Brave Sir Robin, if there is "zero" correlation between funding and
performance then there shouldn't be a problem in reducing school funding to
$1 per pupil or even $0 per pupil. There is a correlation between
funding and achievement but there is a point at where more funding has a
negligible impact. Currently, I think Utah could use some more targeted funding
that goes directly to more technology infrastructure and school materials such
as text resources. Some schools could use better environmental controls such as
air-conditioning/heating that actually works and creates an environment
conducive to learning. Having only class sets of textbooks or class supplies is
quite harmful and we could do better than that rather than erroneously believe
there is not one iota of correlation between school funding and achievement.
Parents are the key to educating children. Parents have the most influence on
how their children do in school.
Yay, we're average!But as Mark said... imagine what we could do
with a little support and money.
@Mark from Montana"How well could they do if we gave them 15%
more money.....or even 25% more?"The evidence suggests not well.
Multiple studies have shown zero correlation between school funding, teacher
pay, and high student performance. Case in point: North Slope Borough District,
AK, the nation's wealthiest school district (in terms of teacher pay and
spending per student), also has the nation's lowest test scores and highest
high school dropout rate.However, the evidence suggests high
correlation between parental involvement and high student performance. In other
words, parents who care tend to have students who do well. Unless you spend
that money improving parents, which I don't know how you could, it's
not going to make a difference.
Kudos to Utah teachers for doing so well with below average funding. How well
could they do if we gave them 15% more money.....or even 25% more?