Where does all the money go?
A writer that I follow recently shared an “evergreen” article with his network. 2019’s “Reasons Children Have Reading Problems that Corporate Reformers Don’t Talk About” (link) from Nancy Bailey is the gift that keeps on giving, thus earning it “evergreen” status.
Analysing the bullet points in the article, each containing a goldmine in and of themselves, there appear to be two overarching common themes underlying the issues raised:
Lack of funding/resources - Many of the problems reported in the article seem connected to lack of adequate funding or access to key resources, like: small class sizes requiring more funding for additional teachers / classrooms; loss of libraries and librarians due to budget cuts; lack of school nurses / counselors; inadequate facilities allowing for lead exposure; lack of access to healthcare / nutrition for poorer students. Indeed, in my practice I’ve seen most of these.
Misguided or profit-driven policies - The article is critical of a number of policy directions which seem to prioritize other agendas over best practices for teaching reading, including: pushing inappropriate academic expectations to younger ages; retaining students despite evidence it doesn’t work; adoption of restrictive standards like Common Core; cuts to special education; an over-reliance on technology. There is an implicit critique that corporate interests and standards / testing-based reform movements have promoted these policies, something that I’ve been noting in this space since I’ve started writing here.
So in essence, the underlying diagnosis seems to be that misallocation of funds and misguided policies are diverting attention and resources away from fundamental best practices needed for effective early reading instruction. The article advocates rethinking systems, budgets, and policies to properly support reading fundamentals like developmental needs, small class sizes, libraries / librarians, enrichment curriculum, and high-quality teaching. The common remedy seems to be a more holistic, student-centered approach (a hint at my upcoming book, Holistic Language Instruction).
Where’s the money going?
Education makes up a significant portion of budgets at the federal, state, and local levels in the US. So with education receiving substantial funding overall, it seems reasonable to query how shortfalls such as inadequate resources for small class sizes or school libraries come about. A few factors may assist in explaining this discrepancy.
Firstly, inflation and non-classroom expenditures erode the resources usable for direct classroom expenses, even while total education spending has risen over time. Salaries, benefits, transportation, food service, equipment, technology, and facilities maintenance costs have all increased.
Additionally, studies indicate administrative spending has grown markedly faster than expenditure on instruction and teachers. With more funds going towards bureaucracy and overhead, less becomes available for student supports. In my district, the administrative salary table show just how much more admin makes vs. teachers. As such, people often make the move to administration as soon as they’re eligible. The most junior administrator often makes more than the most senior teacher.
Moreover, financing designated for particular programmes like technology, testing or career education often cannot be redirected towards general classroom requirements. Whilst these programmes themselves can provide value, their proliferation frequently occurs because corporate lobbyists aggressively market them to elected school boards.
Corporate involvement takes place through channels such as campaign donations, junkets to conferences to persuade school officials, or even outright seats on some school boards. Large technology, curriculum / publishing, and testing corporations wield substantial influence. They present special programmes as silver bullets, often with little impartial evidence.
Yet once adopted, schools become dependent on ongoing contracts and earmarked financing. The funds cannot easily flow to alternative needs like hiring more teachers or expanding libraries. So in effect, corporate product-pushing limits schools’ ability to distribute funds based solely on instructional priorities and student needs. Curtailing inappropriate corporate influence on boards could allow finances to align better with proven learning fundamentals, including those for vital early reading skills.
How is money raised?
The heavy reliance on local property taxes to finance schools means poorer districts, with lower tax bases, struggle to raise adequate funding. Yet they lack compensating equalisation of funding from state or federal sources at levels provided in many other Western nations. This engenders major disparities.
Research indicates that on average, affluent districts enjoy teacher salaries up to 30% higher than high-poverty districts in the same labour market. Class sizes also differ vastly—for instance 16 students per class in wealthy Connecticut suburbs versus 37 in Detroit. Libraries, facilities, arts, and sports programmes also reflect funding gaps.
By contrast, most European and Asian school systems utilize central or regional funding formula accounting for student needs and costs. This enables more uniform staffing ratios, programmes, and outcomes for children nationwide, mitigating local socio-economic disadvantages. Even decentralised systems like in Scandinavia embed equalisation safeguards providing comparable standard funding per student.
The result is that the link between area wealth and school quality is severed across schools nationally. All children receive adequate resources to fulfill their capability. Ultimately America’s localized, property tax-reliant funding appears ineffective at upholding its ideal of providing equitable opportunities for vulnerable children to develop abilities like reading proficiency, regardless of birth circumstance.
A better way forward?
Given that the system here in the US is working exactly as designed, a better path forward will likely not materialise under the current regime. That being said, it doesn’t hurt to imagine.
Firstly, adequate overall education finance is imperative, through balanced state / local formulas not reliant on property wealth. Centralised funding, needs-weighted per student, focused to the classroom level, can prevent unequal resource allocation. Invest to cut class sizes, expand support staff, and cultivate enriched learning environments systemwide.
Secondly, holistic instructional practices must be properly financed, including developmental literacy foundations: play-based early years provision led by fully qualified teachers, small group instruction, and 1:1 interventions for struggling readers. Proven policies should supersede any narrow performance metric goals.
Thirdly, support disadvantaged communities through programs like health / nutrition access, home libraries for low-income families, social service coordination, and early screenings to furnish equitable learning readiness (e.g., identifying analytic vs gestalt language processors). Fostering inclusive mindsets about abilities and potential can further tackle stereotypes.
Ultimately, solutions should concentrate squarely on furnishing every child, regardless of demographics, with the relationships, resources, and enriching experiences that decades of research confirm build capability. If systems are not achieving this, reform must occur until they do. The endpoint is students empowered to fulfill their aspirations.
Whilst progress requires policy changes, lasting culture shift comes through unity. Appealing to people’s highest instincts of compassion and fairness tends to dissolve divisions. When all young people’s hopes are advocated equally arduously, advancement follows.