We would like to highlight the significant overlap between Josh McGee's views and our own. It is refreshing that the public conversation has moved beyond the debate of whether money matters in education, and has shifted focus to the more substantive conversation of how much it matters and in which contexts its impact is more pronounced.

We all actually agree on the fact that the effect of school spending is likely heterogeneous across contexts. However, McGee erroneously claims that Jackson and Mackevicius (in press) “argues there is a single school spending impact parameter that can be causally estimated with precision and is generally consistent across policy design, context, and baseline spending levels (i.e., no diminishing returns).” This characterization of Jackson and Mackevicius, and our position, is clearly inaccurate. Indeed, Jackson and Mackevicius (in press) discussed heterogeneity extensively and clearly stated, “no single estimate, or average of estimates, directly informs likely impacts of future policies in other contexts.”

We agree on many points but disagree on the policy implications of the evidence. This disagreement stems from two fallacies that undergird McGee's argument. We discuss these two fallacies below.

我们想强调 Josh McGee 的观点与我们自己的观点之间存在重大重叠。令人耳目一新的是，公众对话已经超越了金钱在教育中是否重要的​​争论，并将焦点转向了更实质性的对话，即金钱的重要性以及在什么情况下其影响更为明显。

我们实际上都同意这样一个事实：学校支出的影响在不同背景下可能是不同的。然而，麦吉错误地声称杰克逊和麦凯维丘斯（正在出版）“认为存在一个单一的学校支出影响参数，可以精确地进行因果估计，并且在政策设计、背景和基线支出水平上总体上是一致的（即，没有递减的回报） ）”。对杰克逊和麦凯维丘斯的这种描述以及我们的立场显然是不准确的。事实上，杰克逊和麦克维丘斯（正在出版）广泛讨论了异质性，并明确指出，“没有任何单一估计或估计平均值可以直接告知未来政策在其他情况下可能产生的影响。”

我们在许多观点上达成一致，但在证据的政策影响上存在分歧。这种分歧源于支撑麦吉论点的两个谬论。我们下面讨论这两个谬误。