Relationships between District Size, Socioeconomics, Expenditures, and Student Achievement in Washington

Vince Diaz


The purpose of this article is to describe the relationship between district size, socioeconomic status, actual levy percentages, and their predictive influence on the 2003 Washington Assessment of Student Learning results for 4th and 7th
grade students in Reading and Mathematics. The convenient sample was 82 Washington State 2nd-Class school districts with enrollments between 500-2,000 students. The results indicated: (a) no significant correlations between achievement and
district size; (b) socioeconomic status was the best predictor of achievement; and (c) actual levy percentages and student outcomes were significantly correlated in the positive direction.


A Nation at Risk. (1983). Access:

Abbott, M., & Joireman, J. (2001, July). The relationships among achievement, low income, and ethnicity across six groups of Washington State students. Access:

Abbott, M., Joireman, J., & Stroh, H. (2002). The influence of district size, school size and socioeconomic status on student achievement in Washington: A replication study using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (Tech. Rep. No. 3). Seattle, WA: Seattle Pacific University, Washington State Research Center. Access:

Bickel, R., & Howley, C. (2000, May 10). The Influence of Scale on School Performance: A multi-level extension of the Matthew Principle. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (22), ISSN 1068-234.

Boyle, M. (2002). Achieving small school success in Washington State. Washington Association of School Administrators. Access: http://www.wasaoly. org/resources/wasssuccess.pdf

Conant, J.B. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested citizens. New York, McGraw- Hill Book Company Inc.

Eigenbrood, R. (2004). The Relationship between socioeconomic status and the multilevel influence of school and district size on student achievement: A replication of two previous studies. Seattle, WA: Seattle Pacific University, Washington School Research Center. Access:

Fetler, M. (1989) School dropout rates, academic performance, size, and poverty: Correlates of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 109-116.

Fouts, J. (1999, January). School restructuring and student achievement in Washington State: Research findings on the effects of House Bill 1209 and school restructuring on Western Washington schools. Access:

Fouts, J. (2002, April). The power of early success: A longitudinal study of student performance on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, 1998-2001. Access:

Fouts, J. (2003, April). A decade of reform: A summary of research findings on classroom, school, and district effectiveness in Washington State. Access:

Fouts, J., Abbott, M., & Baker, D. (2002, May). Bridging the opportunity gap: How Washington elementary schools are meeting achievement standards. Access:

Fouts, J., Brown, C., & Thieman, G. (2002). Classroom instruction in Gates Grantree schools: A baseline report. Prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Fouts and Associates, L.L.C.

Fouts, J., Stuen.C., Anderson, M., & Parnell, T. (2000, May). The reality of reform: factors limiting the reform of Washington's elementary schools. Access:

Friedkin, N., & Necochea, J. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency perspective. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 237-249.

Hopkins, T. (2005, Fall). If you are poor, it is better to be rural: A study of mathematics achievement in Tennessee. The Rural Educator, 27(1), 21-28.

Howley, C. (1989). Synthesis of the effects of school and district size: What the research says about achievement in small schools and school districts. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 4(1), 2-12.

Howley, C. (1996, Spring). Compounding disadvantage: The effects of school and district size on student achievement in West Virginia. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12(1), 25-32.

Howley, C. (2003). School reform proposals: The research evidence, small schools. Access:

Howley, C., & Howley, A., (2004, December). Smaller schools support student achievement. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development Policy Briefs. Access:

Howley, C., Strange, M., & Bickel, R. (2000). Research about school size and school performance in impoverished communities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-RC-00-10)

Huang, G., and Howley, C., (1993, Winter). Mitigating disadvantage: Effects of small-scale schooling on student achievement in Alaska. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(3), 137-149.

Lake, R., Hill, P., O’Toole, L., & Celio, M. (1999). Making standards work: Active voices, focused learning. Center on Reinventing Public Education: Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle.

Lewis, A. (2008). Doing more with less. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 547.

Lake, R., McCarthy, M., Taggart, S., & Celio, B. (2000). Making standards stick: A follow-up look at Washington State’s school improvement efforts in 1999-2000. Center on Reinventing Public Education: Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. Seattle.

Mason, J. (2007). A case study of three rural schools: Factors, characteristics, and conditions that influence school performance scores. Published doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University, Louisiana.

McCarthy, M. (2001). Washington elementary schools on the slow track under Standards-Based Reform. Center on Reinventing Public Education: Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle.

Mork, C.R. (1998). Site-based management and teacher perceptions of restructuring outcomes in Washington State. Published doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle.

Newbill, G.C. (1999). Relationships between the degree of restructuring in Western Washington elementary schools and the results on Criterion Referenced 4th grade assessments for Reading, Mathematics, Writing, and Listening. Published doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001) Public Law 107-110, 107th Congress.

Peterson, K., & Abbott, M., (2005). The power of early success 1998-2004: A follow-up study on the determinants of student performance (Tech. Rep. No. 8). Access:

Portin, B., Plecki, M., Elfers, A., & Beck, L. (2003). Leadership for school renewal: influence of resource opportunities. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 21-25, Chicago, Ill.

Revised Code of Washington 28A.300.065. Classification and numbering system of school districts. Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.

Spears, R. (2007). Funding equity and student achievement: An analysis and comparison of Kentucky and Tennessee: Published doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University, Tennessee.

Van Slyke, G. (1998). Effects of school reform legislation: The relationship of student achievement gains and degree of restructuring on selected Western Washington schools. Published doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle.

Walberg, H., & Walberg, H. (1994). Losing Local Control. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 19-26.

Washington Kids Count. (2001). Exploring disparities in education achievement: The impact of school funding (Tech. Rep.). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Washington Kids Count, Human Services Policy Center, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.

Weber, C. (2005). School size, student achievement, and the equity of achievement in California. Published doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irving.

Full Text: PDF


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Publication of the National Rural Education Association -

Report problems or questions about to the website to