Study: School Funding And Academic Achievement Not Always Linked

Statistics provided by the Center for Investigative Reporting’s California Watch show that although school funding cuts put a strain on school districts, the reduced money spent per student doesn’t necessarily lead to lower test scores.

The California Watch report showed that large gaps exist among districts in terms of how much money is spent per student.

Some districts spend more than double the money per student than other districts, but despite the added money some of the high-spending districts had Academic Performance Index (API) scores that were in the lower third of scores recorded last year.

For instance, Taft Union High School in Kern County spent nearly $22,000 per student based on average daily attendance (ADA), but its API score was 674. By contrast, Lake Elsinore Unified School District spent $7,574 per student based on ADA, but had an API score of 814.

Big differences can even be found within the same county. In Imperial County, San Pasqual Valley Unified School District spent $14,028 per student, but had an API score of 657.

Also in Imperial County, McCabe Union Elementary School District spent $6,330 per student, but its students excelled on test scores and received an API rating of 864.

California Watch reported that its analysis is based on the state’s current expense of education per student, which includes annual salaries, employee benefits, books, supplies and other educational services. It does not include costs for building purchases, construction, retiree benefits and food services.

Some schools in the report had both high revenue spent per student and good API scores. And some at the lower end of the spending scale had poor API scores. But the conclusion has to be made that extra money doesn’t guarantee students will excel.

In a story published by California Watch, UC Berkeley education professor W. Norton Grubb was quoted as saying that money may be necessary for school improvement, but it doesn’t guarantee that improvement takes place. In his recent book, “The Money Myth,” Grubb found that urban schools tend to spend inefficiently for various reasons including high staff and student turnover and conflicts over how to teach struggling students. Also, urban districts often have extra expenses like added security, dropout prevention and programs for teaching students who are not proficient in English.

As to why lower-spending districts have students that score high on API, the answer may in better handling of money, along with an effort to maintain good teachers and smaller classroom sizes. Mark Dennis, coordinator of community and media relations for Lake Elsinore Unified School District, said that his district’s staff is proactive in obtaining funding outside the normal sources.

“They are persistent in checking all the funding sources,” he said.

But like other districts, LEUSD has come up short of funding for classroom equipment, supplies and furniture. “We keep equipment longer and stretch the lifecycle of equipment,” Dennis said.

And the money situation does not appear to be getting much better. The new California state budget has revenue projections that could fall short, triggering $2.5 billion in additional spending cuts to schools and other programs at about the middle of the new fiscal year.

But George Landon, assistant superintendent fiscal support services, for LEUSD, sees the budget as better than might have been expected. “I believe this budget does benefit California and the education community,” Landon said. “The legislature has made assumptions and triggers that will not be known until January or February. Education may see mid-year cuts if the assumptions are not met.”

He added that the mid-year cuts will be difficult. “We are looking forward to hearing all of the details of the state budget so we can plan accordingly,” Landon said.