Scholars at Brown University and Stanford University recently released a study concluding that spending more on schools reduces child mortality.
The paper is titled “Priceless Benefits: Effects of School Spending on Child Mortality.”
The authors are: Emily Rauscher of Brown University; Greer Mellon, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Brown University; Susanna Loeb, Stanford University.
The authors’ summary:
The academic and economic benefits of school spending are well-established, but focusing on these outcomes may underestimate the full social benefits of school spending. Recent increases in U.S. child mortality are driven by injuries and raise questions about what types of social investments could reduce child deaths. We use
close school district tax elections and negative binomial regression models to estimate effects of a quasi-random increase in school spending on county child mortality. We find consistent evidence that increased school spending from passing a tax election reduces child mortality.
Districts that narrowly passed a proposed tax increase spent an additional $243 per pupil, mostly on instruction and salaries, and had 4% lower child mortality after spending increased (6-10 years after the election). This increased spending also reduced child deaths of despair (due to drugs, alcohol, or suicide) by 5% and child deaths due to accidents or motor vehicle accidents by 7%. Estimates predicting potential mechanisms suggest that lower child mortality could partly reflect increases in the number of teachers and counselors, higher teacher salaries, and improved student engagement.
Suggested citation: Rauscher, Emily, Greer Mellon, and Susanna Loeb. (2024). Priceless Benefits: Effects of School Spending on
Child Mortality. (EdWorkingPaper: 24-1008). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University:
https://doi.org/10.26300/s7t7-j992
Emily Rauscher
Professor of Sociology
Brown University
Box 1916
Providence, RI 02912
emily_rauscher@brown.edu
Greer Mellon
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Population Studies and Training Center and Annenberg Institute
Brown University
greer_mellon@brown.edu
Susanna Loeb
Professor of Education
Stanford University
482 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305
sloeb@stanford.edu
Diane Ravitch's blog 
And here’s the extremely well thought out opposing view:
“But, but, but… what about our tax rate?”
LikeLike
One of the reasons the right wing extremists attack social sciences, history and the Department of Commerce which provide census data is that they reject collecting data on neglect and human suffering. If they have fewer records of social problems, they can more easily ignore social problems that cost public dollars. The right seems to believe if people cannot talk about certain issues, they do not exist. They are such primitive thinkers. The right would rather conserve funds so it can give billionaires and corporations more tax reductions.
Serving the needs of people does cost public dollars, but in a government of, by and for the people, it is reasonable for government to provide public services for its citizens. If the government wants to scale back on expenses, it should avoid all forms of privatization as it generally costs more for worse outcomes. The public is often left with a bloated bill as a result. Charter schools and vouchers should not be able to reduce public school budgets. When all the waste and fraud from these schools is calculated and added into the cost, it is unfair to make the public schools absorb these loss of funds. There is little evidence that the privatization of education provides better education. However, when human services are cut in public schools to provide funds for private schools, the public schools students get larger classes and fewer support services due to budgetary constraints. This study is further proof that privatization of education is reckless public policy.
LikeLike
FYI- Most Americans think we are spending too little on education. https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/education-is-a-winning-issue-for
LikeLike
What most Americans don’t understand is that we spend plenty for “education”. Most Americans don’t know how much money is wasted on useless curriculum/ testing and top down mandates/ administration. If Americans actually knew, they would be outraged.
LikeLike
My city devotes nearly 40% of its budget to education. I am unaware of any moment in the city’s history that education advocates have not claimed that education is underfunded.
LikeLike
Great post at the link, thanks rt.
LikeLike
One doesn’t need to be right wing to attack this particular “research”.
LikeLike
Of course it does, otherwise why would the Republicans be against it, you know the “right to life” people?
LikeLike
As I quickly scanned the study, it seems like mostly a correlation evaluation of local tax spending versus changed student accident mortality. I’m not sure causation can be established here. Can someone enlighten me on that?
LikeLike
Thanks for pointing that out RI.
From the summary/abstract: “This increased spending also
reduced child deaths of despair (due to drugs, alcohol, or suicide) by 5% and child deaths due to
accidents or motor vehicle accidents by 7%.”
Sure seems to me that the authors are saying that there is a causation and not just a correlation. Which seems to be quite a stretch that shouldn’t be made.
LikeLike
One can, however, st least take comfort in the fact that this study seems to focus on counting things that are concrete, not mushy. They look at suicide, overdose, etc instead of responses on tests. While establishing causation is in fact the difficulty of social science, it is not silly to suggest that adding some counseling or creating smaller classes where teachers can pay some personal attention to students could be a good thing.
LikeLike
Are these ivory tower academics trying to suggest that you get what you pay for? Astounding.
LikeLike
Early childhood education (ECE) has a significant impact on how they grow socially, emotionally, and cognitively, you know?
LikeLike