I totally disagree about the articles on money and school outcomes because I don't think they reflect money well spent. NYC has 8 million people and one school board. They let Catholics run their own schools. They run specialty high schools, gifted programs etc etc. Toronto has 3 million people has 4 schools boards -- with all the executives in each school board, so you have a lot of fat and any money gets caught up in the bureaucracy. Charter schools in NYC (not a fan but aware of how money can be invested) show that if you improve the learning environment, improve curriculum, you get better outcomes. The money is spent directly on the kids. The problem with charter is that they lease the schools and make direct improvements while school boards don't always make the right improvements.
I don't want to go on and on about the problems with school management. But I think any articles can be written about money and school outcomes like any direct research that says eating turnips will cure cancer.
I saw the one accelerated grade school in NYC that was in a district parents south of 96th street didn't want to travel to. Even Columbia parents were not so keen. So kids that only scored around 88th percentile got in and it was mostly hispanic and african american. But the teachers were great, the curriculum was great, they had an up to date computer lab and other resources. Money well spent and they had great outcomes. I know a man who was picked out from his very poor family in Harlem and sent to Andover and then went to Harvard. But not other siblings. He is a corporate lawyer, not his siblings that were not picked to go to Andover for free. He did not have legacy to go to Harvard. But the money spent on his free education allowed him to excel and go to Harvard. And Harvard law.
I disagree that there is no correlation on money well spent does not have good education outcomes.
