Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? › fulltext › ED509499.pdf ·...

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2179.cfm

Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department

Published by The Heritage Foundation214 Massachusetts Avenue, NEWashington, DC 20002–4999(202) 546-4400 • heritage.org

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflect-ing the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

• American spending on public K–12 educationcontinues at an all-time high and is still rising,reaching $9,266 per pupil in 2004–2005.Total real spending per student (including alllevels of government funding) has increasedby 23.5 percent over the past decade and 49percent over the past 20 years.

• Federal spending on elementary and second-ary education has also increased dramati-cally. Since 1985, real federal spending onK–12 education has increased by 138 percent.

• Continuous spending increases have notcorresponded with equal improvement inAmerican educational performance. Long-term NAEP reading scale scores and highschool graduation rates show that the per-formance of American students has notimproved dramatically in recent decades eventhough education spending has soared.

• Instead of simply increasing funding for pub-lic education, federal and state policymakersshould implement education reforms, suchas parental choice in education, designed toimprove resource allocation and boost stu-dent performance.

Talking Points

No. 2179September 8, 2008

Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?

Dan Lips, Shanea J. Watkins, Ph.D., and John Fleming

Debates about how to improve public education inAmerica often focus on whether government shouldspend more on education. Federal and state policy-makers proposing new education programs often basetheir arguments on the need to provide more resourcesto schools to improve opportunities for students.

Many Americans seem to share this view. Pollingdata show that many people believe that governmentallocates insufficient resources to schools. A pollconducted annually from 2004 through 2007 foundthat American adults list insufficient funding andresources as a top problem facing public schools intheir communities.1

While this view may be commonly held, policy-makers and citizens should question whether histori-cal evidence and academic research actually supportit. This paper addresses two important questions:

1. How much does the United States spend on publiceducation?

2. What does the evidence show about the relation-ship between public education spending and stu-dents’ academic achievement?

The answers to these questions should inform fed-eral and state policy debates about how best toimprove education.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbiaface budget shortfalls totaling approximately $48 bil-lion for fiscal year 2009.2 Even more states could faceshortfalls in the near future. At the federal level, long-term budgets face a challenging fiscal climate. Pro-

No. 2179

page 2

September 8, 2008

jected growth of entitlement programs is expectedto place an ever-increasing burden on the federalbudget, limiting the resources available for otherpurposes, including education.3123

Simply increasing government spending on edu-cation may no longer be a viable option for federaland state policymakers. Furthermore, as this paperdemonstrates, simply increasing education spend-ing does not appear to improve American students’academic achievement. To improve learning oppor-tunities for American children, policymakers shouldrefocus on allocating resources more efficientlyand effectively.

U.S. Spending on Public EducationAnswering whether spending more on public

education improves academic achievement beginswith establishing how much the United Statesspends on public education. The National Centerfor Education Statistics in the U.S. Department ofEducation publishes extensive data on education inits annual Digest of Education Statistics, including thefollowing important facts:• Total spending on K–12 public education. The

United States spent $553 billion on public elemen-tary and secondary education in 2006–2007,4

which is 4.2 percent of gross domestic product.5

• Average per-student spending in publicschool. In 2004–2005 (the most recent schoolyear for which data are available), an average of$9,266 was spent per pupil in American publicschools.6 This means that a student enteringfirst grade in 2004 could expect approximately

$111,000 to be spent on his or her elementaryand secondary education if the student com-pletes high school.7

• Spending by level of government. Public edu-cation revenue is drawn from three sources ofgovernment: federal, state, and local. In 2004–

1. Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, “The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools,” Phi Delta Kappan, September 2007, at http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/e-GALLUP/kpoll_pdfs/pdkpoll39_2007.pdf (August 5, 2008).

2. Elizabeth C. McNichol and Iris J. Lav, “29 States Face Total Budget Shortfall of at Least $48 Billion in 2009,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated August 5, 2008, at http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.pdf (August 5, 2008).

