The Distribution of School Spending Impacts
Open accessAbstract
We examine all known "credibly causal" studies to explore the distribution of the causal effects of public K-12 school spending on student outcomes in the United States.For each of the 31 included studies, we compute the same marginal spending effect parameter estimate.Precisionweighted method of moments estimates indicate that, on average, a $1000 increase in per-pupil public school spending (for four years) increases test scores by 0.0352 , high school graduation by 1.92 percentage points, and college-going by 2.65 percentage points.These pooled averages are significant at the 0.0001 level.The benefits to marginal capital spending increases take about five years to materialize, and are about half as large as (and less consistently positive than) those of non-capital-specific spending increases.The marginal spending impacts for all spending types are less pronounced for economically advantaged populations-though not statistically significantly so.Average impacts are similar across a wide range of baseline spending levels and geographic characteristics-providing little evidence of diminishing marginal returns at current spending levels.To assuage concerns that pooled averages aggregate selection or confounding biases across studies, we use a meta-regression-based method that tests for, and removes, certain biases in the reported effects.This approach is straightforward and can remove biases in meta-analyses where the parameter of interest is a ratio, slope, or elasticity.We fail to reject that the meta-analytic averages are unbiased.Moreover, policies that generate larger increases in per-pupil spending tend to generate larger improvements in outcomes, in line with the pooled average.To speak to generalizability, we estimate the variability across studies attributable to effect heterogeneity (as opposed to sampling variability).This heterogeneity explains between 76 and 88 percent of the variation across studies.Estimates of heterogeneity allow us to provide a range of likely policy impacts.Our estimates suggest that a policy that increases per-pupil spending for four years will improve test scores and/or educational attainment over 90 percent of the time.We find evidence of small possible publication bias among very imprecise studies, but show that any effects on our precision-weighted estimates are minimal.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For the most advantaged students, the effects of school funding are smaller.
“For the most advantaged students, the effects are smaller.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Jackson and Mackevicius (2021)
Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) estimate that greater funding of 1000 dollars per student, sustained for four years, leads to a 3.5 percent of a standard deviation increase in test scores and relatively larger effects on high school graduation and college-going.
“In a recent review of studies using US data, Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) estimate that greater funding of 1000 dollars per student, sustained for four years, leads to a 3.5 percent of a standard deviation increase in test scores and relatively larger effects on high school graduation and college-going.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Jackson and Mackevicius (2021)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 108 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Jackson, C. K., & Mackevicius, C.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jackson, C. Kirabo
- ORCID
- Jackson, C. Kirabo
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 2021-02
- OpenAlex
- W3131646067
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 108
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Politics, Economics, and Education Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Local Government Finance and Decentralization
- Keywords
- school spending, cost per student, K-12 education, student outcomes, test scores, high school graduation, college-going, capital expenditure, economic disadvantage, heterogeneous effects, publication bias, method of moments, meta-regression, education policy evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review