Reactive vs. Preventative Spending

Crisis intervention, proactive mental health, tech upgrades.

Permalink

The Cycle We Know Too Well

Education budgets often feel like they’re in permanent triage mode. Funding flows most quickly when a crisis has already hit—overcrowded classrooms, deteriorating facilities, or alarming literacy and numeracy scores.

But by then, the damage is done. Students have lost opportunities, teachers are burnt out, and repairs cost far more than if they had been handled earlier.

Why Prevention Struggles

  • Politics of visibility: Emergencies grab headlines, while prevention is harder to celebrate.
  • Budget cycles: Short-term planning makes it difficult to invest in benefits that only show up years later.
  • Measuring “what didn’t happen”: It’s easier to tally a roof repair than to calculate the value of avoiding dropouts through early supports.

The Hidden Costs of Reaction

Reactive spending often balloons costs over time. Emergency repairs are more expensive than maintenance. Crisis interventions for struggling students are costlier than early literacy programs. And yet, we return to the same cycle.

The Big Question

What would our schools look like if we funded preventative programs, routine maintenance, and early supports with the same urgency we devote to reacting to emergencies? Would we finally get ahead of the curve—or would prevention always be politically invisible?