Is There a Connection between School Spending and Student Achievement?
STANFORD -- With the U.S. Supreme Court expressing skepticism that dollars alone can remedy student achievement gaps in Horne vs. Flores late last week, the debate over the appropriate role of the courts in determining state school funding levels has heated up. In a close decision in a case involving English language learners, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision concerning the equality of educational opportunities of Justice Samuel Alito, writing the majority opinion, cited the work of education economist Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, who has long been critical of the role the nation’s courts have played in this issue. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer cited the work of Michael Rebell, executive director of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, The debate between the two policy analysts, which appears to have influenced both majority and minority opinions of the court, is presented in the upcoming issue of Education Next. It is available online at www.Educationnext.org. Here’s a sampling:
Eric Hanushek, joined by nationally recognized school finance lawyer Alfred Lindseth: Since about 1970, the achievement levels of
The solution we need lies in performance-based funding: a system of integrated education policies and funding mechanisms designed to drive and reward better performance by teachers, administrators, students, and others involved in the education process. Such a system will ensure more effective use of education dollars through better decision making, will eliminate perverse incentives that reward mediocrity or failure, and most important, energize and will motivate those involved in the education of our young people.
The path to such reform will not be an easy one. While elements such as state standards, accountability measures, and value added measures are gaining acceptance, other important components, especially performance-based pay and increased choice options, are opposed by powerful forces -- such as the politically connected teachers unions -- with vested interests in the current system.
Michael Rebell: Extensive inequities in education funding, by which students with the greatest needs receive the fewest funds, still prevail in many parts of the United States; for that reason, state courts continue to have a critical role in ensuring meaningful educational opportunities for all children. The evidence strongly indicates that money well spent does make a significant difference in student achievement.
What is most likely to fulfill the promise of improved student outcomes in the future is not any silver bullet remedy, but rather a pragmatic process that allows courts, legislatures, state education departments, and school districts to work collaboratively to focus on children’s needs and to implement meaningful reforms on a sustained basis.
The courts’ role in this process is to outline in general, principled terms the expectation that the legislative and executive branches will develop challenging standards, fair and adequate funding systems, and effective accountability measures, but to leave to the programs and the political branches the full responsibility for actually formulating these policies.
Read “Many Schools Are Still Inadequate -- Now What?” available now at www.EducationNext.org.
Eric Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to looking at hard facts about school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
