To see why, consider the plight of Missouri lawmakers, whose most recent attempt at charter funding reform, , is the subject of a by my organization.

Since their inception in 1998, charters have seen their share of total enrollment increase to roughly 41% of public school students in St. Louis and 51% in Kansas City, while enrollment in traditional district schools in both cities has halved.

That growth hasn’t come at the expense of students, who make if they enroll in a charter school.

Yet, despite their strong track record and seismic shift in enrollment, the Show Me State鈥檚 charters have been systematically excluded from local revenues, the vast majority of which still flow through traditional school districts that have no legal obligation to share them.

Mathematically speaking, that means the same number of dollars have been divided between ever fewer district students. As of the 2024-25 school year, both Saint Louis Public Schools and Kansas City Public Schools now receive in local revenues per student, which is more than receive from all revenue sources combined.

In practice, this trend has left state policymakers who are reluctant to anger district-affiliated parents and educators with a difficult choice: allow the state鈥檚 ever-expanding roster of charters to operate at an ever-increasing competitive disadvantage or write ever-larger checks to charters in the name of funding equity.

Prior to HB 1552, their preference for the first of those options meant Missouri鈥檚 charters received about 30% less in total revenues per pupil than traditional public schools in the two districts. But things changed in 2022, when, to the surprise of many observers, the legislature decided it would try to close the district-charter gap with new state dollars.

The resulting funding shock, likely the largest in the history of the charter school movement, has so far increased revenues by roughly $4,000 per charter school student.

Yet, because districts鈥� local funding per pupil is increasing so quickly 鈥� and because of the complexity of the state鈥檚 funding formula 鈥� true equity remains elusive. Despite the unprecedented infusion of state funding, our shows that the St. Louis and Kansas City districts still receive about $5,500 more per pupil than charters there do.

It’s hard to imagine districts’ administrators in these locations objecting to this arrangement. But what about taxpayers, who are now on the hook for nearly $200 million per year in pursuit of the frustratingly elusive goal of funding equity? And what about kids in the rest of the state, where total funding per pupil is now almost $10,000 lower than in its two big urban areas?

Already, the cost of HB 1552 is , nearly triple the state鈥檚 initial projections. And if nothing is done, simple arithmetic suggests it will continue to rise as more students exit district schools for charters.

Allowing districts to keep local dollars may have been politically expedient in the charter school movement鈥檚 early years, but it is becoming untenable 鈥� and not just in Missouri.

Despite enrolling just 7.8% of America鈥檚 public school students overall, in a growing number of cities 鈥� places like San Antonio, Phoenix and Flint, Michigan 鈥� charter enrollment is approaching half of their districts’ public school population.

Consequently, the arithmetic of allowing the country’s biggest urban districts to monopolize local resources is becoming increasingly ridiculous 鈥� and increasingly unpalatable for political leaders hoping to appeal to a majority of parents and taxpayers.

To see where things are headed, consider the path taken by Indianapolis, where a political feedback loop has clearly taken hold. Around 2021, charter schools crossed the politically and psychologically important 50% mark. In 2023, state legislators passed a law requiring Indianapolis Public Schools to share its local revenues with charter schools in the district on an equitable basis. Then, this year, the state created the Indianapolis Public Education Corp.  to oversee the distribution of those revenues and promote better coordination in areas like facilities and transportation, where charters have also been excluded.

Already, these changes are intensifying the pressure to consolidate or repurpose underutilized schools in a community that has seen a precipitous decline in the number of K-12-aged children 鈥� from nearly 100,000 students to about 40,000 鈥� which makes sense if you think staffing and maintaining mostly empty buildings is a poor use of resources.

Even in places without such fiscal and operational pressures, the political ground is shifting. Twenty years ago, the notion that public dollars could flow to a secular, nonprofit, privately operated school of choice was considered controversial 鈥� never mind that charters must adhere to the same content standards and testing requirements as traditional public schools and admit students regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Yet today, with entire communities increasingly educating most of their children in charters 鈥� and with Republican states increasingly opting to expand vouchers, education savings accounts and other less regulated forms of school choice 鈥� claims that charters are destroying public education feel a bit behind the times.

Yes, it could be a mistake to embrace a choice-based education system in a country that has been fragmenting without one. Or it could be time for those who would defend America’s public education system to recognize charter schools for what they are: the most transparent, accountable and egalitarian form of school choice a local community can provide, and fund them accordingly.

As a key element in the state鈥檚 package of early literacy reforms, Gov. Gavin Newsom included $200 million in last year鈥檚 state budget to pay for instructing elementary school teachers in the new reading strategies. On Wednesday, the State Board of Education that school districts can now use.

That list of providers is about twice as long as some advocates of reading reforms recommended. And it will include a few programs that have proven to be minimally effective, the advocates said.

But board members weeded out a half-dozen of the lowest-ranked programs. They directed the Department of Education to provide easily accessible and detailed information on each of the 31 programs to help districts select the ones that best meet their needs.

鈥淚 know that (districts) are overwhelmed, and as much guidance as we can provide would be helpful,鈥� said board member Haydee Rodriguez, a high school teacher who has designed adult literacy programs in Imperial County.

A Sept. 30 deadline set by the Legislature last year for approving the list precluded the board from recommending substantial revisions that would have required an unscheduled follow-up meeting. 

Longtime observers said this was the first time in memory that the State Board has recommended professional development programs. The list reflects the state鈥檚 recognition, based on Mississippi and other states鈥� full-scale improvements, that a weak link in teacher training could undermine early literacy reforms. 

That is why the Department of Education approved a short list of vendors for the early literacy screener for reading challenges, like dyslexia, and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, at the Legislature鈥檚 direction, revised the reading standards for teaching reading that all university credentialing programs must follow.

The next stage will occur later this year, when the State Board approves a new list of reading textbooks and materials aligned with the English Language Arts and English Language Development standards for English learners. The State Board must decide whether to repeat what it did with the math textbook adoption in November 2025, approving 64 different textbooks aligned with the new math framework. The alternative is to be more selective and only highlight textbooks emphasizing phonics and essential components of the evidence-based science of reading.

Districts can still receive state funding from the $200 million reserved for professional development if they select a program that鈥檚 not among the 31 approved this week. However, they must verify that the program aligns with criteria aligned with the science of reading.

How programs were ranked

The California Department of Education hired the nonprofit education research organization WestEd to lead an extensive review of applications from 37 eligible early literacy training providers. A panel of 29 teachers and experts measured 18 criteria, including access and suitability for English learners, under a three-point scale: strong, moderate or minimal. The maximum score was 54 points.

Scores of the 31 approved programs ranged from 30 to 53 points. The two top-ranked providers were the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) and SchoolKit, LLC, with 17 of 18 criteria earning a strong rating. CABE had been one of the strongest opponents of out of concern it would minimize the needs of English learners.

The lowest-ranking program on the approved list was from the large, national ed tech company Amplify Education. Other well-known California-based training providers were among the top dozen on the list. One is , developed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education; it has offered a primer on the Science of Reading, with its emphasis on phonics, aural language skills and reading comprehension for more than 12,000 TK-5 teachers since 2020. The other three providers are the Sacramento County Office of Education, the Reading League and CORE Learning.

A promise of a user-friendly, transparent website

Early literacy advocacy groups that pressed for legislation promoting the science of reading favored a shorter list of the higher-scoring programs.

鈥淭he come-one, come-all approach does not help (districts) distinguish top quality or prioritize where to invest,鈥� said Yolie Flores, CEO of Families in Schools. 鈥淥ur educators, ultimately students, including ELs, deserve a list that prioritizes the highest-quality learning that will meet their needs.鈥�

Molly Maloney, with Oakland-based GO Public Schools, said, 鈥淭he rubric scores show that some programs have minimal evidence in critical areas. The state鈥檚 approved list should provide districts with a meaningful signal of quality that they can trust.鈥�

Critics could not agree on how many providers should be on the list. One idea was to group the programs by tiers; one advocate suggested the top 19 ranked. Nonprofit organizations EdVoice, Children Now and other groups recommended 17 programs with the highest ratings or those that could demonstrate strong evidence of improving learning.

Demonstrating effectiveness was an optional factor, not one of the 18 criteria, because some programs were too new to submit data or evaluations. Because of that, board member Alison Yoshimoto-Towery, a former chief academic officer of Los Angeles Unified, urged the board to provide districts with clarity. 

鈥淢y belief is that we鈥檙e putting the list of what鈥檚 most aligned to the criteria, not most aligned to showing student outcomes. And (districts) need to understand that,鈥� she said.

Board President Linda Darling-Hammond cautioned board members 鈥渢o resist the temptation to micromanage the list because we鈥檝e heard people say, 鈥楥ut the list here. Take the ones that have this criteria and take the ones that have that criteria.鈥� 鈥�

The review process was thorough and transparent, she said. All the material from the evaluations will be available online for the public, she said, enabling users to compare programs like a Consumer Report, with summaries of ratings and detailed materials for those who want to go deeper.

Marshall Tuck, EdVoice鈥檚 CEO, while advocating for a shorter list, said he was encouraged by the board鈥檚 discussion and its directive to the department. 鈥淭he goal is to share expertise with districts, so guidance needs to be really strong.鈥�

This story was originally published by . Sign up for their .

For school districts, as in any industry, accountability can鈥檛 end when a contract is signed, it must begin there. 

That is why outcomes-based contracting has emerged as one of the most promising shifts in K鈥�12 procurement in decades. Essentially, this approach ties a portion of an education technology provider’s payment to whether agreed-upon student outcomes are achieved when educators implement the program as recommended. Rather than paying solely for products or services, outcomes-based contracting aligns districts and providers around a shared goal: improving student outcomes. Done well, it transforms the relationship from a traditional vendor agreement into a true partnership centered on student success.

Early evidence suggests the model has real promise. A from WestEd found that districts implementing outcomes-based contracts saw positive impacts on student performance. Further, it improved implementation through more frequent communication between districts and technology providers, and led to better leveraging of data to help improve outcomes.

The has helped establish a national framework and brought together districts and providers committed to rethink how educational services are purchased and evaluated. Since 2024, my organization, Curriculum Associates, has grown its partnership with the center, and most recently engaged with its Provider Learning Series in the spring. 

But as more districts move this model from theory to implementation, we’re learning something important: The conversation is no longer just whether to adopt outcomes-based contracting, it’s how to implement it well. Based on our experience, there are several principles that can help make outcomes-based contracting more meaningful, practical, and ultimately, more beneficial for students.

First, districts and providers need to measure outcomes in ways that are both ambitious and realistic. Student growth depends on many factors, and accountability should reflect the portion of the instructional experience a provider can reasonably influence. Rather than expecting every enrolled student to achieve the same outcome, districts and providers should consider overall class or school-level growth, such as the median percentage of progress toward each growth target. This approach reflects the holistic picture of how much each student progresses, rather than reducing outcomes to a simple and incomplete yes/no of whether a student met a target.

Second, accountability is bolstered by robust discussions about implementation. One of our earliest partnerships with Fresno Unified School District reinforced this lesson. The strongest outcomes did not come from payment terms. They came from regular governance meetings, shared data reviews and continuous course correction throughout the school year. The contract created accountability, but the partnership created improvement.

Third, professional learning should be viewed as essential, not optional. Every district begins from a different place, with different priorities, staffing models, and levels of readiness. Successful implementation requires more than purchasing the product. It requires ongoing coaching, customized support, and a shared understanding of how instructional practices connect to student outcomes. Meeting the unique needs of a district is not something that can be baked into a one-sized fits all model. 

We have seen, first-hand, the benefits of this strategy. In Fresno, implementation extended well beyond the product itself to include professional learning, implementation support and alignment with the district’s broader literacy strategy. Like any major decision, the district leaders in Fresno thought through how to best apply these tools and work them into the district’s broader strategy before application.

Fourth, incentives should strengthen partnerships, not simply reward or punish performance. Outcomes-based contracting works best when both sides have something to gain from student success. Districts should have meaningful protections if agreed-upon outcomes are not achieved. At the same time, when partnerships exceed expectations, providers should look for ways to reinvest that success, whether through additional professional learning, implementation support, or future service credits. Accountability should encourage continuous improvement, not create winners and losers.

Finally, educators should evaluate instructional systems, not just software. Student outcomes are the product of multiple factors. They reflect the use of the tool, as well as systems and structures that ensure all resources work together.

Perhaps the most valuable lesson from Fresno was that the partnership improved both organizations. The district strengthened its approach to accountability, while as partners we new insights into what drives successful implementation in real classrooms. The results were significant. According to district data, 70% of Fresno Unified鈥檚 kindergarteners achieved mastery in foundational literacy skills, exceeding the 62.5% target the district set for June 2026. That’s exactly what a strong partnership should do: create learning on both sides all in service of students.

Outcomes-based contracting is still evolving, and that’s a good thing. As more districts gain implementation experience, the education community has an opportunity to refine what works, share best practices and build on the strong foundation the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting has established.

The future of education procurement shouldn’t be about shifting risk from one party to another. It should be about aligning everyone around the same goal: helping students succeed.

When districts and providers share responsibility, invest in implementation and continuously learn from one another, everyone benefits. Districts gain stronger partners, providers become more accountable, and most importantly, students receive the support they deserve.

Missouri鈥檚 largest charter-school sponsor entered August with nearly $3.3 million in its account, which is more than twice what it spent in the previous fiscal year.

Now the Missouri Charter Public School Commission is sending some of that money back to the schools it oversees.

At its August meeting, the commission approved $685,000 in rebates, with individual schools receiving between $10,000 and $70,000. It is the third time in recent years the commission has returned a portion of its surplus to schools.

鈥淏ecause we run a very lean but efficient agency, we are able to build up a healthy level of reserve,鈥� Missouri Charter Public School Commission Executive Director Mark Modrcin told The Independent. 鈥淲e feel like that should go right back to our schools, who could use those dollars better than we could.鈥�

This funding, while a small portion of the cost required to run a school, can have a substantial impact on the school, several school administrators told The Independent.

Nicole Goodman, superintendent of Scuola Vita Nuova Charter School in northeast Kansas City, said the money goes a long way toward enriching students鈥� experience.

鈥淭here are things that keep us up at night when it comes to budgeting and knowing what the needs of our students and staff are,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is really expensive to make sure we are giving all of our students the opportunities that they deserve.鈥�

When she received word from the commission that her school would receive $70,000, she thought about field trips that she wanted to schedule but wasn鈥檛 quite sure the budget would allow for.

Goodman said the school tries to expose students to art, music, athletics and other activities without charging families fees for things such as instruments or field trips.

鈥淭here鈥檚 enrichment that we want to provide for our students and even our families to engage with their students more and to really truly be a partnership in this whole journey,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his helps us do a little more than we anticipated.鈥�

For Brookside Charter School in Kansas City, extra funding fuels its growing operations. The school is set to open a second building in a year, and its $55,000 rebate will help make the transition run smoothly.

鈥淭he new building leads all of our conversations about the money that we have,鈥� Superintendent Roger Offield said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to manage our dollars to do this.鈥�

Offield doesn鈥檛 know exactly what the school will use the money for, but he anticipates that it will likely go toward staffing 鈥� which he says is paramount.

鈥淏rookside鈥檚 philosophy has been that there鈥檚 no secret sauce to education. It is what quality adults do you put in front of kids,鈥� he said.

The Missouri Charter Public School Commission is a state agency charged with providing oversight and accountability to charter schools. Local school districts and Missouri universities can also sponsor charters. To fund this task, dictates that charter sponsors receive 1.5% of their schools鈥� local and state aid, up to $125,000.

