A new study examines charter school closures due to financial struggles and explores funding patterns impacting their viability. Analyzing nine years of finance data from California, it compares spending between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools, receiving 10% less per pupil in revenue, spend 23% less on instruction and 50% less on pupil support services. They allocate less to administrative costs but invest more in consulting services and operations. This suggests cost-saving strategies such as hiring less experienced teachers and employing part-time consultants. While this fiscal flexibility aids financial stability, it raises concerns. Lower spending on essential areas like instruction and support might affect school quality and academic performance. This challenges assumptions about charter schools' autonomy leading to higher spending on instruction. The findings imply a delicate balance between fiscal flexibility and educational quality in charter schools, highlighting potential sustainability concerns if lower spending compromises student outcomes.

Education policies often focus on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions without considering their costs. This oversight limits policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Understanding intervention costs in relation to their effectiveness is crucial for efficient policymaking. For instance, reducing high school dropout rates, a national priority, could alleviate substantial economic burdens, yet education budgets are limited. Researchers conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on five dropout prevention programs, finding considerable variations in costs and effectiveness. Remedial programs aimed at dropouts were notably more expensive per additional graduate compared to preventative programs, which targeted at-risk students still in school. These findings emphasize the need for cost-effectiveness assessments in educational program evaluations to guide policymaking effectively. Without such analyses, research evidence alone may not provide policymakers with a comprehensive view for decision-making, potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation.

Year-round school calendars, widely adopted in California due to school crowding, aim to evenly distribute school days. Multi-track calendars, seen as cost-saving, accommodate larger student bodies. There is a belief that redistributing summer breaks could counteract summer learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Research highlights caution regarding year-round schooling. While cost savings are clear, academic gains haven't materialized, impacting high-risk student groups negatively. California showed notably negative effects compared to neutral outcomes in Wake County, North Carolina, where multi-track calendars were used widely. This disparity emphasizes considering demographics; schools with substantial minority or low-income populations may face different challenges. The findings caution policymakers against risking student achievement solely for minor savings. Tailored approaches for schools based on their demographics are suggested. The academic benefits of year-round schooling remain scarce, except for addressing severe overcrowding. Yet, amid tightening budgets, year-round schools are cautiously endorsed as a financial reform, urging further examination and context-specific considerations in policymaking.

This commentary, part of a broader PACE series exploring school finance, speaks to challenges faced by California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The two biggest problems with the California financial system are inequitable revenue allocations and inefficiencies caused by categorical restrictions. Governor Brown's proposal addresses these issues, but critics argue that the system still has other problems. One major criticism is that there are winners and losers in the system. Under Brown's proposal, the allocations for some districts will look drastically different, with some receiving less than others. This is because current allocations have little connection to the costs of educating students and the characteristics of students and schools. Another alternative is to raise the base so everybody "wins," which would provide more flexibility and a more correlated revenue with costs. However, this system still creates winners and losers because allocations would not be as tightly connected to costs as under the current system. Governor Brown's proposal nevertheless helps solve the two biggest problems with California's school finance system and offers a better alternative to the current financial system.

California's education funding system, laden with layered regulations akin to geological strata, restricts innovation and flexibility. Governor Jerry Brown's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) proposes a significant overhaul, consolidating scattered funds into a flexible per-pupil grant. This reform aims to empower educators by freeing them from rigid spending rules, shifting focus from compliance to achieving student goals. Additionally, the plan directs extra resources to schools supporting disadvantaged students, offering supplementary aid based on the level of need. Notably, the proposal doesn't reduce funding but allocates more to districts facing greater challenges. The reformation aspires to create a fairer, more efficient, and innovative education finance system, paving the way for a more promising educational landscape in California.