A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. K–12 Education in Relation to Academic Achievement and Fiscal Resources
Abstract
The relationship between educational funding and student achievement in the U.S. K–12 public-school system remains a central issue in education policy. This paper examines whether students can attain strong academic outcomes—specifically in standardized test scores, graduation rates, and critical-thinking skills—without sufficient funding. Drawing on a synthesis of peer-reviewed studies, policy analyses, and empirical research, it concludes that while isolated cases of high performance with limited budgets exist, consistent and equitable funding is crucial to sustained educational success, especially for low-income and marginalized student populations.
Introduction
Public education in the United States has long been shaped by debates over the role of funding in achieving equitable and effective student outcomes. Central questions persist: Can schools foster strong academic achievement without substantial financial investment? Can students thrive without access to well-funded learning environments? This report addresses these questions through the lens of standardized test scores, graduation rates, and critical-thinking development. Although exceptions exist, the consensus among education researchers is clear: adequately and equitably distributed funding significantly improves academic outcomes and narrows achievement gaps (Baker et al., 2021; Jackson, 2018).
The Impact of School Funding on Standardized Test Scores
Standardized testing remains one of the most common metrics for measuring academic performance. Numerous empirical studies show a positive correlation between increased funding and improved test scores, particularly for students in under-resourced communities. A landmark study by Jackson, Johnson, and Persico (2016) analyzed outcomes from school-finance reforms in twenty-eight states and found that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending produced significant test-score gains among low-income students; the gains persisted into adulthood, improving both educational attainment and economic outcomes.
Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) likewise reported that reforms increasing funding equity markedly improved National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, especially in high-poverty districts. Even modest increases matter. Candelaria and Shores (2019) showed that districts receiving an additional $1,000 per student through new formulas recorded measurable gains in math and reading. Conversely, budget cuts during the Great Recession coincided with declining test performance, especially where staffing and instructional resources were lost (Leachman et al., 2016).
Graduation Rates and Educational Attainment
Graduation rates constitute a second critical indicator of educational success. Financial investments in schools measurably affect students’ likelihood of completing high school and pursuing higher education. Jackson et al. (2016) observed that each sustained 10% increase in school spending over twelve years raised low-income students’ high-school-graduation rates by about seven percentage points.
Targeted programs yield similar benefits. Biasi (2021) found that funding directed at economically disadvantaged students boosted on-time graduation and reduced dropouts, particularly when funds hired teachers, reduced class sizes, and expanded counseling. Baron (2021) reported that Wisconsin districts passing funding referenda saw post-secondary enrollment rise 5–10 percentage points, with especially strong effects for rural and low-income youth. By contrast, deep cuts during 2008–09 correlated with long-term declines in high-school completion and college entry, exacerbating racial and socioeconomic gaps (Leachman et al., 2016).
The Role of Funding in Developing Critical-Thinking Skills
Critical thinking—reasoning, analysis, synthesis, evaluation—underpins 21st-century competencies yet is harder to measure than test scores. Evidence shows that funding shapes access to environments conducive to higher-order cognition. Well-funded schools can afford smaller classes, certified teachers with advanced training, modern materials, and inquiry-based pedagogy, all fostering deeper engagement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). The Tennessee STAR experiment demonstrated that students in small classes outperformed peers on complex cognitive tasks (Krueger & Whitmore, 2001).
Adequate funding also supports interdisciplinary curricula, project-based learning, technology integration, and robust school libraries, each linked to critical-thinking development (Kuh et al., 2010). Under-funded schools often narrow instruction to test preparation because accountability pressures combine with resource scarcity, limiting opportunities for creativity and analysis (Rothstein, 2013).
The Intersection of Educational Technology and Funding Equity
An often-overlooked dimension of school funding’s impact on student outcomes is the role of technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital inequities became highly visible as schools transitioned to remote learning. Underfunded districts struggled to provide devices, stable internet access, and digital literacy training for students and teachers alike. This gap widened existing achievement disparities and underscored how modern learning tools are directly tied to financial resources.
Studies have shown that access to high-quality educational technology, including adaptive software and online assessment tools, can support individualized learning and boost achievement, particularly for students with learning difficulties or those who are behind grade level (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). However, implementing such technologies effectively requires more than just hardware. Professional development for teachers, cybersecurity measures, IT support staff, and routine maintenance all demand financial investment. Without sustained funding, even well-intentioned technology rollouts can become ineffective or abandoned initiatives.
Moreover, the “digital divide” is not just a matter of devices; it includes access to broadband internet, a quiet place to study, and ongoing support. These structural inequities are especially common in rural districts and urban neighborhoods with concentrated poverty. The E-Rate program and federal COVID-era initiatives helped temporarily address these disparities, but research shows that many schools reverted to pre-pandemic levels of tech inequity once emergency funds lapsed (OECD, 2019).
Longitudinal Impacts of Underfunding
Beyond short-term test scores and graduation metrics, the consequences of inadequate funding can persist across generations. Jackson et al. (2016) noted that students who experienced better-funded schooling were not only more likely to finish school and attend college but also had higher adult earnings and improved health outcomes. This suggests that funding shapes life trajectories and social mobility.
