Some small bumps in achievement are relatively easy to get, some are difficult.

I spent most of my high school time in an inner-city system in a 40 year old building that hadn't had much in the way of renovation in 20 years or more. Paint was peeling, the halls were dark, there was poor HVAC, the auditorium had the original light dimmers, etc. The books were far older than at the suburban district I had attended for about 6 months earlier.

It was a "good school" in some respects, but even if I hadn't been able to make a comparison to a previous school, the lack of investment in facilities and teaching materials made an impression. It was clear that, for whatever reason, the city school system did not receive as much attention (in all its aspects). Kids pick up on that, even when very young. They know that adults spend time and money on things they value and think are important.

So yes, when changes happen and the teachers and principals and staff are enthusiastic, then the kids pick up on it and things improve. I think some bumps in achievement at charter schools are due to this effect. When the school system or a new school administration spends money on paint and fixtures and new text books, kids pick up on it. When a system doesn't do these things, kids pick up on it too. Good schools don't suddenly fail, and failing schools don't suddenly become good. There are lags based on perceptions of the students and teachers. It's a process.

Of course, money alone doesn't solve anything. But it's an important and necessary part of the equation. If we really want world-class K-12, we've got to pay attention to it.

Cheers,
Scott.