There’s wide agreement that school districts can use long-term, strategic budgeting and planning to ensure that everybody in the system is working toward the same goal of improving academic achievement.
But barriers such as short-term thinking, siloed decisionmaking, and staff turnover commonly get in the way of those efforts. Plus, at a time when school district leaders are contending with heightened uncertainty about their funding—as the federal government has frozen formula funds and abruptly discontinued many grants, and as states deal with their own financial turmoil—such long-term, strategic action becomes even more difficult.
But there are steps leaders can take to combat those problems, according to a new EdWeek Research Center report that synthesizes the results of a nationally representative survey of 223 educators—a mix of 90 district leaders and 133 school leaders—and follow-up interviews with 10 school and district leaders across the country.
The survey was administered in June 2025 and the EdWeek Research Center conducted follow-up interviews in August and September. The research was supported by a grant from the Gates Foundation. (Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.)
Asked about the biggest barriers to making strategic purchasing decisions in their districts that align with academic goals, survey respondents most commonly pointed to a lack of information necessary to accurately forecast the amount or sources of funding (45%), an inability to sustain alignment between financial and academic goals over time due to leadership or staffing changes (35%), inconsistent instructional goals stemming from staff turnover (33%), siloed decisionmaking in which academic and finance leaders do not communicate effectively (32%), and shifts in instructional priorities due to political pressure (32%).
The report outlines six steps districts can take, based on survey responses and insights from school and district leaders, including adopting outcomes-based contracts; discussing priorities early in the budget process with a wide range of stakeholders; developing a strategic plan to address siloed decisionmaking that outlines specific, complementary roles for each department; promoting staff from within and viewing staff changes as a source for new ideas; evaluating the sustainability of funding sources and preparing funding contingency plans; and providing technical assistance and training about budgeting and purchasing so administrators are familiar with more aspects of district operations.
Of those solutions, there was widespread agreement among survey respondents that preparing for financial instability by assessing funding sources’ sustainability would help.
Most educators identify federal funding uncertainty as a big problem
A majority of respondents to the survey (71%) said federal funding uncertainty is a major barrier to strategic resourcing. Fifty-eight percent also pointed to the state of the economy as a barrier.
More than three-quarters of survey respondents said they expected the amount of regular federal funding their district receives (such as Title I and IDEA) to decrease in the next two years. Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents said their district would compensate for a loss of federal funding by cutting staff positions.
One district leader from Missouri said federal funding cuts would also hurt staff professional development. The primary federal source of funding for professional development, Title II, would be eliminated under President Donald Trump’s 2026 budget proposal that’s before Congress, and Title II was one of the categories of funds the administration held back from schools for weeks this past summer.
“It’s really impacting our ability to provide ongoing professional development,” the district leader said. “They provide a significant amount, the federal government does, toward our professional development.”
Another administrator from Texas said the federal funding situation is hurting their district’s ability to refresh technology purchased with an infusion of federal pandemic relief funds that have since stopped flowing.
“We’re at the point where we used federal money to purchase so many of these technological things during COVID and we’re at the point where they need to be fixed or replaced and we don’t have the funds to come in and do that,” the administrator said.
Use outcomes-based contracts to better match academic and financial goals
One way to create more cohesion between academic and financial goals is to use outcomes-based contracts with vendors, survey respondents agreed.
Nearly 9 in 10 administrators said that outcomes-based contracts—in which schools make at least part of their payments to vendors contingent upon them achieving specific outcomes, such as academic benchmarks for a tutoring provider—are likely to increase student achievement, expectations for vendors, and innovation. But just 1 in 10 of respondents said their district has used outcomes-based contracts.
Survey respondents who participated in follow-up interviews expressed a mix of optimism and skepticism when asked whether they thought the approach would be helpful. One school leader in South Dakota said they were concerned about the upfront cost but said they believed it would be helpful to find “something that works best for us.”
Discuss key goals early and use data to drive decisions
Sixty percent of survey respondents said their districts’ budgeting and purchasing are aligned with instructional priorities, and just under half of survey respondents (46%) said early discussions about “key goals” would help districts ensure they make spending decisions that align with their long-term goals.
In follow-up interviews, leaders saw alignment when their districts had the right mix of staff members at the table and received input from a range of stakeholders when making key decisions. One district leader from Missouri said it’s important to include community input.
Using student achievement data to guide decisions—and including principals and school-level staff in discussions—can also drive alignment, getting everyone on the same page, one school leader in Connecticut said.
“We just wanted to make sure that everyone was looking at the student data, meaning their reading levels, the scores that they received … and that everyone was interpreting the information correctly so that we can make the best decisions,” she said. “And so we weren’t just purchasing resources and then they end up staying in a box.”
Craft a strategic plan and address turnover by promoting from within
One of the most important factors in streamlining purchasing decisions is to develop a strategic plan that assigns roles from different departments to specific goals or tasks all aligned with the same mission, respondents said.
Nearly 2 in 5 survey respondents (38%) said developing such a process helped them break down silos in decisionmaking and purchasing, and helped them more clearly define their districts’ instructional priorities and goals.
Another barrier to cohesion is staff turnover, which also comes with a price tag.
Interviewees said most of the cost from staff turnover is associated with investments districts have made in teacher training. Interviewees suggested offsetting some of those costs by trying to promote from within.
“Some of the turnover has been from promotions from within,” a district finance official from New Jersey commented. He provided examples of staff members who had been “mentored to sort of step into that role for at least a year … and didn’t need much more training.”
Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center’s work.
