No discussion of the need for change in the way schools do business can be complete without addressing funding. Unquestionably, increased funding for education could be put to excellent use in employing additional teachers, improving facilities, and increasing access to learning aids such as computers and other materials.
It would be a serious mistake, however, to view increased education funding by itself as an adequate solution to the problem of schools that are not ready for children. Even substantial increases in resources would be likely to have only modest effects unless changes are made in the way primary schools operate. Much can be accomplished simply by changing the way existing education funds are used.
In their research on programs that work in preventing school failure, Slavin and his colleagues concluded:
We have evidence....to suggest that we can ensure the school success of the majority of disadvantaged, at-risk students using the local and Chapter 1* funds already allocated to these schools in different ways (primarily to improve curriculum, instruction, and classroom management in the regular classroom). However, to ensure the success of all at-risk students takes a greater investment. [*Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides financial assistance to state and local education agencies for compensatory education programs for educationally deprived and disadvantaged children. Chapter 1 is the main source of federal aid in elementary and secondary education today.]
Slavin's research group suggests that any child not seriously retarded could succeed in school if provided with some combination of intensive birth-to-three services; high-quality pre-school programs; and improvements in curriculum, instruction, family support, and other services (including tutoring) in elementary school. "The key issue for at-risk students," they note, "is not if additional costs will be necessary, but when they should be provided."
The most critical elements of change needed in kindergarten and the primary grades are developmentally appropriate curriculum and instruction and increased parental involvement. Both should be possible without major increases in funding, though some resources probably will be required for teacher retraining. Developmentally appropriate curricula for all students would significantly reduce the need for special education and remedial and gifted programs. All of these require some duplication of resources and personnel that might be used more effectively in integrated core programs or for intensive one-on-one tutorial programs.
Efforts to improve the performance of at-risk children in schools take a wide variety of forms, and some of these interventions have been shown to be more effective than others. Grade retention is an excellent example of a strategy that is both costly and ineffective. Funds now spent to put children through the same grade twice could be used to far greater benefit to support programs that have been shown to be more effective and less costly, such as individual tutoring and summer enrichment and learning programs.
For such programs to be fully effective, schools need substantially more flexibility in the way they spend state and local funds than they generally have today. Contrary to popular belief, elementary schools have considerable leeway in the way they use federal Chapter 1 funds. School systems should have similar flexibility in the way they spend state and local funds, and school districts should avoid unnecessary spending restrictions on individual schools.
There is little question that early intervention can be far more cost effective than later remediation. Failure of students in the primary grades to master basic skills and develop positive attitudes toward learning leads to intransigent problems that typically can be amended only at high cost and with marginal chances of success in later grades. Focusing more of the resources now used for remediation on assuring success for all students in the primary years would promise a far greater return on investment.
Slavin and his colleagues put it succinctly: "By every standard of evidence, logic, and compassion, dollars used preventively make more sense than the same dollars used remedially."
Continue to the next article.
Return to the Getting Schools Ready for Children Publication Contents Page.