Money does matter, especially when your state receives one of the sixth-lowest grades on spending for public schools. Keeping company with Oklahoma in bargain-basement per-pupil funding were Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Utah and Idaho. All received a D or lower. That's a entire letter grade below the C that represents the national average.

Here's the difference: National per-pupil spending average, $11,864; Oklahoma, $9,075.

So how does that translate into the classroom? Not well. Oklahoma ranked 43rd in the country for chance for success and 41st in kindergarten-through-12th-grade achievement.

Education resources that cost money — including class-size reduction or higher teacher salaries — are linked positively with student outcomes. Things costing money benefit students, and there's little convincing evidence to suggest there are more cost-effective alternatives.

Given the state's low priority for school funding, it's no surprise that public schools are reporting that they face increasing difficulty attracting teachers to local classrooms. In August, state Superintendent Janet Barresi said the state is at a crisis point in its teacher shortage.

But given the lack of money and lack of respect offered to teachers, who wouldn't expect to see experienced teachers walking away from the classroom and young people choosing different career paths?

Sustained improvements to the level and distribution of funding across local public school districts can lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student outcomes, according to a report by The Albert Shanker Institute in Washington, D.C., which explored the topic.

Money alone might not be the answer, but more equitable and adequate financial allocations to schools provide a necessary underlying condition for improvement.

"All those tired arguments that across-the-board budget cuts would not hurt outcomes are completely unfounded," author Bruce D. Baker of Rutgers University concluded in the Shanker report.

"More equitable distribution of school funding can improve student outcomes. Policymakers would be well-advised to rely on high-quality research to guide the critical choices they make regarding school finance."

School districts with more money obviously have a greater chance to provide better educational opportunities. Without money, or in the aftermath of deep cuts to existing funding, schools are unable to do things that they need to do.

One cannot trade off spending money on class-size reductions against increasing salaries to improve teacher quality if funding is not there for either.

Clearly, money can be spent poorly or even wasted, and it can, in some instances, have limited influence on school quality. Or money can be spent well and have substantive positive influence.

But, as the Shanker report wisely points out, money that's not there cannot do either.