salary at the regional level was calculated using similar formula.

No. of teachers in county multiplied by Average annual salary of teachers in county
= Total funding for teacher's salary in county

Total average annual salary in all counties in the region divided by No. of teachers in all counties
in the region = Average annual salary of teachers at the regional level

Pupil/Teacher ratio

Total no. of pupils at the county level divided by Total no. of teachers at the county level =
Pupil/Teacher ratio at the county level

Total no. of pupils at the regional level divided by Total no. of teachers at the regional level =
Pupil/Teacher ratio at the regional level

56

57

ACT Scores
Mean ACT scores multiplied by No. of students taking the ACT at the county level = Total ACT
scores for county

Sum of total ACT scores for all the counties in the region divided by Total no. of students taking
the ACT at the regional level = Mean ACT score at the regional level

 

APPENDIX C

TABLES

Table A: School Funding Per Pupil by Source: Michigan, by Region, 1974 -l994

 

Local State Federal Total

Michigan Region Funding Funding Funding Funding

Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil
1974-75 Lower Peninsula $723 $463 $68 $1,256
Upper Peninsula $486 $597 $87 $1,172
Metro Areas $750 $460 $70 $1,283
1979-80 Lower Peninsula $1,190 $722 $119 $2,032
Upper Peninsula $941 $733 $150 $1,827
Metro Areas $1,223 $747 $123 $2,095
1989-90 Lower Peninsula $2,820 $1,251 $165 $4,23 8
Upper Peninsula $1,866 $1,466 $203 $3,538
Metro Areas $2,960 $1 ,271 $1 71 $4,405
1991-92 Lower Peninsula $3,175 $1,388 $210 $4,954
Upper Peninsula $2,087 $1 ,746 $229 $4,l 57
Metro Areas $3,340 $1,396 $222 $5,156
1993-94 Lower Peninsula $3 ,512 $1,578 $246 $5,51 1
Upper Peninsula $2,297 $1,914 $283 $4,63 1
Metro Areas $3,694 $1,589 $256 $5,727

 

58

 

59

Table B: School Funding Per Pupil by Source: Kentucky, by Region, 1974 - 1994

 

Local State Federal Total

Kentucky Region Funding Funding Funding Funding

Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil
1974-75 WestCentral $250 $497 $146 $892
Appalachian $1 1 1 $548 $230 $890
Metro Areas $499 $457 $171 $1,127
1979-80 WestCentral $221 $1,] 35 $242 $1,599
Appalachian $105 $1,] 18 $354 $1,524
Metro Areas $591 $1,134 $198 $1,923
1989-90 WestCentral $559 $2,266 $366 $3,191
Appalachian $31 1 $2,280 $521 $3,] 1 1
Metro Areas $1,401 $2,165 $287 $3,852
1991-92 WestCentral $852 $2,921 $470 $4,242
Appalachian $576 $3,262 $657 $4,494
Metro Areas $1,693 $2,615 $437 $4,745
1993-94 WestCentral $956 $3,127 $513 $4,596
Appalachian $640 $3,617 $712 $4,970
Metro Areas $1,865 $2,727 $509 $5,101

 

60

Table C: Average Teacher's Salary and Teacher/Pupil Ratio: Michigan,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

 

Annual Teacher/
Michigan Region Teachers' Pupil
Salary Ratio
1979-80 Lower Peninsula $19,677 21.8
Upper Peninsula $16,626 20.]
Metro Areas $20,316 21.9
1989-90 Lower Peninsula $37,105 21.0
Upper Peninsula $30,203 19.7
Metro Areas $38,432 21.1
1991-92 Lower Peninsula $41,483 20.7
Upper Peninsula $33,294 18.9
Metro Areas $42,988 20.8
1993-94 Lower Peninsula $44,962 23.]
Upper Peninsula $36,580 21.]
Metro Areas $46,633 23.4

 

61

Table D: Average Teacher's Salary and Teacher/Pupil Ratio: Kentucky,
by Region, 1974 - 1994

Annual Teacher/

 

Kentucky Region Teachers' Pupil

Salary Ratio
1974-75 WestCentral $8,392 22.]
Appalachian $8,202 22.5
Metro Areas $9,642 22.0
1979-80 WestCentral $14,007 20.5
Appalachian $13,609 21.6
Metro Areas $15,365 19.6
1989-90 WestCentral $25,531 17.5
Appalachian $24,600 17.9
Metro Areas $27,795 17.4
1991-92 WestCentral $29,889 16.8
Appalachian $30,295 16.6
Metro Areas $32,067 17.3
1993-94 WestCentral $30,599 16.8
Appalachian $30,989 16.]
Metro Areas $32,896 17.3

 

62

Table E: ACT Scores Mean Average: Michigan, by Region, 1974 - 1994

 