Sponsorship fees and federal grants have proven to be enough to sustain the commission鈥檚 operations. Last fiscal year, the commission spent over $1.4 million while taking in over $2.5 million, according to the State Treasurer鈥檚 . And in July, the commission鈥檚 account had nearly .

During the meeting, commissioners briefly acknowledged that the $685,000 in rebates is just a portion of a healthy reserve balance. Finance committee chair Judith Meyer told the group that it would be nice to get media coverage but added, 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want to talk too much about the amount of reserve that we have.鈥�

State budget officials are predicting general revenue shortfalls in coming years and have to only essentials. This frugality has placed , which make up a large chunk of the state budget.

But the commission鈥檚 large safety net is by design, Modrcin told The Independent.

鈥淲e have a policy where we keep reserves just in case something would happen to the state cash flow,鈥� he said.

As for the rebates, the commission intends to be hands-off. The amount each school received was based on school size and performance, with the top-performing schools receiving $70,000 regardless of enrollment, but administrators will have discretion on how to spend the money.

On top of the $685,000 going directly to schools, the commission voted to put almost $95,000 in a grant program that will be administered by a third-party contractor. The details are not yet set, but the program is intended to fund ideas that foster better academic performance.

鈥淲e want to remember that we do not want to get involved in the management decisions of our schools,鈥� Meyer said during the meeting. 鈥淲e want that to come from the schools, but obviously in this case, we want them to focus on academic performance.鈥�

Commissioners spoke about the grant program as an opportunity for schools to grow and share their successes for others to adopt.

鈥淲e鈥檙e grateful that we find ourselves in the position to be able to give back in this way to our schools,鈥� Modrcin said. 鈥淎nd we hope that they put the money to good use.鈥�

This story was originally published by .

Missouri Independent is a part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

Education finance could learn a thing or two.

Policymakers intent on providing high-quality schools for everyone typically face a familiar problem: Variability in property taxes allows wealthier communities to send much more money to their local schools than those in poorer communities. That extra investment translates into opportunities that lower-wealth schools simply cannot afford. Education leaders across the country have tried to fix this by filling holes with state dollars. But they are faced with a common challenge: If local spending on education in high-wealth communities keeps rising, the bar for state contributions to poorer communities moves with it.

Many professional sports leagues grappling with similar issues of inequality have found a solution in salary caps that curb wealth hoarding and reward competitiveness. In the National Basketball Association, the salary cap is a set dollar amount that all teams must stay under to avoid a financial penalty. If my beloved Atlanta Hawks spent $100,000 above the threshold, for instance, they would pay an additional $100,000 as a luxury tax. These extra dollars would then be distributed to teams that have not spent as much, helping to level the playing field.

What could this policy look like in education? Vermont already has one in place. 

Like many states, Vermont calculates and guarantees a baseline amount of funding required to educate a standard student (which is adjusted by increasing funding for disadvantaged kids). But beginning in 1997, Vermont lawmakers adopted an additional process called the excess spending adjustment. If a town votes to spend more than the baseline per-pupil funding amount, it triggers the state’s version of the NBA鈥檚 luxury tax. Wealthy towns can still raise more money for their schools, but are then required to pay higher rates created in the funding formula. In Fiscal Year 2026, exceeded the $15,926 spending threshold.

The additional tax revenue raised by property-rich towns is distributed to property-poor, rural school districts to ensure their students get a more equitable education. Three years into implementation, that legislative provisions including the excess spending adjustment had significantly reduced the relationship among property wealth, student resources and taxpayer burden.聽

What stops other states from following in Vermont鈥檚 footsteps? Policies like this do not come easily, and may require a shock to the status quo. The NBA salary cap and luxury tax were the result of difficult negotiations between the league and players. Vermont’s school funding mechanism was passed in response to a state Supreme Court ruling that the state’s previous education finance law was unconstitutional. Many wealthier residents expressed outrage at the new law 鈥� one going so far as to buy a car previously owned by one of the bill鈥檚 chief sponsors, bringing it to the state capitol and urging passers-by to to vent their frustration with the new law.

Interestingly, several of the financially affected by the excess spending threshold are not eligible to vote in Vermont: Many of its property-rich communities are ski resorts filled with second homes of out-of-state residents. This politically advantageous fact, paired with provisions that provided 229 of the state鈥檚 school districts with additional funding and only 23 districts with less, might help explain why the pushback was not strong enough to undo the law’s sweeping changes. Howard Dean, the incumbent governor, faced an opponent who tried to center the law as her chief campaign issue. Dean handily won reelection.

Vermont is not alone in structurally tackling this issue. Texas has , a state policy that requires wealthy school districts to send a portion of their local property tax revenue back to the state. In the 2024-25 school year, nearly was returned to the state under the program.

Policy advocates interested in finance equity policies should study these two states, and consider how private giving might circumvent any progress. 

In my work for , housed in the Southern Education Foundation, I regularly meet with education stakeholders across the country to imagine school funding and enrollment policies that undo the harm of intense segregation, specifically between districts. Income segregation leaves students in high-poverty schools with and few resources to meet them. Some state leaders treat the school district lines as impenetrable, for both students and dollars, leaving kids to the education provided by local property tax wealth. But every American has an affirmative right to public education, written into the state constitutions. Like the NBA power brokers of the 1980s and the Vermont lawmakers of the late 1990s, state legislators can work across lines of difference to devise a system where wealth hoarding is challenged. The ball is in their court.

Remember when Labor Day was the unofficial end of summer and schools started up again after that?

Your kids probably don鈥檛 either.

The 2026-27 school year started Wednesday in Frederick County, and the remaining 23 school systems will all be back in class within less than two weeks 鈥� almost a full week before they go on break for Labor Day weekend.

The last time Maryland schools started after Labor Day was a brief window in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years 鈥� when today鈥檚 high school seniors were entering third grade 鈥� when an executive order by Gov. Larry Hogan ordering the delay was in effect. Lawmakers reversed it in 2018, but Hogan vetoed it, buying his policy another year before his veto was overridden.

Here鈥檚 the  of starting dates for the rest of the state, including seven that start Monday: Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Charles, Dorchester, Howard, Queen Anne鈥檚 and Talbot.

When students do return, they will be starting a school year in which they鈥檒l face new 鈥� and shorter 鈥� comprehensive tests, a renewed emphasis on school attendance and new help for students struggling in math.

School systems also start the year with nearly $15 million in grants announced Wednesday by Gov. Wes Moore (D) to decrease the state鈥檚 teacher shortage, under the state鈥檚 Grow Your Own initiative. This latest round of funding is expected to support 845 educators throughout the state. One of the largest awards is the $3.1 million going to Frederick County.

These grants are the second round of funding under the program, which will focus on high鈥憂eed areas such as special education and early childhood. After the first round of $19 million was announced in , teacher vacancies were sliced nearly in half from slightly more than 1,600 to about 886 last year.

The goal of the initiative is expanding teacher and staff pipelines, boosting diversity in the profession and establishing apprenticeships.

鈥淭he Grow Your Own Educators Grant addresses the teacher vacancy gap and ensures our students receive the world class education they deserve by building pathways to work, wages and wealth for the professionals already dedicated to their service,鈥� Moore said in a statement.

Some of the other school districts to receive grants are Anne Arundel County at $3.6 million, St. Mary鈥檚 County at $3.0 million, Charles and Howard counties at $1.5 million each. Seven Eastern Shore districts will receive approximately $1.1 million, and Worcester County will get $829,234, according to the governor鈥檚 office.

Although  isn鈥檛 part of the shore鈥檚 consortium, it has a Grow Your Own teacher program.

The new tests students will face this year will come as the state transitions into the newly designed Maryland System of Testing Academic Readiness (MSTAR) that鈥檚 slated to begin in the spring 2027.

It will mark the end of the聽聽tests for students in third through eighth grades. When they took the MCAP tests this spring, nearly 52% were proficient in English Language Arts and about 27% of students were proficient in math. Both were gains of less than a percentage point from the previous year鈥檚 test.

State Superintedent Carey Wright said last month one change with the new test is that it will specifically measure each grade level by what鈥檚 being taught in the classrooms. In the current language arts test, for example, students receive a litany of questions that may be on different levels. One main difference, she said, is that the new tests will be shorter.

During a virtual news conference Tuesday, Wright said the state has launched an attendance awareness campaign called 鈥�.鈥� Part of its purpose is to improve school attendance from the 31% of students who were chronically absent in 2022. Currently that rate is about 22%.

鈥淭hat says a lot about the work that our that our schools are doing,鈥� Wright said.

Also starting this upcoming school year, school districts must develop a process 鈥渢o identify and support students who exhibit difficulties with learning鈥� math that would include students with disabilities.

State school board President Joshua Michael, who has children in the Baltimore City鈥檚 public schools, offered some parental advice such as asking a teacher or a school leader about a child鈥檚 social environment, especially in prekindergarten and middle school.

鈥淲ho are the adults that they are excited to see every day? Who are the young people that they鈥檙e building relationships with?鈥� Michael said during the news conference with Wright. 鈥淛ust learning and attending to the people they鈥檙e building relationships with is going to go a long way in their socio-emotional development.鈥�

This story was originally published by Maryland Matters.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: info@marylandmatters.org.

Missouri education officials are preparing to ask lawmakers for roughly $300 million more for public schools next year, setting up a potentially difficult budget fight as the state faces a projected revenue shortfall.

The numbers are yet to be finalized, but the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education鈥檚 preliminary report shows that recent changes to state law have driven up the cost of Missouri鈥檚 public school funding formula by $110 million in fiscal year 2028.

That comes on top of roughly $190 million that the formula called for this year but lawmakers did not fully fund with general revenue.

Because lawmakers also used about $100 million from other sources to cover part of this year鈥檚 school funding, the department could have to seek nearly $400 million more in general revenue next year to fully fund the formula.

The increases are largely dictated by Missouri鈥檚 school funding formula, which lawmakers created two decades ago and began reworking in 2024.  The figures startled the State Board of Education during its meeting Tuesday.

Board member Mike Matousek, from Kansas City, said he worried about the optics of asking for money lawmakers refused to appropriate last year and an additional $110 million.

鈥淭his board and the department have a credibility issue with state lawmakers on the budget stuff,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t is hard for me to support a $400 million increase that not a single person in this room thinks we are going to get.鈥�

Last year, the formula calculated a $190 million increase and lawmakers chose not to fund it. They kept funding flat, tapping into funds like the blind pension fund for $100 million of the formula call. Because this money wasn鈥檛 funded through general revenue, the department must ask again for it as a 鈥渘ew decision item鈥� even if it isn鈥檛 new.

鈥淲e do realize this is a very large request, especially in this budget year, and we understand there will be questions about the likelihood whether that all comes to pass,鈥� the department鈥檚 deputy commissioner of financial and administrative services, Kyle Kruse, told the board. 鈥淏ut there is also the viewpoint that the legislature has spoken in terms of how they choose to fund schools.鈥�

The increase is coming from changes included in an passed in 2024, including a shift in the way the formula counts students away from purely attendance-based funding to a split between attendance and enrollment numbers. This has been slowly phased in, with each year shifting 10% towards enrollment and driving the cost of the formula up $40 million annually since fiscal year 2026.

The 2024 law also gave an incentive for districts to keep a five-day school week as a growing number of Missouri schools switched to a four-day week. For the past two years, districts with at least 169 school days have received a one percent funding boost, which will jump to 2% in fiscal year 2028 at a cost of around $66 million.

These increases come as the state predicts a general revenue shortfall. The published by the Office of Administration earlier this month warn against excess spending.

鈥淒espite efforts to curtail government spending, the state faces a projected shortfall of more than $500 million in fiscal year 2028,鈥� Dan Haug, the recently retired state budget director, wrote in the opening letter. 鈥淥ngoing general revenue spending authorized in the fiscal year 2027 budget is projected to outpace ongoing revenues by more than $1 billion and grow larger in future years.鈥�

The document instructs departments to only ask for 鈥渕andatory鈥� items. Kruse said this could be interpreted in different ways but that he sees it as a 鈥渘arrow gate.鈥�

Members of the state board had discussed ideas for budget requests, and the board鈥檚 finance committee chair, Kerry Casey, sent those for consideration. They included initiatives, like a $10 million grant program for struggling schools and an awards program to celebrate academic excellence at a cost of $50,000.

鈥淎 number of these items,鈥� Kruse said 鈥渨on鈥檛 make it through that gate.鈥�

The board seemed hesitant to pursue these ideas under the budget crunch ahead, and there was some discussion of what authority the board had to pursue further cuts.

Board member Vince Schoemehl, who was sworn in as a new board member at the beginning of Tuesday鈥檚 meeting, questioned the longstanding practice of adopting the current budget as the basis of next year鈥檚 request. Schoemehl, who was the mayor of St. Louis from 1981 to 1993, said he worked with a base-zero budget.

鈥淵ou start off assuming nothing goes from this year to the next year,鈥� he said. 鈥淓verything has to be justified.鈥�

Other items the department anticipates including in the budget request include a 3% increase in funding for student transportation and just over $7 million to implement Gov. Mike Kehoe鈥檚 executive order for public schools.

The department anticipates releasing a draft of the grade cards this fall using data from the 2024-25 school year as it works toward creating a report with last school year鈥檚 test scores. It has not received any funding for the current fiscal year for this work, so it is asking for $518,000 in a supplemental budget request.

Carrying out the plan next fiscal year is estimated to cost just over $6.5 million, Kruse said, including additional department staff.

The board plans to hold a second meeting this month in order to further discuss the budget under tight time constraints.

In recent years, the board has not taken such a detailed role in developing DESE鈥檚 budget. But with , they have sought greater involvement in shaping this year鈥檚 request.

This story was originally published by Missouri Independent.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

A new legal challenge to Texas’ school funding system renews questions about what methods state leaders should use to ensure students in low-income districts and those attending campuses in more affluent communities receive an education on a level playing field.

The Midland school district voted to sue Education Commissioner Mike Morath and state leaders this week, focusing on a piece of Texas鈥� school finance system known as recapture or 鈥淩obin Hood.鈥� Texas courts have repeatedly found recapture in compliance with the state constitution 鈥� in 1995, 2005 and 2016, respectively.

But the latest challenge from West Texas represents decades-long frustrations Texas schools hold with state leaders鈥� approach to paying for public education. Despite new dollars approved last year, many districts have closed schools, shuttered programs and cut staffing in response to a funding crisis they say the Legislature helped cause.

Here鈥檚 what to know.

What is recapture?

Recapture, often referred to as 鈥淩obin Hood,鈥� passed into law in 1993 after the predominantly Hispanic and low-income Edgewood school district and dozens of other underfunded campuses sued Texas over significant disparities between the resources students in their communities received and kids who attended school in affluent neighborhoods.

Under recapture, school districts that receive more local property tax revenue than their state-determined need must send excess funds back to the state. The state then redirects that money to districts that struggle to generate local funding.

During the 2024鈥�25 fiscal year 鈥� the most recent with finalized data 鈥� 225 districts sent nearly $3 billion back to the state, according to data from the Texas Education Agency. That鈥檚 up from just over $1.4 billion a decade prior.

How much is recapture costing districts?

As districts鈥� local economies have grown, so has their property wealth 鈥� resulting in more districts sending money back to the state.

In 1994 鈥� the year after recapture passed into law 鈥� 34 school districts redistributed $131 million through the system, many of them in Texas鈥� wealthy suburbs, according to the Texas School Coalition, an organization advocating on behalf of recapture districts.

Since then, districts have sent roughly $45.5 billion in total recapture funds to the state 鈥� including those located in urban communities with high numbers of students in low-income households as well as from oil-rich areas.

