OPINION: Why money matters for public education

I recently came across a 2016 research paper titled “Does Money Matter in Education,” By Bruce D. Baker, published by the Albert Shanker Institute. The paper looked at the correlation between “adequate” public education funding, equity and better outcomes.

It’s a 30-page paper referencing 154 research articles, and it left me with two major takeaways:

Money matters: On average, higher per-pupil spending is associated with improved or higher student outcomes.

Resources matter: This is particularly true in rural and remote Alaska. Smaller class sizes, additional supports, early childhood programs and more competitive teacher compensation are factors that are all positively associated with better student outcomes. Again, the things that benefit students cost money, and the relationship between resources and student outcomes are directly linked, meaning money matters. Frankly, there is simply little evidence that there are more cost-effective alternatives for delivering a well-rounded and robust public education.

Given these facts, why are public education systems perpetually underfunded?

In 1986, an economist, Mr. Eric Hanushek, took a look at the methodologically outdated studies from previous decades and made a finding that “there appears to be no strong or systematic relationship between school expenditures and student performance.”

And this is where politics comes in and has played such a significant role in the underfunding of public education systems in the U.S.

This single quote, entirely based on now refuted analyses, remains the mantra for politicians wishing to deny that increased funding for schools will improve school quality and student outcomes. And so, it appears that a debunked talking point is now central to the governor’s and the Alaska Policy Forums assertions that more money won’t improve reading and math proficiency.

With deficits being reported from every school district across the state, there is no question that the level of funding currently being contemplated by the state is completely inadequate. Even with a $680 increase to the Base Student Allocation, structural deficits would persist in most districts, and each district is still facing cuts that will directly affect students from school closures, to increased PTR, to loss of programs.

Years of flat funding have also left schools in our state without functioning fire suppression systems, with leaking roofs and black mold, with districts unable to provide housing for teachers, and even with the BSA at $6,640, those funds will do little to remedy those unacceptable conditions, and only allow most districts to retain their teachers for another year.

What is clear is that we cannot sit by and allow our children’s educational opportunities to be limited by the willful ignorance or political aspirations of a handful of individuals who have taken more than their fair share from Alaska and want to deny others their shot at success.

Jacqueline Muehlbauer is an office manager at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks. This commentary is her personal opinion and does not represent that of any group or organization of which she is a part.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.