Editing Education reform (section)

===Funding levels===
According to a 2005 report from the [[OECD]], the United States is tied for first place with [[Switzerland]] when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S.&nbsp;currency).<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/general/oecdcallsforbroaderaccesstopost-schooleducationandtraining.htm OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training], OECD, September 13, 2005</ref>
Despite this high level of funding, U.S.&nbsp;public schools lag behind the schools of other rich countries in the areas of reading, math, and science.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm| title = Who's No.&nbsp;1? Finland, Japan, and Korea, Says OECD}}</ref> A further analysis of developed countries shows no correlation between per student spending and student performance, suggesting that there are other factors influencing education. Top performers include [[Singapore]], [[Finland]] and [[Korea]], all with relatively low spending on education, while high spenders including [[Norway]] and [[Luxembourg]] have relatively low performance.<ref>OECD, PISA 2006. Whelan, Lessons Learned: How Good Policies Produce Better Schools, 2009. See also [[Eric Hanushek]] and Ludger Woessmann, "The economics of international differences in educational achievement," in Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann (eds.), ''Handbook of the Economics of Education,'' Vol.&nbsp;3 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2011): 89-200.</ref> One possible factor is the distribution of the funding.

In the US, schools in wealthy areas tend to be over-funded while schools in poorer areas tend to be underfunded.<ref>{{cite web|date=November 30, 2011|title=More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds|url=http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-|access-date=6 September 2012|publisher=Ed.gov}}</ref> These differences in spending between schools or districts may accentuate inequalities, if they result in the best teachers moving to teach in the most wealthy areas.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n26_v33/ai_19389741 |title = National Catholic Reporter, May 2, 1997, by John Allen |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711201306/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n26_v33/ai_19389741 |archive-date=11 July 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>  The inequality between districts and schools led to 23 states instituting school finance reform based on adequacy standards that aim to increase funding to low-income districts. A 2018 study found that between 1990 and 2012, these finance reforms led to an increase in funding and test scores in the low income districts; which suggests finance reform is effective at bridging inter-district performance inequalities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lafortune|first1=Julien|last2=Rothstein|first2=Jesse|last3=Schanzenbach|first3=Diane Whitmore|year=2018|title=School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w22011.pdf|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|volume=10|issue=2|pages=1–26|doi=10.1257/app.20160567|doi-access=free|s2cid=155374343}}</ref> It has also been shown that the socioeconomic situation of the students family has the most influence in determining success; suggesting that even if increased funds in a low income area increase performance, they may still perform worse than their peers from wealthier districts.

Starting in the early 1980s, a series of analyses by [[Eric Hanushek]] indicated that the amount spent on schools bore little relationship to student learning.<ref>See [[Eric Hanushek]], "Throwing money at schools", ''Journal of Policy Analysis and Management'' 1, no.&nbsp;1 (Fall 1981): 19-41; [[Eric Hanushek]], "The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools," ''Journal of Economic Literature'' 24, no. 3 (September 1986): 1141–1177; Eric Hanushek, "The failure of input-based schooling policies", ''Economic Journal'' 113, no. 485 (February): F64-F98.</ref> This controversial argument, which focused attention on how money was spent instead of how much was spent, led to lengthy scholarly exchanges.<ref>For example, see Gary Burtless (ed.), ''Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success'' (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1996) or [[Alan B. Krueger]], "Reassessing the view that American schools are broken." ''FRBNY Economic Policy Review'', 1998</ref> In part the arguments fed into the [[class size]] debates and other discussions of "input policies."<ref>[[Alan B. Krueger]], "Experimental estimates of education production functions," ''Quarterly Journal of Economics'' 114, no. 2 (May 1999): 497–532; [[Eric Hanushek]] "The evidence on class size", in Susan E. Mayer and Paul E. Peterson(eds.), ''Earning and learning: How schools matter'' (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1999): 131–168; Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein (eds.), ''The class size debate'' (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2002).</ref> It also moved reform efforts towards issues of school accountability (including [[No Child Left Behind]]) and the use of [[merit pay]] and other incentives.

There have been studies that show smaller class sizes<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 1, 2011|title=Class Size|url=http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/class-size/|access-date=2013-07-10|work=Education Week}}</ref> and newer buildings<ref>{{Cite web|author=Elizabeth Jago and Ken Tanner|date=April 1999|title=Influence of the School Facility on Student Achievement|url=http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/researchabstracts/age.html|access-date=2013-07-10|work=University of Georgia}}</ref> (both of which require higher funding to implement) lead to academic improvements. It should also be noted that many of the reform ideas that stray from the traditional format require greater funding.

According to a 1999 article, [[William J. Bennett]], former [[U.S.&nbsp;Secretary of Education]], argued that increased levels of spending on public education have not made the schools better, citing the following statistics:<ref>[http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/1999/10/01/20-troubling-facts-about-american-education 20 Troubling Facts about American Education] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120927214742/http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/1999/10/01/20-troubling-facts-about-american-education |date=2012-09-27 }}, William J. Bennett, October 1999</ref>