Is More Money the Answer, or Not?

There are those who seem to believe that there can never be enough money spent on education. People complain about the schools underperforming, test scores not being good enough, and we're falling behind other countries, etc. You've heard it all before.

And the answer always is more money.

Recently, Governor Pawlenty floated his 70% idea. I have not put a lot of thought into, nor developed a position on Governor Pawlenty's idea of 70% of school funds to be spent on "direct classroom expenses."

But what I found interesting was an e-mail that was forwarded to me. The original email comes from the Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP). It should be of surprise to no one that the email was critical of Pawlenty's 70% plan and attempted to debunk all the reasons that one might use to support it.

Here is an excerpt of the email. Chew on this for awhile.

Is there research showing that good schools are linked to a standard of 65% of revenue being spent in the classroom? There is no research to show this proposal will increase student performance. A recent analysis by Standard & Poor's found no connection between the percentage of funds spent on instruction, and the percentage of students who score at or above "proficient" levels on state reading and math test."

In their attempt to discredit the wisdom of spending an "arbitrary" percentage, whether it be 65% or 70%, on classroom expenditures, they have unwittingly shot themselves in the other foot, dismantling their always handy argument that they need more money to solve their problems; so they can pay higher salaries to teachers, and increase spending on other "necessary items" to improve the schools, the education environment, and ultimately raise test scores. Comments anyone?