Where to Focus Educational Resources

Rory Hester asks a good question:

My question is this: economically where should our we concentrate our efforts in this country? Does it make more sense to concentrate on the brightest 1/3 of our students who arguably will contribute the most to innovation and development? Perhaps raising the middle 1/3 is the best answer, after all these are the ones who will form the vast bulk of our middle class. Does the cost of raising the achievement of the lower 1/3 outweigh the benefits? I know that ideally we would give all kids a superior education, but until the country moves to a value added system that take into account progress at all academic levels, any policy is going to result in the system targeting specific groups. Just a hypothetical question...

I don't think Rory's question should be "just a hypotehtical" but a real question.

The number of dollars in the education system, while very large, is also finite so the question of where to apply resources is not only a real question, but one with significant practical consequences. The reason being that with any question with finite reources, the ultimate result is a zero sum game; if you give one area more funds, those funds have to come from some other place, meaning someone or something loses out.

Of course, policy makers struggle mightily with these questions and despite all the rhetoric and handwrining, we as a nation have largely made this decision. More financial resources are going to poor kids, the ones most likely to be on the lower side of the academic achievement scale. However, as we have learned over the past several decades, simply spending more money in poor school districts or poorly performing districts, has not nor is it likely to ever, solve the achievement gap problem.

I am assuming that Rory, who is pretty astute when it comes to thse questions, is really wondering about other resources. Thus, my answer is direct--devote resources to the lowest performing 1/3. The reasoning is not all that difficult to follow.

The upper 1/3 of the achievement scale is going to be fine, so long as we aren't completely neglectful of their needs, these top performers generally come from backgrounds where academic achievement is not only the norm, but expected. Whether through peer pressure, familial pressure or internal drive, these top 1/3 of kids are not our worry nor were they ever our worry.

A good case can be made for the middle 1/3. These are the kids who will make up the bulk of our middle class and our general workforce. However, as with the upper 1/3, I don't fear these students getting the short shrift in terms of resources. Almost by definition, this middle 1/3 is average, the norm. These are the people for whom the education is currently best designed to serve. They are not in need of any special attention and should receive, for the most part, the same kind of resources they receive now. I don't intend this to be dismissive of the "average" cohort, but I think a focus on the lower 1/3 will drive this 1/3 to higher achievement levels as the education system itself reorients.

Of course, focusing resources on the bottom 1/3 would achieve the greatest "bang for the buck," but that effect is a by-product of my thinking. The lower 1/3 provides not only a fiscal but academic drag on our education system and it is not the students' fault. There are too many students from this poor background that succeed for it to be simply a matter of an accident or luck. These kids can learn, we just have to design a system to help them. For decades we have thought that simply spending more money would close the achievement gap, but we have learned that there are factors outside of the budget and the classroom that affect achievement. While we can provide addtional focus on those outside factors, the simple fact is that for this bottom third, the school system has failed them. Different pedagogical approaches, tougher discipline, tougher standards are needed. That means that these schools need more experience teachers, teachers trained in multiple classroom delivery styles, tighert controls on classroom and school room discipline, much more involvement with parents or parental surrogates. Material needs to be presented at a different pace, with multiple reinforcements. The school year and day needs to be longer.

The quick minded will note that many of the changes I am speaking of have been found in charter schools. It is no coincidence that charters are doing well in urban environments with these attributes.

While individual children in the bottom 1/3 will see success, the effect on the system as a whole will benefit. Schools are designed to serve the masses and they have to account, to a certain extent for the variation in the masses. If we are being honest with ourselves, we as a nation have watered down our standards to account for the broader range of academic achievement of our current crop of students. Because we have so many students doing poorly academically, we are afraid to pursue and enforce challenging curricula because we are afraid we will leave too many students behind. So, whether consciously or unconciously, we either make the curricula a little easier or we don't enforce the standards as stringently as we could. The result, the achievment gap widens and the cycle continues.

By focusing on bringing the acadmic achievement of bottom third and devoting not just more money, but better brainpower, more manpower and deploying better pedagogy and classroom management, you remove the acadmic drag on the school system. The system can then increase the challenge of the curricula without fear of leaving the bottom 1/3 behind.