Austin ISD sent more than $770 million back to the state during the 2024-25 school year, by far the most of any district. Austin has led the state in recapture payments for nearly 20 consecutive years, according to the coalition. Slightly less than half of the district鈥檚 students come from low-income households, though the number of children learning English and kids with dyslexia rank high above state averages.

West Texas鈥� Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD paid roughly $198 million, the second-largest amount. The Midland school district, which recently sued the state, paid the sixth-most at $92.4 million. Houston ISD, the largest district in Texas, paid the tenth-most at $55.5 million.

What are arguments for and against recapture?

Some property-wealthy districts argue that because Texas counts recapture as part of its funding contribution to public schools, elected state leaders use it not as a tool to improve resources for low-income students but rather as an excuse to avoid funneling additional money to the children most in need.

Frustrations with recapture are underscored by the reality that many Texas districts are sending money back to the state as they close schools, cut programs and navigate staffing shortages.

But without recapture, advocates fear, schools in property-wealthy districts would receive significantly more funding to educate their students than those in areas with low property values, potentially leaving underserved children worse off.

Some public education advocates argue that the problem is not with recapture but with inconsistent and unreliable state funding. Prior to the 2025 legislative session, for example, Texas schools endured six years without a boost to the pot of money schools can use to raise teacher salaries and cover operational expenses.

What is Midland ISD arguing in its lawsuit?

Located in a community rich in oil and gas, Midland will pay the state more than $83 million for recapture this school year, according to a draft of the legal filing. That represents 27% of the district鈥檚 $313 million generated locally.

Midland has consistently ranked top 10 in recapture districts over the last decade, according to the Texas School Coalition.

Midland school trustees contend that recent changes to Texas鈥� education funding system, dating back to 2019, unfairly deprived local communities of decision-making power over how they tax residents, instead granting much of that authority to the education commissioner.

Rather than allowing local school boards to set taxes within a certain range determined by the state, districts do so at the rate decided by the commissioner or risk losing state funding, they argue. Meanwhile, state lawmakers continue to impose requirements on how districts spend money raised locally, which the Midland trustees say prevents them from addressing their community鈥檚 particular needs.

Roughly 68% of the district鈥檚 students are Hispanic, while nearly 55% qualify for free or reduced-price lunch 鈥� the latter of which the state and federal governments consider a measure of poverty. The trustees argue that the number of students who come from low-income households shows that property wealth does not necessarily equate to educational wealth.

What is the broader political context?

State leaders have allocated tens of billions of dollars toward reducing the annual tax bill homeowners and businesses pay each year. They have also imposed tighter limits on how much local governments can increase taxes to pay for services such as public safety and parks.

The legal challenge to recapture from Midland, a community that reliably votes Republican, comes as top GOP leaders such as now push to . Several Texas House lawmakers and prominent conservative groups have embraced the approach, though finance experts warn doing so would prove costly and appears unrealistic.

Property taxes make up the majority of public school funding, while state dollars generally fill remaining gaps along with some federal aid.

Attorneys Kevin O鈥橦anlon and Kara Belew, meanwhile, will represent Midland ISD in the recapture lawsuit.

O鈥橦anlon represented the Texas Attorney General鈥檚 Office in Edgewood v. Kirby 鈥� the landmark school finance case that led to the creation of recapture. Belew has served as statewide budget director for Abbott, as one of the Texas Education Agency鈥檚 top finance experts and as a senior policy adviser for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in The Texas Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete .

This first appeared on .

That being said, a number of these districts face higher labor costs, which offsets at least some of that advantage, according to the research from Brookings.

The findings 鈥渞aise questions about what I see as a predominant narrative that local property tax finance means that poor schools don鈥檛 have as much money and that that is a core, structural cause of inequality, and I just think it鈥檚 not,鈥� said Sarah Reber, a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings and the report鈥檚 lead author. 

鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean giving poor schools more money wouldn鈥檛 help. It could help,鈥� she added, but 鈥渋f we鈥檙e spending all of our time 鈥� focused on the level and allocation of school funding, we鈥檙e missing other important things.鈥�

To do this work, Reber and her colleagues used data collected by the Census Bureau, which surveys school districts on their spending and enrollment. They then divided districts into five groups, or quintiles, based on poverty rates and racial composition, with the first quintile being the least poor and the fifth being the most and the first quintile having the lowest share of non-white students and the fifth having the most.

They found that spending allocations across these five poverty brackets is U-shaped, with the poorest and wealthiest districts spending the most. Since the early 2000s, the poorest districts have outspent even the wealthiest ones. Part of this U-shape can be explained because states send more money to high-poverty districts, while affluent public schools are more likely to be in wealthier, higher-spending states.

While these findings weren鈥檛 necessarily surprising to Reber, she felt it was important to document because there is such a strongly held conviction in the opposite.

Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute, echoed this point and said the Brookings researchers, 鈥渄eserve credit for taking a careful look at the data and trying to illuminate the real situation on the ground because 鈥� many of these conversations can be driven more by narrative than by the stark reality.鈥�

Reber added the caveat that while funding is likely not the prime cause of education inequity, there is still significant causal research that shows when funding is increased it improves outcomes.

鈥淚 definitely don’t want to put myself in the 鈥榤oney doesn’t matter鈥� (group), like we shouldn’t care about that at all,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut I think this idea that people have that obviously the reason that schools that serve poor students are struggling is that they have less money (is) not the case. For one thing they don’t 鈥� they have more money.鈥�

Reber also emphasized the importance of the historical lens of the research. She found that patterns in spending by both poverty and racial compositions remained largely consistent in each end of the five decades the authors examined, though there were some changes in the middle years. Beginning in the 1980s and early 1990s, spending was less targeted to higher-needs students, but that shifted back to earlier patterns after 1995. 

The findings that most surprised her, she said, were around racial composition: She was not anticipating that within states, predominantly non-white districts have had more funding than their counterparts throughout the entire five-decade period studied. That being said, because many of these districts are in urban areas, 鈥渢heir purchasing power is not as different as that (level of funding) would make it seem because they鈥檙e facing higher wages.鈥�

High-poverty and mostly non-white districts were also disproportionately hit by the Great Recession, since 鈥渢he federal aid was both not enough for how long the recession shock lasted 鈥� and wasn’t really targeted,鈥� said Reber.

鈥淥ver the 鈥�90s and 2000s, there had been this increase in state funding that was increasingly targeted to higher-poverty districts,鈥� she added, 鈥渟o that was part of how you’re getting that increased (levels of directed funding) during that period, but then that made them vulnerable to cuts from state funding during the recession.鈥�

A large body of previous research has looked at differences in spending within states, but in Reber鈥檚 work she found, 鈥渢he differences across states swamp all of this within-state difference that gets so much attention.鈥�

In commenting on these large differences between states, Hess, of AEI, argued, 鈥渢he real irony is that so much of the progress we鈥檝e been seeing in the last five or seven years is in relatively low-spending states like Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee” while 鈥渕any of the states which spend most expansively have been performing at remarkably low levels. So certainly what matters with money is very much what you do with it.鈥�

In the report, the authors note that their findings might seem to contradict other reports on school funding equity that suggest primarily non-white and high-poverty school districts receive less funding. They point to the widely cited from EdBuild, which found 鈥減redominantly white school districts get $23 billion more than their nonwhite peers.鈥�

To explain these discrepancies with the 2019 report in particular, they point to two main differences in methodology: EdBuild adjusted for regional cost-of-living differences and looked at only state and local revenue, whereas Brookings studied total current spending 鈥� including from federal revenue, which disproportionately benefits largely non-white districts. 

The single biggest allocation of federal funding for K-12 schools is Title I, which this year sent in additional money to schools with high concentrations of low-income students.

Rebecca Sibilia, who was the CEO of EdBuild at the time the report was released, acknowledged the decision to leave out federal funding streams was somewhat 鈥渃ontroversial,鈥� but argued it was the right call given their research question and organization were specifically focused on state funding formulas.

鈥淭he state dictates how much money school districts will receive from the state, and also what the tax policy is for how much you can raise from local taxes,鈥� said Sibilia, who is now the executive director of EdFund, a national education research and advocacy nonprofit. 鈥淎nd so our critical concern was, 鈥楢re these funding formulas working for kids who need the resources most?鈥欌��

Ultimately, the differences 鈥渏ust highlight that there are different ways to accurately measure whether or not kids are getting their fair share,鈥� Sibilia added, emphasizing that Reber鈥檚 differing methodology made sense to determine which districts get the most money overall.

Reber emphasized that her work was not meant to make any argument against poorer districts receiving more money, but rather just to document the phenomenon. She also argued it鈥檚 equally important to be thinking about how schools can be using their money better.

鈥淥bviously, there鈥檚 places that are spending much less and not really getting demonstrably worse outcomes,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 important to try and learn from that and try to figure out what the barriers to being more productive with spending are.鈥�

And they are shifting fast, to agencies that are often understaffed, under-resourced and themselves uncertain about what comes next.

The districts looking to them for help either. Learning recovery from the pandemic remains unfinished. Enrollment is falling in most of the country, and federal pandemic relief funds, which temporarily filled the holes in many districts鈥� budgets, have dried up.聽

And new disruptions, from shifts in required federal funding to rapidly changing guidance on civil rights enforcement, are hitting districts that are already stretched thin. As one superintendent told us as part of with the American School District Panel project: “All of this uncertainty, it definitely creates a lot of chaos that ultimately impacts students and families.”

The good news is that SEAs do not need to take drastic action to help districts. In fact, some of the most useful things states can do right now are relatively small, targeted and achievable without new legislation or major budget commitments. Here is where to start.

Provide legal and financial clarity immediately.

District leaders told us that timely legal guidance from their SEA has been essential as they navigate fast-changing federal directives around diversity, equity and inclusion policies, student mental health support, and civil rights enforcement. In the absence of clear guidance, districts often end up in protracted, partisan discussions about how to reconcile conflicting state, federal and local policies. One superintendent credited proactive SEA guidance with allowing the district to “get the politics out of it” and avoid getting “jammed up legally.” This is low-cost, high-impact work that states can do now.

Financial clarity matters just as much. Districts cannot budget responsibly if they do not know how much money they鈥檒l have. SEAs do not need to wait to redesign funding formulas to help (though many formulas do need updating). They can start by helping districts build realistic near- and long-term financial forecasts that model different federal funding scenarios, so leaders are planning for what is likely instead of hoping for the best.

Show districts where they have more flexibility than they realize.

is pushing district leaders to reconsider all expenditures, and savvy superintendents are already finding pockets of flexibility in federal and state funding rules that others do not know exist. As one told us, “We take everything we can find.” SEAs should be mapping and communicating where that flexibility exists, particularly for funds supporting English learners, before- and after-school programs, teacher professional development and nutrition services 鈥� areas where funding gaps have been most acute. What one district discovers through trial and error, an SEA can share across the entire state.

Cut red tape. 

Districts burn through countless resources complying with state and federal rules and regulations, many of which are suddenly out-of-date due to dramatic changes at the U.S. Department of Education. Some of the superintendents with whom we spoke reported an uptick in 鈥渕onitoring audits鈥� over the past year as their SEA has increased reporting and program reviews. SEAs themselves on ensuring compliance with their own and federal regulations. SEAs should review this red tape and strip out old, outdated rules and regulations, freeing up resources to be redirected toward new priorities.聽

Help districts face the enrollment reckoning honestly.

Declining enrollment is arguably the most consequential problem districts face right now, and , 25% of districts nationwide reported that declining enrollment was one of their top three challenges. Similarly, a third of districts reported budget shortfalls as a top-three challenge, and budgets only get tighter as per-pupil funding follows students out the door. Districts grappling with this reality need two things from their state: permission to make hard decisions and practical tools for making them well.聽

Some states are beginning to act. Indiana’s Innovation Network Schools and Texas’s District of Innovation designations give districts regulatory relief to try new approaches. But SEAs scan move faster than legislation. They can help districts share knowledge about how to compete for and retain students, identify services that could generate revenue in states with education savings accounts programs, and build realistic plans for right-sizing that do not simply default to closing schools in the communities that can least afford to lose them.

Identify and spread what is working in teacher recruitment and training.

Proposed cuts to federal grants have threatened to reduce support for teacher professional learning, but they have also freed districts from some programs that were not working聽 well. States can help districts figure out what actually moves the needle on teacher recruitment, retention and instructional quality. Creating new statewide teacher training systems is a long-term project. In the near term, SEAs can identify effective programs and share the best approaches.

Create real forums for superintendents to drive policy and collective action.

Superintendents valued time to solve problems with peers, whether in person or virtually. These conversations reveal emerging challenges before they become crises and spread practical solutions. They also give SEAs a real-time feedback loop on what is actually happening in districts, what guidance is missing and where state policy is creating unintended friction. When he was Louisiana鈥檚 state schools chief, John White to help inform and accelerate Science of Reading initiatives. This is not a major investment but can yield high returns.

Small changes like these will put SEAs on the path to reimagining their role and pivoting toward a more proactive, creative position. These moves will not resolve every challenge districts face. But they can reduce the chaos superintendents tell us they鈥檙e navigating. As the federal role in education continues to contract, the states that move quickly to become genuine partners to their districts, rather than sources of additional compliance burden, will be the ones best positioned to actually improve outcomes for students.

In the months ahead, CRPE will be tracking how states are adapting to the shifting federal landscape and highlighting lessons from their efforts, with particular attention to which states are moving past small adjustments and toward the strategic leadership that this moment demands.

New York City public school kindergartners will automatically receive $1,000 for college expenses, up from $100, under a budget deal announced Tuesday between Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the City Council.

The budget also restores a handful of education programs that Mamdani proposal and were at risk of cuts, including a mental health initiative that operates clinics in schools and a program for students with disabilities who have sensory issues that interfere with their learning.

The $125.8 billion budget agreement marks the end of Mamdani鈥檚 first budget cycle since taking office. Though he initially warned of a multi-billion shortfall, the mayor indicated that the deal with the City Council 鈥渂alanced the budget without slashing the services that New Yorkers rely on.鈥�

鈥淎bove all else, this budget offers a roadmap for the years to come,鈥� Mamdani said shortly after shaking Council Speaker Julie Menin鈥檚 hand.

The mayor steered clear of some potentially controversial cuts. Earlier this month, city officials indicated that they will spend $290 million next year to , a pandemic-era 鈥渉old harmless鈥� policy that many school funding experts argue should be phased out. Former Mayor Eric Adams tried to wind that program down, but and reversed course.

Still, Mamdani scaled back other education initiatives. He initially planned to spend to comply with a state mandate to shrink class sizes. After convincing the state legislature to , Mamdani .

Here鈥檚 what you should know about the budget deal.

A tenfold boost for college savings accounts

All kindergartners in New York City public schools will automatically receive college savings accounts with $1,000, money that is invested in a tax-advantaged 529 account and is expected to grow before students tap it for higher education expenses. (Most charter schools have opted into the program, too.)

The NYC Kids Rise program, which launched about a decade ago, previously doled about $100 per student. Making the program more generous was a who framed it as 鈥渙ne of the most effective ways we can truly address income inequality鈥� and ultimately boost students鈥� future wages.

The money can be used for vocational schools, community college, or four-year programs. Menin said the $64 million initiative is the largest universal college savings program in the nation. Families, businesses, and other organizations can contribute as well.

City Council鈥檚 initial proposal called for depositing $3,000 into accounts for low-income families, but that did not make it into the final budget deal.

