Regular instruction proves to be smartest investment

Money doesn’t matter.

At least that’s the theory gaining traction in some education circles and among some politicians.

Including politicians spending $18,000 a year to send their children to tony private schools.

I would argue that more money does makes a difference, as long as it’s spent on the right things. That’s where the debate ought to be focused: What are those “right things”?

A new study on high schools by researcher Gary Henry offers surprising insight. Formerly at Georgia State University, where he studied the state’s HOPE and pre-k programs, Henry has taken his research skills to the University of North Carolina, where he directs the Carolina Institute for Public Policy.

North Carolina Gov. Michael Easley asked Henry to find out whether low-performing high schools could substantially improve their students’ academic performance by using current levels of funding more efficiently.

In their High School Resource Allocation Study, Henry and Charles Thompson of East Carolina University found that money spent in the regular classroom produced far greater achievement than money spent on after-school programs, summer school or Saturday classes.

In fact, spending on supplemental programs outside the classroom —- including guidance counseling and psychological services —- was linked to lower student test scores.

In 2005-06, North Carolina spent $7,930 per pupil in state and local money in high schools serving the poorest kids. That was $1,500 more than the average spent on students in high schools without a lot of poor kids. However, that additional $1,500 was spread across all school programs, including supplemental services.

As Henry dug deeper into the data, he discovered that only $300 of that additional money was actually making its way into regular classroom instruction. By directing more of that money to classrooms, Henry says, test score gaps between poor and middle-class students could be greatly narrowed.

(The study defined regular classroom expenditures as teacher compensation, teacher assistants, tutors and substitutes as well as instructional supplies, textbooks and library and media services.)

“Our study shows that money spent on supplemental programs is simply not a productive expenditure of educational funding,” says Henry. “Teachers in regular classes in schools where supplemental after-school programs are a big deal come to believe that student learning is not their responsibility, that the school will remediate these students after school and then the students don’t show up for the after-school programs. A greater investment in regular instruction makes it easier for the teachers to understand that it is their responsibility during the class day to get students up to proficient level.”

Henry recommends that schools reconsider the money allotted to supplemental services.

“We believe across the board schools need to rethink their models of student services because they are simply not working to improve graduation rates,” he says. “Those dollars just don’t yield much. The places that spend more do worse.”

The findings hold implications for Georgia, where Gov. Sonny Perdue has invested millions in graduation coaches. This year, the state is devoting $50 million to the training and salaries of 398 coaches in high schools and 242 in middle schools. Perdue has credited the coaches with raising graduation rates, but so far there’s no research to support that assertion.

mdowney@ajc.com

THE STUDY

To read the High School Resource Allocation Study: http://publicpolicy.unc.edu/files/HSRA%20Final%20v10.pdf