Our Education System Focuses More On Fixing Issues Than Preventing Them

Young students in a classroom excitedly learn to read—a positive sign in early childhood development.

In the US today, 44% of public school students are behind a grade level in at least one subject. In 1996, about 9% of students in grades one through twelve attended summer school. By 2024, that number had jumped up to 13%. Here in the Ithaca City School District, the New York State Education Department flagged nearly half of the schools for failing to meet state standards for at least two consecutive years. Our education system is failing students during their formative years. Instead of supporting students early, policymakers wait until problems are deeply entrenched, resulting in higher spending on remedial programs.  Redirecting resources toward early preventative measures would reduce long-term costs while improving student outcomes.

Remediation spending is money spent on programs that address the progress of students who have already fallen behind. These programs include remedial math and reading classes, grade repetition, dropout recovery, and summer school. Prevention costs are money spent on early educational support, including early literacy and smaller class sizes in kindergarten through second grade (K-2). Remediation is necessary, but it is also expensive. We can lower these costs by investing primarily in prevention costs, therefore saving money and improving children’s educational outcomes simultaneously.

Many remediation practices can also harm students. Grade retention, for example, was found to increase students’ feelings of shame, isolation, and anxiety while harming their self-esteem and social skills. It is also expensive, costing the government $13,000 to $35,000 per student each year. Similarly, at the college level, remedial courses cost families $1.3 billion annually, yet students who take them are still less likely to graduate than their peers. 

Furthermore, each high school dropout is estimated to cost taxpayers approximately $300,000 over that high schooler’s life due to reduced tax revenue and increased reliance on public services. By age 27, high school dropouts are four times more likely to experience negative life outcomes such as arrest, unemployment, substance use, poor health, or dependence on government assistance. Even dropout recovery programs, which succeed only 36% of the time, cost an average of $12,504 per case. Overall, remediation programs are expensive, ineffective, and taxing for students.

However, preventive spending does provide a solution. Nobel laureate James Heckman’s research demonstrates that early childhood programs for disadvantaged children younger than five lead to 13% improved outcomes across health, education, and economic status. Heckman’s research consistently finds that investing in early childhood is cost-effective, with short-term costs offset by long-term benefits, including reduced social service needs, lower criminal justice costs, and greater economic productivity. His research also finds that the earlier the intervention, the greater the return. Investments in prenatal and infant care yield the highest return on investment (ROI), followed by preschool and elementary education. As students get older, the return on educational investment declines, with job training programs for young adults producing the least benefit.

Despite this information, politicians are not motivated to invest in students as they do not provide direct benefits for a generation. Federal terms range from two to six years, while most local officials serve only two- to four-year terms. State budgets are designed to fit within an annual system that fails to account for longer timescales that affect their ROI. School board term lengths are commonly three, four, or five years. Our policymaking systems are built to hold people accountable for their actions in office and, therefore, are subject to short terms. However, policymakers must strive to serve their constituents as best they can, even if that means payoffs will take time to materialize.

Simple prevention measures, such as early literacy screening and K-2 reading specialists, can save costs in the long term. Early literacy screenings can identify dyslexia and other learning challenges while students are still young and more responsive to intervention. Literacy screeners cost as little as $3.60 per student per year, which is significantly lower than the price of helping students with reading disabilities struggle through classes they are unprepared for. Similarly, hiring a single K-2 reading specialist, which costs a school about $50,000 annually, can support around 200 students each year. That cost is minimal compared to grade retention, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars per student annually. 

This conversation is not about eliminating help for students who fall behind. It is about investing in their futures earlier, so there is less demand for remediation practices. We already know earlier intervention works; continuing to underfund it is not inevitable, it is a policy choice. We can either continue paying to fix failures or start investing in success from the beginning. 

Image Credit

Tima Miroschnichenko, Pexels License, via Pexels