Michigan Region
English Math Reading Science Compre-
hensive
1974-75 Lower Peninsula 17.6 18.6 17.8 21.7 19.]
Upper Peninsula 18.2 19.4 18.2 22.0 19.6
Metro Areas 17.7 19.0 17.8 21.7 19.2
1979-80 Lower Peninsula 20.0 20.3 N/A N/A 20.6
Upper Peninsula 20.5 21.0 N/A N/A 21.0
Metro Areas 20.2 20.8 N/A N/A 20.9
1989-90 Lower Peninsula 20.3 19.9 19.7 19.7 20.6
Upper Peninsula 20.5 20.0 19.8 19.7 20.7
Metro Areas 19.9 20.1 19.1 19.1 20.6
1991-92 Lower Peninsula 20.0 20.0 21.1 21.0 20.7
Upper Peninsula 20.0 20.1 21.1 21.1 20.7
Metro Areas 20.] 20.2 21.1 20.8 20.7
1993-94 Lower Peninsula 20.2 20.2 21.4 21.5 21.0
Upper Peninsula 20.2 20.5 21.3 21.6 21.0
Metro Areas 20.3 20.5 21.5 21.4 21 .1

 

 

63

Table F: ACT Scores Mean Average: Kentucky, by Region, 1974 - 1994

 

Kentucky Region
English Math Reading Science Comprehensive
1974-75 WestCentral 17.4 16.5 16.3 20.3 17.8
Appalachian 16.6 14.7 15.5 19.5 16.7
Metro Areas 17.5 17.4 17.1 20.7 18.3
1979-80 WestCentral 20.0 18.9 N/A N/A 19.8
Appalachian 19.3 17.5 N/A N/A 18.8
Metro Areas 20.2 19.7 N/A N/A 20.2
1989-90 WestCentral 20.3 18.9 20.1 19.6 19.9
Appalachian 19.2 17.6 19.2 18.7 18.8
Metro Areas 20.4 19.3 20.1 18.5 20.3
1991-92 WestCentral 19.9 19.1 20.5 19.9 20.0
Appalachian 18.8 17.9 19.3 18.9 18.8
Metro Areas 20.] 19.5 20.8 20.3 20.3
1993-94 WestCentral 20.0 19.2 20.6 20.3 20.1
Appalachian 18.6 17.6 19.3 19.1 18.8

Metro Areas 20.2 19.5 21.1 20.5 20.4

 

64

Table G: Ninth Graders Graduating from High School

State Percent Graduating from High School

1 982 1 988 1989 1 990

 

Michigan 76.4 73.6 62.8 62
Kentucky 65.9 69 67.1 68.5

 

Source: Kids Count Data Book 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94

Kentucky
Region Percent Graduating from High School

1974/75 1979/80 1991/92

 

Appalachia 54.5 55.3 64.5
West/Central 67.9 68.1 73
Metro Areas 67.8 68.2 69.2

 

Source: Profile of Kentucky Schools 1974/75, 1979/80, 1991/92

 

 

65

Table H: Consumer Price Index, 1974-1994

Year All Item *

 

1974 49.3
1975 53.8
1979 72.6
1980 82.4
1989 124
1990 130.7
1991 136.2
1992 140.3
1993 144.5
1994 148.2

 

* All Item includes Commodities, Food, Apparel and Upkeep, Energy,
Shelter, Transportation, Medical Care, Fuel Oil, Electricity, Utility (Piped)
gas, Telephone Service

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1996

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Applebombe, Peter. "Revamped Kentucky Schools Area a Study in Pros and Cons."
New York Times. (March 25, 1996).

Archambault, Reginald D. John Dewey on Education: Selected Writing; New York:
Random House, 1964.

Beaulieu, Lionel J. and Mulkey, David. Investing in People: The Human Capital Needs
Of Rural America. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1995

Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special
Reference to Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.

 

Berliner, David C. and Biddle, Bruce J. The Manufactured Cris_i§: Myths Fraud and the
Attack on America’s Public Schools. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1995.

 

Billings, Dwight and Tickamyer, Ann. "Uneven Development in Appalachia." Pp. 7-29

in Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural Ameriga, edited by Thomas
A. Lyson and William A. Falk. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas,

1993.

Branscome, James. "Educating Appalachia's Poor." Pp. 222-225 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976.

Coleman, James S. Egualiiy and Achievement in Education. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1990.

Darnell, Frank and Simpson, Patricia M. (ed.) Rural Education: In Pursuit of Excellence.
Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia Press, 1981.

Demko, George J. and Jackson, Michael C. (ed.) Populations at Risk in America:
Vulnerable Groups at the E_nd of the Twentieth Century. Boulder,
Colorad0:Westview Press, 1995.

