Which is it? Does the United States need to increase its spending on education?
On one side, economist Eric Hanushek and others have argued that decisions to increase education spending were simply “throwing money at schools.”
… His research found that there was little correlation between how much schools spent and how well their students performed on tests.
But wait, a new study shows more money does improve student outcomes.
More recent research, however, has found that when schools have more money, they are able to give their students a better education. A new study on those who went to school during the school-finance cases a few decades ago found that those who attended districts that were affected by the rulings were more likely to stay in school through high school and college and are making more money today.
The authors, Kirabo Jackson and Claudia Persico of Northwestern University and Rucker Johnson of the University of California, Berkeley, released a revised draft of their as-yet-unpublished paper this week. The benefits were most obvious for students from poor families. They found that a 10 percent increase in the money available for each low-income student resulted in a 9.5 percent increase in students’ earnings as adults. A public investment in schools, they wrote, returned 8.9 percent annually for a typical pupil who started kindergarten in 1980.
The findings are evidence that public schooling can be a way for children who grow up in poverty to overcome their circumstances, Johnson argued.
“Those increases in instructional expenditures proved to have large dividends, significant economic returns, in the lives of these children,” he said. “We’re always searching for what can break that cycle of poverty from one generation to the next.”
The common opinion among everyone participating in this debate is that it is not the amount of spending, but the way the money is allocated.
Still, the authors don’t advocate simply throwing money at the problem of education, either. “Money matters, but it matters how it’s spent,” said Jackson of Northwestern.
Megan McArdle makes a similar point in how to address failing schools.
Should we fix the issues with those schools? Absolutely — and doing so might mean spending more money. But that doesn’t mean that we need to increase the overall level of educational funding. It means that we need to identify ways to improve those underperforming schools, then find out how much more it would cost to implement those programs. It is just as likely that improvements will come from changing methods and reallocating resources as that they will require us to pour more money into failing institutions.
Even Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, long viewed as a stalwart liberal, agrees on this matter.
It’s a view still held by many politicians today, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.). “We spend more than any other state in the country,”he said a year ago. “It ain’t about the money. It’s about how you spend it — and the results.”