An interesting study on the effects of school funding. The key finding is controversial, which might explain why it's not in the abstract, so I excerpt it here:
"In Adamson and Darling-Hammond (2012), I found that in at least two large states' experiences, the relationship that I think will hold nation-wide regarding funding and outcome correlations did hold, but that a particular aspect of that funding (namely, the qualifications of the teachers which can or cannot be bought on that basis) explained much of the relationship, rather than funding more globally considered (i.e., involving expenditures on resources other than differently qualified teachers.)
For years, the question of whether money matters in providing quality education has been continuously discussed and studied...
In a limited number of studies, however, the results vary noticeably. Picus and Robillard (2000) concluded that there is no consistent link between school funding and student academic performance. Similarly, Murnane and Levy (1996), in a study of fifteen schools in Austin, Texas, came to the conclusion that the availability of extra resources does not lead to greater student achievement. These studies are consistent with the findings of two well-known studies by James Coleman (1964) and Eric Hanushek (1986). In his report on "Equality of Educational Opportunity," Coleman found little relationship between school resource measures and student outcomes. More than twenty years later, Hanushek confirmed Coleman's finding, emphasizing that "there appears to be no strong or systematic relationship between school expenditures and student performance." Recently, however, different findings have been reported. Hedges and his two colleagues found that "PPE [per—pupil expenditures] show strong and consistent relations with achievement." In another recent research endeavor, John Mackenzie rejected the common public claim that "throwing more money at public schools will do little or nothing to improve them" by showing that "a $ 1,000 increase in per pupil spending would yield a 9.28 point increase in combined SAT I scores." He also concluded that there is a "positive relationship between funding and student performance."
In addition to the mentioned studies, Charlene Tow (2006), examining this relationship in California school districts, found that school funding does have a "small, yet significant" effect on student academic achievement. However, Tow pointed out that school funding can impact either positively or negatively on student performance, depending on the source of the funding. She concluded that increases in federal funding likely improve student outcomes, whereas increases in state funding actually lower student achievement. This study is compatible with the findings of Bruce D. Baker, in as much as it contends that it is not just how much total money is spent that counts, but also how such spending comes to be and is done, which significantly affects educational outcomes. In Maglakelidze et al. (2013), I saw how the funding—to—outcome central hypothesis might only hold under certain conditions, having to do with a country's level of economic development...
After controlling for student gender, number of tests taken, different meal programs, and student ethnicity, any one hundred dollar increase in school funding per student would lead to a 0.05 decrease in average student test scores.
From the above results, we can conclude that there exists a significant relationship between average student test scores and school funding. Though this relationship is negative, the estimated OLS coefficients remain pretty small and very close to zero. This is unexpected and different from what I hypothesized. One possible explanation for this unexpected result could be that the funding referenced herein includes that provided by federal revenues, and this federal money often is designated or earmarked for special programs that would not be generally applicable to all students, or those meeting a "typical" profile."
