Staffing and program reviews can be crucial components in the conversation about public school funding. However, one of the most critical school funding issues in many schools today includes the continued reliance on deficit-based educational policies and practices. Deficit-based policies and practices not only perpetuate inequities but also result in soaring costs that burden the system while failing to improve outcomes for the majority of students. Deficit-based policies and practices are the most expensive and least effective ways to provide education.
In contrast, assets-based education policies and practices provide a more inclusive, academically effective, AND cost-effective solution. Let’s explore why funding a deficit-based public school system is costly and counterproductive and how an assets-based approach could offer a more sustainable alternative.
The History of School Funding and Its Inherent Problems
Before delving deeper into deficit and assets-based public school systems, it’s important to understand the history of how public schools are funded in the United States and why this funding model creates inherent challenges. Public schools are funded through a combination of local property taxes, state contributions, and federal aid. Unfortunately, this reliance on local property taxes has resulted in significant disparities in funding between wealthy and lower-income districts.
Schools in affluent areas benefit from higher property values, generating more revenue for school resources, while schools in lower-income communities struggle with far fewer resources. According to the U.S. Census data, the highest-spending districts in the country spend over three times more per student than the lowest-spending districts. These disparities are further exacerbated by inconsistent state funding and insufficient federal contributions, accounting for only about 8% of public school funding.
This funding structure creates a cycle of inequality: wealthier districts can invest in more experienced teachers, resources, and facilities. Meanwhile, schools in lower-income areas, often predominantly attended by students of color, face underfunding, larger class sizes, outdated materials, and lower teacher salaries. This inequitable distribution of resources not only limits students’ potential but also lays the foundation for the deficit-based systems that many schools–regardless of their access to resources–continue to rely on.
Deficit-based Systems: A Costly Cycle of Failure
In a deficit-based school system, student failure is often seen as the result of individual shortcomings—whether it be the student, their family, or their community. Instead of recognizing and addressing systemic issues, a deficit-perspective often blames students for falling behind. Then, instead of proactively addressing the system that contributes to students falling behind, educators often then label students to receive special services, which in turn leads to a host of costly interventions. Separate programs and classes are perceived to be quick fixes but are not focused on long-term solutions, which inevitably results in higher costs in the long run. On average, deficit-based educational structures and practices set up an estimated 70% of students to not meet grade-level standards. This high rate of failure results in many students being pulled out or ability-grouped in classrooms for additional services, such as:
- Special education
- English-Language Learner (ELL) programs
- Remedial or extended learning courses in Math and English/Language Arts through Multi Systems of Support (MTSS)
These specialized services often require additional testing, which takes staff time and resources. These services often require separate physical spaces, additional teachers, paraprofessionals, behaviorists, and classroom supplies. In some cases, students are sent to entirely different schools, which can involve bussing students across or out of the district and away from the school closest to their home.
These deficit-based practices segregate and marginalize students, grouping them by their perceived abilities and reinforcing the notion that some students are inherently “less capable” than others and that most students don’t belong. Such segregated practices also result in racialized and minoritized learning environments that do not represent the natural proportions of the larger community population across race, gender, socio-economic, ethnicity, and language.
This within-classroom, within-school, within-district, or out-of-district segregation comes at a significant financial cost for school districts and ultimately the taxpayers. The need for specialized staff and an increased number of paraprofessionals means that schools must constantly hire and train additional personnel amid an already difficult teacher shortage in many districts. Extra resources, from individualized materials to separate classroom spaces or buildings, are required to accommodate this divided, deficit-based approach. According to a report from the National Education Association (NEA), the cost of special education alone can be nearly double that of educating a general education student, adding significant financial strain to already underfunded schools.
Moreover, these deficit-based practices and policies perpetuate a vicious cycle of marginalization and exacerbate resource inequity. The students pulled out for these services often miss core classroom time, resulting in wider gaps in their education and socialization. As they continue to struggle, the demand for additional, costly interventions grows, reinforcing the cycle of failure.
Assets-Based Systems: An Inclusive, Academically Effective, and Cost-Effective Approach
In contrast, an assets-based school system takes the opposite approach. Instead of viewing students’ differences as deficiencies, an assets-based system focuses on the strengths and potential of each learner and aims to fix the real problem – the broken and costly system. In an assets-based school system, students learn in heterogeneous classes and courses, where individuals of all abilities are taught together. The instruction is led by a Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn™ (C3) Team, who co-design rigorous, identity-affirmative instruction for each and every learner.
One major benefit of an assets-based system includes reducing the need for extensive pull-out services and specialized instruction. Instead of sending students to separate rooms for individualized help, educators within the classroom and course work together to meet the needs of all students. This collaborative teaching allows for universally designed, differentiated instruction to take place, meeting the individual needs and affirming the strengths of all students without the high financial and academic costs of a deficit-based system.
Improving School Funding Issues with C3 Teams
One of the key innovations in an assets-based system relies on Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) teams. These teams consist of a range of educators who work together to design and deliver instruction that meets the needs of all students. By focusing on collaboration among classroom teachers and specialists who proactively design lessons, C3 teams reduce the need for constant hiring and training of additional support staff.
C3 teams assist in developing the capacity of all teachers through the sharing of expertise as they design instruction for all learners through the use of heterogeneous grouping practices. C3 teams also create a more sustainable teaching and learning process by fostering ongoing professional learning within the school and knowledge and skill sharing among teachers. In other words, all teachers develop each other’s capacity to teach a diverse range of learners.
Align Decisions to the Equity Non-Negotiables
A district’s equity non-negotiables serve as the basis of all practice and policy decisions in an assets-based system. A fiscally responsible district ensures that every single decision related to public school funding or resource allocation aligns with the district’s equity non-negotiables. The district no longer spends any money on resources, curricula, practices, professional learning, or policies that are deficit-based and not aligned with the equity non-negotiables. Proactive districts conduct a financial audit on all their spending to ensure this is the case.
For example, districts can consider the ICS School Funding Scorecard to reflect on their current school funding and resource allocation practices:
- Do ALL our professional learning opportunities align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., developing teacher capacity within Tier 1?)
- Do all our curriculum and resource purchases/adoptions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., do any of our curriculum adoptions require students to be ability-grouped?)
- Do all our transportation funding decisions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., separate buses, transporting certain students to certain schools, out-of-district placements?)
- Does the addition of new staff or positions align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., are we hiring someone to develop the capacity of teachers in Tier 1? Or will this person reinforce separate programs?)
- Do the grants that we are applying for align with the Equity Non-Negotiables? (e.g., they do not require students to be segregated in any way?
Conclusion
A deficit-based school system is not only inequitable but also financially unsustainable. By segregating students based on perceived abilities and relying on costly, specialized interventions to fix students rather than developing a proactive, assets-based system, schools are reinforcing inequality while driving up costs.
In contrast, an assets-based proactive system provides the most equitable, academically effective, cost-effective, and sustainable education possible. For public schools to truly serve all students and achieve high-quality teaching and learning for all, a shift from deficit-based to asset-based policies and practices remains essential. An assets-based, proactive system will create a more inclusive and effective learning environment and save precious resources that can be reinvested in enriching education for everyone.
