While research is mixed on whether increases in school spending lead to better results for students, a study suggests that influxes of dollars from court decisions lead to higher graduation rates and earnings, especially for low-income students.
By
John Higgins
Seattle Times education reporter
In its 2012 McCleary decision, the state Supreme Court was clear Washington’s lawmakers must devote more tax dollars to our public schools to meet their constitutional responsibility.
How much more? The justices didn’t say.
But the case presumes that more money will lead to a better education — and thus better college and life prospects — for every student in the state.
Does the research on school spending warrant that optimism?
It’s a surprisingly difficult question to answer.
While many wealthy parents don’t question whether money matters when they shell out big bucks for private schools, researchers have debated the role of money in public education for a half-century.
Many studies have failed to find a consistent relationship between increased spending and improved test scores, which has led some policymakers to conclude that money doesn’t matter — even in states like Washington, where the investment in education, compared with other states, has been average or below for many years.
But a new study, recently published in a leading economics journal, used a fresh approach that found strong ties between spending and results, and may also explain why past studies failed to find a strong relationship between the two.
That study has direct bearing on what’s happening here because it focuses on what happened in school districts after state supreme courts ordered higher spending.
In short, the researchers found that students in districts with bigger windfalls did better, on average, than students from other districts in the same state that got less. They spent more time in school, for example, and had higher wages as adults.
The study, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, is the first to show the long-term effects of school spending.
Lead author Kirabo Jackson of Northwestern University and his co-authors, Rucker Johnson at the University of California, Berkeley, and Claudia Persico at Northwestern, don’t claim to have the last word on spending and achievement.
But Jackson says their study is important because it demonstrates long-term results and uncovers flaws in many past studies.
“If you have people going out there testifying to legislators that money does not matter and there’s no evidence out there that money matters, then it’s germane to the conversation,” Jackson said.
National report
The debate over the benefits of school funding began about 50 years ago with a report ordered by Congress to look at the effect of racial segregation on students.
Named after its lead researcher, James Coleman, of Johns Hopkins University, the two-year national study reached several conclusions about the power of schools to change stude.
Framing an Appropriate Research Question 6b9b26d93da94caf993c038d9efcdedb.pdf
While research is mixed on whether increases in school spending le.docx
1. While research is mixed on whether increases in school
spending lead to better results for students, a study suggests
that influxes of dollars from court decisions lead to higher
graduation rates and earnings, especially for low-income
students.
By
John Higgins
Seattle Times education reporter
In its 2012 McCleary decision, the state Supreme Court was
clear Washington’s lawmakers must devote more tax dollars to
our public schools to meet their constitutional responsibility.
How much more? The justices didn’t say.
But the case presumes that more money will lead to a better
education — and thus better college and life prospects — for
every student in the state.
Does the research on school spending warrant that optimism?
It’s a surprisingly difficult question to answer.
While many wealthy parents don’t question whether money
matters when they shell out big bucks for private schools,
researchers have debated the role of money in public education
for a half-century.
Many studies have failed to find a consistent relationship
between increased spending and improved test scores, which has
led some policymakers to conclude that money doesn’t matter
— even in states like Washington, where the investment in
2. education, compared with other states, has been average or
below for many years.
But a new study, recently published in a leading economics
journal, used a fresh approach that found strong ties between
spending and results, and may also explain why past studies
failed to find a strong relationship between the two.
That study has direct bearing on what’s happening here because
it focuses on what happened in school districts after state
supreme courts ordered higher spending.
In short, the researchers found that students in districts with
bigger windfalls did better, on average, than students from other
districts in the same state that got less. They spent more time in
school, for example, and had higher wages as adults.
The study, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, is
the first to show the long-term effects of school spending.
Lead author Kirabo Jackson of Northwestern University and his
co-authors, Rucker Johnson at the University of California,
Berkeley, and Claudia Persico at Northwestern, don’t claim to
have the last word on spending and achievement.
But Jackson says their study is important because it
demonstrates long-term results and uncovers flaws in many past
studies.
“If you have people going out there testifying to legislators that
money does not matter and there’s no evidence out there that
money matters, then it’s germane to the conversation,” Jackson
said.
National report
3. The debate over the benefits of school funding began about 50
years ago with a report ordered by Congress to look at the effect
of racial segregation on students.
Named after its lead researcher, James Coleman, of Johns
Hopkins University, the two-year national study reached several
conclusions about the power of schools to change students’
lives — including the fact that family income predicts academic
success better than where
Coleman’s study also was the first national study to suggest that
there is no connection between the amount of money spent per
student and how well students perform on tests.
