School Funding and the Question of Optimization

School funding has been at the center of educational discourse for as long as most can remember. Advocates and education leaders often argue that in order for students to achieve at high levels, schools need increased and sustained investment. In contrast, right-leaning voices frequently push back, asserting that the real need in education isn’t more money, but better practices and stronger accountability.

Both sides draw from their own bodies of research, often using data strategically to support deeply held positions. As a result, school finance has become highly politicized, with organizations like the NEA, AFT, and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation engaging in parallel, and sometimes conflicting, narratives. Meanwhile, school and district leaders are left to navigate a complex funding system—one in which they cannot simply generate new dollars or eliminate fixed costs at will.

This is why pragmatic, data-informed research—like that coming out of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, led by Dr. Marguerite Roza—is so valuable. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a conference alongside educators and policy advocates where we explored how strategic financial decisions can improve educational systems.

One of the most compelling ideas Dr. Roza shared was the importance of evaluating spending based on its impact on student outcomes—in short, spending with the end in mind. “A price tag means little,” she noted, “if it doesn’t lead to improved outcomes.”

To illustrate this point, she highlighted an example from a Charleston school district. Instead of hiring a full-time staff member to address chronic absenteeism—a costly solution with limited reach—the district implemented a targeted, cost-effective strategy: offering small stipends to students for attending school daily over a five-day period. While the idea sparked skepticism in some quarters, the district stood by its decision, trusting data over tradition.

This kind of thinking—student-centered, evidence-based, and context-sensitive—is precisely what many districts need. But it also raises a critical question: What are we optimizing for? Too often, efforts to streamline education focus on doing things faster or cheaper, without considering whether the desired outcomes truly reflect a district’s mission or values.

Some investments—such as enrichment programs, school integration efforts, or extracurricular opportunities—may not yield immediate gains in test scores, yet they often reflect our highest hopes and ambitions for what students deserve. When asked about this tension, Dr. Roza acknowledged the limitations of data and stressed the importance of acting on principle. She noted that while schools often excel at implementing certain values, many still struggle to prioritize and optimize around the value of student achievement.

This tension—between efficiency and values—is deeply embedded in the American experience, and perhaps inevitable in a capitalist society that also esteems democratic ideals. Anyone who has attended a school board meeting or community forum knows democracy is rarely efficient. It’s slow, deliberative, and sometimes messy—but it’s also rooted in collective ownership and shared responsibility. As the proverb goes: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

Dr. Roza and others are helping to steer the conversation toward a more balanced approach—one that prioritizes both fiscal responsibility and student success. But for their work to have lasting impact, systems must do more than optimize; they must engage. Community voice and inclusive processes are essential if we are to align educational investments with the hopes and values of the people they are meant to serve.