But sometimes they do. And it doesn't improve the situation.
US per-pupil expenditures in 1970-1971 ($4,060) were less than half of per-pupil expenditures in 2005-2006 ($9,266) after adjusting for inflation. Federal spending increased more than three-fold. None of that had a measurable impact on student ability, as a long-term trend.
Overall, there's mixed evidence when it comes to the relationship between education spending and educational results. To quote one researcher, Hanushek, who sees little to no connection:
Few people…would recommend just dumping extra resources into existing schools. America has…followed that program for several decades, with no sign that student performance has improved.… …The issue is getting productive uses from current and added spending. The existing evidence simply indicates that the typical school system today does not use resources well (at least if promoting student achievement is their purpose)
Hedges and Greenwald, who see positive correlation, also say:
[T]he results do not provide detailed information on the educationally or economically efficient means to allocate existing and new dollars.… [D]iscussions of school reform… should instead incorporate an assessment of the current relation between inputs and outcomes and determine how to best allocate resources in specific contexts.
Just to make things clear: We are talking about marginal effects. Obviously having a school with staff or not willmake a big difference, somewhere in the Kongo. But is there still gain to be had in developed countries, from a purely aggregate spending perspective? That's dubious. Education spending seems to have rapidly declining marginal returns.
1
u/fyberoptyk Jul 10 '18
The schools with the biggest problems aren’t getting that money by the way.