Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools

We should weigh this debate on a utilitarian scale, so whichever side can prove benefit to more people should win. I support my view with two main arguments. Firstly, that the problem of education won't be solved by merely throwing money at it. Secondly, that spending money produces harmful tradeoffs. Firstly, throwing money at a problem won't solve it. The Daily Journal reports in 2014 (http://www.thedailyjournal.com...) that if the quality of schools in New Jersey was determined by just the amount of funding that goes into it, they would be just as good as Harvard. That same article references a school that costs 30,485 dollars in government money to educate just one child, making it a higher cost than some Ivy League universities. However, this school reported only 51% high school graduation rates, leaving almost half of the students without a high school diploma and costing local taxpayers over 1 million dollars. This shows that just because a school is getting more money does not mean that the students will become more successful. My second argument is that increasing education funding creates too many negative tradeoffs and is disadvantageous. If there were to be a spike in education funding, this money could come from taxpayers. However, as shown in the previous Daily Journal article, the money did not work and the taxpayers wasted over a million dollars. But let's examine the more likely source of funding- government mandatory spending. The Congressional Research Service finds that the Pay-As-You-Go Act, codified in 2011, mandates that spending authorized by legislation (which education falls under) must be paid under this federal statute. Given an increase in spending, the President must mandate sequestration, or cutting of other programs, in order to pay for the new program, education in this case. Under Pay-As-You-Go, the Office of Management and Budget furthers that under Pay-as-You-Go, only four very specific programs are eligible for budget cuts. The two largest of these programs are Medicare and agricultural subsidies. The harms of removing Medicare are highly alarming. This is because Medicare provides health care to over one in seven Americans. Roxanne Andrews of HCUP determined that Medicare provides for 47% of aggregate hospital costs; this means that the loss of this funding would lead to hospital bankruptcy. Because of this, the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that for every percent decrease in Medicare, there is a .3% increase in mortality. (http://www.nber.org...) The significance of sequestering agricultural subsidies are even worse. Agricultural subsidies are a form of payment to farmers in the United States. The government gives them in order to reduce the global price of food. This makes sense, because if the farmer has a supplemental source of income, he/she will sell his/her crops at a lower price. Timothy Wise finds that an absence of of agricultural subsidies would cut agricultural production by 29 percent and exports would decrease by 41%, leading to a 13% increase in food prices across the globe. (http://www.ase.tufts.edu...). Quinn Bowman of Newshour affirms this increase in food prices would lead to 50 million people worldwide being thrown into extreme poverty because all of the family's money would be needed to be spent on food, and Mark Micheli finds this causes 208 million people to be pushed to the brink of starvation. http://mellenycisbj.weebly.com... http://divainternational.ch..., Thus, the United States Federal Government should not be spending money to improve education because the negative impacts would outweigh the positives. Not only does putting more money into education not work at all, it creates too many problems across the globe. Thank you.