More Money Does Not Equal Better Education

The traditional thinking in America is that if we spend more money on something, it will turn out better. That is certainly the model for education, with schools often being ranked not by the performance of the students, but by how much funding the school gets and spends per student.

But a new study from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the US Census Bureau revealed that funding and student success don’t always grow together. Despite massive amounts of funding to boost schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, the top spenders per pupil trailed behind their lower paid counterparts in test scores.

Follow the Funding

“Average US public school spending per pupil in elementary and secondary schools rose 8.9% to $15,633 in fiscal year (FY) 2022 from the previous year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent Annual Survey of School System Finances data,” the agency posted last spring. Why does the money greatly increase, but the test scores remain low?

New York topped the list of big spenders with an estimated $29,873 per pupil. The District of Columbia was second ($27,425), followed by New Jersey ($25,099), Vermont ($24,608), and Connecticut ($24,453).

The Census Bureau also listed the lowest spenders: Utah at $9,552 per pupil, Idaho ($9,670), Arizona ($10,315), Oklahoma ($10,890), and Mississippi ($10,984),

But the dollar amounts and success rates are not lining up.

Students in New York ranked lower than 38 other states and districts in fourth-grade math scores and behind 12 states in eighth-grade math scores. Reading scores were not as bad, but they were still far behind if budget size really mattered.

The DC stats are even worse: 48 jurisdictions scored significantly higher on the 2022 NAEP assessment for fourth-grade math, and 49 scored higher than DC on the eighth-grade assessment.

The study sure seems to show that the students aren’t gaining much from increases in per-pupil spending, mostly because the extra funds are not being distributed where they would best serve the student.

The Real Culprit of Poor Academic Achievement

Americans have been conditioned to equate good education with wealthy school districts. The problem, of course, is that it isn’t always true.

Consider Carmel High School outside Indianapolis, IN. According to the Indiana Department of Education, Carmel High School spends significantly less per pupil ($3,500 to $6,000) than the other four public high schools in the Indianapolis area and still outperforms them: 71% of students are proficient in math, and 89% are proficient in reading. Conversely, and for double the money, in Indianapolis City Schools, only 6% and 26% are adept in math and reading.

“More money can help schools succeed, but not if they fritter those extra resources in unproductive ways,” Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Reason. “There is no one formula for how to spend money correctly in schools. But there are many common ways that schools blow resources. Wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefit costs for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.” So, yes, more money can help students achieve more – but only if it’s spent with their success in mind.

1. Schools are often ranked by how much money they spend per pupil, or they can be ranked by students’ scores on standardized tests.
2. A recent study shows that the two lists – schools ranked by spending and by test scores – often don’t match, showing that simply spending more money doesn’t help students succeed.
3. More money can help students succeed, but only if the school administration focuses on helping students succeed.