Hacker News Reader

Comment by weberer | Hacker News Reader

>Averaged across the general student population, there was no statistically significant correlation between a school’s spending levels and its students’ academic performance in 27 of the 28 academic indicators used in the model. In the only category that did show a statistically significant correlation — seventh-grade math — the impact of spending more was very small.

https://www.mackinac.org/S2016-02#results

View on HN

I'm not sure how to square that with the very well-studied result that areas with higher income tend to have better schools. Students from lower income brackets also do better than their income peers at schools in less affluent areas. And because local property taxes are a major funding source for schools, those are also the schools I'd expect to spend more because they have more.

Michigan notably does not fund schools through homeowner property taxes. I suspect that's probably the difference here and a reason we shouldn't use it as a representative example.

Could it be that people with higher incomes are a lot more likely to actually care about their kids getting a good education, and to put pressure on the school to that effect?

There'd still be a correlation between spending and academic scores regardless of the actual causative mechanism.

> And because local property taxes are a major funding source for schools, those are also the schools I'd expect to spend more because they have more.

It depends on the state. In Texas, property taxes from wealthier districts are redirected to poorer districts to ensure more equitable funding (search for "texas robin hood").

The result is that most public schools are funded about the same regardless of where they're located.

This analysis is rather weak, just a linear regression with 2 variables it seems. I'm not saying there's a direct link of school spending and academic performance but this is barely trying. Your average undergrad could've made a better study.

Could you link an alternative study?

One of the latest papers by Hanushek, the person who tends to be cited by those against public school spending "U.S. SCHOOL FINANCE: RESOURCES AND OUTCOMES" gives a more mixed overview. Basically saying it matters somewhat depending on what it's spend on and only moderate improvements.

The paper gives an overview of more recent research mostly using quasi-experiments. Before 2000 or even 2010 just doing some linear regressions was more common. Anyway my view is similar to Hanushek in short/medium terms. I do believe long term the pay of teachers, and therefore extra spending, is an important factor in keeping teaching prestigious compared to other jobs. In the US partly because of its strong private sector this is a lot more difficult/failed, I'm not sure if it's possible to fix since spending is only one part of it.

Since 2007? That was long after we chose to leave kids behind

That study had a major update in April 2016. If the results confirmed the original premise would it actually change your mind about education funding?

We still need to find a cause for declining results. If it isn't funding, what is making our children stupider?

Regardless, I'd think that a study trying to find a correlation among practice, funding, and measurement would need at least a generation (~thirty years yea?) of results to show meaning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com