[originaltext] Amid major cuts to public funding, political leaders have cit

Amid major cuts to public funding, political leaders have cited claims that money doesn’t affect student learning to show cutting billions of dollars in education is reasonable. But a new report exposes the money-means-education debate, saying that money does matter, and the common political wording has little basis on research. Friday’s report by the Albert Shanker Institute, titled "Revisiting the Age-Old Question: Does Money Matter in Education?", cites evidence that shows many of the ways in which schools currently spend money do improve student outcomes, and when schools have larger budgets, they’re authorized to spend more opportunistically and productively. Bruce Baker, a professor in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University, authors the report. The Shanker Institute is an independent nonprofit organization provided by the American Federation of Teachers. "In short, money, the resources that cost money and the more equitable distribution of school funding can improve outcome," Baker writes. "Policymakers would be well advised to rely on high-quality research to guide the critical choices they make regarding school finance." But this idea isn’t always reflected in practice, whether by necessity or ideology or both. A survey published last October by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities examined 46 states— where 95 percent of the country’s elementary and secondary students reside—and found that 37 have cut down the educational funding since the year before, after adjusting to inflation. Of those states, 19 cut funding by more than 5 percent. Looking back to before the recession, at least 30 states are funding schools at levels lower than they were in 2008.
23. What do the political leaders think of the money cutting in education?
24. What is the nature of the Shanker Institute?
25. What is the reason for cutting down the education funding?