Money and Education: What is the Relationship?
By Hugh McInnish

Everyone I know wishes our schools were better than they are. Not everyone I know agrees on how to make them better. A considerable number, however, have the unshakeable belief that more money is the answer. If stingy taxpayers would only loosen their tightfisted grip on their money and give attention to the educators when they explain their needs, then all would be as it should be. Is this a correct view?

One of my favorite authors and social commentators is Thomas Sowell, the famous black scholar at Stanford. In his book Inside American Education he addressed just this question:

When all else fails, spokesmen and apologists for the education establishment blame a lack of money--often expressed as a lack of "commitment" by the public or the government--for their problems. The issue is posed as how "serious" the public, or its political leaders, are about "investing" in the education of the next generation. This cleverly turns the tables on critics and loads guilt onto the tax-paying public for the failures of American schools and colleges. Implicit in all this is the wholly unsupported assumption that more money means better education. Neither comparisons among states, comparisons over time, nor international comparisons, lend any credence to this arbitrary (and self-serving) assumption. [Emphasis added.]

Indeed. William J. Bennett, author of The Moral Compass and numerous other books, also compiles The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, a collection of statistics showing the state of health of the country's educational and social institutions. The education section of his book should be memorized by anyone interested in improving our schools. He shows, for instance, that from 1960 to 1998 average SAT scores fell from 975 to 916. (This is based on the "old" scale. In 1996 the scores were "recentered" and have since shown a misleading inflation.) During the same period per-student spending rose from $2,422 to $6,943, an increase of 187 percent. (These figures are adjusted for inflation and thus are given in "constant dollars.")

Bennett also makes a pertinent comparison of the spending among the states and their resulting test scores. In 1996 forty states and the District of Columbia participated in an eighth-grade math test sponsored by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The District of Columbia itself was dead last in its test scores, but was second only to New Jersey, which did not participate in the test, in per-student spending. On the other hand Utah, which spent less than any state other than Arkansas, ranked twelfth in the test rankings. It is true that some high-spending states had high test scores and some low-spending states had low scores, but there is no clear general connection between money and results. See the accompanying chart which graphically makes this point.

Looking at the international picture Sowell writes that, "In overall per-pupil expenditure, the U.S. ranks near the top, even though the performance of its students often ranks at or near the bottom."

But let me zoom in at this point to Madison County, Alabama. In this county we have three separate school systems, and there is a significant difference in their spending. But look: The system that spends the least has the highest scores, and the one that spends the most has the lowest scores. And, of the three, which is the only one now asking for more money? Well, of course, it's the one with the lowest scores and which is already the biggest spender, the Huntsville School System. (See the related article.)

To surrender more of our money to the politicians and educators when it so clearly will do nothing to improve performance has an obvious disadvantage: It is wasteful. But it also has a negative effect which is more subtle: By raising a ruckus and demanding more money, advocates of increased spending, wittingly or not, create a diversion. The public's attention is turned away from an honest pursuit of the real problems, whatever they might be, and is focused instead onto money, admittedly one of the more concrete things in the world, but a commodity that clearly is no antidote to troubled schools. In this way confrontation with such nettlesome matters as the need for abolition of tenure, school choice, and accountability are postponed for yet another day.

What can our leaders possibly be thinking? Never mind the militant members of the teachers union. Under the leadership of the overpaid head of the AEA they are in hot pursuit of enhancements to their own welfare. Hardly ever can they even give pretence to concern for students anymore. But what about the others?

What about the leaders of the PTA, the members of the Chamber of Commerce, the civic and business stalwarts in the community? They who should know the most seem to know very little. They show no evidence of having done any homework. Else they would have in their heads the very simple facts concerning money and education and would act accordingly. They would say, "Now look here, stop this. This idea that we should increase taxes in order to improve our schools is fallacious. Money is not the problem. We should not allow ourselves to be sucked in by a shallow and discredited mantra. Let's face the facts and start analyzing our problems from a foundation of reality."

And as for the taxpayers, we who are being asked to vote to turn over more of our money to the educators, the best that we can do is to refrain from being their enablers. A vote to increase taxes will only prolong the delusion that money is a solution, and postpone the day when reality might take hold. A vote against new taxes, on the other hand, might be the proverbial dash of cold water in the face.

To surrender more of our money to the politicians and educators when it so clearly will do nothing to improve performance has an obvious disadvantage: It is wasteful. But it also has a negative effect which is more subtle: By raising a ruckus and demanding more money, advocates of increased spending, wittingly or not, create a diversion. The public's attention is turned away from an honest pursuit of the real problems, whatever they might be, and is focused instead onto money, admittedly one of the more concrete things in the world, but a commodity that clearly is no antidote to troubled schools. In this way confrontation with such nettlesome matters as the need for abolition of tenure, school choice, and accountability are postponed for yet another day.

What can our leaders possibly be thinking? Never mind the militant members of the teachers union. Under the leadership of the overpaid head of the AEA they are in hot pursuit of enhancements to their own welfare. Hardly ever can they even give pretence to concern for students anymore. But what about the others?

What about the leaders of the PTA, the members of the Chamber of Commerce, the civic and business stalwarts in the community? They who should know the most seem to know very little. They show no evidence of having done any homework. Else they would have in their heads the very simple facts concerning money and education and would act accordingly. They would say, "Now look here, stop this. This idea that we should increase taxes in order to improve our schools is fallacious. Money is not the problem. We should not allow ourselves to be sucked in by a shallow and discredited mantra. Let's face the facts and start analyzing our problems from a foundation of reality."

And as for the taxpayers, we who are being asked to vote to turn over more of our money to the educators, the best that we can do is to refrain from being their enablers. A vote to increase taxes will only prolong the delusion that money is a solution, and postpone the day when reality might take hold. A vote against new taxes, on the other hand, might be the proverbial dash of cold water in the face.