BOSTON -- The commonwealth of Massachusetts could cut $1.3 billion from education spending without affecting the performance of public school students, according to a study released by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

However, the controversial idea, proposed surprisingly by a group of academics, is not without its critics. Team 5 Investigates’ Sean Kelly revealed on Wednesday why lawmakers on Beacon Hill are unwilling to consider it.

Click Like For Boston News Updates:

Money isn’t the measure of success inside Massachusetts classrooms. The MCAS exam is. But an analysis by the Beacon Hill Institute found that a 10-percent cut in school spending would not adversely affect student performance on the high stakes test. In fact, the Institute found that spending more money at the 10th grade level actually worsened student performance.

“We know there are other priorities in the state where that $1.3 billion might work to a better advantage than simply plowing it into the schools,” said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

The institute claims the state should stick to its foundation budget which is the minimum amount it is required to spend in order for kids to get an adequate education. Currently, per pupil spending is $11,068 per student. In fiscal year 2010, state and local governments spent $10.4 billion on public education.

The institute found that school spending exceeded the foundation budget by $1.3 billion. “There is a huge education bureaucracy,” said Tuerck.

For example, the school district of Provincetown has experienced a 35 percent drop in student enrollment yet has spent three times more than what the state requires it to on education.

Cambridge, Concord and Eastham also have fewer students but are spending twice what the state requires. And the list of school districts spending more than required doesn’t stop there.

“Every dollar that we spend over the foundation budget seems to me to be a frivolous use of money,” said Tuerck.

In the past 18 years since the state funding formula was set by the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, there hasn’t been any review to see if the formula remains sufficient or is in fact inadequate.

“What strikes me is that bureaucrats aren’t keeping up with reality,” said Tuerck.

“I just think that’s faulty thinking,” said Thomas Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

Scott admits most school districts are spending double what the state requires. But he blames the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, special education and technology as the reasons why schools have to spend more.

“Some of these communities spending well above the foundation simply want to have a high quality experience. It’s not simply a score for them,” said Scott.

“I think you need to constantly evaluate if you’re spending money wisely and well,” said House Minority Leader Bradley Jones.

For the past four years, Jones told Team 5 he’s introduced legislation calling for an objective study of the state’s funding formula to find out which side is right. But lawmakers haven’t been willing to authorize it. “In this case, we don’t know what he answer to the question may be and there’s the potential the answer is we’re not spending enough and we need to spend it differently and we may not be prepared to deal with the answer,” said Jones.

One issue both sides agree on is that lawmakers’ fear of the unknown and their unwillingness to look at the issue is a real problem for taxpayers and students.