Introduction Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Economics of Education Review:Vol19.Issue4.Oct2000:

Economics of Education Review 19 2000 319–331 www.elsevier.comlocateeconedurev Accounting for the effects of increased high school graduation expectations on pupil performance and resource allocation: results from New York State David H. Monk a, , Samid Hussain b , William Miles c a College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 275 Chambers Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA b Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA c Otsego Northern Catskills Board of Cooperative Educational Services BOCES, Stamford, NY 12167, USA Received 15 December 1997; accepted 15 June 1999 Abstract Increases in high school graduation requirements are prompting interest in the consequences for students, taxpayers, and educators. This study examines the experiences of New York State school districts that increased student partici- pation between 1992 and 1996 in a statewide testing program that historically has been designed for college-bound students. The study includes statistical comparisons based on the universe of school districts in the State as well as the results of an intensive set of selective case studies. The results show that many different types of districts moved to increase participation levels during the study period and that increases in participation levels were associated with a modest declines in the percentage of students passing the exams; b unchanged drop-out rates; c increases in spending that were similar in magnitude to increases found in districts with little or no increase in participation; and d increases in professional staffing levels in core instructional areas. Implications for policy are explored.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. JEL classification: I21; I22 Keywords: Performance based reform; Education productivity; Student performance

1. Introduction

States throughout the US are moving aggressively to raise requirements for high school graduation Education Week, 1997b. New York State, in particular, has sig- nificantly increased its graduation requirements so that all students entering 9th grade in the year 2001 will be required to pass state-developed Regents achievement examinations in English, mathematics, science, US his- tory, and global studies. New York is no stranger to the Corresponding author. Tel. + 1-814-865-2526; fax: + 1-814- 865-0555. E-mail address: dhm6psu.edu D.H. Monk. 0272-775700 - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 7 7 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 - X use of state developed achievement exams, but histori- cally these exams have been taken only by college-bound students. In 1996, about 40 of the graduates in New York State received Regents diplomas by passing exams of this kind, while the majority earned local diplomas by passing less demanding competency exams Education Week, 1997a. In this article, we examine the resource allocation implications of these increased graduation requirements for high school students in New York State. Specifically, we are concerned with what happens in districts where there have been increases in the percentage of students participating in the New York State Board of Regents achievement examination program. The study takes advantage of the fact that some districts in New York 320 D.H. Monk et al. Economics of Education Review 19 2000 319–331 have been moving toward an ‘all-Regents’ 1 secondary program on their own initiative, perhaps in anticipation of the requirements now being promulgated by the Regents. The study is organized around three primary questions: 1. What explains the willingness or ability of school dis- tricts to increase Regents achievement examination participation rates? 2. What have been the effects on student perform- ance? and 3. What have been the changes in resource allocation behavior? We turn next to a description of the data and methods we employed and then to an overview of our findings. We conclude with a discussion about implications for policy.

2. Data and methods