November 1996 Money Makes a Difference in Equitable Education
Money—that unavoidable topic—is the subject of a new NWREL publication, How Money Matters to School Performance: Four Points Policymakers Should Know, by Susan Mosborg. This brief but wide-ranging synthesis of current research in the field looks at how schools spend money, how money relates to performance, the relationship between money and the opportunity to learn, and the declining role of the state in school funding.
Regarding how money matters to school performance, Mosborg discusses four points policymakers should know. First, money is related to student learning outcomes, but the dynamics of human learning mean there is no one-to-one correlation.
Learning is complex, Mosborg notes. It is not strongly linked to single variables, but results from the interaction of many. For instance, learning can be enhanced when teachers can do planning and problem-solving with other teachers, when students can interact with other students in learning activities, and when children have access to resources outside the school.
While early studies claimed no link between expenditures and results such as achievement test scores, Mosberg looks at issues that should be taken into account in measuring the effect of spending. For instance, the money may have been spent, but did resources actually reach the student in the form of the opportunity to learn? Differences in student need are another important factor which affects the impact the resources will have. Recent studies show per-pupil expenditures do have an effect on achievement when researchers control for variables such as district per-capita income, amount of time spent watching television, racial and ethnic diversity, and other factors.
Finally, education is a labor- intensive endeavor, not greatly affected by improvements in technology. As the result of increasing numbers of special education students, health care costs, court decisions, regulations, and changing social conditions the cost of education has increased over the last 20 years.
A second issue Mosborg discusses points out that school districts spend their money in remarkably consistent proportions regardless of their wealth, and the bulk goes to instructional services. However, large differences in wealth and student need across schools and districts strongly affect performance.
In this section, Mosborg makes the case for compensatory rather than equitable funding. School districts, whether rich or poor, spend about 60 percent of their money on instruction. However, this 60 percent does not go as far in poor communities because they have fewer dollars per pupil to spend (even when federal and state dollars are included), and they must spend more of that money addressing special needs. Equal amounts of money do not necessarily buy the same resources. For instance, even when teacher salaries are equal, higher socioeconomic districts are more successful in attracting the most qualified teachers.
The third issue Mosborg addresses is how money relates to opportunities to learn. A chief way money matters is by maximizing a wide range of opportunities to learn, she notes. New knowledge about teaching and learning points to the importance of strategic investments as well as funding the basics if more children are to learn and perform at high levels.
Core academics are not the only measures of school quality, notes Mosborg. She cites a study by Money magazine which shows that both outstanding public schools and elite private schools spend money in ways not always considered directly related to student performance: for highly experienced teachers with masters and doctorates, advanced placement courses, arts and sports programs, and facilities.
Mosborg's final point for policymakers is that school funding remains inequitable. After three decades of modest equalization efforts by states, she notes, reliance on local funding of schools is now rising, just as income inequality among communities is growing. Poor children are hardest hit.
With the role of the state declining, local property taxes are increasingly bearing the burden for school funding. This means inequities will be increased at a time when, according to one study cited by Mosborg, roughly 25 percent of all Northwest children live in or near poverty. Mosborg concludes, "Poor children can succeed in schooling, with programs of accelerated learning and compensatory school funding. Until now, however, Americans have tolerated both a high level of children's inequity and insufficient compensatory school funding. Both are on the verge of getting worse. The level, distribution, and wise use of K-12 educational funding are critical mediating factors."
Copies of How Money Matters to School Performance: Four Points Policymakers Should Know, can be ordered ($6.35 each) from NWREL's Document Reproduction Service by submitting the Document Order Form in this newsletter.
| Previous Article | Next Article | Contents | NW Report Index |
This document's URL is:
Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: NW Report | People | Products & Publications | Topics
© 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Date of Last Update: 9/28/01
Email Webmaster
Tel. 503.275.9500
