Education Resource Allocation

💰 🧮 💸 🎓 A common refrain I hear when talking to college and university trustees: budgets in higher ed are unlike anything in the business world. How colleges make and spend money remains mysterious even to those who've spent their careers in higher education. That's why in the latest installment of the Higher Ed 101 series on the Future U Podcast, Michael Horn and I took a deep dive into college budgeting with Rick Staisloff, a former college CFO and founder of RPK Group. Whether you're a board member, college professor, or tuition-paying parent, this episode offers valuable insights into college budgeting—what works and what doesn't. My three takeaways: 1️⃣ College budget buckets are too large. Most institutions don't really know where they're making money or where they're spending it. "We have to get into unit cost to really understand the financial health of an institution," Staisloff told us. Most colleges don't know how much it costs to graduate a biology major versus an English major, for instance. When enrollment was growing and public funding flowed freely, this approach probably wasn't fiscally responsible but it functioned. Now, when institutions need to be strategic, leaders need greater insight into resource allocation—otherwise they're moving pennies instead of dollars. In other words: show me where you spend your money, and I'll show you what you value. 2️⃣ The lack of transparency leads to lack of accountability. While colleges might set enrollment goals, their leaders often don't know what financial targets they should be hitting. "I'm always struck at the institutions we work with at how seldom deans, chairs, budget unit heads are given a clear sense of what good looks like and what they're supposed to be achieving," Staisloff explained. 3️⃣ It's business intelligence, stupid. My biggest takeaway: how little higher ed leaders know about their business. Part of this is cultural—campuses resist discussing ROI of individual programs. Part is technological—colleges have underinvested in ERP systems, leaving them flying blind in financial forecasting. This becomes increasingly problematic as we face an enrollment cliff and federal funding uncertainty. 🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://lnkd.in/e8zV_PSy 📺 Watch highlights of this episode as well as select full episodes on our YouTube channel: https://lnkd.in/dRRBvpiR I'm biased, but this episode should be required listening for new board members:

Big wins in education funding are worth celebrating—but only if we read the fine print. Texas just approved an $8.5 billion public education package. Headlines are calling it “historic.” And in some ways, it is. Raises for veteran teachers. More equitable funding for special education. Extra dollars for early learning and school safety. But here’s what’s keeping educators up at night: 😱 The base per-student allotment barely moved. Inflation-adjusted? Most districts are still operating in the RED. First- and second-year teachers—the most vulnerable to burnout—won’t see a dime in raise money. And while the state is cracking down on uncertified teachers, it’s not clear how they’ll backfill those roles in rural and high-turnover districts. This is progress, but it’s not a fix. ☑️ Real reform means ensuring every student has a certified, supported teacher in front of them. ☑️ Real reform means giving school leaders flexible funding to meet their community’s unique needs. ☑️ And real reform means valuing all educators—not just the ones who’ve hung on the longest. Now is the time to demand better, for teachers, for schools, and most of all, for students! What do you think? #FundPublicSchools #SupportTeachers #EquityInEducation #InnovativeEducationSolutions

The chronic underfunding of education in India represents a fundamental structural barrier to achieving meaningful educational reform. While policy documents like the NEP 2020 present ambitious visions for transformation, the persistent gap between rhetorical commitments and financial allocations reveals the true priorities of governance structures. True educational reform requires more than policy documents and language formulas; it demands substantial, consistent financial commitment aligned with the stated goal of 6% GDP allocation. Without addressing this fundamental resource gap, other debates about educational reform risk becoming mere distractions from the central issue of educational equity and quality for all Indian children. #NEP2020 #IndiaEducation #EducationReform #QualityEducation #EducationalEquity #LiteracyGap #EducationBudget #StateEducationSpending #EducationalInequality #RightToEducation #EducationPolicy

University Funding Models - A Thought Experiment Two universities, A and B, have identical teaching revenue ($100m) and teaching-related costs (75% of teaching revenue). Both spend $50m on research but their approaches differ. University A gets half its research funding from teaching surplus with the rest coming from research grants that don’t cover overhead (every $1 grant, costs $1.70). University B also uses its teaching surplus but funds the remaining $25m from internal sources such as profit from a graduate training program and returns from an endowment. University A Strategic Considerations: - Prestige: Securing grants can enhance the university’s reputation, fostering partnerships and collaborations. - Resource: A significant admin burden accompanies grants, as resources are allocated to applications, compliance, and reporting. - Volatility: Grants are subject to funding cycles, policy shifts, and competition, making this stream unpredictable. Financial Implications: - Reduced Profitability: Due to the negative overhead recovery, the university spends more on research than it receives, diminishing its overall financial efficiency. - Cash Flow Pressure: Managing grants places constraints on operational flexibility, increasing reliance on unpredictable external funding cycles. - Opportunity Costs: The financial and human capital is tied up in managing inefficient funding, diverting resources from other strategic priorities. University B Strategic Considerations: - Financial Stability: Internal funding sources offer greater reliability, allowing long-term strategic planning without dependence on external cycles. - Strategic Autonomy: With greater control over revenue, the university can invest in infrastructure, technology, or new initiatives as it wants. - Enhanced Risk Management: Diversification reduces exposure to volatility. Financial Implications: - Higher Profitability and Efficiency: internal sources typically have lower administrative costs, resulting in a higher net return. - Improved Cash Flow Management: More predictable income allow for smoother budgeting and financial planning. - Capital Deployment: With stronger margins, the university can reinvest surplus in new revenue-generating initiatives or long-term institutional growth. So the trade-offs are: - Margin Efficiency: University B achieves greater financial efficiency by avoiding the admin overheads associated with external grants, leading to a stronger net return on the same level of gross income. - Risk Exposure: University A faces significant financial risk due to its reliance on external grants, whereas University B’s diversified funding model provides more resilience against economic fluctuations. - Strategic Flexibility: University B is better positioned to make long-term investments in infrastructure and new programmes, while University A may struggle to allocate discretionary funds due to administrative burdens and revenue unpredictability.