A slew of programs spared from the chopping block

Similar to prior mayors, Mamdani did not include funding for several existing education programs until he faced pressure to do so from advocates and City Council members. Those programs, restored in next year鈥檚 budget, include:

• Mental Health Continuum ($5 million) , largely in the South Bronx and Brooklyn as well as several school-based clinics.
• Restorative justice ($6 million) Supports schools to to student misbehavior, such as peer mediation and circle discussions.
• Sensory Exploration, Education & Discovery ($8.4 million) Provides that interfere with their learning.
• Outreach to immigrant families ($4 million) Helps fund efforts to communicate with families in their home languages, including translation services and in local ethnic media outlets.
• Student Success Centers ($3.3 million) Trains youth leaders to help high school students navigate the college admissions process.

The Coalition for Equitable Education Funding, a constellation of more than 120 advocacy organizations, praised the funding restorations.

鈥淭hese programs are currently benefiting thousands of students and families, and we thank the Mamdani Administration and the City Council for ensuring these critical programs will continue for another year,鈥� the group wrote, which reported the dollar amounts that were restored. (A City Hall spokesperson did not immediately confirm them.)

Fate of popular school data contract remains unclear

Mamdani vowed to slash wasteful spending in outside Education Department contracts, but his budget proposal included cuts to just one: A portal that . Many educators say it is a useful tool that saves countless hours that would otherwise be spent combing through creaky databases by hand.

City officials did not immediately respond to questions about whether the $8.9 million contract with the nonprofit New Visions for Public Schools would be restored in the final budget deal. A slew of educators, advocates, and lawmakers have called in recent weeks for the city to reverse the decision to cut the contract.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at . 

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

California librarians were stunned when a last-minute budget change stripped K-12 schools of a trove of research materials, potentially leaving thousands of students without resources to do reports, projects or homework assignments.

Without notice to schools or librarians, the Legislature last week canceled $5.5 million that pays online fees for the Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, PBS videos such as Ken Burns documentaries, scientific journals and thousands of other online materials used by students and teachers. The cut goes into effect on July 1, 2027.

鈥淲e had no idea this was coming,鈥� said Greg Lucas, head of the California State Library, which helps oversee the program for California鈥檚 10,000 public schools. 鈥淭his will have a huge impact on California students.鈥�

The program, called , is an online database of research and curriculum materials that have been vetted by teachers and librarians. Compass is also available through public libraries, but the vast majority of users are at K-12 schools. Since the program launched in 2018, it鈥檚 received nearly 1 billion hits.

Students use Compass for classroom assignments as well as for recreation. Many of the materials are available in multiple languages. Among the more popular features are National Geographic Kids; Pebble Go Science, which includes hundreds of science activities for pre-kindergarten through second grade; and Alexander Street, which offers videos of cultural performances such as the Joffrey Ballet and the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Compass is especially important at a time when fewer schools have libraries 鈥� and librarians 鈥� to help students with research. Although nearly 90% of schools have physical space on campus for books, magazines and other research materials, only about a quarter of those spaces are staffed by librarians. The rest are staffed by volunteers, classified employees or not at all. California ranks 49th nationwide in school librarian staffing, with nearly 10,000 students for each librarian, by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Compass is available free to all schools in California. If schools were to subscribe individually to Compass materials, they鈥檇 spend more than $216 million annually, according to a . A typical medium-sized school district might pay $100,000 or more for the services, an expense lower-income districts are less likely to have money for.

Losing the service raises concerns about internet access

Without access to Compass materials, students would likely rely on free resources online. But those materials tend to contain advertisements or track user data, a violation of state student privacy laws. They also are less likely to be vetted for accuracy, a particular danger in the age of artificial intelligence.

鈥淟osing Compass is catastrophic for the state of California,鈥� said Kate MacMillan, library services coordinator for Napa Valley Unified. 鈥淭his service is a lifeline. I can鈥檛 believe the Legislature would let this happen.鈥�

Funding for Compass was in earlier versions of the budget the Legislature debated over the past few months. But the final version eliminated Compass funding after July 1, 2027. Instead, it directs $5 million of the funding toward the , and $60,000 for technical support of an online lesson-sharing platform called California Educators Together.

Legislators and staff members on the budget education committees contacted by CalMatters did not comment on why the money was cut.

Meanwhile, librarians are launching an aggressive campaign to save the program. They鈥檙e emailing Newsom and the Legislature, and trying to bring attention to the issue.

Connie Williams, a retired school librarian and former head of the California School Library Association, said that losing Compass will exacerbate disparities in the state鈥檚 education system. Lower-income schools will lose crucial learning resources, while higher-income schools will be able to pay the subscription costs themselves, without state assistance.

鈥淭he disparity will be overwhelmingly glaring,鈥� Williams said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e leaving students at the mercy of whatever is free on the internet.鈥�

It鈥檚 especially galling, she said, that this move comes as the state is promoting media and digital literacy in schools. In 2023 California enacted a law requiring schools to in all subjects, with a focus on teaching students to recognize fake news, determine if an information source is trustworthy and generally think critically about what they view and read online.

鈥淲e want students to think critically, put away their phones, know how to do research,鈥� Williams said. 鈥淎nd we鈥檙e grabbing away some of the best learning tools we have.鈥�

This article was and was republished under the license.

Alaska saw an unprecedented wave of school closures this year. District officials grappling with severe budget shortfalls have opted to close 12 elementary and middle schools across the state 鈥� in Anchorage, Wasilla, Sutton, Seward, Sterling, Soldotna, Kasilof and Ketchikan.

With those closures, hundreds of students and staff will bus or commute to new schools next year, class sizes will grow as grades are combined and districts across the state are cutting programs, teachers, health aides, custodians, sports, library services and extracurriculars like music. 

Officials in four districts say the closures were incredibly complex and difficult decisions but necessary to combat millions in budget shortfalls and years of state funding not meeting districts鈥� surging costs to operate schools.

Schools closed this year include:

• Three schools in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
• Two schools in the Ketchikan Gateway School District
• Four schools in the Kenai Peninsula School District
• Three schools in the Anchorage School District

鈥淚t was an incredibly trying time,鈥� said Randy Trani, superintendent of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District that closed three elementary schools this year to address a $28 million budget shortfall. 鈥淣on-winnable 鈥� we did this to save teaching positions,鈥� he said.聽

鈥淭his is devastating to everyone,鈥� said Kylie Wilcox, a Soldotna mother of five. Her middle and high schoolers attended River City Academy, one of four schools closed on the Kenai Peninsula. 鈥淭he district does not want to do this, the administration doesn鈥檛 want to do this, we just, it鈥檚 the reality of what we鈥檙e working with.鈥�

At the same time, superintendents said it鈥檚 still unclear whether the closures and cuts have balanced district budgets because Gov. Mike Dunleavy has yet to sign off on next year鈥檚 increased budget for education funding. Last year, lawmakers flew back to Juneau for a special session, overruled Dunleavy鈥檚 veto and restored an education funding increase in a in August, just weeks ahead of the first day of school. 

This year, the Alaska Legislature approved one-time additional funding of , including $29 million to offset rising energy costs, to total approved for education next year. Lawmakers passed with higher-than-expected state oil revenues driven by the Iran war, which is now before Dunleavy for his consideration.

Education Commissioner Deena Bishop said that the state has seen declining enrollment for more than 15 years, and as a result districts close schools due to what she called 鈥渆xcess capacity.鈥� Bishop has served as commissioner under the Dunleavy administration since August 2023.

鈥淲e鈥檝e had several schools at 50% capacity, 55% capacity, that were within two miles of each other. And understanding that you want to use the majority of your money, you don鈥檛 want to put into facilities 鈥� the majority of your money you want to put into classrooms,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd so decisions, you know, things were weighed, and districts, hopefully working with their parents and communities, made decisions that they felt were the correct ones.鈥�

Bishop said more families are opting for homeschool programs, and districts need to figure out how to provide education services for families that want choices for more flexibility. 

Nearly one in six Alaska students were homeschooled last year,  an estimated 23,600 students, according to data compiled by the Association of Alaska School Boards.

鈥淪o we can鈥檛 really be upset that, you know, 鈥極h no, they鈥檙e not going to our schools,鈥� 鈥� Bishop said. 鈥淥bviously they鈥檙e going to a school that their needs are met, if they鈥檝e chosen that, so how do we work with it? You know, what does education look like, and what does it look like in serving a community? And more and more we鈥檒l find that one size doesn鈥檛 fit all that schools really want to offer, and districts are starting to offer different programs.鈥�

Alaska students have the option to enroll in homeschool or correspondence programs across the state, not necessarily with the district where they reside. While district officials say they are working to adapt and provide homeschool education services, districts receive less state funding per homeschool student which is contributing to district-wide deficits. 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District closes three schools

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, the state鈥檚 second largest district with almost , faced a $28 million budget deficit this year, prompting cuts across the district.

The school board Meadow Lakes and Larson elementary schools in Wasilla and Glacier View School in Sutton, affecting roughly 415 students and dozens of staff. 

That comes after the district cut roughly 160 staff positions last year, said Superintendent Randy Trani. He said the district would have had to cut an additional 225 positions this year, which was unworkable.

鈥淭he very last thing that we wanted to do was lay off teachers, and the second last thing we wanted to do was close schools, but we鈥檙e to the point where if we didn鈥檛 close schools, it was only going to result in more teacher layoffs,鈥� he said.

Trani said the district went through a process of evaluating schools based on a number of metrics, including number of students, costs to maintain and opportunities to bus students to schools nearby, in order to decide which schools to close. 鈥淭he schools that we were forced to shut down were fantastic schools. This wasn鈥檛 a decision on academic merit. This was a decision about logistics and being forced into a really impossible choice,鈥� he said.

Trani said closing the three schools wasn鈥檛 even enough to make up for the budget shortfall and the district had to cut deeper.

The school board considered various scenarios from cutting sports programs to transitioning to a four-day school week, Trani said, which were rejected by the school board. 鈥淭hese are all horrible choices,鈥� he said.

While the Matanuska-Susitna Borough continues to have the fastest growing population in the state, Trani said declining birth rates combined with an ongoing wave of families opting to homeschool is leaving the district with declining enrollment of full-time students and reduced funding for the district. Roughly 3,200 students, or 16% of the district鈥檚 students, were in Mat-Su correspondence programs this year. 

Trani said another cost driver had been double digit increases to healthcare insurance costs resulting in roughly $6 million more to the deficit, bumping it to $28 million.  

But he emphasized the largest driver of the deficit was insufficient state funding. 鈥淪tate funding has not kept up with inflationary pressures, and it is by far the biggest driver,鈥� he said. 鈥淯nless there is a long term fix to how K-12 education is funded this problem is going to continue.鈥� 

Ketchikan closes two of four elementary schools, with more cuts to come

Ketchikan serves roughly 1,800 students in the Southeast Alaska island community that is only accessible by plane or boat. This year, the district enacted major cuts, including 76 staff positions across the district to address a $3 million budget shortfall, plus $5 million in debt to the local borough. It closed two of the four elementary schools.

The district Point Higgins and Fawn Mountain elementary schools, leaving one elementary, one middle and one high school in the community. 

Niki Suomala, a third generation Ketchikan resident, attended Point Higgins elementary school, located 15 miles north of town. She said it was a special experience for her two children to go there 鈥� until the closure. 

Her kids will be in the second and sixth grades next year, and they plan to commute into town for school. She said there were some tears at the news, but she said her children are adapting. She said she鈥檚 disappointed overall, but feels compassion for the district.

鈥淚t鈥檚 like, gosh, couldn鈥檛 we see this? Couldn鈥檛 we have seen this coming, and couldn鈥檛 we have tried to do something different?鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut I also feel compassion, because I don鈥檛 know the answer to that question.鈥� 

Sheri Boehlert, the interim superintendent of Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District, also served as the principal of Point Higgins, spoke by phone after a full week of packing up and clearing out the schools. She said the reaction to the closures has been mixed: While there鈥檚 some in the community who want to see deeper cuts to balance budgets, there鈥檚 also a lot of grief in saying goodbye to neighborhood schools.

鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to dismantle something that was a big part of your career,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut on the flip side of that, the staff and community has really, by and large, been overwhelmingly supportive. We have tons of volunteers that are helping teachers pack and move, and they鈥檙e going to make something great at the next school for students, and there鈥檚 optimism out there.鈥�

Class sizes will be effectively doubling in Ketchikan, Boehlert said, from about 15 students to class numbers in the twenties for elementary school and thirty students or more in the middle and high schools. 

Boelert said the district has seen rising costs to operate, including for fuel, utilities and special education services. She said in particular the cost of staff health insurance is up 112% this year. Previous cost overruns for health insurance created the over $5 million debt to the borough which the district will pay over over the next several years. 鈥淭hat is a unique situation,鈥� Boehlert said. 鈥淭hey need their money back.鈥�

Boehlert said with essentially flat state funding not meeting cost increases, the district cut roughly 26% of staff this year: 鈥淪o it鈥檚 teachers, it鈥檚 principals, it鈥檚 custodians, health aides, like maintenance staff. No work group was unaffected.鈥�

Even so, with the debt repayment, and this year鈥檚 state budgets still uncertain, Boehlert said Ketchikan faces more cuts across the district 鈥� unless there鈥檚 a significant population increase. 

鈥淲e have a difficult road ahead of us in Ketchikan,鈥� she said. 

Four schools closed across the Kenai Peninsula 

In the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the state鈥檚 third largest school district stretches across roughly 25,000 square miles 鈥� an area about the size of West Virginia 鈥� and serves nearly 8,400 students. 

This year, the district faced an $8.5 million budget shortfall, after an $17 million deficit last year. The district is still in the midst of budget negotiations and determining cuts. An additional $3.3 million from the local borough and one-time state funding this year may restore some programs, but officials opted to close four schools.  

The district closed River City Academy in Soldotna, Tustumena Elementary School in Kasilof and Sterling Elementary School, sending students to other schools in Soldotna and Kenai. On the eastern side, the district closed Seward Middle School where classes will be consolidated into the elementary and high schools.

鈥淭he response was overwhelmingly that parents do not want these schools to close down. Communities did not want the schools to close down,鈥� said Kari Dendurent, assistant superintendent of the Kenai Peninsula School District. 

One of those parents is Kylie Wilcox, a mother of five living in Soldotna. Two of her children attended River City Academy, which was a standards-based school serving grades seven through 12. She said they liked the supportive environment and had hoped to continue through high school there.

鈥淭hey were starting to make friends at River City, and so they were really sad, like 鈥業鈥檝e got to start over again.鈥欌�� she said. 鈥淎nd they were angry. They talked a lot about, you know, 鈥榳hy can鈥檛 they just give money to schools? Don鈥檛 they think that we鈥檙e worth it?鈥� My oldest was upset enough that they were willing to testify in the district meeting as well. I was really, really proud of them for doing that.鈥�

Dendurent, the assistant superintendent, said the district worked through a transition plan to help students and families plan where to attend schools next year. She said some teachers from River City Academy transferred to Skyview and will be in homerooms with former students. She said it鈥檚 a difficult process with cuts across the district, including reading programs, library aides, English language learning programs, swimming pools and others. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 very, very difficult, and it impacts everybody, and the other part that also makes it difficult is we are in contract negotiations right now with our certified and our classified employees as well,鈥� she said.

Dendurent said the district has seen more students and families opt for homeschool programs, resulting in less state funding for the district. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a borough issue, it鈥檚 a state issue, and it鈥檚 a national issue with declining enrollment,鈥� she said. 

She said rising health care costs is also a major factor for the district budget, as well as fuel and utilities costs. Even with the school closures, Dendurent said the district鈥檚 financial picture is still uncertain. 鈥淧redictable, sustainable funding is what I think all of us are looking for,鈥� she said.

