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.

Government initiatives aim to enhance walking and cycling to school, prioritizing safety through programs like Safe Routes to School (SRTS). While SRTS effectively improves public health by encouraging physical activity and reducing injuries, few studies address the potential savings in student transportation costs for districts and families. Schools spend billions on student transportation, and hazardous walking conditions often necessitate busing short distances, known as hazard busing, adding costs without resolving safety issues. Our study highlights that investing in engineering improvements to enhance safety near schools could reduce long-term busing expenses. Real-world examples, like Austin's pedestrian bridge, demonstrate substantial savings after eliminating the need for busing. The collaboration between cities, schools, and parents is crucial to prioritize safety improvements. However, this shift requires alignment among different agencies, revisions in reimbursement formulas, and community involvement to ensure successful transition and utilization of safer infrastructure by families, preventing the burden of transportation costs from simply shifting to them.

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.

Over the last 15 years, federal and California laws have aided older foster care adolescents in completing high school and accessing higher education. Education is crucial for these youths, often lacking family support. Attainment significantly influences stable employment and self-sufficiency. Despite investments, few studies focus on educational impact for foster care teens. Research in three Midwest states showed small differences in employment and earnings between those with no credential and a GED. High school diploma completion offered a substantial advantage, while some college yielded further benefits, and the highest outcomes were seen in college graduates. On average, former foster care youths earned half of their general population counterparts and faced a 22-point employment gap. However, similar education levels narrowed these gaps, with education impacting foster care youths more than their peers. GED completion didn't significantly alter outcomes, emphasizing the importance of high school diplomas. Legislation emphasizing high school completion and college entry aligns with findings. Yet, to ensure sustained support during degree completion, laws might require reevaluation or expanded partnerships. The California Fostering Connections Act extension to 21 might boost college participation, but higher earnings suggest the need for ongoing support through degree completion.

Over decades, rural areas consistently lose younger residents, especially in economically challenged regions offering unstable work. This outmigration leads to imbalanced demographics, with better-educated individuals leaving and those remaining having lower education and incomes. This shift creates uncertainty about education's significance linked to leaving. Retaining youth becomes vital for rural areas. Recent studies suggest schools inadvertently encourage departure by prioritizing high achievers, yet research involving 9,000 rural students counters this. While high-achieving rural students tend to leave, they share strong community ties and similar desires to depart as their peers. Schools aren't actively pushing students away; instead, students' views on local economies shape their aspirations, irrespective of academic status. This emphasizes rural youths' connections and potential retention if opportunities arise. It underscores the need for national/regional policies supporting rural sustainability, addressing the wider lack of opportunities in rural America. It might not merely be local underinvestment but rather a systemic absence of regional/national investment in rural areas.

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.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) ensures a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities in the US, necessitating services tailored to their needs. However, these specialized services come at a higher cost. To manage these expenses, some states like California use the census funding model, allotting aid based mainly on total district enrollment and a fixed amount per student, independent of specific program characteristics. A new policy brief delves into the pros and cons of this method and discusses ways to address its drawbacks. Advantages include simplicity, legal compliance, adaptability, potential cost-effective placements, and preventing over-identification of disabilities. Yet, there are concerns about inequitable funding, potential inadequacy over time, disincentivizing quality services, and jeopardizing legal protections if students aren't identified. The authors suggest considering adjustments based on regional factors, poverty, disability rates, and monitoring changes to achieve fairness. They also advocate for exploring cost-effective program delivery and weighing alternatives for special education funding structures to better support students while managing costs.

In recent years, budget cuts led to increased class sizes across the US. California notably saw a 20% rise, adding over 4 students per class between 2009–2010. This sparks debate on allocating limited resources, with class size at its core due to its impact on educational costs. Studies on class size effects show inconsistent, modest benefits. Although reducing class size incurred substantial costs in the past, raising it could mitigate harm amid budget cuts. California's prior investment in smaller classes yielded limited effects due to swift implementation. Rising class sizes’ impact depends on implementation; layoffs based on teacher effectiveness might counteract negative effects on student achievement. The debate centers on balancing budgets without compromising student learning, especially crucial amid fiscal challenges in education.

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.

Governor Brown’s proposed Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) introduces weightage for student poverty and English Learners (ELs). While some categorical programs persist, the formula consolidates other funding streams into the core. An ongoing debate surrounds the inclusion of additional cost factors. States commonly allocate extra funds for special student needs like disabilities, poverty, and limited English skills. Brown’s plan addresses this by providing a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increments for high concentrations in districts. However, there's uncertainty regarding how costs change with increasing concentrations of disadvantaged students. Variations in funding models across states revolve around student needs, grade levels, and demographic factors. Research indicates the necessity of investing in early grades, though consensus on which levels require more resources is lacking. Moreover, adjustments for school size, district size, and teacher labor costs vary widely. While teacher cost adjustments align with mobility and attrition concerns, their direct impact on retaining teachers is unclear. Finally, separate funding for transportation and sparsity considerations are prevalent, but maintaining existing allocations might perpetuate irrational variations across districts. Brown's plan could rationalize transportation funding but may need adjustments for equitable distribution, especially for programs like gifted education and career training currently under categorical funding.