That finding has been confirmed in some follow-up studies and
contradicted by others, which is frustrating for lawmakers who
want clear answers.
The mixed results reflect a serious limitation that’s easy to miss
in the fancy equations: researchers don’t understand how
teaching produces learning.
The process is obviously more complicated than building a car,
but economists disagree about what to measure and how to
judge whether investments in education are productive.
“We know that (education) is different, but we’re not sure
exactly how and in what ways it happens,” said Margaret Plecki,
a University of Washington school-finance expert.
Another challenge is that increases in spending often are tied to
changes in a district’s population — like an increase in the
number of students from low-income families.
Because those students, on average, tend to score lower on tests
4. than richer classmates for reasons that have nothing to do with
the school, that can make spending look like it matters less than
it really does.
But Jackson and his colleagues think they’ve gotten around that
problem by tracking big spending increases that came out of
court cases in 28 states between 1971 and 2010. They argue that
the timing of those windfalls was unrelated to changes in
student populations.
“It’s like a helicopter drop of money,” Jackson said.
They were able to follow the lives of about 15,000 students —
drawn from a national household survey that has tracked about
18,000 individuals and their children since 1968 — who
attended school before, during and after those reforms.
The researchers made two predictions: All the kids in districts
that got bigger money drops would do better in life than kids in
other parts of the same state that got smaller amounts, and
within districts, students who were in the schools longer after
the windfall would do better than those who either left before it
started or stayed just a few years.
They were right on both counts, especially for children from
low-income families.
In the places where per-student spending increased by 10
percent each year over 12 years of public school, low-income
students who spent their whole school careers in those districts
earned about 13 percent more at age 40, on average. They also
were more likely to graduate and stay out of poverty.
The new study is “a very big deal,” said Linda Darling-
Hammond, an emeritus professor at Stanford who leads a
national think tank on education policy that includes two of the
5. study’s authors.
While not the first to find positive effects from more money,
she said, it’s probably the most substantial study to follow
students for so long.
State is 29th highest in spending
How money is spent matters, of course — it’s certainly possible
to spend a lot badly and get no results.
Not that Washington has ever been a state to throw money at its
public schools.
In the 2012-2013 school year, for example, Washington spent a
total of $9,672 per student, counting state, local and federal
money. That was 29th highest among the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, according to U.S. census data released
last year.
“It’s not like Washington has any history of overspending in
education relative to other states,” said Plecki, UW’s school-
finance expert. “We have been a middle-of-the-roader or below
for many, many, many years.”
Jackson’s study wasn’t designed to figure out why big influxes
of dollars led to better results, but he and his colleagues have
some theories, based on how districts used their money.
They found, for example, that districts tended to raise teacher
salaries, lower class sizes and increase instructional time, which
previous research has linked to better student results.
Washington state lawmakers have promised to do all three.
They added 80 hours of annual instructional time for grades 7-
12 beginning in 2014, and they plan to lower K-3 average-class
6. sizes significantly — not just by one or two students, which
research has shown is too little to make a difference.
As for teacher pay, they’re talking about raising that, too —
although there’s debate about how, with some arguing that pay
increases should favor beginning teachers to attract more talent
to the profession.
That’s what a legislative committee recommended in 2012after
determining that Washington’s beginning teachers make a little
more than half the salary of their most experienced colleagues
with 16 years of experience and a Ph.D.
Dan Goldhaber, who directs the Center for Education Data &
Research at the University of Washington, Bothell, also says his
recent study into the state’s bonus program for National Board
Certified Teachers found that it boosted the percentage of such
teachers in low-income schools — an investment in teaching
quality that he says makes more sense than giving teachers a 21
percent raise for earning a master’s degree, the highest such pay
bump in the nation, the 2012 committee said. Whatever happens
with those debates, basic economics suggests that it is unlikely
Washington would get the same bang for the buck today as
court decisions from the 1970s and ’80s because of the law of
diminishing returns — education spending is higher than it was
back then. But Jackson’s study suggests that the McCleary
decision, if followed, would improve the long-run prospects of
the state’s 1 million school children — especially disadvantaged
kids. He and his colleagues found that a 25 percent increase in
per-student spending over the course of a student’s school-age
years could eliminate the gaps in income and years of education
between children from low-income families and those making at
least twice the poverty line. And so far, Washington has
increased state per-pupil spending by 33 percent.
