Does more money mean better education? In Kentucky, apparently not.

According to figures from a state report, per-student spending on education in Kentucky has almost doubled during a time when evidence of educational improvement has been hard to come by.

The report, which has yet to be issued by the Office for Education Accountability, the General Assembly’s educational watchdog agency, reports that total per-pupil spending between 1990 and 2000 increased by about 92 percent. During this time, almost all objective measures of student achievement have been stagnant.

Schools receive funding from three main sources: local municipalities, and the state and federal budgets. According to the report, which has yet to be approved by the legislative committee that oversees it, about 33 percent of per-pupil spending is derived from local sources, 56 percent from state sources, and 11 percent from the federal government. This differs slightly from the percentages in 1990, in which local spending was a much smaller percent of per-pupil spending than in 2000.

In 1990, local spending was only 27 percent of spending per student, and state spending was 62 percent. The increase in local education spending was a result of provisions in KERA, which gave localities huge incentives to raise local school taxes and required that localities reassess property every four years. Most localities took advantage of the incentives.

Because of the incentives to raise them, it was local taxes that saw the greatest increases. Between 1990 and 2000, local spending per pupil increased 135 percent. Local spending in some communities was astounding. Clinton County experienced a 592 percent increase in local per-pupil spending. Increases in Elliot County were 515 percent.

While not as large as these increases, increases in larger metropolitan areas were still significant. In Jefferson County (greater Louisville), local per-student spending increased 88 percent. The Fayette County figure was 84 percent. State spending increased by 73 percent and federal spending by 94 percent.

The assumption behind the KERA reforms, which were the largest impetus behind the spending increases, was that more spending would lead to better results in academic achievement among students.

Although the state’s tests—formerly called the KIRIS tests but now called CATS—have reported improvement among students, the tests continue to be questioned in regard to the accuracy. In addition, the reported increases have not corresponded with other measures of educational improvements that many consider more objective. NAEP tests—the national tests of reading and math—have shown only very limited improvement in the last round, and ACT scores of the first generation to start with KERA actually decreased slightly from 1990—from 20.1 to 20.0—even though the tests have gotten easier.

Numbers are not everything, but no one can deny that the increases have been huge, and that—even if the modest increases reported by state tests could be taken at face value—educational improvement has not come near to approaching the level of increased funding for schools.

Funding Source:     ‘89-’90    ‘99-’00    % Increase

Local                          $ 956     $2,224         135%

State                         $2,206     $3,807         73%

Federal                       $ 384       $ 746         94%

Total                          $3,547     $6797          92%