4 ms·

>Averaged across the general student population, there was no statistically significant correlation between a school’s spending levels and its students’ academi

by weberer 6mo ago

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

throwaway27448 6mo ago
Since 2007? That was long after we chose to leave kids behind
- declan_roberts 6mo ago
  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?
  - throwaway27448 6mo ago
    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
boelboel 6mo ago
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.
- weberer 6mo ago
  Could you link an alternative study?
  - boelboel 5mo ago
    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.
AlotOfReading 6mo ago
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.
- zozbot234 6mo ago
  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?
  - AlotOfReading 6mo ago
    There'd still be a correlation between spending and academic scores regardless of the actual causative mechanism.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- usefulcat 6mo ago
  > 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.

by weberer 6mo ago

throwaway27448 6mo ago

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

declan_roberts 6mo ago
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?
- throwaway27448 6mo ago
  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

boelboel 6mo ago

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.

weberer 6mo ago
Could you link an alternative study?
- boelboel 5mo ago
  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.

AlotOfReading 6mo ago

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.

zozbot234 6mo ago
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?
- AlotOfReading 6mo ago
  There'd still be a correlation between spending and academic scores regardless of the actual causative mechanism.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
usefulcat 6mo ago
> 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.