Evolution and Punctuation of Theories of Educational Expenditure and Student Outcomes

Abstract

quest for improved educational achievement in public schools is strewn with many efforts but disappointingly few satisfactory answers. Educators and decision makers have tried a variety of curricular and instructional approaches, have experimented with educational structure and leadership styles, have centralized and decentralized power, have tried home schooling, vouchers, charter schools, school uniforms, choice, and increased educational standards. Yet U.S. students still show poorly on standardized test scores when compared to students in other industrialized nations1. We cannot seem to find that magic potion that will make our students shine on the international scene. Perhaps the most commonly recommended solution to educational problems is money. Policy makers and educators seem to have an unfocused faith that more and better resources translate into improved student outcomes. Or perhaps we have tautologically translated the obvious fact that education needs money into the assumption that money is related to achievement. However the notion arises, money is at the center of many models of student achievement. But should this be so? Money has not always proven to be an effective predictor of educational outcomes, and the state of what we do know about money's impact is confused, contradictory, and