Combined federal and state funding for public education in the US is fast approaching $1 trillion, yet National Center for Education Statistics data, PISA results, and SAT data indicate that student performance has been static in some areas and declining in others, even as performance standards have dropped. Nevertheless, when faced with these data, politicians claim--as they have for several decades--that the "solution" is more money. How do we understand this mindset?
Dear Williams,
The inverse relationship between a given sector (education, health, ...) is not uncommon. Budget is one thing, but not everything. There are a lot of factors that need be controlled (modeled in the functional relationship between quality of education and budget). One of the factor is budget allocation efficiency or budget alignment. Budget have to be spent where it can bring high impact, such as hiring, retaining and motivating teachers. The second factor is the quality and relevance of the existing curriculum at all levels. The third and most important issue is the role of parents in the day to day follow-up of their offspring: checking how their kids are performing in their exams, communicating with the school administration and proper understanding of their children's aptitude and inclination. The last point is the school environment has to be safe, attractive and motivating for the kids to pursue their education. In conclusion, unless we understand the state of the above factors and how their interacting with the educational system of the country, we cannot have a clear picture, what would have happened without the big money flow into the sector?
Interesting findings. I agree that there are a lot of other factors that could affect the performance. However, it could be interesting to examine the relationship between funding and other factors (eg facilities, students‘ feedback) or compare it with other countries.
Kyriaki, recent OECD data indicate that the United States spent $15,171 per student, whereas, on average, other OECD nations spent $9,313 per student. US students ranked #34 on the latest PISA tests, far below much poorer countries, such as Vietnam and Ecuador. Although some cities have poor facilities, it is difficult to propose that those facilities are worse than what we find in the above referenced nations.
Dear James,
Interesting question. I think that the discrepancy between funding and student performance may be explained politically and educationally. More funding is urged for in hope of reversing the situation where, for instance, a small country like Finland ranks second globally before the US in terms of quality of student performance in Reading, Mathematics, and Science (PISA, 2009). This is the political dimension, which is felt to target both the reputation of the country and that of politicians. The second plausible motivation, which follows from the first, is perhaps to seek to find out about the real causes of this discrepancy (i.e., are they student-based, teacher-based, or system-based, or a combination), which requires a lot of spending to remedy, albeit without a guarantee for good results since these causes may be out of the control of politicians that precisely ask for more funding (e.g. students' demotivation). The funding that goes into finding the real causes will be spent on (i) remedial work for students, which requires more paid work for teachers, (ii) teacher training, and (iii) investments in educational technologies. You might say that in terms of spending this is a cyclical vicious circle.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude