The Effect of School Funding on Standardized

Test ScoresRaman Aliakseyeu, Louise Flinn,

Rachel Hodge, and Hannah Xu

2

Context

In the modern world, there is an emphasis on quality education and its effects on success. As a result, because schools have an important role in intellectual development, they often look for ways to improve the education offered to students.

3

Purpose

Does school funding affect the quality of education that

students receive?This study examines multiple data sets, with the purpose of discovering whether more school funding increases students’ test scores.

4

Previous Research➢ Mixed perspectives

○ Increased funding helps schools provide better education■ A 10% increase in per pupil spending

for 12 years of public school can lead to:● 0.31 more years of education● 7% higher wages● 3.2% reduction in adult poverty

■ However, these effects depend on how the schools spend their funding● The Coleman Report and subsequent studies suggest

that funding is unrelated to student achievement

Data Set 1Average Total SAT Scores

Why this data set?➢ The SAT is one of the most

common standardized tests

➢ This test assesses math, reading, and writing skills;

the most common subjects taught in school

66

7

School District Funding VS. Average Student Total SAT Score

Source: US Census Data

8

Analysis■ A minor increase on school district funding

can impact SAT score, but the correlations found were insignificant. □ For every $1 dollar in district spending,

there is a 0.00465 increase in SAT score

$215 +1

For every $215 more in spending, there is about an 1 point increase in Average SAT Scores (From Graph Data)

Data Set 2Average Total ACT Scores

Why this data set?➢ The ACT is another one of the

most common standardized tests

➢ This test assesses math, reading, writing, and science skills; some of the most common

subjects taught in school

1010

11Source: US Census Data

12

Analysis■ School district funding has virtually no

effect on ACT scores□ As shown by the graph, the trendline is

nearly horizontal, and the data is scattered

□ Therefore, no significant correlation was found +1

Data Set 3Participation On Standardized Tests

Why this data set?➢ The participation rate on standardized tests can determine

if funding deters taking these tests

➢ This is the participation percentage rate on standardized tests by state compared to total

per pupil spending by state

1414

15 Source: College Board

16 Source: College Board

Analysis■ Higher funding for each student in a state level

increase the participation on the SAT, while less funding for each student increase the percentage that use the ACT

■ Participation rates are not detrimental since most states use the other test□ Alabama has 4% in the SATs but 100% in the ACTs

$ $17

18

Conclusion

■ From our study, we found that students’ standardized test scores do not have a strong correlation with district funding□ Funding does not significantly affect ACT□ The correlation between the funding and

actual SAT scores is low

19

Conclusion (cont.)

■ Additionally, student participation in the SAT and ACT do not have strong correlations with state per pupil spending.

■ Overall, while district funding may not influence students’ performance, this may depend on where the funding is spent.

20

References➢ Jackson, et al. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic

Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms *.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Oct. 2015, academic.oup.com/qje/article/131/1/157/2461148.

➢ Carey, Kevin, and Elizabeth A Harris. “It Turns Out Spending More Probably Does Improve Education.” It Turns Out Spending More Probably Does Improve Education, The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/nyregion/it-turns-out-spending-more-probably-does-improve-education.html.

➢ Turner, Cory, et al. “Can More Money Fix America's Schools?” NPR, NPR, 25 Apr. 2016, www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-more-money-fix-americas-schools

➢ Thorman, Catrin. “Is There a Link between School Spending & Student Achievement?” American Experiment, 9 Nov. 2017, www.americanexperiment.org/2017/06/link-school-spending-student-achievement/.

21

References (cont.)

➢ Neymotin, Florence. “The Relationship between School Funding and Student Achievement in Kansas Public Schools.” The Relationship between School Funding and Student Achievement in Kansas Public Schools, JSTOR, 2010, www.jstor.org/stable/40704407?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

➢ Flanders, Will. “The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes.” Money for Nothing, Wisconsin Institution for Law and Liberty, Aug. 2018, www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mfn-final.pdf.

➢ k12-Achievement-Education-Week-Quality-Counts-2016, Education Week Research Center, 2016, www.edweek.org/media/k12-achievement-education-week-quality-counts-2016.pdf.

➢ “Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division Reports.” Public Education Finances: 2015, Educational Finance Branch, June 2017, www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/econ/g15-aspef.pdf.

➢ Chicago Public Schools. "CPS : School Data : School Data". Cps.Edu, 2019, https://cps.edu/SchoolData/Pages/SchoolData.aspx

Thank you!

Any questions?

The Effect of School Funding on Standardized Test ScoresHow does district school funding affect a student’s experience with standardized tests?

Average Total SAT Scores

Average Total ACT Scores Participation Rates On Test

Conclusion

$215 +1

$ $

Participation rates are not detrimental to scores most states use the one or the other test for their students. This generally helps to keep all students be tested rather than avoiding them..

There is a minor increase in SAT scores from district school funding at which for every dollar extra there is 0.00465 increase in average total SAT scores.

School district funding has virtually no effect on ACT scores as seen from the almost horizontal trendline.

District funding may not influence students’ performance, the effectiveness of funding may depend on where it spent and more factors at a local scale.

+1