School boards play a crucial role in allocating resources to support student achievement, but a new report published by the Brookings Institution shows many budget deliberations focus on compliance-based budgeting rather than strategic investments to boost educational outcomes and long-term financial stability.
With budgets shrinking alongside enrollment and the lack of pandemic-era funds, researchers noted that local educational agency governance teams are bound to face increasing community pressure on spending as discussions around layoffs, school closures, employee compensation and programmatic cuts take place.
“At the end of nearly every study on education finance is a reminder that money matters more for students when it is spent well,” researchers stated. “As funding tightens, and student academic needs persist, our school systems will need to wring every bit of value for students from the limited dollars they have. Meanwhile, leaner budgets will invite intense community and employee pressure on where and how to trim the budget. Our school systems will need more than a governance structure that amounts to going through the motions. More than ever, we need school boards resolute in their commitment to keep budget discussions focused on what’s best for students.”
Key findings
Researchers examined hundreds of hours of pre-recorded 2023 budget workshops across a diverse set of 174 school districts spanning 27 states and ranging in enrollment size, urbanicity, poverty level and performance to track how board members engaged in financial discussions. Workshops were either part of a larger full board meeting with other agenda items or separate meetings, sometimes with only a few trustees present.
On average, finance deliberations lasted only 40 minutes, with larger districts trending a bit longer, but in a third of the districts, the meeting time spent on finance was less than 15 minutes. During these brief periods, 53 percent of trustees were found to be “silent observers,” meaning they offered no productive comments or feedback during public budget discussions except to thank and congratulate the district on its efforts to draft and present a budget.
On the other hand, 24 percent of the time spent on LEA finances during meetings was focused on revenues, which boards don’t control, leaving less time for the primary responsibility of determining how to deploy the dollars the district does have. District staff tended to do most of the talking, according to the report.
Financial decisions of all types were called for vote with no board deliberation. For example, 82 percent of employee raises were approved without discussion, and more than 90 percent of meetings made no mention of any spending alternatives to the singular proposal on the docket. Researchers noted this finding was “especially noteworthy given that at the time of this study, all budget deliberations included highly flexible federal relief funds.”
However, the report continued, “This is not to say that trustees were wholly unconcerned about student outcomes. Rather, any discussion of student outcomes typically took place outside of budget discussions. And yet, whether leaders recognize it or not, the budget is a set of choices about how to deploy the district’s resources and thus should be central to any strategy for learning. Money spent on one thing (e.g., more teacher aides, professional development, or pay raises) can’t be spent on another (e.g., tutoring or counselors). The tendency to separate these functions may be part of the reason why districts tend not to change their budgets much from year to year.”
It is critical that trustees meaningfully engage in public discussion over budget proposals, researchers concluded. Whether that’s pushing for more than one option to consider, or asking questions about rationale for choices or the impact of budgets on learning or the distribution of resources, researchers found that engagement is crucial.
The third course in CSBA’s Masters in Governance® (MIG) training series focuses on helping district trustees achieve a balance between district goals and student achievement by establishing budget priorities; developing appropriate processes for budget development, adoption and revision; implementing the budget; and monitoring and auditing the district’s finances. Find upcoming sessions here.
A version of MIG for county office of education trustees looks at the issue from a county perspective with the addition of facilities discussions. Specifically, this training looks at the impact of the differences between dependent and independent county boards; the process for reviewing interim reports and approving COE budgets; the role of the County Board in setting up the superintendent’s salary; a step-by-step process for acquiring a facilities lease, lease-purchase options, and implications and impacts of holds and conveying real property for county programs; and an overview of the Local Control Funding Formula, Proposition 98, a history of California School Finance, and the Williams Act as it relates to county boards. Upcoming sessions will be available here.
