As state budget season heats up and a newly Republican-controlled Congress takes shape, school districts across the country are deep in the perennially chaotic and scattershot process of crafting next year’s budget.
That process is likely to look quite different from one district to the next. Education leaders largely agree that students benefit when their budget decisions are closely aligned with instructional priorities. But many districts struggle to achieve that alignment, according to an EdWeek Research Center survey conducted last summer.
The nationally representative survey conducted from June 28 through Aug. 2, 2024, includes responses from 118 district leaders and 152 school leaders.
More than 6 in 10 district leaders who answered the survey said aligning spending decisions and instructional priorities can have “a lot” of impact on student achievement.
But 42 percent said their spending decisions are only partially aligned with instructional priorities. Sixteen percent of respondents said budgeting and spending processes in their district are “significant barriers to investing resources in ways that could best support student achievement.”
Forty-six percent of respondents described the connection between individuals or departments focused on instruction and individuals or departments focused on budgeting as “strategically effective.” But a roughly equal share (45 percent) described the relationship as “functional”—enough to address basic decisions but not to make strategic choices.
The remaining 9 percent said these two sets of district employees or departments don’t interact at all.
District leaders cited a variety of reasons for shortcomings in their efforts to align instruction and budget priorities. The one most commonly cited (by 36 percent) was a tendency to focus too narrowly on year-to-year budget concerns, rather than thinking big-picture or long-term.
Meanwhile, 28 percent cited insufficient dialogue between instructional and finance staff. And 26 percent said efforts to align instruction and budget priorities are hampered when key decisionmakers change jobs or leave the district.
Sometimes districts have no choice but to spend money with little regard for instructional priorities. More than a quarter of respondents said they either often or always spend money in ways that are not aligned with instructional needs because they are trying to comply with rules and restrictions for how the money can be spent.
Fixed costs like pension debt, utility bills, and health insurance premiums are among the non-instructional investments districts can’t get out of making, even as they deal with broader resource constraints.
Some districts do more than others to involve teachers in budgeting
The survey asked district leaders to review a list of roles and select the ones that have a major influence on curriculum purchasing decisions.
District administrators who aren’t in the top position won out, with 67 percent of respondents selecting them, compared with 56 percent for teachers and 52 percent for school leaders. Only 32 percent of respondents said the district superintendent has major influence over curriculum and purchasing decisions. Fewer than 15 percent of respondents said school board members, administrators in similar districts, or parents play a major role.
Leaders in districts where teachers do play a major role in curriculum purchases most commonly involve teachers by asking them to provide feedback on products the district might purchase. More than half of district leaders said teachers pilot products, and slightly less than half said teachers offer feedback on products the district has already purchased.
By contrast, teachers tend to be less commonly involved in recommending new products, identifying unmet needs, and contributing to final purchasing decisions. Fewer than one-third of district leaders said teachers perform those functions.
Leaders in districts with more than 10,000 students were slightly more likely than leaders in smaller districts to say that finance and budgeting processes are at least somewhat unaligned. By contrast, virtually all respondents from districts that enroll 2,500 to 9,999 students said their spending and budgeting processes align with instructional goals.
The emerging model known as outcomes-based contracting has helped some districts more successfully align spending and instructional priorities in recent years.
In this process, districts and vendors sign contracts that specify concrete expectations for what new products will help the district achieve, and what districts and vendors must do to implement new products. If the vendor falls short, the district gets a discount, and if the district falls short, the vendor can charge a higher fee.
Only 10 percent of district leaders who answered the survey said they’ve already used outcomes-based contracting.
But the model appears poised to catch on more widely: More than 80 percent of respondents said they somewhat or completely agree that outcomes-based contracting could lead to improvements in overall student achievement; equity across student groups; opportunities for reduced prices for goods and services; and innovation.
Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center’s work.