3. For background on the federal government’s long-term fiscal outlook, see Brookings–Heritage Fiscal Seminar, “Taking Back Our Fiscal Future,” The Heritage Foundation and The Brookings Institution, April 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/takingbackourfiscalfuture.pdf (August 5, 2008).

4. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 26, at http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/index.asp (August 5, 2008).

5. Author’s calculations. The nation’s gross domestic product was $13.2 trillion in 2006. Ibid., Table 25.

6. Ibid., Table 171. This estimate is based on “current expenditures” in 2006–2007 dollars.

7. Author’s calculations, assuming that the child is enrolled in public school for 12 years. This is likely an overly conservative estimate because real per-student spending has increased over time.

1970–71Academic Year

1984–85 1994–95 2004–05

$4,060

$6,219

$7,504

$9,266

heritage.orgChart 1 • B 2179

Education Funds See Rapid IncreaseTotal average per-pupil expenditures have more than doubled since 1970.

In 2006–2007 Dollars

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 171, at http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_171.asp (August 21, 2008).

No. 2179 September 8, 2008

2005, state government providedthe largest share of public educa-tion revenues: 46.9 percent. Localgovernments provided 44.0 per-cent, and the federal governmentprovided 9.2 percent.8

• Federal spending on education.In 2007, the federal governmentspent $71.7 billion on elementaryand secondary education pro-grams. These funds were spent by13 federal departments and multi-ple agencies. The Department ofEducation spent $39.2 billionon K–12 education. The largestprograms in the Department ofEducation’s elementary and sec-ondary budget were “Educationfor the disadvantaged” ($14.8billion) and “Special education”($11.5 billion).9

Historical Trends in Public Education Spending

Many people believe that lack offunding is a problem in public educa-tion,10 but historical trends show thatAmerican spending on public educa-tion is at an all-time high. Between1994 and 2004, average per-pupilexpenditures in American publicschools have increased by 23.5 percent (adjusted forinflation). Between 1984 and 2004, real expendi-tures per pupil increased by 49 percent.11 Theseincreases follow the historical trend of ever-increasing real per-student expenditures in thenation’s public schools. In fact, the per-pupil expen-ditures in 1970–1971 ($4,060) were less than halfof per-pupil expenditures in 2005–2006 ($9,266)after adjusting for inflation.12

Appendix A presents the growth of per-pupilexpenditures by state compared to the nationalaverage. Over the past decade, real expenditures perpupil have increased in all 50 states and the Districtof Columbia, increasing the most in Vermont (47.5percent) and the least in Alaska (5.9 percent).

Federal spending on education has alsoincreased dramatically, as shown in Chart 2. Com-

8. U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 162. Percentages total more than 100 percent because of rounding.

9. Ibid., Table 362.

10. Rose and Gallup, “Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll.”

11. Author’s calculations. Average per-pupil expenditures were $7,504 in 1994–1995 and $6,219 in 1984–1985 in constant 2006–2007 dollars. U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 171.

12. Ibid.

0’65 ’70 ’75 ’85 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’07’80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

$80


Total Federal Spending on Elementary and Secondary EducationAfter adjusting for inflation, combined federal support and estimated federal tax expenditures for education have increased by 138 percent since 1985.

Note: Figures are for on-budget federal spending for elementary and secondary education.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 360, at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/ dt07_360.asp (August 19, 2008).

In Billions of Dollars

2007 Real Dollars

Nominal Dollars

$30.1 billion

$71.7 billion

No. 2179

page 4

September 8, 2008

bined federal support and estimated federal taxexpenditures for elementary and secondary educa-tion has increased by 138 percent (adjusted forinflation) since 1985. On a per-pupil basis, real fed-eral spending on K–12 education has also increasedsignificantly over time. (See Chart 3.) In 2005, thefederal government spent $971 per pupil, morethan three times its level of spending in 1970($311) after adjusting for inflation.