John Higgins: 206-464-3145 or [email protected]. On
7. Twitter@jhigginsST
Slide 1 (Title Slide)
Team 3
“Vibrant Visionaries”
Antonia Eggins
Veronica Hernandez
Tanesha Holleman
Latoya Johnson
Christina Liu
Narration: Visionaries possess the capability to observe
quintessential elements of life with their mind’s eye and
perception, often before non-visionaries. These individuals are
evolutionary and creatively in their professional and academic
careers while demonstrating a precise set of conceptual
components developing direction and growth.
Slide 2 “Qualifications of members (academic and/or
professional) – What will be each team members’ role? What is
each team member’s qualification for that role? Will your team
have a team leader? Why is that person qualified to be the team
leader? How will you proceed if the team leader is unable to
meet those responsibilities?”
Tanesha = Team Leader
Latoya = Recorder
Antonia = Proofreader (Team Leader back-up)
Christina = Expediter
Veronica = Gatekeeper
Narration: Tanesha Team Leader = Implements structure to the
group members, by clearly communicating expectations,
managing an agenda, and providing specific instructions as
group members work toward the achievement of their tasks.
Antonia Proofreader (Team Leader back-up) = Her professional
career as a Charger-off Recovery Coordinator/Legal Custodian
of Records equips her for such as position. Her career
encompasses negotiating settlements, advising individuals on
8. financial wellness, corresponding with debt attorney’s,
verifying, filing and preparing legal documents, in addition, a
liaison; building the gap from the expectations of the financial
industry of borrowing and repayment to and an individual legal
responsibility.
Veronica Gatekeeper = Influences the flow of conversation in
our group. She strives to achieve a suitable balance so that all
group members get to participate in a meaningful way.
Latoya Recorder = Her career as a Customer Advocate and
Compliance Liaison provides her the knowledge to complete the
research necessary to complete our assignments expeditiously.
It also aids in her positon to takes notes on the discussion and
exercises that occur during our group meeting. She makes sure
everyone meets the team deadlines and provides important
information for those who were unable to attend the meeting.
Christina Expediter = Her career as a Recruitment and
Operation Specialist permits her to provide the team with proper
development and implementation of procedures and practices as
appropriate, to individual requirements. She keeps the group on
track towards accomplishing our task. She examines the agenda
and evaluates goals to monitor the group’s progress.
Slide 3 “For each task in the project – When and where will you
hold meetings? How will you inform team members of what
occurred at the meeting if they were not available/ present?
How will your team decide a work schedule to avoid last minute
work? Who will submit the project? Will the team receive a
message (during or after) submission?”
Narration: After the group assignments has been posted by the
professor. The group will correlate physical meetings at the
university campus on Tuesday or Thursday evenings for 30
minutes to an hour. The specific day will be decided upon by a
consensus of availability and convenience among the group.
Additional and follow-up meetings will be held on, as needed
bases. Team members who were not present will be informed
via email, group chat, and Blackboard to the discussion,
9. expectations, assignment details, and deadline. The group leader
will be responsible for submitting all projects before the
deadline. The recorder will distribute the notes and instructions
for the completion of each assignment. The gatekeeper ensures
each members voice is illustrated verbally through-out the
assignment. The expediter will ensure the team has a timeline
structure; checkpoints, deadlines and feedback. The proofreader
will analyze, rephrase, and make the necessary corrections to
the assignment; she will than submit the assignment to the
groups discussion board for final approval from the team. Each
team member will have a “hard deadline” to submit missed
corrections, grammatical errors, typos, etc.……
Slide 4 “How will you resolve disagreements that may arise
while working on projects? Create a policy dealing with
members who don’t do their work at all or in a timely manner.
What penalties will you apply? (Some ideas: a team firing, team
intervention or loss of points for the specific task)”
Narration: Disagreements has to be acknowledged before it can
be resolved. The important thing during the problem resolution
process is to maintain an open communication. The team
members directly involved in an issue, must be open to a
discussion which promotes resolution. Each member directly
involved in the issues will embrace entering into a healthy
discussion to talk about the issue, share their feelings about the
issues, and explore positive problem resolution. If there is no
resolution and the issues begins to disrupt the dynamics of the
team than the Team Leader will suggest problem resolution
techniques. No other team members will engage in “taking
sides” or fueling the issues with gossip, backbiting or name
calling.
Each team member must conduct themselves and approach each
assignment with accountability, responsibility, empathy,
sympathy and respect. In the event a team member has violated
the cohesiveness of the team by not meeting deadlines, not
completing the assignments, or not cooperating with the input
of the assignment.