A new report challenging a recent court order to increase funding for poor school districts argues that the $24 billion Massachusetts taxpayers have spent in aid since the Education Reform Act of 1993 has done little or nothing to improve public school performance. ("Think tank reports Bay State wasted education reform $$"
By Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Globe, Thursday, May 20, 2004)

``The additional money the state has been spending . . . has gone entirely to waste,'' said David Tuerck, the think-tank's executive director.

"Money for Nothing: The Failures of Education Reform in Massachusetts" by Sanjiv Jaggia and Vidisha Vachharajani:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Providing a quality education to every public school student is a generally accepted goal of Massachusetts public policy. In the case Hancock v. Driscoll, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford determined that the Commonwealth is failing in that goal. Only the state's wealthier communities are meeting their responsibility of providing a quality education to their students. The poorer school districts, in her opinion, are failing.

The judge's remedy for this imbalance is for the state to spend more money on the poorer school districts. This new funding might come from higher state taxes or from reallocation of the money now going to wealthier districts. But, over the period 1994 to 2003, the state spent $24 billion in aid to education under the aegis of the Education Reform Act of 1993. Before the state raises taxes or reallocates school funding, legislators and the judiciary should be certain that increased aid to poorer school districts would lead to better educational results. Is it possible that the state could achieve it's goal of providing a quality education without providing additional funds to the poorer districts?

...we find that increased education spending in Massachusetts is not resulting in improved school performance, as measured by results on the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) exam. We find:

* Reduced class size worsens or has no effect on school performance.

* Spending more on instruction, whether by raising teachers' salaries or by hiring additional
teachers, worsens or has no effect on school performance.

* Socioeconomic factors and prior performance on standardized tests, along with various
"intangible" factors, are far more important than increased spending as determinants of
performance.

The answer to the question posed above appears to be yes: The problem for poor districts is not that the State is failing to spend enough but that it is not spending wisely enough. The state is getting nothing for the money that it is lavishing on school districts, rich and poor alike.