Education Spending and Academic Achievement

Given the significant increase in resources allo-cated to public education, policymakers shouldconsider whether government spending increaseshave led to improved student outcomes. This willhelp to determine whether future increases in edu-cation spending can be expected to yield tangibleimprovements for students.

A basic comparison of long-term spending trendswith long-term measures of student academicachievement challenges the belief that spending iscorrelated with achievement. Chart 4 compares realper-pupil expenditures with American students testscores on the long-term National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) reading examinationfrom 1970 to 2004. While spending per pupil hasmore than doubled, reading scores have remainedrelatively flat.

High school graduation rates provide anotherhistorical barometer of American educational per-formance. According to the National Center forEducation Statistics, the average freshman gradua-tion rate for American public schools has remainedrelatively flat over time. In 1990–1991, the averagegraduation rate was 73.7 percent. By 2004–2005,the rate had increased modestly to 74.7.13 How-ever, the most recent estimate for the 2005–2006school year shows that the national freshman grad-uation rate has dipped to 73.4 percent.14

A key focus of education reform efforts in recentdecades has been to improve opportunities for dis-advantaged students and to reduce the achievement

gap between white students and ethnic minoritychildren. Appendix B presents long-term NAEP 4th,8th, and 12th grade reading and math scores of spe-cific student groups, including white, black, andHispanic children from the 1970s through 2004.Black and Hispanic students have improved testscores in both subjects across all student levels.However, the achievement gap persists, with blackand Hispanic children still lagging behind theirwhite peers despite decades of federal aid targeted atequalizing opportunities for all students.15 Simi-larly, in 2005–2006, the national high school grad-

13. Ibid., Table 102.

14. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2005–06,” August 2008, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008353.pdf (August 20, 2008).


Per-Pupil Federal K–12 Education SpendingFederal spending on education has nearly tripled since the early 1970s.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, 1970–1971 through 1986–1987, and National Public Education Financial Survey, 1987–1988 through 2004–2005.

2007 Real Dollars

200

400

600

800

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

$1,000

Federal Expenditures per Student

Beginning of School Year

$343

$971


uation rate for white students (80.6 percent)remained significantly higher than the graduationrates of black students (59.1 percent) and Hispanicstudents (61.4 percent).16

Academic Literature on Education Spending and Achievement

Academic researchers have sought to answer thequestion of whether education expenditures arecorrelated with student performance. However,there is a lack of consistent evidence on whethereducation expenditures are related to academicachievement. Eric Hanushek has studied the effectof per-pupil expenditures on academic outcomes,finding either no relationship or a relationship thatis either weak or inconsistent.17 However, research-ers Larry V. Hedges and Rob Greenwald analyzed

the same data used by Hanushek and concludedthat increasing per-pupil expenditures has a signifi-cant positive impact on student achievement.18

Despite the lack of consistent findings, leadingresearchers in the area acknowledge that any effectof per-pupil expenditures on academic outcomesdepends on how the money is spent, not on howmuch money is spent. According to Hanushek:

Few people…would recommend just dump-ing extra resources into existing schools.America has…followed that program for sev-eral decades, with no sign that student per-formance has improved.…

…The issue is getting productive uses fromcurrent and added spending. The existingevidence simply indicates that the typical

15. For more information, see Susan L. Aud, “A Closer Look at Title I: Making Education for the Disadvantaged More Student-Centered,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 15, July 28, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/sr15.cfm.

16. U.S. Department of Education, “Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data.”

17. Eric A. Hanushek, “School Resources and Student Performance,” in Gary Burtless, ed., Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996), pp. 74–92.

18. Larry V. Hedges and Rob Greenwald, “Have Times Changed? The Relation Between School Resources and Student Performance,” in Burtless, Does Money Matter?


The “Link” Between Education Spending and Student Performance

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, “National Trends in Reading by Average Scale Scores,” updated July 6, 2005, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/nat-reading-scalescore.asp (April 14, 2008), and Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 174, at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_174.asp (August 19, 2008).

