It’s Time to Rethink the K-12 Budget Process

Budget season is a perennial crisis for public K-12 education. State policymakers grapple with how to determine adequate funding levels and where to find the money. District leaders struggle to develop plans that prioritize limited resources and keep every stakeholder group happy so that the budget moves forward. In the end, stakeholders are often frustrated.

While K-12 education may need more resources, policymakers and educators would be well served to set new standards that find better ways to demonstrate need, efficient utilization, and better results with existing funds. Today, K-12 education funding in the U.S. stands at a trillion dollars across federal, state and local levels. In the face of competing priorities, building confidence that additional funding would achieve the desired impact is essential.

Here are a few ideas that I believe would help achieve this objective:

State-Level

Re-envision approaches for determining “adequate” education costs. Education adequacy studies should focus more on what it takes to deliver the supports and resources students need to be successful. Current approaches focus narrowly on student needs at the school level without adequately considering what it takes to connect students to the most effective wraparound supports when they get left behind. These services often include tutors, executive function coaches, study skills support, and more.

In addition to education experts, it’s important to bring perspective from other disciplines that have dealt with large scale implementation and change. These include change management, process improvement, project management, and technology and implementation experts. Joint problem solving will help determine additional resources or guidance necessary to ensure schools and the central offices that support them can rise to meet the moment.

Where they still exist, policymakers should summon the political will to create a timeline for resolving pension and other structural funding challenges so they do not further destabilize the core funding available to schools and central offices.

Improve coordination across funding silos: States should align the planning process to ensure agencies with overlapping services interact with school systems efficiently and create a seamless, positive, and effective experience for students and families. Agencies that should participate in such a process include health and human services, transportation, and libraries. This collaboration can reduce waste, improve efficiency and ensure that limited resources are used effectively.

Local Level

Create a better planning and prioritization process. Districts should inject more structure into their annual planning process. Such a process should involve each budget manager identifying the stakeholders they serve, the services they provide to them, the success measures, the team’s current delivery model, and what opportunities they see for cost savings or revenue generation.

When we used this approach in Seattle, it gave us rich insights that are often lost in the traditional incremental budget process. Our process helped us better understand the shifting dynamics that drove financial requests. It helped identify areas of duplication, underinvestment, and where we didn’t have an effective delivery model. It also helped us improve how we prioritized limited resources and provided valuable context for our board as we entered budget conversations.

End across-the-board cuts. Blanket percentage cuts seem fair on the surface, but they are often harmful and have a disproportionate impact. They ignore the interconnectedness of delivering programs and services and can unintentionally undermine implementation. Years ago, I worked in a district planning a major technology implementation. The CFO was excited about the new solution and the trainer that IT would provide to help his team learn how to use it. In a random conversation with the CIO, I learned that he cut the trainer from his budget. The budget process did not elicit this insight, but it could have.

Analyze and track funding needs. It’s time to stop approving strategic plans without a budget and a strategic financial plan (i.e., a breakdown of how things will be paid for). The strategic financial plan should be a transparent, living document that includes a prioritized list of funding needs divided into at least two categories: investments intended to advance student outcomes and those intended to address other priorities. With these insights, the system can take quick, informed action as money becomes available. It also supports continuity of decision making when the inevitable board, superintendent, and leadership turnover occurs.

State education chiefs, superintendents, school boards and local leaders must champion a new vision for planning and budgeting, one that accelerates collaborative, cohesive, and informed actions on behalf of students.

From Crisis to Coherence

Budget surprises, such as school closures or program cuts, often erode public trust and destabilize learning experiences. By signaling potential changes earlier and engaging stakeholders in the process, districts have a better chance at managing difficult transitions with greater impact. State education chiefs, superintendents, school boards and local leaders must champion a new vision for planning and budgeting, one that accelerates collaborative, cohesive, and informed actions on behalf of students.