Furthermore, Biasi (2021) highlighted that school finance equalization in the American South contributed to significant intergenerational gains in both income and educational attainment. These findings affirm that investment in K–12 education serves not only individuals but entire communities, with compounding benefits over time.
Conversely, chronic underfunding has been linked to cycles of educational and economic disadvantage. Districts that are unable to attract and retain qualified educators due to low pay often suffer from high turnover rates, reduced program offerings, and demoralized school cultures. This, in turn, affects student engagement, parental trust, and broader community support.
Policy Considerations and Reform Models
Given the strong evidence supporting the role of funding in promoting student success, several policy models have emerged as promising approaches. Weighted student funding (WSF), for example, allocates resources based on the specific needs of each student—such as English language learners, students with disabilities, and children from low-income families. States like California and Massachusetts have adopted variations of this model with measurable success (Johnson & Tanner, 2018).
Another reform approach involves strengthening accountability for how funds are used. Instead of merely increasing budgets, policymakers are increasingly tying funding to outcomes and evidence-based practices. This includes requiring districts to submit spending plans aligned with goals for improving equity, access, and performance. When coupled with transparency and community engagement, such approaches ensure that increased investment yields real returns.
However, implementation remains uneven. Many states continue to rely on outdated funding formulas that fail to account for changing demographics, inflation, or cost-of-living differences. As a result, even well-meaning funding increases may fail to reach the schools that need them most.
Comparative International Insights
Looking beyond the U.S., international comparisons offer important context. Countries like Finland and Singapore consistently perform at high levels on international assessments while maintaining more equitable funding structures. Unlike the U.S., these countries ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, have access to high-quality teachers, resources, and learning environments from the start.
Finland, for instance, prioritizes teacher training and professional autonomy, with national funding that reduces disparities between urban and rural schools. Their approach demonstrates that equitable investment—not just overall spending—is key to strong outcomes (OECD, 2019).
In contrast, the U.S. ranks near the top in total per-pupil spending among developed nations but lags behind in achievement and equity. This paradox reflects inefficiencies in allocation, fragmented governance, and a lack of systemic commitment to equity. These international insights emphasize that it is not merely how much is spent, but how and where those dollars are distributed.
Conclusion
Across decades of research, it is evident that adequately funded schools consistently outperform under-resourced counterparts in almost every measurable outcome. High test scores, improved graduation rates, and strong critical-thinking skills are significantly correlated with strategic and equitable investment in education.
Isolated successes in low-funded environments, while inspirational, are exceptions that rely on atypical levels of dedication, innovation, or outside support. They are not scalable without structural change. On the other hand, funding targeted toward evidence-based strategies—smaller class sizes, high-quality teaching, instructional materials, and student support services—consistently leads to better results.
The future of educational equity depends not only on increased investment but also on intelligent policy reform. Transparent, needs-based funding models combined with community engagement and robust accountability offer a pathway toward lasting improvement. In a nation striving for both excellence and equity, the question should no longer be whether funding matters—it should be how to ensure every student receives their fair share.
To achieve strong learning outcomes for all, we must confront the systemic funding inequities that persist in American education. Only then can we fulfill the promise of a public school system that serves every learner, in every zip code, with excellence.
References
Baker, B. D., Di Carlo, M., & Weber, M. (2021). The adequacy and fairness of state school finance systems. Albert Shanker Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/adequacy-and-fairness-2021
Baron, R. (2021). The impact of school funding referenda on student outcomes: Evidence from Wisconsin. Journal of Public Economics, 200, 104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104506
Biasi, B. (2021). School finance equalization and intergenerational mobility: Evidence from a policy reform in the US South. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20190096
Candelaria, C. A., & Shores, K. (2019). The effect of school finance reforms on the distribution of spending, academic achievement, and adult outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(3), 79–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170684
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00099
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton University Press.
Henig, J. R., Riehl, C. J., Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (2015). Collective impact and the new generation of cross-sector collaborations for education: A nationwide study. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–36.
Jackson, C. K. (2018). Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question (NBER Working Paper No. 25368). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25368
Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036
Johnson, R. C., & Tanner, S. (2018). Money and freedom: The impact of California’s school finance reform. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/money-freedom-impact-californias-school-finance-reform-report
Krueger, A. B., & Whitmore, D. M. (2001). The effect of attending a small class in the early grades on college-test taking and middle school test results: Evidence from Project STAR. The Economic Journal, 111(468), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00686
Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & Kinzie, J. (2010). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160567
Leachman, M., Masterson, K., & Figueroa, E. (2016). A punishing decade for school funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishing-decade-for-school-funding
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Rothstein, R. (2013). Why children from lower socioeconomic classes, on average, have lower academic achievement than middle-class children. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/children-lower-socioeconomic-classes/
University of Arkansas. (2020). Charter school funding: Inequity surges in the cities. Department of Education Reform. https://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2020/01/charter-school-funding-inequity-surges-in-the-cities.pdf