Per-Student Expenditures in American Public Schools, 1970–2005, in Constant 2006–2007 Dollars

American Student NAEP Reading Scores, 1971–2004

Despite more than doubling per-student expenditures… …reading scores in U.S. schools have remained relatively flat.

Age 17

Age 13

Age 9

01970 1980 1990 2000 2005 1971 1980 1990 2000 2004

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

$10,000

200

225

250

275

300

$4,060

$9,266

No. 2179

page 6

September 8, 2008

school system today does not use resourceswell (at least if promoting student achieve-ment is their purpose).19

Hedges and Greenwald note that:

[T]he results do not provide detailed infor-mation on the educationally or economicallyefficient means to allocate existing and newdollars.… [D]iscussions of school reform…should instead incorporate an assessment ofthe current relation between inputs and out-comes and determine how to best allocateresources in specific contexts.20

What is clear from these competing findingsis that policymakers should seriously considerimproving how to allocate educational resourcesmore effectively.

The evidence about education spending andachievement leads to the following important lessons:

• American spending on public K–12 educationis at an all-time high and is still rising. Pollsshow that many people believe that a lack ofresources is a primary problem facing publicschools. Yet spending on American K–12 publiceducation is at an all-time high. Approximately$9,300 is spent per pupil. Real spending per stu-dent has increased by 23.5 percent over the pastdecade and by 49 percent over the past 20 years.

• Continuous spending increases have not cor-responded with equal improvement in Amer-ican educational performance. Long-termmeasures of American students’ academicachievement, such as long-term NAEP readingscale scores and high school graduation rates,show that the performance of American studentshas not improved dramatically in recent decades,despite substantial spending increases. The lackof a correlation between long-term educationspending and performance does not suggest thatresources are not a factor in academic perfor-

mance, but it does suggest that simply increas-ing spending is unlikely to improve educationalperformance.

• Increasing federal funding on education hasnot been followed by similar gains in studentachievement. Federal spending on elementaryand secondary education has also increased sig-nificantly in recent decades. Since 1985, real fed-eral spending on K–12 education has increasedby 138 percent. On a per-student basis, federalspending on K–12 education has tripled since1970. Yet, long-term measures of American stu-dents’ academic achievement have not seensimilar increases. Long-term test scores amongspecific student populations, including ethnicminorities that have been a main focus of federaleducation policy, have improved some. How-ever, the achievement gaps among white, black,and Hispanic students persist in test scores andgraduation rates.

• Education reform efforts should focus onimproving resource allocation. Instead of sim-ply increasing funding, efforts to improve educa-tion should focus on improving resourceallocation. Chart 5 compares high graduationrates and per-student expenditures in the nation’s50 largest cities. In many cities, spending per stu-dent exceeds $10,000 per year, yet graduationrates are below 50 percent. For example, inDetroit, per-student spending is approximately$11,100 per year, yet only 25 percent of Detroit’sstudents are graduating from high school accord-ing to a recent estimate.21 In these communitiesand across the country, policymakers shouldfocus on reforming policies and resource alloca-tion to improve student achievement.

The high and increasing percentage of fundingthat is allocated to non-classroom expenditures isevidence of the need to improve resource allocationin the nation’s public schools. According to the

19. Hanushek, “School Resources and Student Performance,” p. 69.

20. Hedges and Greenwald, “Have Times Changed?” p. 90.

21. Christopher B. Swanson, “Cities in Crisis: A Special Analytic Report on High School Graduation,” Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, April 1, 2008, at http://www.edweek.org/media/citiesincrisis040108.pdf (August 19, 2008), and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, District Information, at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch (August 19, 2008).


