3 ms·

Does evidence show more school funding would fix underperforming public schools?

jaywalk 6y ago
You can find studies that support either side of that argument. So I guess the answer is: it's more complicated than that.
- moduspol 6y ago
  Are there records of any US public schools that were underperforming, were given notably more funding, and saw a corresponding increase in test scores or other objective metrics? EDIT: I guess I'm looking for the success stories. "Here's an inner-city school and the outcomes were bad. Then we increased funding and now their outcomes are comparable to good schools."
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    None that I'm aware of. I live outside of Detroit, so I'm very familiar with the example of how the absolute bottom-tier Detroit Public Schools spend more per student than some of the richest (and highest performing) school districts in the suburbs.
  - castlecrasher2 6y ago
    I've heard precisely the opposite, though that was an anecdote from Milton Friedman, so take that how you will.
  - mLuby 6y ago
    It's common sense that a school with more money can hire more and better teachers as well as remove barriers to learning like food insecurity and lack of textbooks/computers. The burden of proof falls on the counterintuitive claim that the same school would have the same sustained effectiveness regardless of funding.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Nobody claimed that all schools (or schools in general) will have the same outcomes regardless of funding. It's quite possible parent engagement and cultural differences are stronger drivers for positive outcomes, and that those things lead to higher funding for schools. But that doesn't imply higher funding causes positive outcomes. They're just correlated. Many of our nation's underperforming schools are located in urban areas with no shortage of funds available and under the control of the political party supporting this idea. Yet the issue remains unsolved. Is there any level of funding that would lead proponents to acknowledge funding may not be the primary issue?

You can find studies that support either side of that argument. So I guess the answer is: it's more complicated than that.

moduspol 6y ago
Are there records of any US public schools that were underperforming, were given notably more funding, and saw a corresponding increase in test scores or other objective metrics? EDIT: I guess I'm looking for the success stories. "Here's an inner-city school and the outcomes were bad. Then we increased funding and now their outcomes are comparable to good schools."
- jaywalk 6y ago
  None that I'm aware of. I live outside of Detroit, so I'm very familiar with the example of how the absolute bottom-tier Detroit Public Schools spend more per student than some of the richest (and highest performing) school districts in the suburbs.
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  I've heard precisely the opposite, though that was an anecdote from Milton Friedman, so take that how you will.
- mLuby 6y ago
  It's common sense that a school with more money can hire more and better teachers as well as remove barriers to learning like food insecurity and lack of textbooks/computers. The burden of proof falls on the counterintuitive claim that the same school would have the same sustained effectiveness regardless of funding.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Nobody claimed that all schools (or schools in general) will have the same outcomes regardless of funding. It's quite possible parent engagement and cultural differences are stronger drivers for positive outcomes, and that those things lead to higher funding for schools. But that doesn't imply higher funding causes positive outcomes. They're just correlated. Many of our nation's underperforming schools are located in urban areas with no shortage of funds available and under the control of the political party supporting this idea. Yet the issue remains unsolved. Is there any level of funding that would lead proponents to acknowledge funding may not be the primary issue?