For years, the idea that higher school spending automatically leads to better student achievement has been treated almost as settled fact. In a widely circulated 2020 statement on public education budgets, more than 500 prominent education experts argued that research was “abundantly clear” on one point: money matters for student achievement and long-term life outcomes, especially for students from low-income backgrounds.
But newer evidence is challenging that confidence. A recent analysis from the Brookings Institution, often summarized under the theme Study Challenges the Claim That Increased School Spending Improves Student Achievement, paints a far more complicated picture—one that raises uncomfortable questions about how education dollars actually translate into results.
What the Brookings Research Found
The Brookings study, conducted by economist Sarah Reber and predoctoral fellow Gabriela Goodman, examined national data from before the sharp achievement declines associated with COVID-19 school closures. Their findings directly contradicted the assumption that more spending reliably produces better outcomes.
Across states and over time, they found that large increases in per-pupil spending frequently coincided with stagnant academic performance. In some cases, states that spent more than twice as much per student as others showed only marginally better—or no better—test scores and graduation rates. Even more striking, economically disadvantaged students in higher-spending states did not consistently outperform similar students in lower-spending states.
To make these patterns visible, the authors published a clear, revealing chart plotting average state spending against test scores for both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. The visual told a simple story: spending levels varied dramatically, but achievement did not follow a consistent upward trend. The relationship between the two was weak at best.
The association was so faint that New York—a state with exceptionally high spending but relatively low outcomes—was excluded from the trend lines as a statistical outlier. Including it would have made the link between spending and performance even harder to detect.
Why the Chart Matters
One of the strengths of the Brookings analysis is that it displayed results for both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students on the same scale. When researchers isolate just one group, tiny score differences can look dramatic if the chart is zoomed in tightly. By showing the full context, the Brookings chart avoided that trap and made it clear how small those differences really are.
This directly challenges the claim that higher spending is “especially” beneficial for low-income students. As the authors noted, disadvantaged students in high-spending states are exposed to much larger education budgets, yet their test scores remain comparable to those of disadvantaged students in lower-spending states. For example, states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire spend vastly different amounts per pupil, but disadvantaged students’ average scores across those states are remarkably similar.
Spending Has Soared—Results Have Not
It’s also important to place these findings in a longer historical context. Despite frequent headlines warning about budget cuts, inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending in U.S. public schools has risen dramatically over the past century—by roughly 25 times since 1920.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, governments spent an average of $18,614 per student during the 2020–21 school year. And even that figure leaves out major costs, including state-level administrative expenses, unfunded pension liabilities, and post-employment benefits such as retiree health insurance.
Public perception lags far behind reality. Multiple surveys show that Americans routinely underestimate how much is spent on public education. In one 2021 survey, adults guessed their local schools spent less than half the actual amount per student. Another survey found that most voters believed classrooms cost far less to operate than they really do.
Notably, these spending levels apply across districts, including those serving large numbers of minority and low-income students. Research from across the ideological spectrum shows that, since the 1970s, districts with high minority populations have spent roughly the same per pupil as others. Similarly, districts with high poverty rates have spent slightly more—about 2.5 percent extra per student—for decades.
Yet during this same period, national math and reading scores for 17-year-olds have remained flat. In fact, they may have declined, especially after COVID-era school closures caused widespread learning losses among younger students.
Why Correlation Isn’t Causation
To be fair, no observational study can perfectly measure cause and effect. Simply because spending and achievement don’t move together doesn’t prove that money never helps. But the absence of any strong, visible pattern across all 50 states suggests that simply doubling or tripling budgets is either ineffective on its own or overwhelmed by other factors such as family environment, school culture, curriculum quality, and instructional practices.
The Brookings study does have limitations. One frequently cited concern is that the authors have not released their raw data, which makes independent verification difficult. Transparency matters, and the lack of data access raises legitimate questions.
Still, methodologically, the study appears more cautious and restrained than many analyses used to support sweeping claims about the power of spending alone.
Debates Over Conflicting Research
The experts who insist that “money matters” often point to a small cluster of studies, many led by the same researcher, economist Kirabo Jackson of Northwestern University. While influential, this body of work has drawn sharp criticism.
Education researcher Jay P. Greene published a detailed critique of Jackson’s analyses, arguing that they suffer from errors, inconsistent methods, and selective use of evidence. Greene concluded that some of the studies are not robust to reasonable changes in assumptions and that claims of causal proof are overstated. In his view, much of the work resembles advocacy more than neutral scientific analysis.
This disagreement highlights a broader issue in education research: strong conclusions are often drawn from complex, imperfect data, and policy debates can harden around studies that confirm existing beliefs.
A Question Bigger Than Budgets
The stakes in this debate are enormous. The quality of K–12 education shapes not only individual lives but the health of society as a whole. Horace Mann, often called the father of the American public school system, believed deeply in the transformative power of education. In the 19th century, he argued that effective public schools could reduce crime, strengthen communities, and secure the future of the nation.
That vision still resonates. But the evidence increasingly suggests that simply spending more money—without addressing how it is used—may not deliver the results reformers hope for.
In light of findings like those from Brookings, the conversation may need to shift. Instead of asking only how much we spend on schools, policymakers and the public might need to focus more seriously on how those resources are allocated, what actually improves teaching and learning, and why decades of rising investment have not produced commensurate gains in student achievement.
