A Matter of Money

I remember sitting in a district leadership meeting one morning, listening to a fellow high school principal lament about how strapped for money his school was (his school wasn’t hurting for resources). Finally, he exclaimed “Just once I’d like to try ‘more money’ as a solution to all of the problems his high school and others faced.”

I never really understood his point. Throughout my principal career, I never thought schools were under-funded. In fact, I thought many wasted the resources they were given. Even now, I’m convinced that we can produce smarter and stronger learners for less cost than we are currently spending on our traditional public school system.

Last week, I read with interest an EducationWeek article titled “Does Money Matter for Schools? NAEP Scores Reopen the Debate.” The article begins:

“During a February 5^th Congressional hearing, Representative Kevin Kiley, R-California, used a graph on an easel behind his chair to make a dramatic point about the last decade of American education.”

“’We’ve just received the latest test scores for students across this country, and they are absolutely alarming,’ said Kiley, the newly minted House subcommittee chair for K-12 and early-childhood education. He pointed to a chart with upward-facing curves above the x-axis showing increased education funding, and downward-facing curves showing declining test scores.”

“’This is a steady growth in spending in real dollars which is proceeding in tandem with a steady decline in student achievement,’ Kiley said, just before previewing broad plans to ‘reimagine federal funding’ for schools and expand public subsidies for private education nationwide.”

“With his comments, Kiley joined a chorus of politicians, pundits, and researchers who have questioned why U.S. students haven’t gained more academic ground after Congress doled out close to $200 billion in pandemic relief funds for K-12 schools in 2020 and 2021.”

“But the story Kiley told about the graph, published January 29^th by the Georgetown University-based research group the Edunomics Lab, doesn’t precisely line up with what the graph actually shows – or what it’s authors say they want to get across.”

“In the two weeks following the release of the latest NAEP scores, the Edunomics Lab charts have helped spark the latest round in a perennial debate over how much money really matters in education. The discussion is nothing new for the field, but it raises a deeper philosophical question: Does plotting spending figures against test scores wind up increasing confusion rather than clarity?”

“Researchers reached consensus roughly a decade ago that funding increases make a tangible difference in student outcomes. But debate has continued since then over which students benefit most from increases, and what else states, schools, and educators need in order to use money efficiently.”

“These discussions are especially consequential now, as many states gear up to revise decades-old school funding formulas, and the Trump administration plows forward with an unprecedented and sweeping crackdown on federal spending that has already hit education research hard and tested centuries-old constitutional principles.”

“Graphics like the Edunomics analysis come at an inopportune time, said Morgan Polikoff, a professor of education at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education.”

“’The message it perpetuates is, school spending is unrelated to student achievement. And there is very ample research that shows that to be false,’ Polikoff said.”

“This message is spreading as the Trump administration and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have threatened to slash federal education funding and eliminate the U.S. Department of Education altogether.”

“’They could point to this figure and say, well, school spending doesn’t matter,’ said Polikoff. ‘But that isn’t true.’”

“Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab and a research professor at Georgetown University, said she didn’t intend to suggest that money doesn’t matter for education. Instead, she hoped her group’s analysis would start a conversation about why funding increases have contributed to academic improvements in some states more than in others.”

“Of course money matters,’ Roza told Education Week. ‘We’re looking at where it matters more, when it matters more, what role do people play in making sure it matters more. It’s a how much, not a yes or no.’”

Despite the confusion, Roza sees the vigorous dialogue about the ‘ROI’ analysis as a sign that her analysis is prompting essential, if uncomfortable, debate and introspection. Lawmakers, state education departments, school district leaders, and labor unions that represent educators all have a role to play in setting America’s students on a more positive academic trajectory, she said.”

“’Thoughtful, smart people can disagree on stuff and still have a conversation where we all end up smarter, regardless of whether we changed our view,’ she said.”

…

“Roza said she hoped the Edunomics analysis would spur policymakers and experts across the ideological spectrum to embrace the iterative work of improving students’ test scores, rather than ignoring the nationwide trend and the states defying it.”

“’I actually think the work of getting more value for the dollars is kind of a slog,’ Roza said. ‘I think it requires prioritizing what we’re trying to do in schools, and I think it means using data constantly to see what’s working and what’s not.’”

“Some districts cited labor shortages and hiring challenges to explain why their ambitious plans to scale up tutoring and summer school for the last few years fell short of expectations. Roza isn’t convinced those hurdles were insurmountable.”

“’We have to be willing to be eyes wide open and pivot and check if the investments are delivering the value we hoped,’ Roza said. ‘If not, try something else, or try to fix the thing that’s not working.’”

Long-time school reform advocate Michael Fullan used to say, “Instead of ‘ready, aim, fire,’ more of public education should adopt the philosophy of ‘ready, fire, aim.’ Too many schools and school districts operate under the ‘ready, ready, ready’ approach. Instead of doing something, they do nothing.

What Marguerite Roza advocates makes sense when it comes to aligning spending with results. If you are spending more money on the same and getting disappointing results, then isn’t it time to spend money in a different way?

Isn’t it time to become more creative regarding how teaching and learning can look a quarter of the way through the 21^st century?

And finally, the most important question to ask is whether the traditional school system we currently have in this country can shift practice so that money is spent differently and results improve?

Til tomorrow. SVB