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.
I recently wrote an essay explaining fundamental flaws in a paper by Gordon Lafer, a professor and longtime labor union analyst who published through an Oakland, California–based think tank called In the Public Interest.
Seattleites are familiar with this 48-year-old picture of two teenagers in the basement of Lakeside, a local private school. It shows Bill Gates and Paul Allen—who would later found Microsoft—working at computer terminals linked to the local Boeing Company’s giant mainframe.
A new report from In the Public Interest, a think tank based in Oakland, California, is getting some attention right now for purporting to show how three districts in the state are “bearing the cost of the unchecked expansion of privately managed charter schools.” But Breaking Point: The Cost of Charter Schools for Public School Districts does logical backflips, presents selective evidence, and uses pseudo-economic analysis to come to what seems to be a predetermined conclusion: that all would be well for California districts in financial distress if only charter schools didn’t exist.
Twenty-five years ago, CRPE was founded on the idea of the school as the locus of change. Today we are reexamining our old assumptions in light of new technical possibilities, changes in the economy, and a recognition that even the most effective schools may need to develop new approaches to better serve students whose needs warrant more individualized learning pathways or supports.
Twenty-five years ago, CRPE was founded on the idea of the school as the locus of change. Today we are reexamining our old assumptions in light of new technical possibilities, changes in the economy, and a recognition that even the most effective schools may need to develop new approaches to better serve students whose needs warrant more individualized learning pathways or supports.
Twenty-five years ago, CRPE was founded on the idea of the school as the locus of change. Today we are reexamining our old assumptions in light of new technical possibilities, changes in the economy, and a recognition that even the most effective schools may need to develop new approaches to better serve students whose needs warrant more individualized learning pathways or supports.
Twenty-five years ago, CRPE was founded on the idea of the school as the locus of change. We asked, “How can public oversight and funding be made compatible with school effectiveness?” Working outward to identify systemic barriers and solutions brought us to the portfolio strategy, pupil-based funding, recommendations for more effective charter authorizing, new roles for state education agencies, and other policy recommendations.
