Does More Money Mean a Better Education?

by Valorie Delp | More from this Blogger

22 Dec 2006 08:34 AM

Since Congress is changing hands from the GOP to the Dems in January of 2007, the NEA has its sights on what it sees as potential for change. NCLB* and the ESEA** are up for tweaking and renewal. The NEA also has a whole slew of other proposals that they want to see pushed through, such as giving educators additional tax breaks for the money they spend on their classrooms, initiatives to decrease the drop out rate, increase the graduation rate, increase funding for Title 1 programs, and improvement for their teacher's salary packages (benefits, pensions etc.)

What I read, when I read through their agenda for Congress this upcoming session, went something like this: More money for blah, blah, blah, and more money for blah, blah, blah, and more money for blah, blah, blah, and more money for blah, blah, blah. More money is great. We all love it when everything is shiny and new. But of course, money does not grow on trees (has anyone mentioned this to congress?) Someone has to pay for all this extra blah, blah, blah--and that someone is the tax payers.

So you have to ask the question--does more money mean a better education? Certainly in some places yes. I've written before about inner city conditions, and the need to reduce class sizes (among other things.) The only way to reduce class sizes is to hire more teachers. . .which means you need more money. (This is assuming however, that teachers want to teach in the inner city and that is a different story.) To answer this question, I decided to do some research.

Title 1 Programs

Title 1 Programs are government grant programs that give extra funding in areas that are considered disadvantaged. The funds provide 'literacy coaches' to pull kids out of class and help them read better, among other things. I am sure that there are good things Title 1 programs fund however, this has been my experience.

Title 1 provided two tutors to our school that is considered economically disadvantaged. But of course, like all teachers, they are with a union. Which in a six hour work day provides that they get two prep periods (each an hour long) and a lunch (also an hour long). In a 6 hour work day, they worked a grand total of 3 hours. It seems to me that rather than increasing funding to Title 1 programs for more teachers, the ones we have could work more hours.

A 1.5 Million Dollar Experiment

In Austin, Texas two professors from Harvard and MIT respectively, got together and awarded $300,000 for five years (a total of $1,500,000) to 15 schools that were performing poorly, 13 continued to perform poorly at the end of 5 years.

Alternatives to Public Education

Most private schools, charter schools, homeschools, and everything in between, generally spend at least $1,000 less per student than do public schools. Some of this is due to the sheer volume of public schools. But the gap is so large, that the fact still remains that many 'alternatives' do a better job educating students for less money.

Spending It Wisely

I am absolutely for increasing, or at least redistributing, funds to public schools. However, I think there needs to be oversight into how money gets spent. In theory there is, but if the oversight was working, I think we'd see drastically improved results. The reason we don't see widespread improvement is because the funds aren't being spent well.

Remember our experiment in Austin, Texas? It is certainly telling that even with substantial funding increases most schools didn't improve. However, what is also telling is that the two who did improve, improved drastically. They reduced class sizes, improved their health care facilities which in turn dramatically increased student attendance. They also invested in a curriculum for gifted and talented kids and (gasp) taught it to everyone. They also involved parents in decision making for the school. They prove that well spent funds can make a difference.

So do we need all the funding increases that the NEA is proposing? Yes and no. No doubt that in some of the poorest areas, increased funding would help. (I know of a teacher who actually had to buy her students textbooks one year.) However, the solution is beyond a simple increase. The solution lies in the oversight of how money is spent. One thing is for sure, I will be watching this session in Congress intently to see what they do with NCLB, the ESEA and other issues that the NEA is promoting.

*NCLB=No Child Left Behind Act

**ESEA=Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Related Articles:

Now That's A Lot of Money! Teachers and Non-Reimbursed Spending

Scratch Off for Education: How Lotteries Fund Schools

National School Voucher System Proposed by Congress

Learn more about Valorie Delp

Hello everybody! My name is Valorie and I am one busy lady! When I'm not writing or editing for families, I am busy trying to get my brood of 5 in line.

View Full Profile | More from this Blogger

Andrea Hermitt (5507) 22 Dec 2006 10:23 AM

like you said... it's now how much, but how it is used! How many poor people have a lot better handle on their money than rich?

LEC23 (216) 30 Dec 2006 03:58 PM

I agree with you, more auditing of accounts need to be undertaken to see where the additionally funding for any project within a school goes and for the different tiers/levels that the money passes through to be totally accountable.

Let me explain and give a hypothetical example for the UK:

Central Government announces that Primary Schools will receive 200m in additional funding for the purchase of computer equipment.

The funds are then divided equally amongst 2,000 Local Government's Education Departments. (= 100,000 per education department).

Immediately upon receipt, the Local Education Authority deducts 20% of this total for Local Government administration costs in implementing the system and distributing the funds. (= 80,000 left in total per LEA for project).

Say there are 100 Primary Schools per LEA, that would give a total in theory of 800 per primary school. Now it would all depend on the Primary School and whether they have opted out of Local Authority control. If they have then the 800 would go to the school directly. If it hasn't then the school would have no option but to purchase through the IT Company that the LEA has an exclusive contract with, this could be an inhouse central purchasing unit. However another 20% at least, will be creamed off, whether from the Central Purchasing Unit for their administration and installation costs, or the opted-out school will deduct at least 20% for its administration and installation costs. (-160) This would leave a net total for the actual purchase of the computer equipment of 640 per primary school. If an opted-out school was very prudent, they may just get 4 computers for this amount and then there would be the question of where these computers were to be placed and would not necessarily be for the use of students. It is not uncommon that the allocation would go via priority. Eg Administration, Teacher use, Library Use and at the bottom student use and as there is no accountability as to where and to whom the computers are for, then the students may just get no equipment at all.

This is the reason why complete and thorough audits of all allocated monies should be initiated, so as to actually make individual schools and LEA's accountable for its distribution.

Valorie Delp (49340) 30 Dec 2006 04:24 PM

Thanks LEC23. I cannot speak for everywhere but I know here via personal accounts that monies are spent haphazardly in many situations. I think it has more to do with beuraucracy and ineffecient accounting--rather than personal decisions. I also think that teacher's unions cripple what can be done in education in this area. But that's a whole other blog. . .