Boston, MA 590,763 Boston $16,879 57.0New York, NY 8,214,426 New York City 15,455 45.2Washington, DC 581,530 District of Columbia 15,411 58.2Indianapolis, IN 785,597 Indianapolis 14,428 30.5Minneapolis, MN 372,833 Minneapolis 14,355 43.7Atlanta, GA 486,411 Atlanta City 14,011 46.0Detroit, MI 871,121 Detroit City 13,529 24.9Portland, OR 537,081 Portland 13,522 53.6Philadelphia, PA 1,448,394 Philadelphia City 13,498 49.6Milwaukee, WI 573,358 Milwaukee 12,789 46.1Cleveland, OH 444,313 Cleveland Municipal City 12,157 34.1Los Angeles, CA 3,849,378 Los Angeles Unified 11,647 45.3Dallas, TX 1,232,940 Dallas Intermediate 11,604 44.4San Jose, CA 929,936 San Jose Unified 11,473 77.0Seattle, WA 582,454 Seattle 11,445 67.6Denver, CO 566,974 Denver County 10,905 46.3San Diego, CA 1,256,951 San Diego Unified 10,805 61.6Sacramento, CA 453,781 Sacramento City Unified 10,783 66.7Oakland, CA 397,067 Oakland Unified 10,756 45.6Baltimore, MD 631,366 Baltimore City 10,707 34.6San Antonio, TX 1,296,682 San Antonio Intermediate 10,460 51.9Austin, TX 709,893 Austin Intermediate 10,400 58.2Chicago, IL 2,833,321 City of Chicago 10,181 51.5San Francisco, CA 744,041 San Francisco Unified 9,844 73.1Columbus, OH 733,203 Columbus 9,762 40.9Phoenix, AZ 1,512,986 Phoenix Union 9,578 58.3Honolulu, HI 377,357 Hawaii 9,429 64.1Virginia Beach, VA 435,619 Virginia Beach City 9,396 67.4Fresno, CA 466,714 Fresno Unified 9,330 57.4Miami, FL 404,048 Dade County 9,322 49.0Nashville–Davidson Co., TN 552,120 Nashville–Davidson Co. 9,160 77.0Louisville–Jefferson Co., KY 554,496 Jefferson County 9,069 63.7Colorado Springs, CO 372,437 Colorado Springs 9,011 76.0Charlotte, NC 630,478 Charlotte–Mecklenburg 8,911 59.8Houston, TX 2,144,491 Houston Intermediate 8,849 54.6Omaha, NE 419,545 Omaha 8,828 55.1Las Vegas, NV 552,539 Clark County 8,817 53.1Long Beach, CA 472,494 Long Beach Unified 8,561 63.5Wichita, KS 357,698 Wichita 8,554 59.6Kansas City, MO 447,306 Kansas City 8,402 45.7El Paso, TX 609,415 El Paso Intermediate 8,374 60.5Albuquerque, NM 504,949 Albuquerque 8,242 60.8Tulsa, OK 382,872 Tulsa 8,223 50.6Memphis, TN 670,902 Memphis City 8,055 61.7Tucson, AZ 518,956 Tucson Unified 7,941 71.7Fort Worth, TX 653,320 Fort Worth Intermediate 7,863 55.5Jacksonville, FL 794,555 Duval County 7,793 50.2Arlington, TX 367,197 Arlington Intermediate 7,304 62.7Oklahoma City, OK 537,734 Oklahoma City 6,860 47.5Mesa, AZ 447,541 Mesa Unified 6,558 77.1

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950


Low Graduation Rates Common in Well-Funded City School DistrictsThe chart below shows data for the principal school district for each of the 50 largest cities in the U.S., ranked by per-student expenditures.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, District Information, at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch (August 19, 2008), and Christopher B. Swanson, “Cities in Crisis: A Special Analytic Report on High School Graduation,” Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, April 1, 2008, at http://www.edweek.org/media/citiesincrisis040108.pdf (August 19, 2008).

City Principal School DistrictPer-Student Expenditures (2005 Dollars)

City Population

High School Graduation Rate in 2003–2004

50% Graduation Rate

No. 2179

page 8

September 8, 2008

National Center for Education Statistics, only 52percent of public education expenditures are spenton instruction.22 This percentage has been slowlydecreasing over recent decades.

