At CRPE, our previous finance research centered on how funding systems could support the growth of charter schools and portfolio-style governance, with a strong emphasis on equity, transparency, and flexibility in resource allocation. We examined how traditional formulas often disadvantaged schools of choice and studied weighted or student-based funding models that might better match dollars to student needs.
Today, our focus has shifted to how education finance can help schools recover and adapt in the face of disruption. We study how pandemic-era funding was used, what lessons districts learned, and how the expiration of those funds creates new fiscal challenges. We also examine how shifting federal priorities—such as efforts to scale back or restructure education funding—affect schools’ capacity to innovate, sustain supports, and equitably serve all students. Across this evolution, our commitment remains the same: to understand how funding systems can be designed to meet student needs while enabling schools to respond to change.
New accountability systems require that states and districts accomplish something never accomplished before—ensuring that all students meet state standards. This report explores how these expectations have altered resource decisions in Washington State.
This brief touches on the experiences of urban school districts as they sought to close schools. It offers insight into the critical questions districts encountered and different paths chosen during the process.
This report analyzes why replicating successful charter schools has been tougher and more costly than expected for both for-profit and nonprofit charter management organizations (EMOs and CMOs).
Policymakers and researchers alike have expressed concern about a teacher quality gap between schools with affluent student populations and the more disadvantaged ones.
This paper is a companion piece to the District Resource Allocation Modeler (DREAM) tool developed by Education Resource Strategies.
This study examines resource allocation patterns across elementary schools and how these patterns differ depending, in part, on various levels of autonomy over resources at the school level.
In this working paper, Michael Kirst suggests that a productive education system would focus relatively greater resources on out-of-school interventions, especially for the most disadvantaged children.
This paper shows how districts can assess the efficiency of their own resource use compared to similar districts and judge whether non-instructional expenditures are excessive.