I'm pleased to share our new technical report - Education Funding Model in Costa Rica: Analysis of School Boards - https://lnkd.in/d263XThG -examining Costa Rica's unique model of school funding through local education and administrative boards. This analysis, co-authored with T. Beirute, L. Biehl, J. Margitic & A. Thalinger and developed in close collaboration with the NGO Caricaco, reveals both the potential and challenges of this decentralized system where community volunteers manage between 20-30% of educational funding (excluding teacher salaries) at the school level. Key findings include: • Two-thirds of board members have not completed high school • Coordination between administrative levels is weak • Significant gaps exist in transparency and monitoring systems • Resource allocation is often misaligned with educational needs These findings were instrumental in developing key components of our recent IDB operation (led by Loreto Biehl and Marta Paraiso) and are currently informing policy proposals to strengthen these boards. Our recommendations focus on: • Implementing equity-based funding formulas • Strengthening board member capacities through training  • Improving digital monitoring systems • Better aligning resource allocation with educational planning and outcomes The evidence and proposals presented in this report are already shaping discussions about educational governance reform in Costa Rica.

A key challenge I'm seeing in K-12 schools: the rush to adopt AI tools is creating an equity crossroads. The pressure to "do something with AI" is intense, but how we implement these tools today will shape educational equity for years to come. K-12 leaders are facing a critical tension. Wait too long to adopt AI tools, and you risk leaving teachers and students behind in the AI revolution. Move too quickly without systematic implementation, and you risk embedding inequities that could take years to unravel. Here's the current landscape: Individual teachers sign up for free tiers of educational AI platforms Districts consider institutional licenses for system-wide implementation Most schools end up with a mix of both, creating uneven implementation Individual teacher signups (free tiers of MagicSchool, Khanmigo) offer: Teachers can start using AI tools immediately No budget approval needed for basic features Limited functionality compared to institutional licenses No way to track which student populations are using (or avoiding) the tools Students' access varies based on which teachers adopt them District-wide implementations (institutional licenses) provide: Systematic tracking of usage and outcomes Built-in FERPA compliance and safety features Consistent experience across classrooms Significant budget impact Long procurement cycles that slow innovation Why this matters for long-term equity: Data tracking: Without systematic data collection, schools can't see which student populations are actually benefiting from AI tools and which aren't Teacher support: Individual adoption creates pockets of AI expertise rather than systematic capability Achievement gaps: When AI implementation is random, so are students' opportunities Resource allocation: Usage data is crucial for targeting future investments where needed most At the Ohio Education Technology Conference next week, I'll share our complete decision framework, but start with this question: Are you choosing tools based on immediate availability, or building for long-term equity? #K12Education #EdTech #EducationalEquity Amanda Bickerstaff Daniel Kosta Mike Kentz Alfonso Mendoza Jr., M.Ed. David H. Andy Lucchesi Nigel P. Daly, PhD 戴 禮 Joel Backon Sabrina Ramonov 🍄Saleem Raja Haja Phillip Alcock

🚨 Making the Case for Your FY26 Budget 🚨 Higher ed pros know that budget season can make or break a year. For marketing and enrollment teams, the resources secured today will determine next year’s success. With financial constraints, political pressures, and an ongoing enrollment crisis, now is the time to fight for a budget that fuels growth - not just survival. So, how do you make a compelling case? Here's some key takeaways from the recent Higher Ed Pulse episode Mallory Willsea & I did: 🔹 Fight for a Seat at the Table Too often, CFOs finalize budgets without marketing’s input. Get in early. Bring data-driven insights to shape decisions. 🔹 Show Growth Scenarios - What happens if your budget is flat? - What does an extra $1M drive in enrollment? - How could shifting spend fuel growth? Tie your request to revenue-driving outcomes. 🔹 Marketing = Investment, Not Expense Cut marketing, and enrollment suffers. Use data to prove ROI and defend your budget. 🔹 Align with Institutional Priorities Frame your proposal around university-wide goals - online growth, partnerships, retention. Make your budget essential, not optional. 🔹 Optimize What You Have If growth isn’t on the table, push for flexibility. Can you reallocate media, personnel, or tech funds? Find unspent budget from vacancies. Leverage your churn (unspent personnel budget) to fuel alternative growth opportunities. 🔹 Know the External Pressures State funding cuts, economic shifts - this isn’t business as usual. Institutions need informed, proactive recommendations. ⏳ Now is the Time to Act⏳ Your FY26 budget isn’t set yet - which means you still have time to shape it. The best leaders don’t wait to be invited to budget talks. They step up, bring data, and drive strategic decisions. Now is your moment. Don’t let it pass you by.

