Staying Focused on Student Academic Outcomes: Setting A Bold New Direction

It has become a familiar pattern in American education: with each new administration—whether federal, state, or local—comes a fresh strategic plan, sweeping initiative, or ambitious reform aimed at boosting student achievement. These efforts often arrive with great fanfare and high expectations, promising to raise test scores, narrow achievement gaps, modernize instruction, and ensure college and career readiness for all. Typically, they feature new academic standards, revised testing systems, and targeted funding streams, often with a heavy emphasis on technological integration and innovative learning models. While the intentions behind these reforms are commendable, their design and implementation are frequently shaped more by shifting political agendas, short-term funding cycles, and pressure for immediate results than by sustained educational research or long-term systemic commitment.

Despite decades of reform and unprecedented investments in digital tools, the fundamental question remains: how do we ensure that all students not only have access to quality education but also demonstrate meaningful, measurable academic growth? The continual introduction of new initiatives has led many educators to experience what is often termed reform fatigue—a weariness born from the rapid turnover of ideas without the time, support, or stability needed for deep, lasting change. Calls for universal internet access, one-to-one devices, and, more recently, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in classrooms, suggest that the solution to our educational woes lies in technological innovation. Today we ask, “Is AI the missing piece of the education puzzle—or is it simply the next expensive reform with limited returns? And perhaps more importantly: how will we know whether it is an effective reform?

Over decades, I have been asking, “How has increased public education funding and the growth of the use of technology in classrooms affected student academic performance? Recently I again examined 12th grade academic performance from math and literacy from 1990 to 2024 and compared it to trends in per-pupil spending and the emergence and application of technology into classrooms. This is what I learned. None of what I found will surprise you.

1. There Has Been a Steady Increase in Education Spending

From 1990 to 2024, inflation-adjusted per-pupil public education spending rose from approximately $10,000 to $17,700. This trend applied across grade levels and reflects sustained investment in education, particularly following the early 2000s and again after the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Rapid Growth in Classroom Technology Has Taken Place

Classroom technology has expanded dramatically over the past three decades. Early adoption in the 1990s evolved into widespread access by the 2010s. Key milestones included the launch of the E-rate program around 2000, the implementation of 1:1 device initiatives in the 2010s, and the post-COVID digital transformation, including remote learning and emerging AI tools.

3. 12th Grade Academic Performance Did Not Significantly Improve

12th-grade NAEP scores saw minimal long-term change. Math scores increased only slightly from 305 to 315 between 1990 and 2019, but fell back to 305 by 2024. Literacy scores fluctuated slightly from 290 to 301, then declined again to 291. Despite massive increases in spending and the infusion of technology, student performance at the end of high school has shown little improvement. You may be tempted to blame COVID, which had an impact. But the belief that students would "bounce back” or that students with access to on-line learning would be fine has not been realized.

Conclusions over Decades

At the 12th-grade level, scores remained largely stagnant over three decades, which tells us that while investments are necessary, they are not sufficient. Effective outcomes depend on how these resources are applied—through quality teaching, engagement strategies, and addressing broader student needs. Investment and access alone do not guarantee impact. Without intentional alignment of funding, technology, instructional quality, and student support, academic outcomes will remain flat—especially by graduation.

A New Direction: What If…?

The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST), which began in 1983, is the most prestigious annual STEM teaching award in the United States. It is jointly administered by the National Science Foundation and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The goal of the program is to showcase educational leaders who are the best practitioners from all states and U.S. jurisdictions, reinforcing exemplary STEM education instruction in any and all locations, settings, and communities.

What if the next wave of educational leadership started not with another program or policy, but with a bold commitment to creating learning environments that ignite curiosity, fuel collaboration, and work for every student, much like is highlighted through the PAEMST program? Yes—curriculum, pedagogy, technology, and funding all matter. But perhaps it’s time our next big educational reform centers on the daily experiences of students in our classrooms.

If you’re rethinking how to lead meaningful change in your school or district, join me in rewriting the education equation. 

For more information, contact info@stemeducatorinitative.org

References

• Bayles, T., Morrell, C., Staklis, S., & Jordan, K. (2024, June 23–26). Professional development for STEM teachers in rural counties to broaden participation in engineering [Paper presentation]. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR. https://peer.asee.org/42431

• Education Week. (2023). Education spending and student achievement: What the research says. https://www.edweek.org/

• Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036

• National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). The Condition of Education: Public School Expenditures. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmb

• National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). NAEP Mathematics and Reading Assessments: 8th and 12th Grades. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/

• U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Education Stabilization Fund Transparency Portal. https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/

• Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791