Wilcox said she has empathy for district officials and they handled the process fairly well, but wishes there was more support from the Kenai Peninsula Borough and from state leaders. She said her family is still evaluating options, but will likely homeschool her two middle and high school age students, with her 10th grader also pursuing classes at the Kenai Peninsula College. 

鈥淗onestly it feels sometimes like there are people in our state government that would rather see public schools fail, and rather see more homeschool and private school options happen for kids. And I feel like that鈥檚 not going to serve all of Alaska鈥檚 kids,鈥� she said.

鈥淟ike, homeschool is a great option for a lot of people. I am a homeschool graduate,鈥� she added. 鈥淏ut I know that there are families where that鈥檚 just simply not an option, and they deserve the support of the state for their child鈥檚 education, that鈥檚 one of our rights.鈥� 

Anchorage closes three elementary schools, with deep cuts across the district

In the state鈥檚 urban center, the Anchorage School District made severe cuts this year to address and opted to close three elementary schools. It is the largest school district that serves nearly 42,000 students.

The closures were at Fire Lake, Lake Otis and Campbell STEM elementary schools. A parent group filed a lawsuit challenging the district鈥檚 decision to close Campbell STEM, which is still under dispute. It鈥檚 the only one of the without plans to move a charter school into the building. 

Andy Ratliff, the district鈥檚 financial officer, said closing the three schools accounted for just a fraction of the deficit, and cuts were made across the district 鈥� including almost 500 staff positions, or about 10% of the district鈥檚 staff. 

鈥淲e reduced millions of dollars in administrative costs. We鈥檝e increased our class sizes by four. We reduced a lot of our IT positions, maintenance, everything,鈥� he said. 鈥淢ental health, our teaching and learning department was cut by like 45 or 55%. Yeah, I mean it鈥檚 just kind of all across the board, even into our special education realm.鈥�

Ratliff said the district has spent down its savings, and the small increase in state funding last year didn鈥檛 meet the district鈥檚 rising costs. He said health insurance rose in the double digits and now is about 20% of the total budget. 鈥淚t鈥檚 really just this inconsistent funding that鈥檚 really just kind of dictated by the state that has put us in this position,鈥� he said. 

Ratliff noted the state鈥檚 energy relief funds are contingent on oil revenues and likely won鈥檛 reach districts until September. He said the uncertainty of funding this late in the year is challenging for staffing and determining what cuts if any can be restored. 

鈥淭hey did approve money, but we don鈥檛 have it yet,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o it鈥檚 hard for districts to do any sort of restoring of the cuts that they鈥檝e made at this point.鈥�

State legislature approves $144M in one-time next year, but funding still uncertain

District officials said the Legislature鈥檚 boost of $700 per student in the state鈥檚 funding formula was welcome, but did not significantly affect districts鈥� overall financial challenges.

The 12 school closures this year comes after five schools were closed last year in Kodiak, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Fairbanks. 

Many district officials, education advocates and lawmakers that state funding has not kept pace for years with school districts鈥� needs and costs for providing public education.

But Bishop, education commissioner for the Dunleavy administration, rejected the notion that school funding has been flat. 

鈥淥ver time in our state, because of the fluctuations of how we get resources to provide to schools, I think that鈥檚 exactly why money is either in the formula or out of the formula, but over time you will see that generally there鈥檚 been an increase in funds every year,鈥� she said.

She acknowledged the rising costs of school districts, and said at the same time the governor and Legislature have competing priorities for the state budget. 鈥淓verybody in the state has to look at the picture as a whole,鈥� she said.

鈥淗opefully when we can create new revenue, continue to really thrive in schools and innovate programs to match needs that families are seeking, that we鈥檒l be able to move into the future,鈥� she said. 

This year, lawmakers seemed to have less appetite for taking on another education funding battle with Dunleavy, particularly among competing priorities of election reform and reviving the state鈥檚 pension system. Both initiatives were vetoed by Dunleavy and a legislative veto override effort failed for both. Citing increased oil revenues due to the Iran war, the Legislature passed $144 million in additional one-time funding and nearly $150 million for K-12 school maintenance and repairs.

Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka, is a former teacher and vocal proponent of increasing education funding. She co-chairs the bipartisan task force on education funding launched last year.

鈥淐losing a school feels like a death, and it is,鈥� Himschoot said. 

Himschoot pointed to budget problems, loss of enrollment and the shift to homeschool, but said the state, in her view, is not funding education as it should. 

Himschoot said the task force is investigating short and long term funding solutions. The state approved an adequacy study this year to determine how much funding is needed to support schools, to be completed in the next few years. Another bill to allow districts to budget based on a three year average of student counts, failed in the Legislature this year, but Himschoot said the policy is likely to be revived next year to allow districts to set budgets earlier in the year. 鈥淚t would take some of the uncertainty out and I think that鈥檚 going to have an impact on outcomes,鈥� she said.

She said the task force is continuing its work looking at the problems and funding mechanisms, gathering input and evaluating solutions to address issues in the funding formula, major maintenance and rising costs like health care. Recommendations are due next January. 

鈥淭he pain is felt by the students. That鈥檚 a straight line from state funding to what students get or don鈥檛 get,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t keeps me awake at night.鈥�

Nearly 79% of students who used Iowa鈥檚 funding program for K-12 private schools were 鈥渁lready projected鈥� to attend private schools, according to a report released Wednesday by Iowa Auditor Rob Sand. 

Iowa Department of Education called the report a 鈥減olicy advocacy brief鈥� that critiqued statutory provisions of the Iowa Education Savings Account (ESA) program.

Iowa鈥檚 ESA program provides funding to students to use on tuition and associated costs at private schools and had an estimated appropriation of $329.6 million for fiscal year 2026, according to the . The auditor鈥檚 report said this means the state paid roughly $38,000, per student for the 20% of ESA program users who were not already projected to attend private schools. 

鈥淭he program itself, though, is still paying tuition for the wealthiest families in the state of Iowa, who can barely even feel the check that they write, and a lot of people who don鈥檛 mind doing it at all,鈥� Sand said in a news conference Wednesday. 

Fiscal year 2026 was the first year the ESA program did not have income limits for participants. Previously the program was limited to families with incomes at 300%, then 400% of the federal poverty level, or lower.

According to the auditor鈥檚 report, 8,838 more students attended private schools in the 2025-2026 school year, than what Iowa Department of Education projections from 2022, prior to the implementation of the ESA program, anticipated for the 2025-2026 school year. 

The report says it is 鈥渞easonable to conclude鈥� that the nonpublic enrollment of these 8,838 students is a result of the ESA program, and that the other 78.5% of students who made use of the voucher program 鈥渨ere expected to attend nonpublic schools even if the program never existed.鈥�

鈥淚n other words, taxpayers paid roughly $258.7 million in FY26 to fund private school tuition that otherwise would have been paid privately,鈥� a news release about the report said.

The Iowa Department of Education said in a statement that Sand鈥檚 office did not request data from the department, inform the department about the development of the report or allow the department to review the report for 鈥渄ata accuracy.鈥� It said the report was not an audit, nor did it pertain to 鈥渁ny formal role of the state auditor鈥檚 office.鈥�

鈥淚n Iowa, all families are empowered to make informed educational decisions that best fit their child鈥檚 learning style, interests and talents, whether it鈥檚 a neighborhood public school, a public school outside a family鈥檚 resident district through open enrollment, an innovative public charter school, an accredited nonpublic school or a homeschool learning environment,鈥� the Department of Education said.

The Iowa Department of Education agreed that the number of students enrolled in accredited non-public schools has increased since the start of the ESA program, but said enrollment in other forms of school choice, like public schools outside of resident districts, has also increased. 

The department said public school enrollment was in decline 鈥渓ong before鈥� the ESA program was implemented in 2023. This is supported by Iowa  and national  from the U.S. Department of Education. 

The ESA program sent an average of $1,656, according to the Iowa Department of Education, per program user, to the students鈥� residential public school district during the 2025-2026 school year. The department pointed out that Sand鈥檚 report 鈥渙mits鈥� this public school funding which amounted to more than $37.9 million in fiscal year 2026. 

Sand said his office has asked questions about the ESA program 鈥渕any, many times鈥� but has been 鈥渓imited鈥� in its ability to evaluate the program.

In February 2025, Sand said the Iowa education and revenue departments  certain documents related to the ESA program that his office requested. The departments and Gov. Kim Reynolds disputed Sand鈥檚 claim and said it was a politically motivated attack on the ESA program. Sand eventually received the documents and  of the program from February 2026 did not find any spending issues or irregularities. 

Sand is running as the Democratic nominee for governor and has been critical of the ESA program both in his 聽and as a candidate. He said Wednesday even if his opponents want to call this new report a politically motivated move, he feels 鈥渋t鈥檚 important for Iowa taxpayers to understand鈥� the cost of the program.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, criticized Sand for the report, saying in a statement it was an abuse of his power as auditor in favor of his campaign for governor.

鈥淓ducation savings accounts were implemented to give all students access to the education that is best for them,鈥� Klimesh said. 鈥淚f Rob Sand wants to campaign against competition and innovation in education, his campaign should pay for it, not taxpayers.鈥�

Gov. Kim Reynolds similarly criticized Sand鈥檚 report in a  Wednesday, and said the audit was about 鈥減olitics, not oversight.鈥� Reynolds said Sand鈥檚 office should focus on official duties like public school audits instead of manufacturing a 鈥渃ampaign press conference.鈥�

Reynolds said the ESA program is a commitment to 鈥渄oing what is best for each child鈥� and putting 鈥渟tudents ahead of systems.鈥�

鈥淩ob Sand wants Iowans to believe that if a child is educated in a public school, that child deserves taxpayer support, but if that same child is educated in an accredited nonpublic school, the family is taking something they should not receive,鈥� Reynolds said in the statement. 鈥淭hat is wrong. These are Iowa children. Their parents pay taxes too. Their futures matter too.鈥�

Closures and accreditation

The report also looked at the increase in the number of nonpublic schools opening in the state and the number of schools using independent agencies to receive accreditation. 

The report found that since the ESA program was implemented, there has been an overall increase in the number of nonpublic schools in the state, as well as an increase in the number of private school openings and closing. 

鈥淏ut those schools are smaller and are more likely to shut down on a year-to-year basis,鈥� the report said. 

According to the report, there has been an annual average of 21.7 nonpublic school openings and 5.7 nonpublic school closings since the 2023-2024 school year when the ESA program was implemented. 

A 2013  allowed school districts in Iowa to receive accreditation through approved independent agencies, rather than from the Department of Education. Sand鈥檚 report said nonpublic schools have been 鈥渄ramatically less likely to receive accreditation from the state鈥� since the implementation of the ESA program. 

Per the report, 66% of nonpublic schools that opened prior to 2023 received accreditation from the state and 2% of the nonpublic schools that opened since 2023 received accreditation from the state. 

鈥淚 think that if the vast majority of private schools are now using these other accreditation methods, to the point where now only 2% are accredited by the state, we should be asking questions about why so many have moved in that direction,鈥� Sand said. 

The Iowa Department of Education said the increase of independently accredited nonpublic schools is 鈥減rimarily due to either new schools opening or existing schools choosing to become accredited.鈥�

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

At Pinedale Elementary in Fresno, there鈥檚 almost no classroom aides, after-school tutors or behavioral counselors. Literacy activities and parent workshops are scarce. Field trips? Almost non-existent. The school survives on one of the lowest per-pupil expenditures in the state: $16,700 a year, nearly $5,000 below the state average.

Less than two miles away, it鈥檚 a different story at Kratt Elementary, which is in a different school district. Kratt has almost identical demographics 鈥� predominantly low-income and Latino 鈥斅� but gets $25,000 per student and has the amenities to show for it.

And a few hours west in the Bay Area, you鈥檒l find Portola Valley Elementary, which spends almost $46,000 per student annually. It offers music and art classes, mental health counselors, small class sizes and state-of-the-art facilities.

The way California鈥檚 school funding works, schools with large numbers of students who are low-income, English learners, homeless or in foster care get extra funding. Schools in wealthy areas get less state funding but make up for it in local property taxes and parent donations. But those in the middle? They get much less money overall.

鈥淲hen I saw what other schools provide, I was like, what?鈥� said Tania Galeana-King, a mother of three and parent volunteer at Pinedale. 鈥淎s a parent, it鈥檚 really frustrating. I鈥檝e heard of No Child Left Behind, but this is like half the kids left behind.鈥�

Low funding, low test scores

When California adopted the Local Control Funding Formula a little more than , the idea was to bring equity to school funding and ensure students with the most needs got more support. But soaring costs, declining enrollment and inflation have led to gaping disparities in school funding.

Those in the wealthiest areas, such as Portola Valley, Menlo Park and other Silicon Valley enclaves, are typically 鈥渂asic aid鈥� districts, meaning they get most of their funding through local property taxes. Parents chip in the rest, often millions of dollars a year.

School districts that are not basic aid get their money through the state鈥檚 Local Control Funding Formula, which includes a base grant plus extra money depending how many students are low-income, English learners, homeless or in foster care. If more than 55% fall into that category, districts get even more money.

That鈥檚 why Fresno Unified, where Kratt Elementary is located, gets significantly more money than Pinedale Elementary, which is located in Clovis Unified. Clovis, where just under half the students are considered high-needs, receives little extra funding.

The consequences of the funding disparities are reflected in students鈥� test scores. At Pinedale, fewer than 30% of students met the state鈥檚 English language arts standard last year. Only 23.5% met the math standard. Kratt students scored 5 to 10 percentage points higher on both tests. At Portola Valley, about 85% of students met the standard on both tests.

鈥淚鈥檇 say the problem is urgent,鈥� said Michael Johnston, associate superintendent at Clovis Unified, noting the impact on student learning at schools with less funding. 鈥淔or many, many years, these kids have not gotten the same resources, and every year that goes by, it gets worse. It鈥檚 a group of students we are not treating fairly, and there needs to be a solution.鈥�

Solutions in Sacramento

A seeks to fix the problem. Authored by Sen. , a Democrat from San Jose, Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 would create a reserve account funded by surplus tax revenues in economically flush years. After the state doles out its Proposition 98 money 鈥� California鈥檚 primary vehicle for funding schools 鈥� every year, it would give extra funding to schools that aren鈥檛 in basic aid districts. The money would come from the interest generated on the reserve account. As the account grows, the extra funding would grow.

鈥淥ver time, we think this bill can certainly stop the bleeding,鈥� said Cortese, whose district includes a dozen basic aid districts. 鈥淚f we do nothing, the problem is just going to get worse and worse.鈥�

Cortese鈥檚 bill would amend the state constitution. If it passes the Legislature, the proposal would appear on the fall ballot.

Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 also attempts to address the problem, providing almost $1 billion more toward school base grants.

That鈥檚 good news to the Association of California School Administrators. Although the money isn鈥檛 enough, it鈥檚 a start, said Naj Alikhan, the organization鈥檚 spokesman.

鈥�(We) strongly support efforts to raise the base grant,鈥� Alikhan said. 鈥淭he LCFF base grant is the foundation of school funding in California, and increasing it is one of the most effective ways to provide schools with greater stability, flexibility, and capacity to meet local needs.鈥�

Another bill, put forth by Assemblymember , a Democrat from Chula Vista, would expand school , but some worry that it would actually make funding shortfalls worse for some districts. Instead of raising the base grant, the bill would redirect more money to schools with large numbers of high-needs students.

Cutting the basics

David Roth, superintendent of Buckeye Union Elementary School District in El Dorado County, has gathered a cadre of school administrators to oppose Alvarez鈥檚 bill and fight for an increase in the base grant.

