How Schools Spend Their Money

Education Next Issue Cover

Just ignorantly or with purposeful indifference?


8 Comments | Print | PDF |

Winter 2011 / Vol. 11, No. 1

Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go?
By Marguerite Roza
Urban Institute Press, 2010, $26.50; 128 pages.

University of Washington professor and Gates Foundation advisor Marguerite Roza is the Indiana Jones of school finance. In her short but powerful new book, Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go?, Roza uncovers the hidden caves and tunnels that store the treasure of the public school system. Revealing where the money goes requires intrepid sleuthing, detailed analysis, and occasionally braving hostile natives.

The main finding of Roza’s explorations is that education dollars are allocated in ways that are sharply at odds with the stated priorities of public school systems. Education leaders say they want to devote greater funding to low-income students, but within most school districts per-pupil spending is higher at schools with more-advantaged students. Education leaders say they want to focus resources on the core subjects of math, reading, history, and science, but per-pupil spending tends to be much higher for electives, extracurricular activities, and sports. Education leaders say they want to emphasize remedial instruction to help lagging students catch up, but in most school districts per-pupil spending is significantly greater for Advanced Placement (AP) and gifted classes than for remedial ones.

The chief culprit in this misallocation of resources relative to stated priorities is the uniform salary schedule for teachers. In virtually every public school throughout the country, teachers are paid primarily according to their credentials, seniority, and “additional” work assignments and not at all according to subject taught, number of students served, or the difficulty or importance of their assignments. The net effect of this arrangement is that labor costs, the bulk of per-pupil spending, are distributed by formulas that are completely unaligned with stated priorities.

Schools with more low-income students tend to receive less per-pupil spending within districts because the higher-paid teachers with greater experience often transfer to schools with more-advantaged students who are less difficult to educate. Non-core electives, like art, music, gym, and shop, receive higher per-pupil spending because they tend to have fewer students per class than required core subjects, like reading, math, history, and science. Since all teachers are paid the same regardless of the subject they teach, smaller classes necessarily translate into higher per-pupil spending. Extracurricular activities and sports receive higher per-pupil funding because fewer students participate and teachers receive extra pay for assuming these “additional” assignments. Per-pupil spending on AP and gifted classes exceeds remedial classes because, again, fewer students tend to be in those advanced classes.

“How can those inside and outside the system allow such blatantly contradictory spending patterns to persist in their own schools?” Roza asks. Her first explanation is ignorance: “They generally do not know these patterns exist, as district budgeting and accounting practices make it incredibly difficult to identify detailed spending patterns.” But elsewhere Roza suggests that the problem is less benign than ignorance. She writes, “Powerful forces work to protect the interests of those who benefit from the present allocation of resources. Among those who benefit from the status quo are the more experienced teachers, influential parents with children in high-achieving schools, and board members who represent wealthier neighborhoods.” She also highlights the role that teachers unions play in determining the allocation of resources by championing the uniform salary schedule, transfer rights for more experienced teachers, and work rules.

Roza’s ambiguity about the causes of the mismatch between stated priorities and actual spending undermines her ability to propose solutions. If the problem is caused primarily by ignorance, then the solution lies in greater transparency through more rigorous and open accounting policies. But if the problem is caused primarily by the influence of powerful interest groups, then a political restructuring of incentives is required. If poor kids get the short end of the education stick because teachers unions and wealthy parents pursue their own benefit with indifference to the consequences for those less fortunate, then those interest groups have to be stripped of their control over allocating resources. This could be achieved by empowering families with direct control over education resources via vouchers or a weighted student-based formula for allocating government funds.

For most of the book, Roza leans toward the ignorance explanation: “The most important answer is that they don’t know about real spending patterns … Bad information leads to mistaken assumptions and ultimately misguided strategic resource decisions.” Unfortunately, this explanation for misallocated school spending is unsatisfying and fails to yield compelling solutions, even according to Roza herself. She lists a variety of school-finance reforms and argues that they are all “guaranteed to fail” because they do not address the “entire package of incoherent, inefficient, and inequitable spending.”

The solution, she acknowledges in the final two chapters, requires a more comprehensive restructuring of the education system than just transparency measures. On the final page of the text, she reveals how that restructuring might take shape when she emphasizes “the need to separate the functions of allocating resources, setting standards, and defining accountability from the function of making decisions about resource use. If states could recognize that they play some role in the first three, they might be convinced that they should not also take on the fourth.” This sounds like vouchers or weighted student-based funding, where the government funds education and establishes accountability for results while decentralizing to the family or individual school the power to decide how money is spent.

The book would be stronger if the political restructuring of the education system were addressed earlier and more fully. As it stands, readers are likely to get the mistaken impression that ignorance is the primary cause of the failure of school funding systems and improved awareness the solution. Ignorance is a problem, but it is the willful ignorance of malicious indifference. No solutions are possible without addressing that.

Jay P. Greene is professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas and a fellow at the George W. Bush Institute.

Comment on this article
  • Keithj says:

    I have not read the book being reviewed but I am in agreement with Mr. Greene’s closing line. Ignorance is a problem, but it is the willful ignorance of malicious indifference. No solutions are possible without addressing that.” That has been my take on the inequitable funding for public school education that has plagued the state of Ohio for more than a decade.

  • corina fox says:

    so should we spend money on schools

  • Capibara Rodenta says:

    It’s not that we shouldn’t spend money on schools, we *NEED* to, because we need to educate our children and ensure our future. But the the current top-down approach, with all of the decisions coming from the top (school board, etc) is really what I feel is what would need to changed. Each school should have some autonomy over their domains. One of the biggest problems I have is judging an individual students ability by their standardized testing score.

  • ethel mcnoob says:

    spend money on calculators.

  • Mayte says:

    This might not completely pertain to the subject, but the topic made me think more critically in what is really happening in our society.
    Sometimes low income families work their entire life thinking that their child’s future will be positively constructed by going to school and getting the best education and then getting a “Degree”. This is what we called “Status,” so are we more important on our kids “Status?” Parents get the surprise that by the time their children graduate high school they don’t aspire to continue their education into a college or university, but rather they are trying to find a “job” or sometimes fall into the “Justice System”. Well my point is that the system of education is teaching our children on how to follow rules, be on time to a future job, become the best employee, receive orders and not complain because that is the best there is out their. Divergent thinking is not being developed, so where is all the money actually being spend or is it not being spend on our kids the right way?

  • Mao says:

    We need less decisions by former teachers who are school superintendents and more decisions by business minded individuals with a background in education,,,,,,, remove tenure and demand results

  • Quora says:

    What chronological time period in history do US conservatives want to conserve? What was going on the US and around the world at that time?

    If you are concerned about things being rolled back, you might want to talk to the current administration that is trying to implement a proven failed governing system of the mid-19th & 20th centuries. Republicans don’t want to “return to the past”,…

  • cate says:

    I hate this thing I feel like arts is most important same as core classes.

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    Sponsored Results

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform