Does increased spending on Education lead to higher performance?
*******Go to 2009 State SAT Scores List for the latest SAT results.*********
This question was raised in prior posts.
I thought you might find these 2 charts interesting. Best and Worst States For Education Spending ranks all states by spending and shows the SAT Score Rank of its students. I also have attached a Chart from Heritage that shows that the best funded cities do not have the highest graduation rates.
The more money spent clearly does not show up in higher SAT scores or graduation rates.
New Jersey spends the most money. Its SAT score rank is 33 . New York, at 2nd on the money spend, ranks 44th on SAT scores. The “Worst” State for Education Spending is Utah yet its students rank 20th on the SAT score list above NY and New Jersey. Utah spends about 1/3 the dollars of NY and New Jersey. Its students do better than all of the Top 10 spenders on Education. Utah may be considered a Best State for Education considering its bang for the dollar.
Arizona is the next lowest spend state yet ranks 29th on the SAT Scores list. Arizona students perform better than the top 6 spenders. Mesa, AZ which is at the bottom of the Heritage list of city spends has a graduation rate of 77.1%. Mesa spends only 40% of Boston which has a much lower graduation rate of 57%.
Clearly money is not the only factor that impacts educational performance. You may want to consider carefully your state’s approach to education. It appears more dollars on education does not lead to better results. Tell your political leaders you want accountability for results not just money spent.
|State||Ed Spend||SAT Rank|
Sources: Dept of Education. Spending not regionally adjusted. College Board.