This study employs meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness instruments to evaluate and compare cross-age tutoring, computer assistance, class size reductions, and instructional time increases for their utility in improving elementary school reading and math scores. Using intervention effect studies as replication models, researchers first estimate costs, then compute cost-effectiveness ratios (size of effect for each $100 of cost per pupil). Among alternatives in the area of math achievement, for example, two tutoring interventions show the largest effects per $100 of cost per pupil, while increasing instructional time by one-half hour daily has the smallest effect per cost. Peer tutoring and computer assistance reveal almost equivalent cost-effectiveness ratios for reading. Conversely, increasing instructional time appears to be a poor choice for both. Such results should serve as guidelines--not absolutes--for considering alternative interventions. A bibliography and appendixes conclude the report. (KS)