Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:59:00.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Education Production Functions in Rural and Urban Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

David L. Debertin
David L. Debertin*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Extract

Public elementary and secondary education represent the largest single expenditure by units of state and local governments. Nearly 30 percent of all tax dollars raised at the state and local level is spent for funding public elementary and secondary schools. The magnitude of expenditures for public education relative to other public goods makes questions concerning resource allocation for this service extremely important. It is not surprising that a great deal of attention has been directed toward determining if the educational process can be made more efficient.

Politicians, school administrators and other decision-makers who deal with school finance problems in rural and urban areas face a key policy question concerning the educational production process: “Does the spending of additional tax dollars in local public schools necessarily insure increased scholastic achievement for all students?”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , December 1976 , pp. 31 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Bowles, Samuel. “Toward an Educational Production Function,” Education, Income and Human Capital, Lee Hansen, W., ed., New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar
[2] Bowles, Samuel, and Levin., H.M. “The Determinants of Scholastic Achievement, an Appraisal of Some Recent Evidence,” Journal of Human Resources, 3:1, 3–24, Winter 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Coleman, James S., et al. “Equality of Educational Opportunity,” Washington, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1966.Google Scholar
[4] Debertin, David L. “An Econometric Investigation of the Provision for Public Education in Indiana,” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, 1973.Google Scholar
[5] Debertin, David L. “Cost-Size-Quality Relations Affecting North Dakota Schools,” Unpublished M.S. Thesis, North Dakota State University, 1970.Google Scholar
[6] Debertin, David L. “The Deletion of Variables from Regression Models Based on Tests of Significance: A Statistical and Moral Issue,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 7: 211–216, July 1975.Google Scholar
[7] Jencks, Christopher, et al. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America, New York: Basic Books, 1972.Google Scholar
[8] Mayeske, George W., et al. A Study of Our Nations Schools, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970.Google Scholar
[9] Mosteller, F. and Moynihan, D. P., eds. On Equality of Educational Opportunity, New York: Random House, 1972.Google Scholar
[10] U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 92nd Edition, Washington, D.C., 1971, Appendix, Table 1.Google Scholar
[11] White, Freddie C. “A Quantitative Analysis of Factors Affecting Elementary and Secondary Schooling Quality with Economic Application for Rural Areas,” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1972.Google Scholar