He鈥檚 created a database called , which calculates school districts鈥� funding disparities over the past 15 years. About 25 parent organizations and 60 small and mid-sized school districts have signed on to support Roth鈥檚 campaign. Among the largest: Clovis Unified, Fremont Unified, San Ramon Valley Unified and Murrieta Valley Unified.

鈥淲e support the idea that some student populations need more resources. At the end of the day, we鈥檙e all underfunded,鈥� Roth said. 鈥淏ut the base grant has not kept up with escalating costs, and districts are falling further and further behind.鈥�

Buckeye, a K-12 district in the Sierra foothills, receives only $15,100 per student, far below the state average of $21,000. The district has pockets of wealth, but also areas of poverty. Because of low per-pupil funding the district is in jeopardy of losing long-standing programs that serve all students, Roth said.

If base funding doesn鈥檛 improve, Roth anticipates cuts to P.E., libraries, counselors and music in the next few years.

鈥淚n my mind, these are the basics,鈥� Roth said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e patching things together now with bubblegum and shoestrings, but that can鈥檛 last forever. Soon we鈥檒l be unable to fund a reasonable education program.鈥�

‘There’s such a demand’

Pinedale Elementary is in a working-class neighborhood in north Fresno with no sidewalks and a smattering of crime and homelessness. Galeana-King described the area as tough but close-knit. 鈥淓veryone looks after each other,鈥� she said.

Galeana-King has been a parent at Pinedale for 15 years 鈥� all three of her children attended the school. She volunteers in the classroom and is active in the parent club, which raises a few thousand dollars a year through after-school snack sales, a salsa festival, jog-a-thon and other events.

But it鈥檚 not easy raising money in a community where most parents work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

鈥淲e have to be understanding,鈥� Galeana-King said. 鈥淲e want families to participate, but we need to be reasonable. People are struggling.鈥�

Teachers often pay for classroom supplies out of their own pockets, while the parent club pays for things like new chess boards for the chess club and the second-grade field trip to Monterey. But the needs are endless. If the parent club could raise more money, they鈥檇 like to provide snacks for the classrooms, new sports equipment, backpacks for students and other amenities.

鈥淚鈥檓 incredibly proud to send my kids to Pinedale. It might not always have the most financial resources, but it has a school full of people who deeply care about and love the kids,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat said, our students and staff urgently need more support.鈥�

This article was and was republished under the license.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon awarded Indiana a 鈥淩eturning Education to the States鈥� waiver, easing federal regulations on how the Indiana Department of Education can use $13 million in federal Title grants for 鈥渟tate-level activities鈥� including testing, teacher training, and afterschool programs. 

But McMahon, after months of negotiations with Indiana officials, did not grant the much broader request Indiana submitted last summer to waive restrictions on $350 million in Title grants that flow directly to districts and schools.

At issue are the $30 billion federal Title grants – such as Title I to combat poverty and Title III to help English Language Learners – that Congress created in the 1960s to give vulnerable students across the country extra help in school. Conservatives have wanted to scale those grants back for years, with Trump seeking to cut them and combine them into more flexible block grants to schools as far back as 2020.

The outcome in Indiana was similar to what happened in Iowa, where state officials proposed in March, 2025, a broad waiver of restrictions on how money is used by both the state and by individual districts. What started as a in state grants by the time it was approved in January.

The reduced Indiana waiver, combined with the scaled-back waiver in Iowa and a small waiver of requirements in Louisiana, suggest McMahon may not have as much legal authority to cut rules 鈥�  considered red tape and inefficient by some and guardrails to protect the neediest kids by others 鈥� as much as some states and conservatives hoped.

A spokeswoman for the Indiana education department said Congress would have to change the laws covering the Title grants in order for the state鈥檚 request to be granted.

Opponents of the waivers were relieved that McMahon did not waive the rules broadly. 

“I hope that it signals that, at least when it comes to waivers, the department is doing closer to the law than what some may have expected,鈥� said Phillip Lovell, Associate Executive Director of All4Ed, an education think tank that has opposed the waivers. Lovell said the Iowa and Indiana waivers show the Trump administration is 鈥渂eing a bit more moderate than what many of us had feared they would be.鈥� 

Nicholas Munyan-Penney, assistant director of P-12 policy of the EdTrust education nonprofit which has also opposed the waivers, said he was hopeful because Indiana鈥檚 request to include all districts and schools 鈥渓argely did get shot down.鈥�

鈥淢y sense is that they really are trying to be thoughtful about this, and are worried they won’t be able to defend parts going broader,鈥� he said.

But both Lovell and Munyan-Penney had concerns about McMahon approving some waivers of academic testing rules as Indiana reshapes its grading system for schools and districts.

McMahon did not address why Indiana鈥檚 full request was not approved at the . She instead proclaimed that it 鈥渇rees鈥tate and local funds from bureaucratic red tape compliance paperwork, and returns it to its rightful place in the classroom.鈥�

Indiana Governor Mike Braun, a Republican, and state education secretary Katie Jenner also did not address why the full request did not win approval.

Indiana Department of Education spokesperson Courtney Bearsch later downplayed the scaled-back waiver.

鈥淭he only component in the request that was not able to be granted would require an act of Congress to make it possible,鈥� Bearsch said. 鈥淚ndiana is ready and eager to lead those discussions nationally and continue to increase flexibility for states to improve education for our students.鈥�

Last year, McMahon encouraged states and school districts to apply for waivers that cut the 鈥渞ed tape鈥� of federal requirements to prove that each dollar of grants went to the specific group of disadvantaged students.

Indiana鈥檚 application last fall asked to combine multiple grants into a single fund so it could better focus the money on its main goals –  literacy, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) proficiency and reshaping high school education.

Indiana also wanted to take some other grants to create an 鈥渋nnovation fund鈥� that would act as a school choice grant. The state proposed taking money aimed at improving struggling schools to help other schools nearby, whether charter or traditional district schools, that students could choose instead. Such a fund would 鈥渂etter support a growing ecosystem of effective, innovative school models,鈥� according to Indiana鈥檚 application. 

That proposal is not included in the waiver.

Indiana鈥檚 waiver added, however, a limited pilot program to try out combining Title funds for teacher training, reducing class sizes, mental health and afterschool programs at up to 15 percent of districts.

Early this month, The Center for Reinventing Public Education convened a group of current and former superintendents and experts to help shape questions for a national survey on how district leaders are coping with the financial pressures created by declining enrollment and federal funding cuts. The survey results will come out this fall, but our informants flagged several important considerations that district and state leaders need to grapple with right now, before the next budget cycle, before the next round of collective bargaining.

The financial challenges districts face today are just the beginning. In many districts, the kindergarten and first-grade classes coming through the door are smaller than the ones before. Low birth rates, sharp reductions in immigration, continued family migration away from cities and growing enrollment in charter and private schools of choice are all pushing in the same direction. District leaders who believe they are managing a temporary dip are likely wrong. This is a long-term shift, and the numbers will keep declining as long as newer classes of students are smaller than those they succeed. 

District costs keep rising, so doing nothing is not an option. Even a district that adds no new programs, hires no new staff and signs no new contracts will see its costs rise. Teacher step increases escalate pay automatically without any new collective bargaining agreement. Benefits and energy costs track inflation. Deferred maintenance on buildings and equipment eventually becomes unavoidable. A district can do everything to keep costs steady and still watch its budget deteriorate year by year. As one superintendent put it during our discussion: 鈥淵ou start with the painless solutions… And after a year or two鈥ow you’re into painful cuts.鈥澛�

Parents and voters don’t know how bad it is, and district leaders are keeping them in the dark. The gap between public perception and fiscal reality is wide and growing. Superintendents habitually project confidence and avoid talking through budgetary tradeoffs and hard decisions; explaining what things actually cost often creates confusion, anger and confrontation. Newer leaders often lack the background to understand and explain the complexities of their districts鈥� financial crises. As a result, most people hold significant misconceptions about basic facts, from the real cost of special education services to what teachers take home in pay; they attribute budget shortfalls to mismanagement. As one advisor told us: 鈥淔amilies don’t know this stuff is going on鈥� but they know that their kids are not where they need to be.鈥澛�

This lack of understanding undermines public support when it鈥檚 needed most. Local groups 鈥� including teacher unions, parents protecting schools and programs, social service advocates and others 鈥� fear losing resources they rely on. Since they don鈥檛 have the full picture, they naturally assume that districts can make ends meet if they tighten belts. At a time when teachers and families are facing rising costs in their private lives, many people think of taxpayer-funded schools as flush with resources and able to fill gaps. The lack of clarity from the districts guarantees pushback, and the result is political gridlock, not thoughtful fiscal strategy. This is where many districts across the country are stuck right now.聽

States are not coming to the rescue. Federal cuts to domestic programs under the Trump Administration are setting off intense competition for state dollars. Schools will not be alone in that fight. Healthcare, transportation, housing and other civic necessities will be pressing state legislatures at the same time. The idea that states will ride to the rescue of districts facing structural deficits is not realistic in this environment. And it is disingenuous for district leaders to suggest this is a solution.

Our advisors were honest that they do not have a full set of answers. But they were clear that superintendents cannot afford to wait for the survey results, or for clearer signals from Washington or for the next school board election. CRPE has been studying and the for more than 30 years, and we have seen what works 鈥� and what doesn鈥檛 鈥� for struggling districts. Here are some ways districts can act now to start telling the truth and prepare for what鈥檚 to come. 

First, calculate and forecast honest numbers. Not optimistic enrollment projections or revenue figures that assume federal dollars that may not arrive. Real numbers, with real ranges of uncertainty, shared internally first and then publicly with enough context so people understand how the situation got so bad, and what鈥檚 at stake. 

Then, go public with what you know and ask for help. Community members cannot engage in a meaningful way if they don’t understand the situation. The instinct to project confidence by withholding bad news almost always backfires, and it precludes the public conversation that might actually generate support for difficult decisions. Asking for help will generate new ideas and also build trust.

That means no longer pretending that extreme measures are off the table. If teacher layoffs and school closures are genuinely avoidable right now, say so, but don鈥檛 rule anything out entirely. Setting clear and realistic expectations will build trust and credibility that can help if the situation worsens. 

And it requires building real relationships with state officials and legislators, not just formal contacts. District leaders who have honest, ongoing conversations with their state counterparts will be better positioned to make their case when state budgets are being divided up. For their part, state education associations should be ready to step in with more accurate forecasts, financial expertise and support to superintendents and school boards stuck in gridlock.

Telling the truth isn鈥檛 a complete solution for climbing out of budget crises that are years in the making, but it is a starting point for thousands of local efforts to preserve children’s opportunities under conditions that our institutions were never designed to handle. 

The survey we are fielding this fall may reveal examples of districts that have found better answers. We hope it will. But the place to start is not with waiting for more data. Instead, leaders who have a stake in their public schools must gear up for tough conversations and tell the truth about where things stand.

The ruling did not find that oversight is no longer needed because the funding disparities have been resolved. Instead, it concluded that the courts cannot enforce the remedy, leaving implementation entirely to the political branches of government.

The is deeply disappointed by this decision.

Across the South, states are grappling with how to fulfill constitutional obligations to provide all children with a quality education, and who is responsible for enforcing those commitments. In , courts have acknowledged funding disparities while leaving remedies largely to the legislature. In and , ongoing debates over school funding formulas and resource allocation continue to raise concerns about whether students in low-wealth communities are receiving adequate resources. While each state鈥檚 legal framework differs, the underlying issue is consistent: whether constitutional promises of education will be meaningfully enforced or left to shifting political priorities.

In North Carolina, plaintiffs in the original successfully argued that the state was failing to meet its constitutional obligation to provide every child with access to a quality public education. The court has long recognized that not all students, particularly those from low-income communities and communities of color, have been afforded equal educational opportunity.

But now, it is abrogating its duty for ensuring that the law is enforced, shifting responsibility for addressing these inequities to the North Carolina General Assembly and state leadership.

This decision comes at a pivotal moment, not just for North Carolina, but for the country. The United States is at a critical inflection point in how schools prepare students for a rapidly evolving economy. New, of education are emerging. Technology, particularly , is reshaping how students learn and how systems in the workplaces they will eventually graduate to operate. At the same time, the demand for a highly skilled workforce continues to grow. Today’s students need to learn how to function in this new, technologically advanced world.

How are we as a society going to meet that growing demand for skilled workers? The federal government is forecasting in the technology workforce. If America’s education leaders, both in individual states and as a nation, commit to giving more students access to the best advancements in technology and preparing them to join that highly skilled workforce, American competitiveness globally will increase. This is an opportunity.

But if longstanding disparities in access to quality education are not addressed, then the benefits of these advancements will not be shared equally among students. Instead, they will widen existing gaps.

This is no time for any branch of government, particularly the judiciary, to step back from its responsibility. Instead, local, state and federal leaders must work in unison to address the educational needs of students 鈥� particularly the deficiencies that courts themselves have identified over decades.

: 鈥淭he majority鈥檚 message to our children is clear: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but there is nothing this court will do if the political branches never met their obligation to put boots on your feet in the first place.鈥�

The question now is whether the state will act. Whether and how the North Carolina General Assembly and state leadership will fund solutions, and whether additional legal challenges will follow, remain open questions.

The Southern Education Foundation urges state leaders to take immediate action to meet the obligations set forth in the North Carolina Constitution and to ensure that every child has access to a quality education.

The court’s decision does not resolve the issues identified in Leandro; it changes who is responsible for addressing them. What happens next will depend on whether state leaders choose to fulfill the constitutional promise of education for all students.

Their bill, titled the , is being framed as a defense of public education. It is actually something else: a revealing glimpse into the mindset that is holding Democrats back.

A decade ago, Democrats were more willing to challenge the status quo. On education, they pushed for higher standards, greater accountability and new models like charter schools. They believed public education wasn鈥檛 just something to defend, but something to improve. They were willing to take on districts that weren鈥檛 delivering for students, even when it meant challenging teachers unions.

That spirit is hard to find today. 

The federal scholarship tax credit program, enacted last year, lets states direct federal dollars 鈥� potentially billions 鈥� to a wide range of student needs, including tutoring, afterschool programs, transportation and services for kids with disabilities. In states that opt in, families have the choice to use these scholarships to fill the gaps in their children’s education.聽

That is something denied to states that opt out. And yet, the majority of Democrats in the Senate are trying to repeal the program 鈥� not because those uses fall outside their priorities, but because the funding flows outside traditional public school systems. 

Even though the tax credit program would provide significant new resources to advance priorities Democrats themselves have championed, its support for private school scholarships crosses a line in the sand for them. To most families, turning down new funding for students doesn鈥檛 make sense. But for Democrats, it follows a clear chain of logic, one that prioritizes the preservation of existing school systems over students鈥� needs, defers to the interests of teachers unions and applies ideological purity tests that treat any nontraditional learning environment as a threat.聽

That way of thinking carries real consequences, especially at a moment when students need more support, not less.

The country is in the midst of a decade-long education depression, one marked by historic learning loss, widening achievement gaps and growing disengagement. Families see it, educators feel it and districts, facing acute financial strain, struggle to meet students鈥� needs.

For years, many on the left have that the United States always finds money for other priorities but refuses to invest meaningfully in education. President Donald Trump’s proposed record-breaking $1.5 trillion defense budget underscores the point. But for the first time in a long while, there is also, finally, new money for education. And Democrats want to turn these dollars away.聽

That choice is even harder to justify when you consider the broader fiscal reality. The federal government has run deficits for more than two decades; if lawmakers are going to keep borrowing against the future, the least they can do is invest in the generation who will inherit their debt.