One promising way to improve resource alloca-tion is to give parents the ability to use their chil-dren’s share of public education funding to choosethe right school for their children. Children benefit-ing from school choice programs have higher testscores than their peers who do not benefit fromschool choice.23 Moreover, public schools affectedby school choice policies improve their perfor-mance in response to competition created byparents’ ability to choose alternative schools fortheir children.24

What Federal and State Policymakers Should Do

Federal and state policymakers should resist pro-posals to increase funding for public education.Historical trends and other evidence suggest thatsimply increasing funding for public elementaryand secondary education has not led to correspond-ing improvement in academic achievement. Insteadof simply increasing funding for education, policy-makers and school leaders should implement edu-cation reforms that improve resource allocation.

Members of Congress and federal policymakersshould embrace reforms that reduce bureaucracy,streamline regulations, and transfer greater author-ity over funding to the state and local levels.

State policymakers should implement systemiceducation reforms that improve resource allocationand encourage effective school leadership, such asexpanding school choice options for families andattracting and retaining effective schoolteachers.

ConclusionTaxpayers have invested considerable resources

in the nation’s public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to sim-ilarly improved student performance. Instead ofsimply increasing funding for public education,federal and state policymakers should implementeducation reforms designed to improve resourceallocation and boost student performance.

—Dan Lips is Senior Policy Analyst in Educationin the Domestic Policy Studies Department, ShaneaJ. Watkins, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in EmpiricalStudies in the Center for Data Analysis, and JohnFleming is Senior Data Graphics Editor at The HeritageFoundation.

22. U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 2007, Table 165. Instruction is defined as “encompass[ing] all activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students. Teaching may be provided for students in a school classroom, in another location such as a home or hospital, and in other learning situations such as those involving co-curricular activities. Instruction may be provided through some other approved medium, such as television, radio, telephone, and correspondence. Instruction expenditures include: salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and tuition to private schools.” Ibid., Appendix B.

23. For example, see Patrick J. Wolf, “School Voucher Programs: What the Research Says About Parental School Choice,” Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 2008, No. 2, at http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2008/2/90WOLF.FIN.pdf (September 2, 2008).

24. Caroline Minter Hoxby, “Rising Tide,” Education Next, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Spring 2001), pp. 69–74, at http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3381471.html (September 2, 2008).


APPENDIX A

’69 ’79 ’89 ’94Beginning of Academic Year

’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Alaska

+112.8%+5.9%

$11,551$10,903


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

United States

+83.8%

+23.5%

$9,266$7,504


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Arizona

+62.3%

+13.8%$6,586$5,788


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Alabama

+82.8%

+35.1%

$7,532$5,577


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Arkansas

+88.0%

+43.5%

$8,156$5,682

Historical Per-Pupil Expenditures on K–12 Public Education, by StateThe following charts present historical data on average per-pupil expenditures (including federal, state, and local expenditures) for public elementary and secondary education. Figures are in constant 2006–2007 dollars.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 174, at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_a174.asp (August 19, 2008).

