The main factor that was tied to money was the security of the school. Students who were worried about getting mugged in the hallways tended to do worse on achievement tests.
Learning likely has **everything** to do with the parents since they do nearly 100% of the educating. ( Called “afterschooling”.) The school is merely sending home a curriculum for the parents and child to follow.
Really? Do we **really** know how much learning is actually happening in the institutional school? Do we really know how much the parents and the child, himself, is teaching and learning in the home?
If nearly everything a child learns is due to his parents or the child's own efforts in the home, maybe it would be better for academically successful children to merely stay at **home**. It could be the the institutional school is actually retarding his social and academic progress.
Also...If it is parents and the child who are doing 99.99% of the work at home, then only an **IDIOT** would expect government schools to help child from dysfunctional families. These kids likely need boarding school or KIPP schools.
And how many of those students who felt unsafe but had to be there because of truancy laws decided to make their schools look very bad the only way they can — do poorly on the oh-so-important achievement test?
If every government school were permanently padlocked tomorrow, the same children who are educated today would be the same children who would be educated tomorrow!
Why? Because it is parents in the early years, and children as they grow older, who are doing 99.99% of the work IN THE HOME!
I think that's rather well known (but we're not supposed to talk about it). There is no correlation between education funding, and educational outcome.
The money benefits employees, but has no effect on students. So, why do schools exist? To benefit employees? Or students?
(The answer is: to benefit employees.)