Democrats鈥� reflexive opposition to the tax credit program reveals how much their policy imagination has narrowed, leaving them unable to see how it helps their constituents and advances their priorities. Some of their critiques are substantive: Questions about accountability, oversight and whether private school scholarships are subject to the same civil rights protections as traditional public schools deserve serious answers. But those are arguments for getting in the room and shaping the program, not walking away. Repealing the program would only ensure that the students who need those dollars most 鈥� low- and middle-income families, children with disabilities, communities of color 鈥� would end up with nothing. Democrats should be fighting to make this program work for those families, not fighting to take it off the table. 

Democrats long held a clear advantage over Republicans on education. That advantage has in recent years as voters have grown more skeptical that the party is delivering results. Trying to repeal the tax credit program will only make matters worse.

Polling across multiple states shows strong support for participation in the scholarship tax credit program, including among Democratic voters. In many cases, support approaches or exceeds , particularly among working-class families and families of color.

What some Democratic politicians see as an unacceptable departure from orthodoxy, many families see as a practical way to get their children the help they need. At some point, the gap between how policymakers view the issue and how families experience it demands a reckoning. Democrats should focus less on defending what exists and more on exploring what could be. 

When Colorado鈥檚 Jared Polis became the first Democratic governor to announce that his state would opt into the scholarship tax credit program, he framed it perfectly: 鈥淸I]t鈥檚 only our own creativity that can hold us back. Anything we can envision, this is a very powerful funding mechanism.鈥� He called the decision a 鈥渘o-brainer鈥� and said he 鈥渨ould be crazy not to鈥� participate.

That is the mindset Democrats need right now. Not a defensive posture, but an expansive one 鈥� grounded not in scarcity, but in abundance. 

An starts from the premise that the goal is an educated public, not the preservation of any particular school model or the adults employed within it. It recognizes that public funding can support a wide range of tools, strategies and approaches, so long as they serve students well. And it invites educators, families and policymakers to imagine different ways of organizing learning, rather than assuming the century-old model designed for an industrial economy is the only one capable of serving today’s students.

The tax credit program is not a cure-all, but it is a meaningful new investment. At a moment of real need, real disruption and real opportunity, Democrats should not be narrowing the conversation. They should be expanding it.

Starbucks would open every morning to a crowd of customers assigned by ZIP code. Managers wouldn鈥檛 be able to choose their market or tailor their product to the people most likely to buy it. And if the espresso machine broke, the manager wouldn鈥檛 just replace it. They鈥檇 apply for a grant, form a committee, hold a public hearing and eventually buy a replacement from a state-approved vendor 鈥� at triple the price 鈥攕ometime around next spring.

When people argue that schools should 鈥渞un more like businesses,鈥� they usually overlook one small detail: Most businesses wouldn鈥檛 survive a week under the constraints schools face every day.

So let鈥檚 flip the comparison.

Here鈥檚 what it would look like if American businesses had to follow just five of the rules public schools already operate under.

Rule #1: Serve Everyone, No Choosing Your Market

In business, success begins with knowing your audience. Public schools don鈥檛 have that luxury.

Schools must serve every child who walks through the door, every ability level, every need, every cost. They can鈥檛 specialize. They can鈥檛 narrow their mission. And they can鈥檛 turn anyone away.

If a bakery had to operate this way, it would be required to serve every resident within a five-mile radius, including customers who need gluten-free, nut-free, sugar-free, dairy-free and dye-free options at the same price.

Businesses pick customers and adapt quickly. Schools serve everyone under rules they didn鈥檛 choose.

Rule #2: Prices Frozen by an Outdated Formula

When costs rise, businesses adjust prices. Schools don鈥檛 have that option.

Many school funding formulas still reflect assumptions written long before Wi-Fi. Some date back to the era of overhead projectors, and many still rely on decades-old models of state aid. Yet a school鈥檚 basic funding structure still doesn鈥檛 come close to matching the difference between a child who needs a pencil and a smile and one who needs a full-time nurse and medical equipment comparable to a small clinic.

Imagine running a daycare and being told: 鈥淵ou get $7 per hour per child. Forever. It doesn鈥檛 matter what diapers cost now. It doesn鈥檛 matter if three children require one-on-one support. Figure it out.鈥�

A business leader would quit.

A superintendent rolls up their sleeves, pulls out the budget puzzle and asks the finance director what changed in the formula this year 鈥� and which updates must now be applied retroactively.

Rule #3: Money Comes in Buckets You Can鈥檛 Mix

Businesses move money where it鈥檚 needed. Schools receive funding in dozens of restricted pots: technology, training, English learners, nutrition programs and special education. Sometimes, deadlines require that the money be spent within weeks or returned.

It鈥檚 like telling a grocery store: 鈥淭his money is only for canned beans. That money is only for ceiling tiles. This money must be spent immediately on customer-service workshops. No, you can鈥檛 use any of it to fix the freezer.鈥�

What often looks like waste in schools is usually just the mechanics of compliance.

Rule #4: Every Major Decision Happens in Public

In business, strategic decisions happen behind closed doors. In public education, they happen at open meetings where anyone can speak.

Imagine McDonald鈥檚 livestreaming a meeting about a new spatula vendor, only to pause the vote so the public can debate whether the spatulas align with 鈥渃ommunity values.鈥�

This transparency is essential to democracy. But it also slows decision-making in ways most businesses would find unworkable.

Rule #5: Accountability Without Control

Schools are judged by test scores, attendance, behavior, graduation rates and college-going outcomes. Much of this is shaped by factors beyond their direct control, as research from the has shown.

Imagine a gym held accountable for every member鈥檚 physical fitness. If clients skipped workouts or ignored trainers鈥� advice, the gym would still be labeled failing.

That鈥檚 the environment schools operate in: responsible for outcomes they influence but do not control.

What This Means

The real question isn鈥檛 why schools can鈥檛 run like businesses. It鈥檚 why we keep pretending they should.

Public education operates within a system designed around universal access, equity, transparency and a commitment to every child. Those values impose real constraints. Ignoring them doesn鈥檛 make schools more efficient 鈥� it just makes the comparison dishonest.

None of this means schools are beyond criticism or improvement. Like any institution, they should constantly look for ways to serve students better. But honest reform begins with an honest understanding of the system we鈥檝e built.

If policymakers truly want schools to operate more effectively, the conversation shouldn鈥檛 start with comparing them to businesses. It should start by asking whether the rules governing public education 鈥� funding formulas, spending restrictions, bureaucratic processes and accountability structures 鈥� actually allow schools the flexibility people assume they already have.

And yet every day, schools open their doors. Not because the system makes it easy, but because the people inside refuse to let children down.

Pensions are sort of like New Year鈥檚 resolutions. Policymakers always promise, to themselves and to their constituents, that this will be the year they鈥檒l finally get their financial house in order and bolster their pensions. But inevitably, something shiny comes along and distracts them.  

Oklahoma is grappling with this dilemma right now. After years of dutifully funneling millions of extra dollars into its beleaguered teacher pension plan, state policymakers are now considering scaling back. Instead, they would like to use that money to fund : pay raises for active teachers, more money for its school choice tax credit program, plus new investments in reading and math.

It鈥檚 likely to be a popular list. But it threatens to derail the state鈥檚 progress on pension funding. 

Oklahoma has actually done better on the pension front than most other states. Thanks to a combination of benefit cuts, plus a surge of new contributions, it has dramatically improved the health of its teacher pension plan. 

For example, the system鈥檚 unfunded liability, essentially the difference between how much it had promised and how much it had saved toward those promises, from $10.4 billion in 2010 down to $6.1 billion last year. Its funded ratio 鈥� a comparison between its assets and its liabilities 鈥� has improved from in 2010 all the way 80% as of last June. 

Oklahoma鈥檚 teacher plan is still not quite as well-funded as the median state and local plan 鈥� which was funded last year 鈥� but the state鈥檚 policymakers deserve kudos for making progress. Current and retired Oklahoma teachers should be thankful that their retirement plan is in much better shape than it was 16 years ago.

So how did they do it? First, legislators raised the retirement age from 62 to 65 and extended the amount of time that a teacher would need to work to qualify for a benefit from five to seven years. (This is called the vesting period, and these tend to be longer for teachers than for workers in the private sector. For example, according to a survey of Vanguard 401(k) plans, of employees are immediately vested in their employer鈥檚 retirement contributions.) These policy changes meant that any Oklahoma teacher who started after Oct. 31, 2011, had to wait just a bit longer to qualify for retirement benefits than those who came before them.  

A rising stock market certainly helped the pension plan as well, but the biggest change was on the funding side. From 2001 to 2011, Oklahoma was contributing less each year than what its actuaries said it needed to. Instead of paying off their metaphorical credit card in full, they made only minimum payments, which led to a large financial hole.

But every year since 2012, Oklahoma has put in more than what its actuaries said it needed to. As of , individuals were required to contribute 7% of their salaries. Employers like school districts paid 9.5% of each employee鈥檚 salary. And the state contributed a percentage of its revenues from sales taxes, cigarette taxes, corporate income taxes, individual income taxes and lottery proceeds. This extra state contribution came out to $456 million last year, and this is the portion that state legislators now want to cut back.

Oklahoma鈥檚 teacher pension plan is in much better shape today than it was. But it鈥檚 instructive to compare it with the plan Oklahoma offers to other state employees, which is in even better shape than the teacher plan.

That largely comes down to how far legislators went in designing reforms for each plan. In the case of the teachers, Oklahoma’s legislators were more hands-off. Teachers continue to be placed in the same defined benefit pension plan, for example. On average, their benefits are worth 10.67% of their salary, according to the plan鈥檚 latest . But remember that teachers themselves are paying about two-thirds of that cost, which means that most of the contributions made by the state and its school districts are paying for the plan鈥檚 unfunded liabilities, not for benefits for today鈥檚 workers. Moreover, the benefit structure is so heavily that someone would have to teach in Oklahoma for decades just to earn more than what they personally contributed.

Meanwhile, state employees have been enrolled in a portable defined contribution 401(k)-style plan since 2015. Members are required to contribute 4.5% of their salary, their employer contributes 6% and employees qualify for a growing share of those contributions over five years. A in the state legislature would raise those contribution rates and drop the vesting requirement altogether. Oklahoma鈥檚 higher education employees get an deal.

Putting the benefit situation aside, Oklahoma deserves credit for making substantial progress funding its teacher pension plan. According to the latest financial projections, the state鈥檚 actuaries expect that the plan could be fully funded by 2034. However, that assumption depends on its investments earning a 7% return every year. They also cautioned that one risk to its projection is that 鈥渁ctual contributions from the state may not be made in accordance with the current arrangement.鈥� 

If Oklahoma legislators go forward with their plans to divert some of the money toward new expenses, they鈥檇 be putting all their hard-earned funding progress at risk.  

The national nonprofit broke down the results of its , which describes trends in state funding to schools in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. in a recent .

鈥淚n order to be fair, school funding must be both adequate and equitable,鈥� said Danielle Farrie, Education Law Center research director. 鈥淪o this means that states provide an overall level of funding that’s sufficient to provide all students with the resources that they need to meet state standards, and that the funding should be distributed so that students in poverty receive more.鈥�

One of the most concerning report findings is the decline in funding to schools with high rates of children from low-income families, compared to schools with more affluent populations, Farrie said. States are progressive if high-poverty schools receive at least 5% more funding in state money than those in more affluent areas. States that do the opposite are labeled regressive. States have a flat distribution of funding if the amount is similar on both sides.

In 2023, 17 states were labeled progressive, reversing a decade-long increase of progressive states that peaked at 28 in 2022. 

Utah was the most progressive state, funneling 60% more funding per-pupil to high-poverty districts than others The most regressive state was Connecticut, which provided 19% less money to high-poverty districts. 

The analysis, which focused on state dollars amid an influx of federal COVID-relief funding,  also found that most states maintained or at least slightly increased per-pupil funding levels from 2022 after adjusting for inflation.

鈥淭his is a dramatic departure from the previous year, when high inflation rates basically wiped out most of the nominal per-pupil funding increases in most states,鈥� Farrie said.

Some states experienced significant funding boosts. From 2022 to 2023, California increased its per-pupil funding by 19%. Washington, D.C., and Hawaii jumped 15% while Michigan moved up by 13%. 

The Education Law Center credited California鈥檚 positive gains to its more than a decade ago. Even so, school districts have recently called for more state funding as teachers unions have demanded better pay and working conditions. Seven superintendents signed an in February to advocate for 鈥渕ore stable, adequate and predictable funding from the state.鈥�

鈥淩ising housing costs, inflation and everyday living costs are affecting educators and classified staff across California,鈥� the letter says. 鈥淢any are making difficult personal choices simply to remain in the profession or continue serving their communities.鈥�

The largest funding loss from 2022 to 2023 was in Louisiana, which declined by 8%, moving its ranking in how well schools are funded from 25th in the nation to 38th.

Overall, 22 states fund their schools above the national average of $17,853 per student. New York is the top state at $29,440, followed by Vermont, Washington, D.C., New Jersey and Connecticut. The lowest state funding level comes in Idaho, which provides $11,085 per student.  North Carolina, Utah, Arizona and Nevada fund at similar levels. 

鈥淚n North Carolina, our funding is grossly inadequate, and it’s been the subject of lawsuits,鈥� said Kris Nordstrom, senior policy analyst at the , in the webinar. 鈥淚t鈥檚 inequitable for all student groups and it’s been that way, sadly, for a long time.鈥�

North Carolina has been under fire for more than 30 years because of inadequate school funding. Lawsuits eventually led to the creation of a remedial plan in 2022 for the state to better fund public schools, but it was after appeals were filed to stop payments to districts. The case has since been under the advisement of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling.

鈥淚 think our anticipation is that if we ever do get a ruling that it won’t be a good one,鈥� Nordstrom said. 鈥淥ur school funding continues to be flat or decreasing once you account for the additional costs facing schools. So it’s pretty bleak.鈥�

The Education Law Center also ranked states based on their funding efforts, which compares funding levels against each state鈥檚 gross domestic product. North Carolina is at the bottom of the ranking, providing $12,193 when its GDP per capita is $58,639. The top state is Vermont, which gives schools $27,067 per-pupil while its GDP per capita is $54,318. 

鈥淥bviously in North Carolina, you’ve seen our school funding effort plummet,鈥� Nordstrom said. 鈥淏ut in almost every state, school funding has decreased since before the Great Recession. So the money exists in our economy to provide much more robust funding for schools than we currently are.鈥�

If San Francisco educators walk out, it will be the city’s first teacher strike in nearly 50 years. United Educators of San Francisco approved a walkout with the second of two nearly unanimous votes last week. Its bargaining team is to decide within 10 days whether it will strike. 

United Teachers of Los Angeles, which represents more than 35,000 educators in California鈥檚 largest school district, has been in negotiations since February 2025. Both parties clashed over pay raises and in December. A strike vote passed with a member approval on Monday. 

With 6,500 members, United Educators of San Francisco has been negotiating with the district since March. The union asked for a 14% pay increase for support staff and 9% for teachers over two years, along with improvements to health care coverage, special education teacher workloads and family housing. 

鈥淲e remain prepared to hear any real solutions the district may formally bring to the table that will stabilize our district for our students, educators and families,鈥� the union said in a Tuesday. 

The San Francisco Unified School District has a 2% yearly increase, totaling 6% over three years. It on Saturday that a $102 budget deficit makes it impossible to meet the union鈥檚 demands.

鈥淎ny raises above the current proposals from the district will force further cuts at school sites that will impact the district鈥檚 ability to serve all of its students long-term,鈥� the district .

