Not how much but simply how

There is a perception about government as insatiable. Legislatures don't even act how much money is needed because the only answer will be "more." In government, and particularly in higher education, we assume a link between resources and outcomes. More money will automatically mean better schools and better education. A study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, however challenges this assumption.

The correlation between money and quality does not seem to pan out. NCHEMS compared the total revenue from state and tuition dollars and looked for correlations in educational performance. The result was a surprising disparity across the nation on what states are getting for their money. Performance was not based on quantity of funds but rather and the placement of the funds. The efficient schools spent noticeably higher proportion on academic support (e.g., faculty development, teaching and learning centers, and academic support staff such as tutors and counselors). When institutions focus on student learning they are more efficient.

What does this mean practically?

Institutions should reevaluate spending patterns and examine the level of funding going towards academic support. At the post-secondary level of education we often hire faculty not on teaching prowess but on research or other academic accomplishments. Perhaps we too often assume that someone who leaned well can also teach well? The NCHEMS findings suggests that perhaps this assumption is not as merited. Increased focus on teacher development can help professors better develop courses and strategies to assure student success. Spending in this area is more effective than other student services and perhaps ought to take greater priority.