Feed on

It is possible that doing things outside the public school classroom improves learning outcomes better than anything currently being done inside the classroom:

This paper examines the impact of public health insurance expansions through both Medicaid and SCHIP on children’s educational outcomes, measured by 4th and 8th grade reading and math test scores, available from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

we believe it is strongly suggestive that improving children’s health will improve their classroom performance.

Now, the evidence here isn’t rock-solid, but it is suggestive. Given the evidence that demonstrate that the marginal extra dollar of expenditures on public schooling do not improve outcomes, wouldn’t a reallocation of dollars be in order? That’s not how politics and teachers unions work. Instead, we will add funding to both programs and not make the smart changes that, at the margin, get us the results we desire at lower costs. What do you think this is, a business or something like that?

One Response to “So Does This Mean We Can Cut School Funding?”

  1. Speedmaster says:

    One of my biggest pet-peeves is the continual chorus that public (actually, ‘govt.’ is a more appropriate term) schools are underfunded.

    In spite of the fact that private schools have much better outcomes with less spending per pupil, and some of the worst performing govt. schools often spend the most. Facts are indeed stubborn things.

Leave a Reply