The union that San Francisco Unified recently allocated $111 million to its rainy-day fund, 鈥渕oney members say needs to be directed back to classrooms and school sites.鈥�

In Los Angeles, the union is an 18% immediate pay raise with a 3% bump the second year of the contract. Los Angeles Unified two consecutive raises of 2.5% and 2% and a one-time payment of 1% of an employee鈥檚 salary. A strike deadline has not yet been set.

Cheryl Coney, the union鈥檚 executive director, wrote in a to the district that drastic raises are needed because more than 20% of members qualify for low-income housing and roughly one-third leave Los Angeles Unified by their fifth year on the job. 

The union the district can afford pay increases with a $5 billion reserve, but officials budget constraints recently worsened because of enrollment declines, the expiration of pandemic aid and increased operating costs. The district’s projects a $1.6 billion deficit by the 2027-28 school year.

鈥淲e recognize the real financial strain on educators and staff but must make difficult decisions to preserve classrooms, student services and long-term stability within finite resources,鈥� the district said in a Jan. 31 . 鈥淭his moment calls for collaboration between all parties to reach a sustainable resolution.鈥�

The Los Angeles and San Francisco superintendents joined representatives of five other school districts in a Monday that asked advocates, nonprofits and lawmakers to help campaign for more funding from the state. 

鈥淓ducators and staff deserve to feel valued and supported, and districts recognize and respect those realities,鈥� the letter says. 鈥淎t the same time, school systems cannot spend resources they do not receive, nor can local negotiations resolve statewide enrollment trends or the loss of temporary federal funding.鈥�

The strike votes in Los Angeles and San Francisco come amid a by the California Teachers Association, focusing negotiations in 32 districts statewide around : wages, staffing and student stability 鈥� meaning fewer layoffs and school closures. The also aims to pressure the state to improve school funding.

A from the statewide union found that 88% of educators identified insufficient school funding and low pay as serious issues for 2026.

Several California teachers unions already walked out of the classroom this school year or are close to striking. United Teachers of Richmond, located north of San Francisco, staged a in December. Five unions 鈥� Natomas, Twin Rivers, Rocklin, Woodland Joint and Washington 鈥� are at an impasse, along with Madera Unified Teachers Association in central California and Berkeley Federation of Teachers.

More than 90% of San Diego Education Association members recently a one-day unfair labor practice strike for Feb. 26. The union said it鈥檚 protesting as San Diego Unified鈥檚 repeated contract violations regarding special education staffing caseloads.

The district recently reignited its dormant nonprofit, the , hiring a new executive director to court dollars from corporations and foundations. The effort has brought in some $26 million so far, including from well-known players in L.A. entertainment and business, on its way to a $100 million goal for the foundation鈥檚 first five years. 

A renewed focus on raising private money for school districts across the country comes as student needs are growing and leaders worry about shifting federal policy, education philanthropy officials said. 

鈥淲hat’s occurring right now is that those that don鈥檛 have them are forming foundations, or reforming them if they鈥檝e gone dormant,鈥� said Mike Taylor, head of the National Association of Education Foundations, who said he鈥檚 been fielding calls since the summer from school districts looking to navigate the uncertainty around federal funding and leverage community resources.

In Los Angeles, the initial fundraising push has helped families impacted by last year鈥檚 wildfires and supported the district鈥檚 neediest schools.

鈥淚 want to level the playing field,鈥� said Sadie Stockdale Jefferson, who came in to lead the LAUSD foundation this summer after serving in a similar role for Chicago Public Schools and running a University of Chicago think tank focused on public education. 鈥淲e鈥檙e taking the best of what we know works to improve education and ensuring those initiatives reach the schools and classrooms that need them the most.鈥�

A major initial focus of the foundation will be on what LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho calls 鈥減riority schools,鈥� with lagging academic performance and the highest student needs in a district that educates everyone from the wealthy elite to families experiencing homelessness or poverty.

Jefferson recently saw a breakdown of private support to district schools by region and said she realized: 鈥淭he disparity is shocking,鈥� adding she wants foundation money to primarily support campuses without their own parent-run fundraising efforts. 

The philanthropic money is still a drop in the bucket in the district’s more than . But it represents a potential new revenue stream at a time when LAUSD continues to shed students and run a deficit. 

Carvalho is looking to the foundation to support students in ways the district can鈥檛, like sending homeless students off to college with a new laptop, or providing emergency cash to families impacted by the wildfires. 鈥淪ometimes the need is acute,鈥� Carvalho said, with foundation money typically being deployed quickly and with less bureaucracy. 

Many of the needs Carvalho ticked off as foundation priorities are those students face outside the classroom. But he said he鈥檚 also open to private money supporting the district academically, particularly in the priority schools. District support for priority schools involves teacher coaching, strengthening curriculum and providing tutoring. 

鈥�Government dollars will only go so far, and there are unmet needs that often foundations can address and support,鈥� Carvalho said.  

The foundation has also taken on music education, riding off the popularity of 鈥淭he Last Repair Shop,鈥� an Oscar-winning short film about the highly skilled team that keeps scores of district-owned instruments working for LAUSD students. Jefferson said she鈥檚 hoping to replicate a sponsor-a-school program she ran in Chicago, offering businesses a way to directly help local schools. 

Using private money for public education can be controversial, particularly when funders are seen as exerting too much pressure or pushing for school reforms like charter schools.

Carvalho and others involved in Los Angeles鈥檚 fundraising say they鈥檙e aiming to avoid that tension as they address critical needs in the district of 400,000 students. 

Of the nation鈥檚 13,000 school districts, around 6,000 have foundations, the majority volunteer-run, Taylor said. The focus of district foundations has evolved, he said, from being thought of as a vehicle to buy extra books or classroom materials. The needs and challenges have deepened since the pandemic. Philanthropic money now goes toward building partnerships for workforce development, supporting teacher retention and addressing student mental-health challenges, Taylor said.

LAUSD鈥檚 foundation has recruited board members from local business, education and philanthropic organizations.

Board Chairman Michael Fleming, the president of the David Bohnett Foundation, said he was drawn to the role after hearing Carvalho鈥檚 vision for an organization that could move fast and target specific goals, including investing in the priority schools. 

He鈥檚 also committed to bridging the divide between public and private funding. 鈥淭here is this innate distrust sometimes between a government entity and philanthropy, and vice versa,鈥� Fleming said. 鈥淭hey each see the world very differently and say: 鈥榊ou don鈥檛 understand the way we operate.鈥� I think that鈥檚 false.鈥�

Enthusiasm for private investment in public school districts has fallen in and out of favor over the decades. Initial waves of corporate and foundation money aimed to revolutionize education.  

鈥淲hen things don鈥檛 dramatically get better, the energy and resources and attention ebb,鈥� said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus at Columbia鈥檚 Teachers College who has followed education philanthropy. Many private foundations doubled down on charter schools, which then made school districts wary of partnerships. In Los Angeles, a nonprofit launched by LAUSD leaders in the 2010s later merged with an entity that backed charters, putting it at odds with the district it initially set out to help. 

Henig sees today鈥檚 philanthropists more focused on supporting strong school leaders, rather than looking to fundamentally disrupt the way education is delivered. 

That shift makes sense to Erica Lim, a senior program officer at the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. Broad, along with the foundations of “Two and a Half Men” co-creator Chuck Lorre and L.A. Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, to the LAUSD foundation to support its priority schools.

Lim said she was encouraged by the stability Carvalho has brought to LAUSD since he joined in 2022 after a string of short-tenured leaders. The former Miami-Dade Public Schools superintendent now has a contract to keep him in the L.A. job until at least 2030.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not looking to backfill or solve really systemic budget issues,鈥� Lim said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 for district leaders to solve.鈥� Instead, Broad wants its investments to help kick-start new initiatives or scale programs that show promise. 

Carvalho said the district won鈥檛 be turning to philanthropy to fund core areas of the budget. That said, he could see the foundation being used as a stopgap if, for instance, the federal government cut off longstanding funding to support English language learners. 鈥淭hat would be a legitimate support from the foundation,鈥� Carvalho said, 鈥淲hich could be a likely scenario in the months to come.鈥�

In reviving the foundation, Carvalho changed the bylaws to give himself less power over its board, a move he saw as helping ensure its independence. Jefferson works with the LAUSD Education Foundation board to direct funds, with district input. 

Fleming, the board chair, said he鈥檚 looking for the foundation to outlast the many prior attempts and avoid drama. 鈥淲e simply want to get resources for the schools and for students,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 it.鈥� 

Some families enrolled in the Idaho Home Learning Academy public virtual charter school used state funding to pay for virtual reality headsets, hoverboards, hunting equipment, video games and video game controllers, paddleboards, smart watches, admission tickets to water parks and subscriptions to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, according to a new state watchdog report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan , which is commonly referred to as OPE, released the Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol after the release was authorized by the

OPE released the evaluation report after multiple Idaho legislators signed a March 5 letter requesting the office study the Idaho Home Learning Academy鈥檚 finances, expenditures, policies, contracts and student achievement results.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

The Idaho Home Learning Academy, or IHLA for short, is a rapidly growing public virtual charter school authorized by the small, rural Oneida School District.

There were about 7,600 online students enrolled at Idaho Home Learning Academy during the 2024-25 school year, many of which do not live within the traditional geographic boundaries of the Oneida School District.

New report raises questions about how supplemental learning funds are used by some families

As part of Idaho Home Learning Academy鈥檚 contract, its education service providers administer supplemental learning funds of $1,700 to $1,800 per student to families enrolled in IHLA that were paid for by Idaho taxpayer dollars, the report found. The money is intended to help pay families for education expenses, and the OPE evaluators found that the largest share of the funds were spent on technology expenses, such as computers, printers and internet access. Other significant sources of supplemental learning fund expenses went for physical education activities and performing arts expenses, the OPE report found.

However, OPE evaluators found that some families used their share of funding for tuition and fees at private schools and programs. Some families also used their funds for noneducational board games, kitchen items like BBQ tongs, cosmetics, a home theater projector screen, video games, Nintendo Switch controllers, a Meta Quest virtual reality headset, movie DVDs, weapons, sights lasers, shooting targets, remote controlled cars, hoverboards, action figures, smartwatches, water park tickets and the cost of registering website domain names, the OPE report found.

Families with students enrolled at Idaho Home Learning Academy are able to access the funds though both direct ordering programs and reimbursements. The OPE report found that Idaho Home Learning Academy鈥檚 three service providers (Braintree, Home Ed and Harmony) spent about $12.5 million providing supplemental learning funds for IHLA families during the 2024-25 school year. Service providers said that some families did not spend any or all of their supplemental learning funds, and the money was retained by the service providers, not returned back to the state or school district, the OPE report found.

Idaho governor, superintendent of public instruction respond to OPE report鈥檚 findings

Idaho Gov. Brad Little called the report鈥檚 findings 鈥渢roubling鈥� in a letter released with the report Tuesday.

鈥淲e also have an obligation to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,鈥� Little wrote. 鈥淭he OPE report on IHLA is troubling, especially as it pertains to supplemental learning fund expenses, academic performance, supplemental curriculum and the funding formula that enables virtual programs to receive more funding than brick-and-mortar public schools. The OPE report reveals that statutory safeguards are insufficient, oversight is inconsistent and accountability measures have not kept pace with the fast expansion of the IHLA program.鈥�

The OPE evaluation report findings come at a time when every dollar of state funding in Idaho is being stretched further amid a revenue shortfall. All state agencies outside of the K-12 public school system are implementing 3% mid-year budget holdbacks, and the, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield said the report raised concerns for her as well.

鈥�(The OPE report) also raises important questions about whether direct and indirect payments to families are a proper and legal use of funds appropriated for public schools,鈥� Critchfield wrote in a Nov. 26 letter to OPE leadership.

The OPE evaluation report found that limited oversight and accountability create uncertainty about how supplemental learning funds paid for with state taxpayer dollars are used and whether students鈥� curriculum choices align with state standards and transparency requirements.

Idaho state laws and administrative rules do not specifically allow or prohibit the use of supplemental learning funds, the OPE report found. That finding was one of several 鈥減olicy gray areas鈥� that the OPE evaluation report documented.

Little concluded his letter by saying he is ready to work with the Idaho Legislature, the Idaho State Department of Education and the Idaho State Board of Education to restore meaningful accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars.

鈥淚 have carefully reviewed the recommendations provided in this report and strongly encourage the Legislature to address the loopholes in state statute,鈥� Little wrote.

Oneida School District superintendent stresses Idaho Home Learning Academy did not break state law

In response to the OPE report, Oneida School District Superintendent Dallan Rupp, who is also a member of the Idaho Home Learning Academy School board, emphasized that the report did not find that IHLA was guilty of any misconduct.

鈥淚mportantly, the OPE report did not identify any misconduct at IHLA,鈥� Rupp said during a meeting Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise. 鈥淭his outcome underscores the effectiveness of Oneida School District鈥檚 oversight and reflects IHLA鈥檚 consistent compliance with Idaho鈥檚 laws, statutes, rules, regulations and procedures, as well as its cooperative relationship with the Idaho State Department of Education. We remain fully committed to operating within all established guidelines, just as we have in the past.鈥�

Idaho Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said it was beside the point that the school didn鈥檛 break any laws.

鈥淚鈥檓 extremely concerned,鈥� Ruchti said during Tuesday鈥檚 meeting at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise. 鈥淭his is public money 鈥� public taxpayer money 鈥� and we have an obligation to make sure that it鈥檚 spent appropriately and with oversight. And so, yes, it may not have violated any statutory requirements at this point. But what I鈥檓 saying is that what I saw in that presentation caused me serious concerns about how IHLA and other online teaching institutions are able to spend public dollars in a way that was not intended.鈥�

Idaho watchdog report found most online virtual teachers were part-time employees

OPE also found that most Idaho Home Learning Academy teachers were part-time, unlike traditional schools, and the Idaho Home Learning Academy spends much less on salaries and benefits than it receives from the state鈥檚 salary apportionment formula.

The report found IHLA was able to use the savings it realized in state funding provided to pay for staff salaries and health benefits to instead use at IHLA鈥檚 discretion or to pay its education service providers.

The OPE report found that most of IHLA鈥檚 teachers are part-time employees and do not provide full-time direct instruction to students. Instead, the report found that Idaho Home Learning Academy鈥檚 kindergarten through eighth grade instructional model relied heavily on parent-directed learning and that IHLA teachers typically offered feedback and oversight instead of direct instruction.

According to the report, IHLA reported $46.3 million in total expenditures from state funds during the 2024-25 school year. While traditional brick-and-mortar public schools鈥� largest expenditures are for staff salaries and benefits, the report found that only 36% of IHLA鈥檚 expenditures went to staff. A larger portion 鈥� 45% of IHLA鈥檚 total expenditures, or $20.6 million 鈥� went to paying education service providers.

The OPE report also found that Idaho Home Learning Academy鈥檚 students lagged behind statewide averages for scores on Idaho Standards Achievement Test, or ISAT. The OPE report found 42% of IHLA students were proficient in English language arts during the 2024-25 school year, compared to the statewide average of 52% of Idaho students.

The report also found just 25% of IHLA students were proficient in math during the 2024-25 school year, compared to the Idaho statewide average of 43%.

However, the OPE report highlighted that some IHLA families interviewed for the report said they do not believe statewide standardized tests are a good measure of student learning. The report also noted that many Idaho Home Learning Academy families identified themselves as homeschoolers and said they were using IHLA by choice because they were unhappy with the quality of education in traditional brick-and-mortar schools or felt that their child鈥檚 educational needs were not being met by more traditional public schools.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com.