Results-based financing and outcomes-based contracting- what do they mean for #EdTech? What is their potential but also what are the key challenges? In my latest blog for International Centre for EdTech Impact; WiKIT, I share:  🔹 Why It Matters Outcomes-based financing ensures EdTech funding drives real #learning #impact, not just engagement. 🔹 How It Works Payments are tied to measurable learning outcomes, with models like impact bonds bringing accountability. 🔹 Challenges Risk of "teaching to the test" & misleading impact data Learning outcomes are complex—narrow metrics can backfire ➡️ The Way Forward Well-designed frameworks + expert collaboration = real EdTech impact. 💡 Read more: https://lnkd.in/dex3GArr 🙏 inspired by my work with several impact funders over the years and consultancy with The Education Outcomes Fund, + the excellent work of my teachers at NORRAG, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, Impact Frontiers ImpactAlpha Ozsel Beleli, Noam Angrist Mark Leswell Alison Ascher Webber Géraldine Fillet Abdul Malik Al Jaber Julia Citron Yosha Gargeya Sebastian Martinez Kate Radford Julie Molnar #ResultsBasedFinancing #ImpactDriven #RBF #ImpactBonds

One of the most common mistakes I see in K–12 sales? Assuming “We don’t have the budget” is the end of the conversation. It’s not. It’s the beginning of a better one, if you know how to navigate funding. Most district leaders are juggling a dozen funding sources at any given time. Title I, Title IV-A, CTE, literacy grants, school safety funds, ESSA-based programs, local ballot measures, foundation grants. Most reps don’t know how to bring them into the sales process. If you're selling into education and you're not helping your buyer think through funding strategy, you're forcing them to do all the work and that’s where the deal dies. So what do the best reps do? They ask, “What’s already funded for next year that this might align with?” They say, “Districts like yours have used [specific grant] to cover similar initiatives. Want me to send a breakdown of how that worked?” They build proposals that speak directly to line items and tie to real priorities, not just product features. They don’t just pitch. They translate. They help the buyer connect the dots between what they want to do and how they can afford to do it. Here’s a simple framework that works: Learn the funding sources in your category. Get fluent. Track the application timelines, usage rules, and reporting expectations. Build a one-pager that says “Here’s how you fund this” before they ask. Partner with grant writers, curriculum leads, or fiscal officers—not just the instructional contact. If the funding question is coming at the end of your sales process, you’re late. Bring it into the first conversation. Make it part of your value.

Are we going to need safety nets forever? If these safety nets are working (ie emancipating our people from poverty and vulnerability), shouldn’t the number of beneficiaries decline over time? What’s the endgame? A pleasure to collaborate with one of the country”s leading thinkers on social protection and social safety nets, Dr Toots Albert of PIDS, on a study of the Alternative Learning System. “This study presents a comprehensive process evaluation of the Department of Education's Alternative Learning System (ALS) in the Philippines, examining its effectiveness in providing second-chance education opportunities for out-of-school youth and adults (OSYAs). While the ALS plays a vital role in the Philippine education system, systematic evidence on its implementation effectiveness, operational processes, and institutional capabilities has been limited thus far. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of administrative data with key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and an online survey of 4,933 past and current ALS learners. This multifaceted methodology provides both broad insights into system-wide patterns and a granular understanding of implementation challenges. The evaluation reveals significant institutional strengths, particularly in teacher dedication and program adaptability. However, severe resource constraints hinder program effectiveness. Key findings demonstrate that the ALS faces substantial operational challenges. Most notably, despite serving only 0.8 percent of basic education learners, ALS receives merely 0.1 percent of the Department of Education's budget. This resource disparity manifests in concerning ways: a pupil-teacher ratio of 75:1 (compared to an ideal of 25:1), inadequate facilities—with 61 percent of Community Learning Centers below standard size requirements—and limited learning materials. Results from the online survey indicate high satisfaction with teaching quality (95%); however, only 54 percent of program completers are employed, with 51 percent reporting a high alignment of their jobs with their skills. Balancing work and study emerges as a significant challenge, particularly for working learners (45%), while financial difficulties affect 22 percent of participants. The analysis also examines trends in the out-of-school youth population, considering the complementary effects of other interventions such as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Projections suggest this population could decrease to approximately 500,000 by 2035, requiring strategic recalibration of the ALS program's scope and delivery models. This potential reduction raises fundamental questions about the program's "endgame"—specifically, what constitutes a manageable level of out-of-school youth based on the Philippine context and international standards.” https://lnkd.in/gf475u28