Sanjiv Jaggia and Vidisha Vachharajani, with the assistance of Joseph McCarthyBeacon Hill Institute at Suffolk UniversityMay 2004
This short but insightful paper analyzes Massachusetts district-by-district school performance (as measured by scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS) since the 1993 changes in the state's funding formula, and finds no relationship between increased spending and education results. This is no simplistic study. It takes a value-added approach, comparing changes in school spending-not absolute levels-to students' performance on the MCAS. It also evaluates four separate gauges of spending-per-pupil expenditures, teachers' average salaries, per-pupil administrative expenditures, and the student-teacher ratio. For each, however, it finds the same results: spending increases were not associated with improved performance, and in many cases were associated with worsened performance. This holds true even for class size-actually, increasing the pupil-teacher ratio had a positive effect on MCAS scores. So what does improve student performance? Unfortunately, this analysis points only to socioeconomic status. However, the authors do (briefly) highlight three districts whose MCAS performance was higher than their models would predict (given the socioeconomic status of their student bodies). This appraisal suggests that the districts fare well due to high standards and hard work. A closer look at those districts would be interesting. As would comparable studies nationwide, so that policy makers might be encouraged to spend more effectively rather than just more abundantly. To get a copy for yourself click here.
