What we have known for years is that despite an awful lot of complaining that education does not get enough money, there is no evidence that increased funding equates with better learning, or teaching. It is not about the amount of funding one has. It is all about how you spend the money that counts. This is a basic economic principle of adaptation. If you have reduced resources, you have to get smarter and more creative, but if you have the talent and a good strategy, you can get the job done.
(D)oes higher government education spending raise academic achievement? At the risk of stepping on Ross Perot’s toes, let’s pull out the charts.
The first chart, below, shows the relationship between federal spending (adjusted for inflation) and the academic achievement of 17-year-olds since 1970. [The final years of high school are the decisive ones in this case, because we want to know how well our k-12 system has prepared kids for college and the workforce.]
Federal Spending and Achievement, Percent Change Since 1970 (Cato — Andrew Coulson)
Related posts:
Unfortunately I think people will read the first statement and ignore the caveat that it is important to spend money wisely. I think increasing spending for teacher salaries, for example, in order to make them competitive would certainly help. In my field, for example, less than a third of all HS teachers in the US who teach chemistry either majored or minored in chemistry in college. Why? Because BS chemists start out at least $10-20K more than they'd ever start out in any HS in the country. Not surprising then that they don't consider HS teaching a viable career prospect. I made more $$ as a graduate student than as a full time teacher! (Which partially explains my choice to quit teaching at the HS level.)