66

67

De Young, Alan J. (edit) Rural Education: Issues and Practice. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc., 1991.

Dix, Keith. "Appalachia: Third World Pillage?" Pp. 167-172 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976.

Durkheim, Emile. Education and Sociology. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. 1956.

Falk, William and Lyson, Thomas A. "Forgotten Places: Poor Rural Regions in the
United States.” Pp. 1-6 in Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural
Americg, edited by Thomas A. Lyson and William A. Falk. Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas, 1993.

. "Forgotten Places Redux." Pp. 257-269 in Forgotten Places: Uneven
Development in Rural Americg, edited by Thomas A. Lyson and William A.
Falk Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1993.

 

Feinberg, Walter. Eualiiy and Social Policy. Chicago: Board of Trustees of the
University of Illinois, 1978.

Ford, Thomas R. "The Passing of Provincialism." Pp. 105-130 in Appalachia: Social

Context Past and Preseni, edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976.

Guskey, Thomas R High Stakes Performance Assessment: Perspectives pn Kentucky's
Educational Reform. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc., 1994.

Gyawali, Dipak. "A Fate Other than Marginality." Himal (7)3: 11-21, 1994.

Hodgkinson, Harold L. Michigan: The State and its Educational System: Another Lo_t2k.
The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., 1989.

Kentucky Educational Commission. Public Education in Kentucky. Broadway, New
York: General Education Board, 1922.

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inegualities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown
Publishers, Inc., 1991.

68
Lobao, Linda M. Localig and Inegualig: Farm and Indusfl Structure and

Socioeconomic Conditions. Albany, New York: State University of New York
Press, 1990.

McLellan, David (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990.

Michigan Department of Education. Reflections on Condition of Michigan Education
1992, 1993.

Munn, Robert F. "The Latest Discovery of Appalachia." Pp. 8-10 in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976.

 

Noble, Douglas D. "Let Them Eat Skills." The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural
Studies (16)]: 15-29, 1994.

Noor, Ismail K. "Northern Michigan and Eastern Kentucky: A Comprehensive Regional
Study." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1996.

Robinson, E.A.G. Backward Areas in Advanced Countries: Proceedings of a Conferencg
held by the International Economic Association. New York. St. Martin’s Press,

1969.

Robotham, Michele. K-12 Public Education in Michigan: Selected Characteristics and
Services by Cogpg and School District. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan League
for Human Services, 1992.

 

Runciman, W. G. (ed.) Max Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978.

Schultz, Theodore W. Investment in Human Capital: The Role of Education and of
Research. New York. The Free Press, 1971.

Schwarzweller, Harry K., Brown, James S. and Mangalam, J .J . Mguntain Families in
Transition: A Case Study pf Appalachian Miggtion. London: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1977.

Schwarzweller, Harry K. and Davidson, Andrew P. "Marginality and uneven
development: The decline of dairying in Michigan’s north country.” Sogiologia
Ruralis (XXXV) 1:40-66, 1995.

69

Schwarzweller, Harry K. and Lean, Sue-Wen. "Ontonagon: A Remote Corner of
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.” Pp. 168-194 in Forgotten Places: Uneven
Development in Rural America edited by Thomas A. Lyson and William A.
Falk. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1993.

 

Senate and House Fiscal Agency. School Finance in Michigan Before and After The

Implementation of Proposal A: A Comparison of FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95
Approaches to K-12 School Funding in Michigan, 1995.

 

Sher, Jonathan P. (ed.) Rural Education in Urbanized Nations: Issues and Innovations.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981.

Smelser, Neil J. Comparative Methods in Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

Smith, David M. Geogrgphical Persmctives 0n Inegualig. New York: Barnes and
Nobles Books, 1979.

Smith, Mark H., Beaulieu, Lionel J ., and Seraphine, Ann. “Social Capital, Place of
Residence, and College Attendance.” Rural Sociology. (60)3: 363-380, 1995.

Thompson, William E. and Hickey, Joseph V. Society in F ocp_s_. New York, New York:
Harper Collins College Publishers, 1994.

Tyson, Anne Scott. "In Search of More Money for Schools." The Christian Science
Monitor (April 30, 1997)

 

US. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th
edition). Washington, DC., 1996

US. Department of Agriculture. Education and Rural Economic Development:
Strategies for the 1990’s. Washington, DC., 1991.

West, Don. "Romantic Appalachia." Pp. 10-13 in Appalachia: Social Context Past and
Present edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E. Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, 1976.

 

Whitehead, Donald W. "ARC's Present and Future: A Report to Congress." Pp. 312-318
in Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present, edited by Bruce Ergood, Bruce E
Kuhre. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976.

70

Williams Jr., Robin M. American Socieiy: A Sociological Integretation. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1970.

   

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
illlllllllillllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllll
31293016914461