United States

heritage.orgChart A1-1 • B 2179

No. 2179

page 10

September 8, 2008


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

California

+60.7%

+29.2%

$8,418$6,513


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Delaware

+90.1%

+31.7%

$11,619$8,824


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Colorado

+89.0%

+21.7%

$8,334$6,850


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

District of Columbia

+147.3%+26.3%

$14,214

$11,252


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Connecticut

+143.8% +14.8%

$13,059$11,374


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Florida

+100.4%

+8.5%$7,683$7,084




’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Georgia

+120.8%

+31.1%

$8,589$6,553


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Illinois

+64.9%

+25.7%

$9,473$7,537


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Hawaii

+55.1%

+26.1%

$9,581$7,597


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Indiana

+92.1%

+29.3%

$9,498

$7,344


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Idaho

+51.6%

+25.3%

$6,729$5,370


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Iowa

+56.2%

+19.2%

$8,479$7,112


No. 2179

page 12

September 8, 2008


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Kansas

+82.7%

+19.1%

$8,440$7,088


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Maine

+124.7%

+34.6%

$11,014$8,182


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Kentucky

+100.5%

+23.1%

$7,595$6,169


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Maryland

+104.9%+22.5%

$10,682$8,723


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Louisiana

+83.0%

+38.1%

$8,167$5,912


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Massachusetts

+116.9%

+34.7%

$12,398$9,206




’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Michigan

+80.0%

+13.4%$9,947$8,775


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Missouri

+103.2%

+26.7%

$8,368$6,605


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Minnesota

+63.5%+21.6%

$9,284$7,636


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Montana

+73.3%

+24.2%

$8,661$6,972


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Mississippi

+91.1%

+35.3%

$6,973$5,154


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Nebraska

+93.5%

+24.2%

$9,365$7,540


No. 2179

page 14

September 8, 2008


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Nevada

+60.8%

+12.9%

$7,246$6,420


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

New Mexico

+54.1%

+39.6%

$8,342$5,977


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

New Hampshire

+113.7%

+37.7%

$10,405$7,556


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

New York

+75.6%+29.4%

$14,593$11,280


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

New Jersey

+143.0%+20.7%

$15,033

$12,457


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

North Carolina

+109.6%

+15.2%

$7,352$6,383




’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

North Dakota

+75.1%

+37.1%

$8,337$6,083


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Oregon

+71.6%+12.1%

$8,595

$7,667


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Ohio

+99.2%

+32.4%

$9,936$7,504


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Pennsylvania

+109.4% +22.3%

$10,900$8,910


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Oklahoma

+76.9%

+14.4%

$7,039$6,152


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Rhode Island

+117.9%+28.5%

$12,425$9,671


No. 2179

page 16

September 8, 2008


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

South Carolina

+97.7%

+31.6%

$8,039$6,110


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Texas

+107.0%

+19.0%

$7,716$6,486


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

South Dakota

+59.2%

+37.1%

$7,949$5,797


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Utah

+28.8%

+20.1%

$5,555$4,626


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Tennessee

+90.8%

+33.8%

$7,295$5,452


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Vermont

+117.4%+47.5%

$12,749$8,641




’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Virginia

+113.2%

+28.6%

$9,463

$7,357


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Wisconsin

+88.3%

+21.5%

$10,388$8,551


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Washington

+52.8%

+10.6%$8,218$7,433


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

Wyoming

+93.6%+39.0%

$10,852$7,809


’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

0

West Virginia

+92.5%

+25.0%

$9,609$7,687


No. 2179

page 18

September 8, 2008

APPENDIX B

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White

Math Scores Racial Group All

Black Hispanic Other

224.1 247.3

218.6 241.2

192.4 224.4202.9 229.7

227.2 256.3

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White

Reading Scores Racial Group All


216.6 226.4

210.0 218.7 181.2 200.4 182.7 205.3207.8

230.2

heritage.orgChart B1 • B 2179

4th Grade NAEP Math and Reading Scores by RaceAverage scores for long-term trend mathematics and reading for students age 9.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata(August 19, 2008).

Note: The NAEP long-term trend reading and mathematics scales range from 0 to 500. Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.


180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White



271.6 288.4

264.1 281.0

229.6 261.7238.0 265.1

272.5 292.4

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White



262.1 266.0

255.9 258.7

225.7 244.4232.5 242.5

255.6

264.7





No. 2179

page 20

September 8, 2008

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White


Black Hispanic Other305.9 313.4

300.3 306.7

268.4 285.3276.3 289.4

312.9 320.0

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04

White



293.0 292.8

285.6 284.7

240.6 263.8

252.4 263.5

274.3

286.5





Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? › fulltext › ED509499.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? › fulltext › ED509499.pdf ·...