We examine changes in the use of nontax revenues for education finance from 1991 to 2010. Beyond the summary of usage over time, we ask whether nontraditional revenues like fees accentuate or mitigate the impact of downturns. More generally, we examine the extent to which school districts have responded to fiscal pressures by turning to nontax revenues. We also document the extent to which the use of nontax revenues varies across districts according to student poverty status. We show that alternative revenues continue to be a small source of local revenues and have increased quite little since the early 1990s. There was at most a minimal shift to nontax revenues in downturns, though there is evidence of greater use of these revenues among school districts facing more permanent fiscal pressures like tax limits. Differential access to fee revenues and other alternative revenues during downturns may slightly accentuate inequities in K–12 education spending.

This brief utilizes case study methodology to illustrate the role of governance in educational accountability systems. Most research on the effectiveness of such systems has focused on technical components, such as standards-setting, assessments, rewards and sanctions, and data collection and reporting. This brief seeks to demonstrate that this focus may miss the importance of the institutional set-up. We argue that effective accountability systems are largely dependent on associated government structures, rules, and procedures, and the individuals responsible for implementing them. We use an illustrative case from the state of Oklahoma, where a lack of independent oversight, few checks and balances, and little in-state technical capacity combine to call into question the effectiveness of this state's accountability system. We urge researchers and policy makers to focus more attention on the “messy” governance and politics of educational accountability, and conclude the brief with specific policy proposals to strengthen state education accountability systems.