“More money isn’t the answer": Linda McMahon on why student achievement gaps persist despite spending billions

Despite decades of record federal spending and countless well-intentioned programs, the achievement gap in US schools continues to widen. Students from underfunded communities, minority backgrounds, and low-income households are still falling behind their peers, highlighting a persistent challenge that money alone has failed to solve.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), students in low-income schools consistently score lower in math and reading, even as federal and state spending per student has steadily increased over the past decade.US Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently emphasised the issue, stating, “More money isn’t the answer. Success isn’t about how much money we spend, but who controls the money and where that money is invested.”

Her observation underscores a growing consensus among education experts: strategic allocation, local decision-making, and targeted interventions often have a far greater impact than sheer funding levels.

The spending paradox: Billions, but limited progress

Over the past decade, federal and state governments have poured billions into programs aimed at improving student outcomes—from after-school tutoring and technology grants to nationwide literacy initiatives and STEM programs.

In 2024 alone, the US Department of Education reported total K-12 spending of over $900 billion. Yet studies show stagnation in overall achievement and a widening gap between high- and low-performing students.

Experts call this the “spending paradox”: while resources are abundant, the allocation is often inefficient, and schools may lack the flexibility to address their unique challenges.

Why local control matters

McMahon’s comments highlight a key point: programs and funding managed closer to the schools themselves—where administrators understand the unique needs of their students—tend to produce better results.

For example, districts that prioritise teacher professional development, early literacy interventions, and classroom technology often see measurable improvements in student performance. Research from the Brookings Institution shows that districts with greater autonomy in spending decisions have higher test scores, particularly in reading and math, than those relying solely on centrally mandated programs.By giving schools the ability to make decisions about staffing, curriculum, and resource allocation, local leaders can address specific challenges, such as high teacher turnover, inadequate learning materials, or gaps in digital access, which top-down programs often overlook.

The limitations of top-down programs

Many federally funded programs are designed with broad objectives and little flexibility. Bureaucratic hurdles, rigid guidelines, and slow disbursement of funds can prevent schools from adapting initiatives to their specific student populations.

For instance, programs like Title I funding provide crucial support for low-income schools but often come with restrictive reporting and compliance requirements, limiting the ability of schools to experiment with innovative teaching methods or targeted interventions.

As a result, even well-intentioned programs may fail to significantly improve student outcomes.

Lessons from successful districts

Some US districts have bucked the trend by giving schools more autonomy in deciding how funds are used.

These targeted investments have led to measurable improvements in math and science scores over a five-year period. Similarly, Montgomery County, Maryland, has leveraged local control to implement early literacy initiatives, mentoring programs, and flexible curriculum enhancements, which have significantly reduced the achievement gap among students from disadvantaged backgrounds.These examples demonstrate that strategic, locally guided investment—rather than generic, one-size-fits-all federal programs—can produce tangible results and help narrow the performance divide.

The takeaway

Secretary McMahon’s message is clear: addressing the achievement gap requires more than financial commitment. Smart, targeted investment, combined with local oversight and accountability, is essential for meaningful improvement in student learning. Simply increasing the budget will not close the gaps; schools must be empowered to make decisions that reflect their students’ unique needs.