This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 5
The money myth (continued)

This big-picture evidence is strongly confirmed by academic research. Though you’d never know it from the tenor of most education debates, the vast majority of studies have found no sustained positive relationship between spending and classroom results. Economist Eric Hanushek of Stanford University examined every solid study on spending and outcomes–a total of 163 research papers–and concluded that extra resources are more likely to be squandered than to have a productive effect.

Again, Greene makes you do the footwork by not identifying the study to which he refers. Eric Hanushek’s reseach does not stand unchallenged. William Schweke, research director for the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), states that “Research confirms the value of investing in educational programs, curricula, technologies, skills, and infrastructure” and goes on to claim:

Research shows that a high-quality education increases the earnings of individuals and the economic health of their communities. Some believe, however, that increased public investment will not necessarily improve the quality of education offered. But recent studies show that education spending can have a direct, positive impact on the business climate and can improve the success of at-risk students, whose contributions to the economy are critical for achieving a high-value/high-wage economy in the 21st century. Such spending will have a greater chance of success if coupled with specific reforms, such as smaller class sizes, greater access to technology for at-risk students, support for teacher training and innovation, and improved accountability structures. [emphasis mine] [1]

It is my expert against Greene’s expert. So much of education debate revolves around different interpretations of the same data (or in some cases, if the data do not fit, make up your own). Humans look for patterns to find meaning, yet we must be careful our search is not blinded by what we already know or think we know. I’m well aware my own bias can affect my reasoning, which can make it more difficult to find the truth – especially if the truth is uncomfortable.

Greene ends the money myth section with this paragraph:

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 6
The money myth (continued)

Still, countless people assume that our schools are underfunded. One explanation is that people don’t want to believe that large amounts of public money have been used without producing significant results. There’s plenty of room for debate on how best to reform our school system, but the sooner Americans realize that lack of resources is not the real problem in our schools the sooner we can have a meaningful debate on how to make education more productive.

I don’t believe in throwing money at schools without a plan or without accountability, but well invested money is needed to get good results. The question isn’t, “Does money matter?” – of course it does. The question is, “How much money is enough?” or perhaps, “Where is the line between solid funding and excessive spending?” The answer depends, I think, on what Americans want from our schools.

Test scores cannot be the only measurement of quality. Drama, art, music, sports, and other extracurricular activities are not just fluff, they reflect an investment in our culture. They build students’ ability to get more out of life, sometimes affecting their career choices, and that can’t be measured by the NAEP. Anything beyond desks in a room with blank walls is going to cost more. How much we want to give our children in terms of enrichment is up to how much we are willing to spend.

Notes & References:

1. Scheke, William. 2004. Smart Money Education and Economic Development, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.